The United States used to lead the world. But thanks to past administrations, we’ve fallen behind.

Now the Pentagon just confessed America’s greatest weakness.

Experts Slam Pentagon’s “Outdated” Approach to Military Innovation, Urge Urgent Overhaul

America’s military is falling behind its adversaries, and the blame lies squarely with the Pentagon’s slow, bureaucratic approach to modernization, national security experts warned at a recent security summit.

The Pentagon’s failure to keep pace with technological advances earned it a dismal “D” grade from the National Security Innovation Base Summit—an assessment that even national security leaders in Congress agreed was accurate.

“Progress lives in the private sector, and we’re not seeing enough progress in the public sector,” said Govini CEO Tara Murphy Dougherty. “The department needs a massive kick in the pants in this area and should be held accountable for catching up in progress to match what is happening among the investor community and among the technology sector.”

House Armed Services Committee Vice Chair Rob Wittman didn’t mince words when reacting to the Pentagon’s poor performance.

“I think the score is a deserved score, unfortunately,” Wittman admitted.

He compared the Pentagon’s outdated processes to a bygone era of manufacturing.

“The Pentagon is the Ford Motor Company of the 1950s. I mean, the way they operate—slow, stoic,” Wittman explained. “‘Let’s spend years to write a requirement, then let’s spend years to go to a program or record, let’s spend years to acquire.’ By the time we acquire something, guess what? The threat’s way ahead of us.”

His solution? “We want them to reflect the Apple 2025 model.”

Shipbuilding Woes Underscore a Larger Problem

The consequences of this slow-moving bureaucracy are most evident in America’s shrinking naval power. While the Navy currently operates with 295 deployable ships, plans to expand the fleet to 390 aren’t projected to materialize until 2054. Meanwhile, the Maritime Security Program, which maintains privately-owned, military-useful ships for wartime deployment, is down to a mere 60 vessels.

“It’s precipitously low. We could not get to where we need to be in the Pacific right now if we needed to,” Wittman warned, underscoring concerns about America’s ability to project power in key regions.

Even President Donald Trump has taken a personal interest in the issue.

John Phelan, Trump’s nominee for Navy secretary, revealed that the president frequently checks in—sometimes at odd hours—to press for action.

“Sometimes after 1 a.m.,” Phelan said during his confirmation hearing, “[Trump is] asking me, what am I doing about it?”

Phelan said he reassured the president, “I’m not confirmed yet and have not been able to do anything about it, but I will be very focused on it.”

Trump has made it clear he intends to revitalize America’s shipbuilding capabilities.

“We used to make so many ships,” Trump remarked during a speech to Congress on Tuesday. “We don’t make them anymore very much, but we’re going to make them very fast, very soon. It will have a huge impact.”

He also announced the creation of a White House Office of Shipbuilding to accelerate progress.

Stuck in the Past While Adversaries Surge Ahead

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree that the Pentagon’s sluggishness is jeopardizing national security.

“We’re operating off of an innovation cycle right now that, you know, used to be a decade, and it used to be five years. Then it used to be three years, and now it’s a year or less innovation cycle,” said Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo. “In Ukraine, they’re actually operating off of week-long innovation cycles.”

Crow said the responsibility falls on Congress to light a fire under the Pentagon.

“There are simply no demand signals being sent. So that requires a very real conversation about political will, which is actually bipartisan right now on this issue,” he added.

The Pentagon’s handling of the F-35 fighter jet is a glaring example of the problem. After 25 years in development, the aircraft is “just now getting into full-scale production,” according to Wittman.

“The capability of that aircraft, the modernization that it needs to keep up with the Chinese threat, it’s just not where it has to be,” he said.

Worse still, even the latest F-35s rolling off the assembly line need to be sent back for critical upgrades, including advanced motion sensors and radar systems.

“We’re still not going to deliver the current jets coming off the line with technical refresh three hardware and have that software enabled until probably early next year,” Wittman added.

Cybersecurity: America’s Achilles’ Heel?

Beyond physical hardware, lawmakers are deeply worried about America’s vulnerabilities in cyberspace—especially when it comes to facing off against China.

“China specifically is better at cybersecurity than we are,” warned Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa. “It only takes one or two incursions that we don’t see coming or that we aren’t responsive to, to make an enormous difference here.”

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., argued that the U.S. should start thinking about more aggressive cyber tactics to push back against foreign threats.

“When it comes to cyber, we’ve got to change the rules of engagement,” Bacon insisted.

He laid out just how pervasive China’s cyber intrusions have become.

“China is eating our boxed lunch in the energy area, in our cellular phone infrastructure, they’re trying to get into Wall Street, they’re trying to get into agriculture,” he said.

According to Bacon, America needs to stop taking punches and start punching back.

“We’re really good on cyberintelligence, but we have [rules of engagement] that do not let us do nearly what China or Russia does,” he argued. “I don’t think it’s like taking punches to the face, saying ‘can I have another.’”

His message to the Pentagon and policymakers? It’s time to fight fire with fire.

“We’ve got to be able to allow cyber command to fight fire with fire. I wouldn’t even advertise it that much. Just carry a big stick and, get them back,” Bacon said.

A Long Road Ahead

In response to mounting criticism, the Pentagon has launched a review of its contracting procedures under a new DOGE memo.

“Each Agency Head, in consultation with the agency’s DOGE Team Lead, shall conduct a comprehensive review of each agency’s contracting policies, procedures, and personnel,” the memo circulated this week stated.

But with adversaries like China rapidly advancing and the Pentagon still moving at a glacial pace, lawmakers are making one thing clear: Time is running out.

The View is as anti-American as it gets. Now they are outright saying it.

Because Whoopi Goldberg committed treason live on air with this disgusting act.

Whoopi Goldberg Claims Americans “Don’t Know Stuff,” Defends Need for More Immigrants

The View co-host Whoopi Goldberg sparked outrage during a panel discussion on Wednesday, defending mass immigration by claiming that Americans simply aren’t capable of getting things done without help from foreign workers.

“My point is, we’ve spent over 100 years saying to people, come, you’re welcome. We’ll take you. Now, nobody knows how you get in, what do you do because it’s a mess,” Goldberg said in a rant criticizing the immigration system under the Trump administration. “So I want somebody to make up your mind so people know what to do.”

Goldberg then took it a step further, arguing that Americans lack the skills to function without immigrants.

“I listen to folks say, ‘Oh, well, you know, we don’t want people from other countries coming and teaching people how to do stuff,’” she continued. “Why aren’t Americans doing it? Because Americans don’t know stuff. We need folks coming in to help us figure out how to do stuff.”

Her comments came as the panel tore into President Donald Trump’s proposed “gold card” visa, which would allow wealthy foreigners to buy their way into the United States for $5 million.

Co-host Sara Haines criticized Trump’s gold card proposal, suggesting it would alienate the legal immigrants who supported his administration.

“If you have enough money, you can come. I don’t think that will bode well [with those] that voted for him that you can just skip the line if you’re wealthy. That is a problem,” Haines said.

She also pointed out the hypocrisy of Trump’s tough stance on border security while offering an easy path for the rich.

“I also think he talks so much about criminals coming across the borders and all the problems they bring with them. People with money can be criminals, too,” she added.

Haines even went so far as to suggest that the gold card could become a backdoor for wealthy terrorists to enter the country.

“In fact, they have more resources to be criminals,” she warned.

Bringing up the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Haines noted that many of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia—a nation known for its wealth. She suggested Trump’s foreign policy, including his recent comments about taking over Gaza, could make America a bigger target for extremist groups.

“Right now you have Trump talking loosely about taking over Gaza; that puts a terrorist target on our back, and extremist groups, jihadists, will not stop until they’re not just done with land grabs. They’re done with Western civilization. So, they will definitely come here if this kind of thing can be bought. It is way easier than the way that they were planning in the past,” Haines claimed.

Joy Behar, never one to miss a chance to mock Trump, chimed in with a sarcastic jab.

“All I can say is thank God someone’s looking out for millionaires!” Behar quipped.

The failed-vice presidential candidate didn’t do much right during the campaign. Now that’s bleeding into the post-election.

Because he went on CNN and made an absolute fool of himself and Democrats.

Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota and former vice presidential candidate, couldn’t name someone when asked who the leader of the Democratic party is.

Walz appeared on CNN’s The Arena with Kasie Hunt Wednesday to discuss President Donald Trump’s joint congressional address.

Hunt asked the governor who he thinks is the Democratic leader right now.

The 60-year-old Democrat paused for a few beats before answering.

“I think the voting public, right now, is what I would say,” Walz responded. “We’re not going to have a charismatic leader ride in and save us from this.”

Hunt followed up by asking if Walz sees anyone who could “be a national Democratic figure?”

“I see a whole lot of them,” Walz said. “I see young members of Congress stepping up, I see folks out there, I see it out here, state senators, state legislators, folks that are getting ready. Labor union members who are out there talking. I think the thing we need to do is: We can’t cede the space. If Donald Trump’s going to be out there…we have to be there every day.”

“We need to be better organized. There is going to be an organic uprising which we’re seeing.”

When Hunt asked if former Vice President Kamala Harris could be that future leader, Walz responded: “I certainly think she could be.”

Walz isn’t the first to contend with this question. Since Harris’s loss last Election Day, Democratic lawmakers have expressed discontent with their party’s leadership — or lack thereof.

“There’s no one, certainly, that the party, I would argue, looks to, or feels led by, or inspired by, is the truth,” former Democratic Representative Dean Phillips told The Hill last month.

“Any organization — business, for-profit, nonprofit, political party — that lacks spirited leadership is going to suffer. And I think you can count us among those organizations right now. There’s just no question.”

A new poll from the liberal firm Blueprint first obtained by Politico also indicates 40 percent of voters believe that Democrats do not have any strategy for combatting the Trump administration.

That division was made clear when Democrats had a variety of responses to Trump’s joint congressional address on Tuesday. Many silently listened, others walked out and some wore pink in protest. Representative Al Green, a Democrat from Texas, was even removed from the chamber for repeatedly interrupting Trump at the beginning of the address.

“Last night I stood up for those who need Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Democrats will never abandon the fight to make sure every American has a safe, healthy, and financially secure life. #ISaidWhatISaid,” Green wrote on X on Wednesday night.

Green’s fellow lawmakers voted to censure him on Thursday. Nearly every Republican and 10 Democrats voted in favor of the resolution.

The ladies of The View have officially lost their minds. This is beyond the pale for anyone.

And now The View’s Joy Behar went completely insane in this deranged rant caught on camera.

Joy Behar has a message for anyone who supported President Donald Trump—don’t count on her for help. During Thursday’s episode of The View on ABC, Behar made it clear that while she wouldn’t cut off a friendship over political differences, she wouldn’t lift a finger to assist a Trump supporter in need. And if they were hoping for a life-saving favor? Forget it.

“I won’t give them a kidney, but I could be friends with them,” Behar declared. Her tone left no room for doubt—Trump voters, in her eyes, have crossed a moral line that makes them unworthy of certain basic acts of kindness.

Behar doubled down, arguing that supporting Trump isn’t just a political choice—it’s a character flaw.

“It’s not just about politics, it’s about morality, ethics, it’s about cruelty, it’s about discrimination. It’s about a lot of things. So, those are personal human values,” she explained. In other words, if you back Trump, Behar sees it as a sign of poor moral judgment.

And according to Behar, it’s not just about tax policy or economic debates—it’s personal. “We’re not really just talking about a fiscal conservative who pays more taxes,” she added.

“We’re talking about you as a human being. So it’s hard to be friends with someone who signs on to something like that.”

Joy Behar claims she's friends with a Trump supporter but adds she wouldn't give them a kidney to save their life:
"I won't give them a kidney but I could be friends with them…the thing about it, it's not just about politics, it's about morality, ethics, it's about cruelty,… pic.twitter.com/TqMu3wzFXC

— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 6, 2025

Not surprisingly, her cohost Sunny Hostin enthusiastically agreed. Hostin claimed that Trump has transformed the Republican Party into something irredeemable.

“I agree with that because I think, you know, we’re in abnormal times. This is not the Republican Party of yesterday. I think it’s the Trumplican party in many respects,” she said, pushing the narrative that Trump and his supporters are “so extreme.”

Hostin went even further, blaming Trump voters for a long list of societal harms. “If someone is supporting or voting for someone who is hurting members of my family, members of my community, our elderly, our children, gutting our government, firing people; I do have a hard time being friends with that person,” she said, suggesting that anyone who votes for Trump is personally complicit in causing harm to society.

Cohost Sara Haines took a slightly softer approach but still implied that Trump supporters are out of step with modern values. Reflecting on her own background, she noted how much has changed in recent years.

“It’s very common to know people that vote differently,” Haines said, describing her shift from “Midwest conservative life to super liberal East Coast life.” The implication? What was once a routine difference of opinion is now a moral divide.

Throughout the discussion, the panel’s underlying message was crystal clear—if you support Trump, you’re either misguided or simply getting your information from the “wrong sources.” There was no consideration that millions of Americans might have valid, thoughtful reasons for backing Trump’s America First agenda. Instead, the cohosts dismissed those voters as uninformed at best and immoral at worst.

This kind of dismissive rhetoric is nothing new for The View. For years, the panel has openly displayed its contempt for Trump and his supporters. But Behar’s latest comments take that hostility to a new level—suggesting that supporting Trump not only makes someone politically incorrect but also undeserving of basic human decency.

The irony is hard to ignore. The same left-wing voices who constantly lecture Americans about tolerance and compassion seem to abandon those principles the moment someone dares to support a leader they despise. Behar’s refusal to help a Trump supporter in need lays bare the hypocrisy behind the left’s so-called message of kindness and inclusion.

For the millions of Americans who proudly supported Trump—not once, but twice—Behar’s words are yet another reminder of how detached Hollywood elites have become from the real world.

These are the same hardworking Americans who value faith, family, and freedom—values that are clearly lost on the out-of-touch television personalities preaching from their bubble.

And despite the panel’s smug certainty, Trump’s enduring popularity tells a different story.

The 2024 election made one thing clear: millions of Americans still stand behind a leader who puts their interests first. Whether Joy Behar approves or not, Trump’s movement is stronger than ever—and it’s not going away anytime soon.

The United States bank rolls the international community. That isn’t going to continue.

And now the UN is shutting down after Trump leveled a stunning threat against them.

The United Nations is scrambling to prepare for potential U.S. funding cuts as President Trump’s administration sharpens its focus on eliminating government waste. An internal U.N. memo obtained by Fox News Digital reveals growing concern within the organization as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) intensifies its efforts to rein in reckless spending.

The memo, titled “Managing the 2025 regular budget liquidity crisis,” was sent to heads of various U.N. departments and offices. It outlines a directive from Secretary-General António Guterres to tighten the organization’s cash flow, freeze hiring, and operate with only 80% of their allocated budgets.

“We are aware that the 80% ceiling could pose significant challenges for many entities to meet some of their non-discretionary spending for non-post costs. However, we are constrained by the lack of overall liquidity,” the memo states.

U.N. spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric confirmed the memo’s authenticity but downplayed its significance, insisting to Fox News Digital that such measures were “not unusual.”

Despite the memo’s warning of potential financial strain, insiders speaking to former Principal Deputy Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs Hugh Dugan are skeptical.

According to Dugan, those within the U.N. are not taking the memo seriously and do not believe it reflects “real cuts.”

Even the supposed hiring freeze is viewed with suspicion, as insiders doubt it will result in any genuine slowdown in recruitment.

Adding to the internal unease, Secretary-General Guterres also invited all U.N. personnel to a virtual town hall later this month. While the invitation did not specify a topic, Dujarric admitted the secretary-general will address the organization’s growing financial troubles.

Dugan wasn’t impressed by the vague invitation or the delayed timing of the town hall. “The urgency is not present enough at all,” he told Fox News Digital, suggesting the U.N. is still clinging to the false hope that it can escape meaningful budgetary discipline.

For years, the U.N. has relied on the assumption that it can strong-arm the United States and other major contributors into maintaining its lavish funding. But Dugan argued those days are over, calling the organization’s belief that it can leverage its international influence “preposterous.”

And there’s good reason for the U.N. to worry. President Trump has made no secret of his disdain for the waste and inefficiency plaguing international bureaucracies.

In a recent address to Congress, Trump listed multiple examples of “appalling waste” uncovered by DOGE and signaled his administration’s determination to cut off funding to organizations that refuse to clean up their act.

The U.N.’s concerns may extend beyond the United States. If other major donor countries begin to follow Trump’s lead and reassess their contributions, the organization’s financial woes could deepen considerably.

Still, Dujarric insists the memo is not a “direct result of the political situation in the U.S.,” claiming the U.N. has faced “a liquidity crisis” for decades due to some member states failing to pay their dues on time—or at all.

The memo comes just weeks after Secretary-General Guterres sent a letter to staff attempting to downplay the seriousness of the situation while offering empty platitudes about the organization’s global mission.

“Now, more than ever, the work of the United Nations is crucial. As we face this difficult challenge, your dedication and support will help us to overcome and move forward,” Guterres wrote in his February letter—a message that rings increasingly hollow as the reality of Trump’s America First agenda begins to bite.

With President Trump’s administration cracking down on wasteful spending and the U.N. no longer able to rely on business as usual, the days of unchecked budgets and bloated bureaucracy may finally be coming to an end.

Vice President Vance is taking a page out of Trump’s book. The time for playing nice is over.

And now he didn’t pull any punches in this brutal takedown at the border.

Vice President J.D. Vance stood firm Wednesday, backing the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tempo, arguing they’re piecing together a Homeland Security system that President Biden left in shambles.

Down at the Texas border, Vance cheered the massive plunge in illegal crossings but admitted there’s still work to do when it comes to rounding up and kicking out undocumented immigrants already stateside.

“Rome wasn’t built in a day,” he quipped. “President Biden gutted the entire immigration enforcement regime of this country. We are trying to rebuild.”

Arrests are spiking, but deportations? Down. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement clocked roughly 645 deportations daily by late February—a 17% dip from the same stretch in 2024. Why? Fewer border cases to boot out and trickier interior enforcement.

Vance shot a plea to Congress: cough up more cash for deportation flights and the squads fanning out into neighborhoods to hunt for targets.

He also tossed a nudge to illegal immigrants—pack up and leave on your own.

On Trump’s vision, Vance said the boss aims to “build the entire border wall” by the end of his second term, though he kept mum on how many miles that covers.

A reporter floated rumors of U.S. troops rolling into Mexico. Vance shut it down hard.

“No,” he said.

Tagging along were Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbard aired worries about migrants who slipped in under Biden’s watch. She cited reports of a thousand funneled through a smuggling ring linked to the Islamic State.

Turns out, “hundreds” might have terrorist ties, authorities later figured out. Biden’s crew nabbed “a little over 100” last year but cut loose all but eight, Gabbard noted.

She’s after answers on the rest.

“Where are they, what are they doing, what may they be plotting?” she pressed.

The border stretch they scoped out? Night-and-day difference.

Vance said agents once logged 1,500 illegal crossings daily. Now? Down to 30.

Hegseth boasted a border-wide plunge of 98%.

“We’re not yet at 100% operational control but we are on our way,” the Pentagon boss declared.

Donald Trump is usually accomplishing stuff on his own. But now he needs help.

And he announced the one thing he wants Americans to do for him.

President Trump didn’t shy away from the big topic looming over his Tuesday night speech to a joint session of Congress: tariffs.

He dove right in, owning the economic ripples they’d cause and asking Americans to “bear with” him through what he called an “adjustment period.”

He laid out a bold plan, announcing a major agricultural tariff set to kick in April 2. “The tariffs will go on agricultural products coming into America and our farmers, starting on April 2,” Trump said.

“It may be a little bit of an adjustment period. We had that before, when I made the deal with China, $50 billion of purchases, and I said, ‘just bear with me.’ And they did. They did.”

He doubled down, repeating, “You probably have to bear with me again, and this will be even better.” The déjà vu nod to his China deal was a flex—proof he’s navigated choppy waters before and come out on top.

Overnight, the Trump administration unleashed a tariff blitz: a hefty 25% across-the-board hit on Mexico and Canada (with Canadian energy catching a lighter 10% rate), plus a doubled 20% tariff on China.

The move targeted all three for not stepping up enough on the fentanyl crisis—a sore spot Trump’s hammered since last November, when he first floated these punishing levies.

Originally slated for last month, Trump held off, citing headway in talks with the trio. But now, the gloves are off, impacting $1.5 trillion in yearly imports.

Predictably, all three nations fired back with retaliatory tariffs of their own.

Trump didn’t blink. “Whatever they tariff us, we tariff them. Whatever they tax us, we tax them,” he told Congress.

“If they do non-monetary tariffs to keep us out of their market, then we do non-monetary barriers to keep them out of our market. We will take in trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before.”

It was a chest-thumping vow—tit-for-tat economics with a promise of jobs raining down.

Even amid the tariff talk, Trump pivoted to a crowd-pleaser, pledging “dramatic and immediate relief to working families” despite the short-term growing pains.

Democrats weren’t buying it—jeers erupted when he touted his economic vision, their skepticism loud and clear.

Earlier Tuesday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick hinted at a possible thaw, telling reporters the president “probably” has deals brewing with Canada and Mexico, maybe as soon as Wednesday. A glimmer of diplomacy amid the tariff storm? Time will tell.

Trump’s address was a high-wire act—blunt on trade, optimistic on outcomes, and unapologetic in tone. The tariff gamble’s on, and he’s betting Americans will ride it out for a bigger win.

The Left is getting in their own way. That tends to be their MO.

Now Democrats are getting ruthlessly mocked for this boneheaded move in Congress

Democrats pulled out all the stops to throw a wrench into President Donald Trump’s Tuesday evening speech to a joint session of Congress, but their antics mostly amounted to one ejected lawmaker and some icy stares from Vice President JD Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA).

The drama kicked off early when Rep. Al Green (D-TX) got the boot from the chamber just as Trump started talking.

Left behind, his fellow Democrats parked themselves in a grim, silent protest—broken only by a few boos—clutching signs that looked like auction paddles emblazoned with anti-Trump jabs. Applause? Standing? Not a chance.

Trump didn’t let it slide. He called them out right off the bat, pointing out they’d “never clap for me no matter how great my accomplishments were,” then powered through his speech undeterred.

As he spoke, Vance and Johnson occasionally shot piercing looks across the aisle, zeroing in on the Democrats’ stonewalling.

The peanut gallery on X caught every second of it, lighting up the platform with reactions to Vance and Johnson’s unspoken commentary.

“JD Vance is like the dad the Democrats never had,” one user quipped.

“I love watching Mike Johnson and JD Vance giving Democrats really dirty looks for acting like listless s***s,” Twitchy’s Sam Janney chimed in.

“JD Vance is the ultimate wingman for Trump. I’m living for the daggers he stares at Dems when they get belligerent and start shouting. You always gotta have a guy like that in your circle,” Jason Howerton posted.

Miranda Devine weighed in: “Love how JD Vance keeps looking over at the Democrats and smiling.”

“Vance Glance strikes again,” another user noted.

“JD Vance is all of us right now how he’s eyeballing the democrats,” one posted.

“JD Vance and Speaker Johnson are up there giving someone on the democrats side the same look my momma used to give me when I was acting up in church,” another added.

The night may have been a Democratic fumble—disruptions sidelined, optics shaky—but Trump pressed on, backed by Vance and Johnson’s steely resolve.

X lit up with fans of the duo’s quiet firepower, proving the real showdown wasn’t just in the speech, but in the stares that said it all.

Democrats usually stick together. But this man is flipping the script.

Because he went on The View and betrayed everyone.

The notion that President Donald Trump’s 2024 election win lacked a “mandate” got a fiery takedown from ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith during a clash with Joy Behar on “The View.”

Behar tossed out the idea that Trump’s victory didn’t carry much weight, pointing to his razor-thin 1% edge in the popular vote and the GOP’s narrow grip on Congress.

She even dubbed his popular vote margin “the smallest ever,” suggesting it was far from a roaring triumph.

“What kind of mandate is this really?” Behar pressed Smith, skepticism dripping from her words.

Smith didn’t flinch, countering with a clear-eyed breakdown of why Trump’s win deserves the label.

He highlighted the president’s clean sweep of all seven swing states, his surprising gains with minority and working-class voters, and his status as the first Republican in two decades to snag the popular vote—a feat that’s tough to brush off.

“Well it is a mandate and I’m gonna explain why,” Smith fired back.

“And I don’t mind the question but let me be very clear, I’m no supporter of Trump. I’m a supporter of truth and the facts, and here’s the facts. The man won every swing state, he increased voter turnout in his favor from the standpoint of blacks, Latinos, and young voters. He increased his numbers in that regard from 2020. 89% of the counties shifted to the right. That’s a mandate.”

Smith wasn’t done. “We can sit up there and play around all we want to,” he added.

“In 2020, Trump didn’t win the popular vote, he didn’t win the Electoral College vote. As a matter of fact, the Republicans haven’t won the popular vote if I remember correctly since 2004. But they did this year.” The numbers, he argued, don’t lie—Trump flipped the script in a way that demands attention.

Digging deeper, Smith framed the victory as a loud rejection of the Democrats’ playbook, urging the party to rethink its approach if it hopes to take on Trump’s momentum.

Polls underscored this, showing Trump trouncing both Biden and Harris on the economy and immigration—the twin engines that powered voters to the polls.

The Democrats’ rocky road didn’t help their case. Biden bowed out on July 21 after party insiders orchestrated a quiet uprising, rattled by his shaky debate against Trump on June 27 and lingering doubts about his mental sharpness.

Harris stepped up with Biden’s blessing, only to stumble—losing the popular vote, all seven swing states, and key ground with black, Latino, and blue-collar voters, who rallied behind Trump’s economic and border promises.

Trump’s wins weren’t just numbers—they were historic. He became the first Republican to claim Hispanic men in a presidential race, pulling 55% of their support per NBC’s exit polls. Harris, meanwhile, faltered with Hispanics overall, netting just 52% compared to Biden’s 61% in 2020, Politico noted.

And in a jaw-dropping shift, Trump flipped Starr County, Texas—a 97% Hispanic, long-time Democratic stronghold—winning over 57% of the vote, the first GOP victory there since 1892.

Smith’s point? Call it what you want, but Trump’s 2024 haul—swing states, diverse voter blocs, and a popular vote breakthrough—carries the unmistakable stamp of a mandate. The facts, as he sees them, speak louder than the doubts.

The FBI has been used as a political police force for the Left for years. Now it’s time for a reckoning.

And this high profile FBI official was thrown out of the building for one shocking crime.

James Dennehy, the head of the FBI’s New York field office, was removed from his position on Monday, March 3, 2025, marking a significant shift as the Trump administration takes decisive steps to reshape the bureau.

Dennehy’s exit follows an email he sent to his staff weeks ago, urging them to “dig in” as the Trump administration launched a thorough review of the FBI’s investigation into the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot—a probe many see as a necessary check on past overreach. Two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News that Dennehy was given a firm directive on Friday: resign or face termination.

“Late Friday, I was informed that I needed to put my retirement papers in today, which I just did,” Dennehy stated in a Monday email to his staff.

“I was not given a reason for this decision.” The lack of explanation has left some questioning, though others suggest the administration’s intent was clear.

In remarks to CNN, Dennehy reflected on his tenure, saying, “I have an immense feeling of pride — to have represented an office of professionals who will always do the right thing for the right reasons; who will always seek the truth while upholding the rule of law.”

He added a defiant note: “I’ve been told many times in my life, ‘When you find yourself in a hole, sometimes it’s best to quit digging.’ Screw that. I will never stop defending this joint. I’ll just do it willingly and proudly from outside the wire.”

His resolve, while admirable to some, may have clashed with the administration’s broader goals.

Since taking charge of the New York field office in September, Dennehy had positioned himself as a steadfast leader.

Last month, when Department of Justice officials requested the names of agents involved in January 6 cases—a move framed as routine oversight—he encouraged his team to push back, a stance that raised eyebrows.

“Today, we find ourselves in the middle of a battle of our own, as good people are being walked out of the F.B.I. and others are being targeted because they did their jobs in accordance with the law and F.B.I. policy,” Dennehy wrote to his staff at the time, suggesting a resistance that some view as out of step with the administration’s reform efforts.

Dennehy declared it was “time for me to dig in” after eight FBI leaders, including the Washington field office head, were removed for their roles in investigations tied to President Donald Trump—actions the administration defends as correcting past biases.

According to NBC, Dennehy, alongside former acting Director Brian Driscoll and former acting Deputy Director Rob Kissane, may have slowed a wider effort to hold agents accountable in several high-profile cases that have fueled public skepticism of the FBI.

Driscoll and Kissane have now been succeeded by FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, appointees signaling a new direction.

Dennehy also played a key role in the investigation into New York City Mayor Eric Adams, though the case has since tapered off after the Department of Justice opted to drop it—a decision that prompted a wave of prosecutor departures from New York and Washington.

As the Trump administration moves forward, Dennehy’s departure appears to be part of a larger effort to realign the bureau with its core mission.

Trump has shaken things up, to be sure. But no one thought something so drastic would happen.

Now the White House received an urgent letter that is dropping jaws in Washington, D.C.

TSMC to Invest $100 Billion in U.S. Semiconductor Plants

President Donald Trump announced Monday that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) will invest a staggering $100 billion to build new semiconductor manufacturing facilities in Arizona. This massive move is set to bolster U.S. technological dominance and create tens of thousands of jobs.

“This will create hundreds of billions of dollars in economic activity and boost America’s dominance in artificial intelligence and beyond,” Trump said. “Semiconductors are the backbone of the 21st-century economy, and really, without the semiconductors, there is no economy.”

Five New Facilities and Thousands of American Jobs

TSMC’s investment will fund five new manufacturing plants in Arizona. According to President Trump, these facilities will generate between 20,000 and 25,000 jobs—many of them high-paying positions in advanced technology.

“The most powerful AI chips in the world will be made right here in America,” Trump declared, calling the move both an economic and national security priority.

“We must be able to build the chips and semiconductors that we need right here in American factories with American skill and American labor,” he added. “That’s exactly what we’re doing.”

C.C. Wei, TSMC’s CEO, echoed Trump’s enthusiasm. “It’s going to create thousands of high-paying jobs,” Wei said, expressing gratitude for the administration’s support.

A major benefit for TSMC is that chips manufactured in the U.S. will not be subject to tariffs—a key part of Trump’s America-first economic policy.

Trump Targets Global Semiconductor Market Share

Trump said these investments will push the U.S. share of global semiconductor production closer to 40%, challenging Taiwan’s overwhelming dominance in the industry.

“They left us and went to Taiwan,” Trump said during a January meeting with congressional Republicans. “And we don’t want to give them billions of dollars like this ridiculous program that Biden has given everybody billions of dollars. They already have billions of dollars. They didn’t need money. They needed an incentive. And the incentive is going to be they’re not going to want to pay a 25, 50 or even a 100% tax.”

The president has repeatedly threatened up to 100% tariffs on semiconductor imports if companies do not move production to the U.S., aiming to secure critical supply chains and eliminate America’s reliance on foreign manufacturing.

The Risks of Taiwan’s Semiconductor Monopoly

TSMC’s dominance over the semiconductor market is a growing concern. Over 90% of the world’s most advanced chips are produced in Taiwan—a nation under constant threat of invasion by communist China.

Analysts warn that any military conflict could devastate global supply chains, leaving the U.S. vulnerable. TSMC also operates facilities in mainland China, raising fears of hacking and sabotage by the Chinese government.

Lawmakers and officials have even suggested destroying TSMC’s Taiwanese plants if China invades to prevent the technology from falling into Beijing’s hands. Critics argue, however, that halting chip production on the island—regardless of who controls it—would trigger a catastrophic global economic crisis.

Trump’s Broader Push for Domestic Investment

The TSMC deal is just one of several major investments President Trump has secured since returning to the White House. Industry giants across technology and manufacturing are lining up to bring production back to American soil:

• OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank have committed to spending up to $500 billion on artificial intelligence infrastructure.
• DAMAC Properties pledged $20 billion to construct new data centers.
• Apple CEO Tim Cook announced plans to invest $500 billion in the U.S. and move manufacturing from Mexico to American facilities.
• Honda confirmed that it will produce its next-generation Civic hybrid in the U.S. instead of Mexico to avoid Trump’s proposed tariffs.

It’s a little early to declare your candidacy for the 2028 presidential election. But that isn’t stopping this man.

Now a shock 2028 announcement is raising eyebrows across Washington, D.C.

Failed 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz is leaving the door open for a 2028 presidential run—despite his resounding defeat alongside then-Vice President Kamala Harris in November.

“Look, I never had an ambition to be president or vice president. I was honored to be asked,” the Minnesota governor said during an appearance on *The New Yorker Radio Hour* on Sunday.

“If I feel I can serve, I will. And if nationally, people are like, ‘Dude we tried you, and look how that worked out,’ I’m good with that.”

“If I think I could offer something … I would certainly consider that,” Walz added, signaling he hasn’t ruled out another run on the national stage.

At 60 years old, Walz recently ruled out a bid to replace retiring Democratic Senator Tina Smith in 2026. While he is eligible to run for a third term as Minnesota’s governor that same year, he has yet to announce his plans.

During the interview, Walz expressed a mix of humility and openness about his political future. “I’m not arrogant enough to believe there’s a lot of people that can do this,” he said.

However, he made it clear that if “the circumstances are right” and he believes he has “the right skill set for the moment … I’ll do it.”

Pressed by host David Remnick for a more definitive answer, Walz simply responded: “I’ll do whatever it takes.”

Walz’s selection as Harris’ running mate sparked criticism within Democratic circles, particularly after Harris passed over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a rising star from a crucial swing state.

Despite being tapped to energize the ticket, Walz failed to deliver.

He lost his debate against Republican JD Vance and even suffered an embarrassing defeat in his home Blue Earth County—a deep blow for a candidate chosen to help bridge the gap with Middle America.

Reflecting on the loss, Walz didn’t hide the emotional weight of the defeat. “It’s one I’ll take with me to the grave,” he admitted.

The governor also lamented the real-world consequences of the Democrats’ failure to hold the White House.

“An old white guy who ran for vice president, you’ll land on your feet pretty well,” he said.

“But I still struggle with it … when I see Medicaid cuts happening, when I see LGBTQ folks being demonized, when I see some of this happening, that’s what weighs on me personally.”

Before becoming governor in 2018, Walz served 12 years in Congress—but don’t expect him to return to Capitol Hill. He made his feelings about a Senate run crystal clear.

“I’d rather eat glass,” he quipped, shutting down any speculation about a bid for Smith’s seat.

If Walz seeks re-election in 2026 and wins, he could make history. By serving through 2031, he would become the longest-serving governor in Minnesota’s history—a potential consolation prize for a politician still reeling from a bruising national rejection.