Author: Staff Reporter

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized President Trump’s recent address, expressing disappointment over his focus on military action rather than domestic issues affecting Americans.

Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene took to X to voice her discontent with President Donald Trump’s address to the nation on Wednesday night, stating that all she heard was “WAR WAR WAR.”

In her post, Greene expressed her desire for Trump to prioritize American interests, saying, “I wanted so much for President Trump to put America First. That’s what I believed he would do. All I heard from his speech tonight was WAR WAR WAR.”

Greene’s critique continued as she highlighted what she perceived as a lack of attention to pressing domestic issues. “Nothing to lower the cost of living for Americans. Nothing to reduce our near $40 trillion in debt. Nothing to save Social Security, which goes bankrupt in just a few years. Nothing to lower the cost of insurance. Nothing to address jobs for Americans. Nothing about education for our children. Nothing about our children’s future. Nothing for America’s future,” she lamented.

Concluding her remarks, Greene stated, “I’m so beyond done. I pray for our military and their families. I pray for innocent people all over the world. I pray for peace and prosperity for all.”

Trump’s speech came more than four weeks after the United States initiated military action against Iran, in conjunction with Israel. During his address, he asserted, “Because of the actions we have taken, we are on the cusp of ending Iran’s sinister threat to America and the world. And I’ll tell you, the world is watching. And when we do … the United States will be safer, stronger, more prosperous and greater than it has ever been before.”

He emphasized the progress made, stating, “Thanks to the progress we’ve made, I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly. We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We are going to bring them back to the stone ages where they belong. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing.”

As the conflict continues, Americans have been grappling with rising fuel prices, with the AAA national average for regular gas reaching $4.081 as of April 2. Trump mentioned that once the conflict concludes, the Strait of Hormuz “will open up naturally” and gas prices will “rapidly come back down.”

He also asserted the strength of the U.S. economy, claiming, “Our economy is strong and improving by the day, and it will soon be roaring back like never before.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment on Thursday morning but did not receive an immediate response. Greene’s comments reflect a growing concern among some Republicans regarding the focus on military engagement over domestic policy issues, particularly as the nation faces economic challenges.

According to Fox News, Greene’s remarks highlight a significant divide within the party regarding priorities and the direction of future policies.

Indian American author Padma Lakshmi has publicly supported the nationwide “No Kings” protests against President Trump’s policies, joining millions in advocating for democratic values across the United States.

Indian American author and television personality Padma Lakshmi has expressed her support for the “No Kings” protests that have swept across the United States. These demonstrations have emerged as a significant response to what many perceive as increasingly authoritarian governance under President Donald Trump.

As millions of demonstrators took to the streets in all 50 states, Lakshmi joined a growing number of public figures voicing their opposition to the current administration’s policies. The protests, which have been characterized by their unified message against concentrated executive power, aim to protect democratic values and assert that the United States is not a monarchy.

The “No Kings” movement has rapidly evolved into one of the largest waves of protests in recent U.S. history. Organizers estimate that participation has reached into the millions, with over 3,000 coordinated events held nationwide, spanning from major urban centers like New York and Washington, D.C., to smaller communities.

Demonstrators have raised a variety of concerns, including strict immigration enforcement, civil liberties, and U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding the ongoing conflict in Iran. Many participants argue that recent policy decisions reflect an alarming expansion of presidential authority that undermines democratic norms.

Lakshmi’s involvement in the protests underscores the increasing engagement of Indian Americans in the political landscape of the United States. As a prominent cultural figure with Indian heritage, her support resonates deeply with diaspora communities that are closely monitoring developments related to immigration and civil rights.

While the White House has dismissed the protests, organizers maintain that the “No Kings” movement represents a broad-based push for accountability and institutional balance in governance. The protests serve as a reminder of the vital role that civic engagement plays in shaping the future of democracy in the U.S.

According to The American Bazaar, Lakshmi’s stance reflects a growing trend among public figures to advocate for democratic principles and challenge policies perceived as overreaching. The “No Kings” protests continue to galvanize citizens across the nation, emphasizing the importance of collective action in the face of political challenges.

Thousands participated in ‘No Kings’ protests on March 28, 2026, across the U.S. and internationally, uniting against perceived authoritarianism linked to former President Donald Trump and his supporters.

On March 28, 2026, large-scale demonstrations known as ‘No Kings’ took place in cities across the United States and internationally. These rallies drew tens of thousands of participants who united to express their opposition to what they perceive as rising authoritarianism, particularly in connection with former President Donald Trump and his supporters. The protests not only highlighted concerns about civil liberties but also showcased a growing movement that spans diverse demographics.

According to police estimates, approximately 40,000 individuals participated in the San Diego rally alone. The protests were especially notable for their reach beyond major urban areas, with organizers reporting that two-thirds of RSVPs came from outside metropolitan centers. This included communities in traditionally conservative states such as Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, South Dakota, and Louisiana, as well as electorally competitive suburbs in pivotal states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona. This demographic diversity reflects a widespread national concern regarding civil rights and the political landscape.

The flagship rally took place at the Minnesota State Capitol, where renowned musician Bruce Springsteen headlined the event. Before his performance, attendees were treated to a video message from actor Robert De Niro, who expressed his frustrations with Trump’s leadership but found hope in the protests. De Niro praised the people of Minnesota for their efforts in removing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from their community, underscoring the local activism that has gained national attention.

The Minnesota event also featured other prominent figures, including singer Joan Baez, actress Jane Fonda, and Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. They were joined by a coalition of activists, labor leaders, and elected officials who spoke against Trump’s policies. One striking moment of the rally was the display of a massive sign on the Capitol steps reading, ‘We had whistles, they had guns. The revolution starts in Minneapolis.’ Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, emphasized the significance of the protests, stating that ‘Donald Trump may pretend that he’s not listening, but he can’t ignore the millions in the streets today.’

The ‘No Kings’ protests extended beyond the United States, with demonstrations organized in over a dozen countries across Europe, Latin America, and Australia. Ezra Levin, co-executive director of Indivisible, noted that in nations with constitutional monarchies, the protests were branded as ‘No Tyrants.’ This framing reflects a shared global sentiment against authoritarian governance.

In Rome, thousands marched in a demonstration primarily targeting Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni following the recent failure of her government’s referendum aimed at streamlining the judiciary. Additionally, many protesters expressed their opposition to U.S. and Israeli military actions against Iran, showing the interconnectedness of international grievances. In London, demonstrators carried banners with messages such as ‘Stop the far right’ and ‘Stand up to Racism,’ indicating a broader critique of rising populism in Europe.

In Paris, several hundred participants, most of whom were Americans living in France, gathered at the Bastille alongside labor unions and human rights organizations. Organizer Ada Shen articulated her opposition to U.S. foreign policy, stating, ‘I protest all of Trump’s illegal, immoral, reckless, and feckless, endless wars.’

During a news conference, Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, characterized the protests as a vital response to perceived threats posed by Trump and his supporters. She expressed concern that the former president’s administration aims to instill fear among the populace, saying, ‘They want us to be afraid that there’s nothing we can do to stop them. But you know what? They are wrong — dead wrong.’

The ‘No Kings’ rallies exemplify a significant movement among citizens seeking to reclaim democratic ideals and challenge narratives of authoritarianism. The protests underscore a widespread discontent with current political leadership, galvanizing communities across the political spectrum to unite for a common cause. As the movement evolves, it reflects a growing determination among citizens to hold their leaders accountable and advocate for civil liberties.

The ‘No Kings’ protests are part of a larger historical context of civil disobedience and grassroots activism in the United States and around the world. They evoke memories of previous movements that have sought to challenge authoritarian regimes and demand democratic reforms. The significance of these demonstrations lies not only in their immediate political implications but also in their potential to inspire future activism and reshape public discourse around governance and accountability.

As these protests continue to unfold, they highlight the importance of civic engagement in a democratic society and the role of public demonstrations in influencing political discourse. The ‘No Kings’ rallies represent a collective effort to affirm the principles of democracy and justice in the face of perceived threats, suggesting that while the political landscape may be contentious, the spirit of activism remains resilient and vibrant, according to Source Name.

Mark Moran, a Democratic primary challenger in Virginia, has sparked controversy by criticizing his party’s stance on gun rights and gerrymandering, positioning himself against established party norms.

Mark Moran, a newcomer to Virginia politics and a former reality television star, is making waves in the Democratic senatorial primary by openly challenging his party’s positions on gun rights and gerrymandering. Moran, who gained fame as a contestant on the HBO Max series “FBoy Island,” is running against long-serving Senator Mark R. Warner, D-Va., whom he has labeled an “oligarch” disconnected from the needs of his constituents.

Warner, who is seeking a fourth term, has a substantial net worth estimated at over $200 million, making him one of the wealthiest senators in the United States. Moran has pointed to a past statement from Warner where he pledged to serve only two terms, suggesting that the senator is out of touch with the electorate.

In a recent post on X, Moran stated, “Since the establishment is already mad at me, here’s another truth: Virginia Democrats are completely wrong on the Second Amendment.” His remarks come in response to criticism from Virginia’s top Senate Democrat regarding his opposition to a politically charged redistricting effort.

After experiencing a personal safety issue, Moran purchased a firearm, which he claims has given him insight into the extreme positions his party has adopted regarding gun control. He specifically criticized a recent ban proposed by Democratic state delegate Dan Helmer, which he argues would classify standard handguns as “assault firearms,” thereby enabling the government to confiscate them.

Helmer, who is also running for a seat in one of the newly drawn congressional districts, did not respond to requests for comment on Moran’s statements. Moran emphasized that the Second Amendment was designed by the Founding Fathers to protect citizens from tyranny, whether that tyranny arises from a political figure like Donald Trump or from legislative actions aimed at disarming the populace.

His comments have drawn ire from various Democratic leaders, including strategist Adam Parkhomenko, who responded on X, urging Moran to “go be a p—- in someone else’s party.” Virginia Senate President L. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, also criticized Moran’s stance, asserting that anyone opposing the party’s redistricting efforts does not share Democratic values. Lucas publicly endorsed Warner, reinforcing the divide within the party.

Moran has described the current redistricting efforts as “extremely anti-democratic,” arguing that they are a reactionary response to Donald Trump, crafted by political consultants in Washington, D.C. He pointed out that Virginia voters had previously approved a resolution in 2019 to remove the legislature from the redistricting process, and he condemned the new maps for diluting the voices of residents outside Northern Virginia.

“In every local Democratic committee I’ve been in, when this issue comes up, nobody can defend it,” Moran stated. “It’s just ‘well this is what the party says is best’ — NO. The Democratic Party loses because of reactionary maneuvers and because it doesn’t have a big bold vision for the future,” he added.

Moran has also voiced concerns about the proliferation of data centers in Virginia, which he claims are straining the power grid and raising costs for residential consumers. He proposed a tax on these data centers to fund a free college initiative, showcasing a moderate approach to some issues.

However, his campaign platform reportedly includes more progressive stances, such as abolishing ICE and advocating for Medicare-for-All, positioning him to the left of Warner on these key issues. Moran has called for a “peaceful revolution” against what he describes as the influence of billionaires and tech oligarchs in the political sphere, particularly as the nation approaches its 250th anniversary.

As the primary race heats up, Moran’s willingness to challenge party norms could resonate with voters seeking a fresh perspective, but it also risks alienating him from the established Democratic base in Virginia. Fox News Digital reached out to both Warner’s and Moran’s campaigns for comment but did not receive a response.

According to Fox News, Moran’s candidacy represents a significant shift in the Democratic landscape of Virginia, as he seeks to redefine the party’s approach to critical issues like gun rights and electoral fairness.

Nationwide “No Kings” protests have mobilized demonstrators across the U.S. to express opposition to the Trump administration ahead of the November midterm elections, despite concerns about their effectiveness.

On March 28, 2026, demonstrators gathered in cities and towns across the United States for the third round of the nationwide “No Kings” protests. This series of demonstrations, which took place in all 50 states, aimed to voice opposition to President Donald Trump’s policies and mobilize millions of Americans disillusioned by recent electoral outcomes and the president’s return to power.

The “No Kings” protests serve as a rallying point for those who feel their democratic rights are being undermined. Mitch Campbell, a 72-year-old protester in Oxford, Mississippi, captured the sentiment of many attendees when he said, “It’s reached a point now where — how can people ignore this? They’re just trampling on the Constitution.” His sign, reading “No Kings Except Elvis,” reflected the lighthearted yet serious nature of the protests, which featured a mix of humorous slogans and urgent calls for action on pressing issues like immigration and the rising cost of living.

Organizers aimed for the March 28 protests to surpass previous turnout figures, which they claimed reached seven million participants during earlier demonstrations held in October and June. However, these numbers have not been independently verified, raising questions about their accuracy.

As the protests unfolded, demonstrators highlighted a diverse array of issues. Signs varied widely, with messages addressing topics such as immigration enforcement—“ICE Needs to Melt”—and calls for peace—“We Can’t Afford the War or the Gas.” This lack of a single, unifying demand reflects a broader strategy to engage a wide range of anti-Trump sentiments, according to organizers.

Unlike prior movements, the “No Kings” protests have not coalesced around a recognizable leader or a central figure. While figures such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are acknowledged as champions of progressive causes, they are not seen as focal points of the anti-Trump effort. Leah Greenberg, co-founder of Indivisible, a progressive organization involved in organizing the protests, stated, “You might think his consolidation of power is inevitable, but it isn’t.” This sentiment aims to encourage broader participation from various anti-Trump factions.

The protests featured a blend of political engagement and community building. In Washington, D.C., for example, a live band performed as protesters gathered, while volunteers distributed care packages and collected signatures for initiatives aimed at reducing the presence of ICE detention centers. The atmosphere in many locations fostered a sense of camaraderie among attendees, such as Bob Norberg from Gainesville, Florida, who expressed hopes that the protests would “invigorate the community” and build momentum for future activism.

However, some observers have pointed out that the lack of a clear message might dilute the impact of the protests. Dana R. Fisher, a professor at American University, noted that while the gatherings provide a sense of collective support, they risk becoming ineffective if they do not translate into actionable political organizing. “What we really need to do is the work of defending democracy in our communities,” she remarked.

Some anti-Trump organizers have drawn parallels between the “No Kings” movement and the Tea Party, which effectively mobilized conservative voters during the Obama administration. The Tea Party’s success was attributed to a strong organizational infrastructure and financial backing, a contrast that the current protests lack. Tim Phillips, a conservative activist, elaborated on the motivations behind both movements, stating that both groups feel their respective presidents are leading the country toward a precipice.

Despite Trump’s approval rating falling to 36 percent as of March 23, down from 45 percent at the beginning of his term, the efficacy of the “No Kings” protests remains a topic of debate. While the organized opposition has successfully harnessed public outrage at strategic moments, quantifying the influence of these protests on electoral outcomes is complex. Lara Putnam, a history professor at the University of Pittsburgh, noted that the number of protests has surged since Trump took office, with 80 events recorded in Pennsylvania alone last October, compared to just 27 on the day of the Women’s March in 2017.

As the midterm elections approach, the question remains whether the “No Kings” protests can sustain their momentum and translate their energy into electoral victories. The ambiguity of their message may resonate with a broad audience, but it also poses challenges in rallying concrete political action. Organizers and participants alike will need to navigate the delicate balance of fostering community engagement while ensuring that the protests lead to meaningful political change.

According to GlobalNetNews, the future of the “No Kings” protests will depend on their ability to unify their message and mobilize effective political action as the elections draw near.

President Trump’s disapproval rating has reached a record high amid escalating tensions in Iran, according to a recent Fox News poll highlighting significant voter dissatisfaction with his foreign policy.

President Donald Trump’s disapproval rating has surged to its highest level across both of his terms, as revealed by a recent Fox News poll. The survey, conducted between March 20 and 23, 2026, and released on March 29, shows that 59 percent of registered voters disapprove of Trump’s performance in office. This figure marks the highest disapproval rating recorded during his presidency, with 47 percent of respondents expressing strong disapproval.

In contrast, only 41 percent of those surveyed approved of Trump’s presidency, with just 22 percent indicating strong support for his actions. The poll, which included responses from 1,001 registered voters, has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

The new polling data reflects a significant shift in public sentiment, coinciding with rising tensions in Iran and the recent U.S. military operation, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, which was launched in collaboration with Israel. Previously, Trump’s disapproval rating peaked at 58 percent during his second term in November 2025 and at 57 percent during his first term in October 2017, according to the same polling organization.

Voter sentiment regarding Trump’s foreign policy is particularly critical. The Fox News poll indicates that 62 percent of respondents disapprove of his overall approach to foreign affairs. Among these, 64 percent specifically criticized Trump’s handling of the ongoing conflict with Iran. These disapproval rates represent a notable increase from earlier polling during Trump’s presidency, where his highest disapproval ratings for foreign policy were recorded at 56 percent in late 2019 and early 2020. Additionally, disapproval of Trump’s Iran policy peaked at 55 percent in October 2017.

Public sentiment regarding U.S. military operations in Iran appears overwhelmingly negative. More than half of registered voters, specifically 58 percent, oppose the military intervention, with 37 percent stating they strongly oppose it. Conversely, 42 percent expressed support for the military actions in the Middle East; however, only 20 percent indicated strong support, while 22 percent reported somewhat supporting the operations.

These findings from Fox News are echoed by a separate poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos, released on March 28, which reported that Trump’s approval rating has plummeted to 36 percent, with 62 percent of respondents disapproving of his job performance. This decline in approval is particularly significant following the initiation of Operation Epic Fury. In the Reuters/Ipsos survey, 52 percent of respondents believed that U.S. actions in Iran are not going well, while only 47 percent thought otherwise. Additionally, 44 percent expressed concerns that military operations in Iran would compromise U.S. safety, compared to 33 percent who felt it would enhance safety.

The geopolitical landscape between the U.S. and Iran has become increasingly fraught, especially as both nations engage in ceasefire negotiations. In recent discussions, both sides have proposed peace plans, with Iran rejecting a 15-point proposal from the U.S. in favor of its own. Iran’s plan emphasizes its sovereignty over the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, calls for reparations from the U.S., and demands an end to all hostilities.

In response to these developments, President Trump has conveyed a stern message to Iran’s negotiators, asserting that they must “get serious soon, or else there would be NO TURNING BACK, and it won’t be pretty!” This ultimatum underscores the administration’s urgency in addressing the escalating conflict and highlights the precarious nature of U.S.-Iran relations as diplomatic efforts unfold.

The results of the Fox News poll provide a revealing snapshot of public opinion during a period marked by international tensions and domestic political scrutiny. As the U.S. approaches the next electoral cycle, prevailing voter sentiment may have significant implications for Trump’s reelection efforts and the broader political landscape. With disapproval ratings at an all-time high, the political ramifications of these polling results could influence not only Trump’s strategies but also the positioning of potential challengers within the Republican Party and Democratic candidates looking to capitalize on voter dissatisfaction.

The growing disapproval of Trump’s foreign policy and military actions aligns with historical trends observed during periods of international conflict, where public support often wanes in response to perceived failures or escalations in military engagements. The interplay between domestic approval ratings and international relations will be crucial as the Trump administration navigates not only its foreign policy objectives but also its political survival in an increasingly polarized environment.

The Fox News survey serves as a critical indicator of the challenges facing President Trump as he seeks to maintain support among the electorate while managing complex international issues. As voter sentiment continues to evolve, the administration’s ability to address public concerns regarding foreign policy and military engagement will likely shape its trajectory in the months leading up to the election, according to Fox News.