USCIS Announces FY 2026 H-1B Cap Registration Period and Process Enhancements

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced that the initial registration period for the fiscal year 2026 H-1B cap will begin at noon Eastern on March 7, 2025, and will conclude at noon Eastern on March 24, 2025. During this timeframe, prospective petitioners and their representatives must electronically register each beneficiary through a USCIS online account and submit the necessary registration fee.

To participate in the selection process, those seeking H-1B visas must complete the online registration using a USCIS account and pay a registration fee of $215 for each submission. This fee applies to every individual beneficiary registered under the program.

Employers who intend to file H-1B petitions but do not have a USCIS online account must establish an organizational account before proceeding. For employers who previously held an H-1B registrant account for the FY 2021 through FY 2024 registration periods but did not use it for FY 2025, their existing accounts will be automatically converted into organizational accounts upon their next login. First-time registrants can create an account at any time. Additional information, including instructional videos, can be found on the Organizational Accounts Frequently Asked Questions page, which will be updated with FY 2026 registration details before the opening of the registration period.

Legal representatives are permitted to add clients to their accounts at any time. However, both representatives and registrants must wait until March 7, 2025, to enter beneficiary details and submit the registration with the applicable fee. The selection process takes place after the registration period ends, meaning there is no need to register on the first day of the window.

For FY 2026, USCIS will continue using the beneficiary-centric selection process that was implemented in FY 2025. Under this system, selections are made based on unique beneficiaries rather than individual registrations. If USCIS receives a sufficient number of registrations for unique beneficiaries by March 24, it will conduct a random selection process and notify users of their selection status through their USCIS online accounts. If the number of unique beneficiary registrations falls short, all properly submitted registrations during the initial period will be selected. By March 31, USCIS plans to inform prospective petitioners and representatives if at least one of their registrations has been selected.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury has approved a temporary increase in the daily credit card transaction limit to accommodate the anticipated volume of H-1B registrations. The limit, which was previously set at $24,999.99 per day, has been raised to $99,999.99 per day for the FY 2026 H-1B cap season. This change addresses past issues where daily credit card limits were exceeded due to high registration volumes. Payments exceeding $99,999.99 may be made through Automated Clearing House (ACH) transfers, though users are advised to check with their banks to remove any potential ACH transaction blocks beforehand. USCIS will provide additional guidance regarding payment procedures before the registration period begins.

To be eligible to file an H-1B cap-subject petition—including petitions for beneficiaries eligible for the advanced degree exemption—petitioners must ensure that the beneficiary named in their petition was selected during the H-1B registration process. Further details about the electronic registration process are available on the H-1B Electronic Registration Process page.

Organizational Account Enhancements for FY 2026

For the FY 2026 H-1B filing season, USCIS has introduced several improvements to organizational and representative accounts to streamline the registration and petitioning process. These enhancements include:

  • Paralegals can work with multiple legal representatives: Paralegals will now be able to accept invitations from multiple legal representative accounts. This update enables them to assist different attorneys in preparing H-1B registrations, Form I-129 H-1B petitions, and Form I-907 requests for premium processing using a single paralegal account.
  • Simplified process for adding paralegals to company client accounts: Legal representatives will now have an easier way to add paralegals to assist with H-1B filings for company clients.
  • Pre-population of Form I-129 fields: Certain fields in Form I-129 will be automatically pre-filled based on selected H-1B registrations, reducing data entry errors and improving efficiency.
  • Spreadsheet upload functionality for beneficiary data: Employers and legal representatives will have the option to prepare an H-1B beneficiary data spreadsheet and upload it to pre-populate registration information, further streamlining the process.

These system improvements are scheduled to go live before the initial registration period opens in March 2025, ensuring that prospective petitioners and legal representatives can take full advantage of the enhanced features.

Trump Expands Executive Power as Musk Moves to Overhaul USAID

President Donald Trump has taken steps to freeze hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds and has allowed billionaire ally Elon Musk access to sensitive Treasury payment systems responsible for handling trillions of dollars. Additionally, Trump and his administration have removed agency watchdogs, top FBI officials, and federal prosecutors who played roles in investigating the January 6 Capitol riot.

Now, Trump and Musk are focused on dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which provides tens of billions in congressionally approved aid to foreign allies each year.

Each of these moves touches areas where Congress traditionally holds authority or oversight. Yet, Trump has bypassed lawmakers at every turn.

Having returned to the White House two weeks ago, Trump—who won the popular vote for the first time—is now asserting his executive power to shrink the government and eliminate officials he sees as disloyal.

Historically, lawmakers have viewed their oversight powers and control of federal spending as key responsibilities in Washington’s balance of power. However, in Trump’s second administration, congressional Republicans have largely deferred to him, recognizing his influence over their voter base.

Despite once criticizing executive overreach under Democratic presidents, Republicans, who now control both chambers of Congress, have remained passive as Trump implements controversial and legally questionable executive actions. Instead, they have largely cheered on his efforts to disrupt Washington and challenge the country’s system of checks and balances.

Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, acknowledged that past Democratic presidents have also tested the limits of their authority. “They’re going to see how far they can go,” Tillis told NBC News regarding Trump’s administration. “I don’t begrudge them for doing it.”

Still, he suggested it would be better if Trump sought congressional approval before refusing to spend congressionally mandated funds, such as those allocated for USAID. “I think it’s legitimate; it’s just not going to last long-term if it doesn’t make sense,” said Tillis, who is up for re-election next year.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, defended Trump’s actions at a recent gathering of House Republicans at Trump’s golf club near Miami. “He’s been using his executive authority, I think, in an appropriate manner,” Johnson said. “He got a mandate from the American people. Let’s not forget he ran on restoring common sense and fiscal sanity and ensuring that the government would be more efficient. It was a major theme of the campaign.”

However, some Republicans have raised concerns, particularly about Trump’s efforts to dismantle USAID.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, expressed reservations, saying, “I am concerned about—I have questions about the legality.”

She also described the generally muted response among congressional Republicans to Trump’s executive actions. “We’re all kind of getting into the mode of: Things happen, the news drops, and there’s this explosive reaction, and then you find out that, OK, well, we’re narrowing the order or, well, there’s not really going to be tariffs,” Murkowski said. “And so I think we’re all just kind of processing and figuring out the appropriate response.”

With the exception of quietly blocking former Representative Matt Gaetz’s bid for attorney general, Senate Republicans have largely supported Trump’s nominations, despite pressure from his allies to back picks such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. More contentious nominations are ahead, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for health and human services secretary and Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence.

Musk and Trump Target USAID

On Monday, Musk announced that the government efficiency department Trump put him in charge of was “shutting down USAID.” Agency employees were informed they would not be allowed to enter their Washington headquarters and should instead work remotely. Later, Trump accused USAID of engaging in “fraud” and appointed Secretary of State Marco Rubio as its acting administrator.

Rubio notified Congress that “a review of USAID’s foreign assistance activities is underway with an eye towards potential reorganization,” according to a State Department statement.

Rubio, during a visit to El Salvador on Monday, criticized USAID, saying, “It’s been 20 or 30 years where people tried to reform it, and it refuses to reform. It refuses to cooperate. When we were in Congress, we couldn’t even get answers to basic questions about programs… That’s not going to continue.”

When asked whether Trump could dismantle USAID without congressional approval, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, declined to criticize the president. Instead, he echoed Rubio’s concerns about USAID’s transparency. “I think it’s a lot more about finding out how the dollars are being spent, where they’re going, and whether or not they’re consistent with the administration and our country’s priorities when it comes to our national interests,” Thune said.

Trump has also fired 18 independent inspectors general, who were tasked with investigating fraud, waste, and abuse in federal agencies. Democrats and Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued that Trump’s move violated a law requiring the president to give Congress 30 days’ notice before removing an inspector general and to provide justification for the dismissal.

Still, Grassley remained largely supportive of Trump, stating, “There may be good reason the IGs were fired. We need to know that if so.”

Last week, congressional Republicans appeared unprepared when the Trump White House unilaterally paused all federal loans and grants—previously approved by Congress—to review whether the funds were supporting initiatives the administration opposed. While GOP leaders ultimately supported the planned funding freeze, a federal judge temporarily blocked it, though U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan noted on Monday that some forms of federal aid still seem to be frozen.

Democrats Push Back

With Republicans holding majorities in both chambers, they could investigate and subpoena Trump officials. However, for now, such action appears unlikely. Instead, Republicans are working with Trump to pass his legislative priorities, including expanding energy production, tightening border security, and cutting taxes.

As a result, Democrats have taken up the fight against Trump’s actions.

On Monday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York announced that Democrats would introduce legislation “to prevent unlawful access” to the Treasury payment system, which contains confidential information related to Social Security, Medicare, taxpayers, businesses, and federal contractors. The proposal will serve as a test of whether Republicans are willing to limit Trump’s actions.

Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, called for Democrats to “fight back” against Trump and Musk, urging them to block all future nominees. Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, which oversees USAID and the State Department, threatened to place a “blanket hold” on all of Trump’s State Department nominees in response to the USAID controversy.

“Dismantling USAID is illegal and makes us less safe. USAID was created by federal law and is funded by Congress. Donald Trump and Elon Musk can’t just wish it away with a stroke of a pen—they need to pass a law,” Schatz said in a statement.

Senator Chris Coons, a moderate Democrat from Delaware, warned of broader consequences if Trump succeeds in eliminating USAID. “There’s some disagreement about USAID,” he said. “But the much more fundamental fight is over whether an agreement in appropriations that is a law will be respected and can hold.”

On Monday, a group of House and Senate Democrats attempted to enter USAID’s headquarters at the Ronald Reagan Building but were blocked. Outside, they expressed solidarity with USAID employees and condemned Musk’s role in dismantling the agency.

“We are going to fight in every way we can—in the courts, in public opinion, with the bully pulpit, in the halls of Congress, and here at AID itself,” said Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia, the new top Democrat on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which represents thousands of federal workers.

Overhauling USAID, he added, is “a matter for Congress to deal with—not an unelected billionaire oligarch named Elon Musk.”

Trump’s Gaza Plan: A Risky Real Estate Fantasy with Global Consequences

When my sons were younger, they had a way of expressing degrees of bad situations. Something could be “bad.” If it worsened, it became “worse.” And if it escalated further, it was “worser.”

Last night, their childhood terminology came to mind as I reflected on former President Donald Trump’s proposal regarding Gaza.

Trump has suggested that the United States should seize control of Gaza, forcibly remove its Palestinian population, and rebuild it into what he envisions as the “Riviera of the Middle East.”

Amid the flood of messages and social media reactions, there was an overwhelming sense of shock at such a proposal—though, undoubtedly, many still support it.

Since his presidency began, each day has felt like a series of political bombshells: granting pardons to those involved in the January 6 Capitol attack, mass detentions of immigrants—including those who are legally present and law-abiding—controversial Cabinet picks, and audacious geopolitical proposals, such as taking over Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. Added to this was his mismanagement of the Washington, D.C., plane crash.

My sons’ phrase seems more relevant than ever—every day is “worser.”

And Trump’s Gaza vision? That might be the “worser” of them all.

Israeli political analyst and former ambassador Alon Pinkas ridiculed the idea as “comical,” adding that it “makes annexing Canada and buying Greenland seem much more practical in comparison.”

I wish I could find humor in this. I wish I could laugh alongside friends who joke about “Trump Tower Gaza” or “Gaza-Lago.” Even knowing that Trump’s son-in-law, real estate developer Jared Kushner, supports the idea provides no reassurance.

At his core, Trump is a businessman who sees the world through the lens of real estate deals. To him, Gaza represents an opportunity—miles of beachfront property ripe for redevelopment. In his vision, he and Kushner would transform a depopulated Gaza into a luxurious resort. While this would theoretically create jobs, in reality, it would serve as an American stronghold in an already volatile region.

As an American Jew, I see this plan as disastrous on multiple fronts.

First, from an American perspective, Trump’s idea is deeply flawed. It is difficult to imagine any legal framework under international law that would justify the forced takeover of foreign territory. Such an action would reinforce narratives of American imperialism and its colonial past.

The proposal would face opposition across the political spectrum. Even Trump’s staunchest supporters, those who rally behind his “America First” agenda, would struggle to justify it. As Senator Rand Paul put it, “I thought we voted for America First. We have no business contemplating yet another occupation to doom our treasure and spill our soldiers’ blood.”

Beyond being a poor idea, it is a dangerous one. My greatest fear is that such a move would provoke an increase in terrorist attacks targeting both Americans and Jews worldwide. For extremists, this proposal would present a perfect justification for violence—what could be described as a “twofer.”

From an Israeli standpoint, Trump’s plan is equally detrimental. If Israel continues to surrender to its most extreme right-wing elements, embodied by figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, it risks the very foundation of Zionism. Furthermore, even entertaining the idea of an American takeover of Gaza could jeopardize ongoing negotiations for hostage releases. It would undo years of diplomatic efforts and the moral standing that Israel has worked tirelessly to uphold.

The ramifications of this plan are unacceptable on many levels.

It is intolerable from an American foreign policy perspective.

It is intolerable for the people of Gaza.

It is intolerable for Israel.

It is intolerable for the Jewish people. As a historically displaced people—who are currently reading about the Exodus from Egypt in synagogue—Jews would feel an acute sense of unease at such a proposal.

And it is intolerable for the next generation of Jews. The Book of Exodus asks, “And when your children ask you, ‘What does this service mean to you?’” Today, young American Jews are increasingly asking, “What does Israel mean to you—and to me?” The already fragile bond between Israel and young American Jews risks being severed entirely.

Some dismiss Trump’s remarks as mere rhetoric, arguing that he is simply throwing out ideas without a concrete plan. Perhaps an alternative exists—one in which the U.S. and Saudi Arabia collaborate on a Marshall Plan-style reconstruction of Gaza, focused on benefiting its Palestinian residents rather than transforming it into a Middle Eastern version of Miami Beach. Maybe this plan envisions a post-Hamas Gaza. Maybe it even lays the groundwork for genuine Palestinian sovereignty.

Maybe.

If Trump were to achieve true peace, security, and dignity for all people in the region, I would be the first to stand and applaud him.

But this proposal? This plan? This vision?

No.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Advances in Senate Panel Vote for HHS Secretary Nomination

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cleared a major obstacle on Tuesday as a Senate committee voted to advance his nomination for the role of health and human services (HHS) secretary to the full Senate.

The Senate Finance Committee approved Kennedy’s nomination in a 14-13 vote along party lines after he managed to address concerns raised by Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who was seen as the potential swing vote.

Cassidy, a physician, had previously expressed serious reservations about Kennedy’s qualifications to lead the large federal agency. After questioning Kennedy in two confirmation hearings, he admitted last week that he was still “struggling” with his decision. In addition to serving on the Finance Committee, Cassidy is also the chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Just before Tuesday’s vote, Cassidy posted a statement on X, revealing that he had engaged in “very intense conversations” with both Kennedy and the White House over the weekend. He specifically thanked Vice President JD Vance for his “honest counsel.”

Following the vote, Cassidy told the full Senate that Kennedy had provided him with several commitments, including a pledge to keep the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) advisory committee on immunization practices and to retain statements on the CDC’s website affirming that vaccines do not cause autism.

“Mr. Kennedy and the administration committed that he and I would have an unprecedentedly close collaborative working relationship if he is confirmed,” Cassidy stated. “We will meet or speak multiple times a month. This collaboration will allow us to work well together and therefore to be more effective.”

Cassidy further assured that he would use his role on the panel overseeing HHS to prevent any effort to limit public access to vaccines unless “ironclad causational scientific evidence” was provided and accepted by both the mainstream scientific community and Congress.

Despite Cassidy’s assertion that Kennedy had reassured him about supporting vaccine efficacy, Kennedy’s deep ties to the anti-vaccine movement were evident. Del Bigtree, a well-known anti-vaccine activist and Kennedy ally, was present in the committee room to witness Cassidy’s vote in favor of advancing the nomination.

Kennedy, a member of the famous Democratic political family, previously ran for president in 2024—initially as a Democrat before switching to an independent bid. He later dropped out and endorsed Donald Trump. While campaigning for Trump, Kennedy promoted a “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, criticizing food manufacturers and unhealthy ingredients in the U.S. food supply.

Although lawmakers from both parties supported the idea of improving food safety, Kennedy’s confirmation hearings last week highlighted other major concerns.

Kennedy struggled to answer fundamental questions about Medicaid, a crucial component of the HHS secretary’s responsibilities. Democratic senators raised alarms about potential conflicts of interest if Kennedy were confirmed, particularly noting that he could indirectly benefit financially from lawsuits against a vaccine manufacturer he would be tasked with regulating.

However, the most forceful objections to Kennedy centered on his long-standing rejection of vaccine efficacy. During a committee hearing last week, Cassidy repeatedly challenged Kennedy over his refusal to accept the scientific consensus that vaccines do not cause autism.

“I can say that I’ve approached it using the preponderance of evidence to reassure, and you’ve approached using selected evidence to cast doubt,” Cassidy stated during the hearing.

Cassidy, who is up for re-election in 2026, has already drawn a GOP primary challenger over his vote to convict Trump in the former president’s 2021 impeachment trial.

Just before the committee’s vote, Trump took to Truth Social to express support for Kennedy.

“20 years ago, Autism in children was 1 in 10,000. NOW IT’S 1 in 34. WOW! Something’s really wrong. We need BOBBY!!! Thank You! DJT,” Trump wrote.

The rate of autism diagnoses has indeed increased, rising from approximately 1 in 150 children in 2000 to 1 in 36 today. However, researchers attribute much of this rise to improved screening and evolving diagnostic criteria. Advocates have called for additional research to determine whether other factors may also be contributing to the trend.

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence debunking the alleged link between vaccines and autism, Kennedy has repeatedly promoted the false claim. Autism advocates voiced concerns over his potential confirmation, fearing that his misleading assertions could undermine decades of progress in understanding the condition. They argue that the continued focus on vaccine-related falsehoods has diverted essential research efforts from identifying the true causes of autism.

Kennedy’s position on vaccines played a significant role in Cassidy’s initial hesitation.

For weeks, Kennedy’s supporters, particularly those from the anti-vaccine movement he leads, had mounted a pressure campaign targeting Cassidy. However, another effort emerged simultaneously, urging Cassidy to oppose Kennedy’s nomination.

A source familiar with the situation revealed that over the weekend, a group called Protect Our Care escalated its efforts to block Kennedy’s appointment. The organization arranged calls to Cassidy’s office and launched digital advertisements opposing his confirmation. Additionally, doctors and other advocacy groups reached out to Cassidy to persuade him to vote no.

Meanwhile, groups associated with the anti-vaccine movement—including Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit founded by Kennedy, and the National Vaccine Information Center—encouraged their supporters to flood Cassidy’s office with calls and emails demanding that he back Kennedy’s nomination.

During one of Kennedy’s confirmation hearings last week, Cassidy acknowledged the overwhelming response from Kennedy’s supporters.

“My phone is being blown up,” Cassidy said at the hearing. He noted that Kennedy’s followers exhibited “tremendous trust” in him—sometimes even more than they trusted their own doctors.

“The question I need to have answered is what will you do with that trust?” Cassidy asked Kennedy.

After the hearing, anti-vaccine groups mobilized further. Through newsletters, social media posts, and online broadcasts, they identified Cassidy as the biggest potential obstacle to Kennedy’s confirmation.

On Thursday’s episode of the online show hosted by the Informed Consent Action Network—an anti-vaccine organization—Bigtree dedicated 25 minutes to discussing Cassidy, urging him to support Kennedy’s nomination.

Now that Kennedy’s nomination has passed the committee stage, it will head to the full Senate for a final vote. The outcome remains uncertain, but the intense debate surrounding his confirmation underscores the deep divisions over his views on vaccines and public health policy.

Trump Halts Tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but Price Hikes Still Loom

President Donald Trump has temporarily halted tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico following last-minute agreements with the leaders of both countries. The decision has put a month-long pause on a potential trade war within North America.

The economies of the three nations are deeply interconnected, with an estimated $2 billion (£1.6 billion) worth of manufactured goods crossing their borders daily. Trump has argued that the tariffs are meant to protect American industries. However, many economists caution that such measures could lead to higher consumer prices in the U.S.

The reason behind this concern is that domestic companies importing goods are responsible for paying the tariffs. These businesses may either pass the additional costs onto customers directly or cut back on imports, which would result in a reduced supply of goods.

If the tariffs are eventually implemented, several essential products could see price increases.

Cars

The price of cars would likely rise by approximately $3,000, according to TD Economics. This is due to the complex nature of the North American auto industry, where car parts cross U.S., Canadian, and Mexican borders multiple times before final assembly.

Higher import taxes on these parts would inevitably raise manufacturing costs, leading automakers to transfer these expenses to consumers.

“Suffice it to say that disrupting these trends through tariffs… would come with significant costs,” said Andrew Foran, an economist at TD Economics. He also pointed out that “uninterrupted free trade” in the car-making sector had existed for decades, resulting in lower prices for consumers.

Beer, Tennessee Whiskey, and Tequila

Popular Mexican beer brands like Modelo and Corona could become more expensive in the U.S. if the companies importing them decide to pass on the increased import taxes. However, another possibility is that firms may simply import less beer rather than increase prices.

Modelo became the best-selling beer brand in the U.S. in 2023 and remains in that position for now.

When it comes to spirits, the situation is more complicated. The industry has largely operated without tariffs since the 1990s. In anticipation of the potential tariffs, trade bodies from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico issued a joint statement expressing their “deep concern.”

They pointed out that specific spirits, such as Bourbon, Tennessee whiskey, tequila, and Canadian whisky, are “recognized as distinctive products and can only be produced in their designated countries.”

Since the production of these beverages cannot simply be relocated, supplies could be affected, leading to higher prices. The trade groups also noted that many companies own various spirit brands across all three nations.

Houses

The U.S. housing market could also feel the impact, as tariffs on Canadian lumber imports would drive up construction costs. Trump has claimed that “the U.S. has more lumber than we ever use.”

However, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has urged the president to exempt building materials from the proposed tariffs, citing concerns about housing affordability.

The industry body warned that lumber tariffs could raise the cost of building homes—most of which are primarily constructed from wood in the U.S.—and discourage developers from starting new projects.

“Consumers end up paying for the tariffs in the form of higher home prices,” the NAHB stated.

Maple Syrup

One of the most direct consequences of a U.S.-Canada trade war would be an increase in the price of Canadian maple syrup, according to Thomas Sampson, an associate professor of economics at the London School of Economics.

Canada’s maple syrup industry, worth billions of dollars, accounts for 75% of the world’s production. Around 90% of this comes from Quebec, home to the world’s only strategic maple syrup reserve, established 24 years ago.

“That maple syrup is going to become more expensive. And that’s a direct price increase that households will face,” Sampson explained.

He also noted that even U.S.-made products that rely on Canadian ingredients would see price hikes: “If I buy goods that are domestically produced in the U.S., but that are produced using inputs from Canada, the price of those goods is also going to go up.”

Fuel Prices

Canada is the largest foreign supplier of crude oil to the U.S. Between January and November of last year, 61% of America’s imported oil came from Canada, according to official trade figures.

Although Canadian goods imported into the U.S. are subject to a 25% tariff, crude oil has been given a lower 10% tariff.

While the U.S. has an ample supply of oil, its refineries are designed to process heavier crude oil, which mostly comes from Canada and, to a lesser extent, Mexico.

“Many refineries need heavier crude oil to maximize flexibility of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel production,” stated the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.

If Canada were to retaliate by reducing crude oil exports, fuel prices at the pump could rise for American consumers.

Avocados

One food item that could see a steep price increase is avocados. Nearly 90% of avocados consumed in the U.S. each year are grown in Mexico, where the climate is ideal for their production.

Should tariffs be enforced, the U.S. Agriculture Department has warned that avocado prices—along with those of avocado-based foods like guacamole—could spike, especially by Super Bowl Sunday on February 9.

Impact on Canadian Goods

Before Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reached their agreement to pause tariffs, Canada had been preparing to impose retaliatory import taxes.

An initial round of C$30 billion in tariffs was set to take effect on Tuesday, which would have resulted in higher prices for Canadian consumers as well.

The Canadian government had published a list of U.S. imports that would have faced immediate 25% tariffs. This included essential grocery items like oranges, a fruit that Canada struggles to produce due to its colder climate.

Alcohol imports from the U.S. would also have been affected. Several Canadian provinces—including Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia—had planned to remove all American-made alcoholic beverages from store shelves starting Tuesday.

Any remaining U.S. alcohol available in Canada would likely have been subject to price increases, as it was included in the list of retaliatory tariffs.

Additionally, Canadian shoppers who purchase goods online from U.S. retailers could have felt the economic pinch due to a weaker Canadian dollar.

While the temporary halt on tariffs has provided short-term relief, the uncertainty surrounding North American trade continues, leaving businesses and consumers on both sides of the border bracing for potential economic shifts.

Trump and Trudeau Agree to Pause Tariffs for 30 Days Amid Border Security Talks

Former President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have agreed to postpone the implementation of 25 percent tariffs on Canadian imports for at least a month. This decision was reached just hours after Trump similarly delayed tariffs on Mexico.

The pause on tariffs, which were originally set to take effect on Tuesday, followed a second conversation between Trump and Trudeau on Monday. Trump stated that Canada had committed to securing the northern border and intensifying efforts to curb the flow of fentanyl into the United States. As part of this agreement, Canada will implement its $1.3 billion border security plan and take additional measures to strengthen border control.

“As President, it is my responsibility to ensure the safety of ALL Americans, and I am doing just that. I am very pleased with this initial outcome, and the Tariffs announced on Saturday will be paused for a 30-day period to see whether or not a final Economic deal with Canada can be structured. FAIRNESS FOR ALL!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Trudeau, in his announcement on the social media platform X, provided details on Canada’s new measures. The government plans to appoint a “Fentanyl Czar,” designate cartels as terrorist organizations, implement continuous surveillance on the U.S.-Canada border, and establish a joint strike force with the United States to combat crime, fentanyl trafficking, and money laundering.

As part of their agreement, Trump and Trudeau signed a new intelligence directive focused on organized crime and fentanyl. This initiative will receive $200 million in funding.

“Nearly 10,000 frontline personnel are and will be working on protecting the border,” Trudeau stated.

The agreement with Canada is similar to the arrangement Trump reached earlier in the day with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. Ahead of the tariff deadline, Mexico committed to deploying 10,000 soldiers to its northern border to curb fentanyl trafficking and unauthorized immigration into the U.S.

On Saturday, Trump had signed orders imposing 25 percent tariffs on imports from both Canada and Mexico, along with a 10 percent tariff on Chinese goods. While the decisions on Canada and Mexico have been temporarily halted, there has been no update regarding tariffs on China. In response, China’s Ministry of Commerce stated it would file a legal challenge against the United States at the World Trade Organization.

Following Trump’s tariff announcement, Trudeau had previously stated that Canada would impose retaliatory tariffs of 25 percent on over $100 billion worth of U.S. goods. Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre, a leading candidate to succeed Trudeau as prime minister, strongly criticized Trump’s tariffs, calling them “unjust and unjustified” and advocating for a “dollar-for-dollar” response.

Earlier on Monday, Trump also reiterated his long-standing idea of integrating Canada into the United States, downplaying the economic ties between the two nations. Despite this assertion, Canada remains one of America’s most significant trade partners.

Trump Imposes New Tariffs on Imports from Canada, Mexico, and China

Donald Trump has introduced new tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. from Canada, Mexico, and China. The former president signed an executive order imposing a 25% tariff on all imports from Canada and Mexico, aiming to pressure these countries into taking stronger action against illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

Additionally, a 10% tariff will be levied on goods from China, on top of existing duties, until the country addresses fentanyl smuggling. Trump has previously pledged to impose a 60% tariff on Chinese goods and has even considered a 200% tax on certain vehicle imports.

Tariffs have been a key component of Trump’s economic strategy, which he believes can bolster the U.S. economy, protect domestic jobs, and generate tax revenue. During his election campaign, he reassured voters that these taxes would not be a burden on them. “It’s not going to be a cost to you, it’s a cost to another country,” he asserted.

However, this claim was widely dismissed by economists as misleading.

How Tariffs Function

A tariff is essentially a domestic tax applied to goods entering the country, based on their value. For instance, if an imported car worth $50,000 is subject to a 25% tariff, an additional $12,500 charge will be applied. The cost of the tariff is paid by the domestic company that imports the product rather than the foreign exporter. In practice, this means U.S. firms must pay the tariff to the U.S. government.

In 2023, the U.S. imported approximately $3.1 trillion worth of goods, representing about 11% of the nation’s GDP. The tariffs imposed on these imports generated $80 billion in revenue, accounting for roughly 2% of total U.S. tax revenue.

However, the ultimate economic impact of tariffs is more complex. If an importing company passes the tariff cost onto consumers through price increases, American buyers bear the financial burden. Conversely, if the firm absorbs the cost, it results in reduced profits. A third possibility is that foreign exporters lower their prices to offset the tariff and maintain U.S. customers, leading to reduced profits on their end.

While all these scenarios are theoretically possible, economic analyses of the tariffs implemented by Trump between 2017 and 2020 indicate that American consumers bore most of the burden.

A University of Chicago survey conducted in September 2024 found that an overwhelming majority of economists agreed with the statement that “imposing tariffs results in a substantial portion of the tariffs being borne by consumers of the country that enacts the tariffs, through price increases,” with only 2% disagreeing.

Price Increases and Consumer Impact

One concrete example of tariff-driven price hikes is Trump’s 2018 decision to impose a 50% tariff on washing machine imports. Researchers found that this policy led to a 12% price increase, costing U.S. consumers approximately $1.5 billion annually.

If Trump were to introduce even higher tariffs in a future administration, the economic impact is expected to be similar. The Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates that Trump’s proposed tariffs would lower American incomes. The wealthiest fifth of Americans would see a reduction of around 2%, while the poorest fifth would experience a decline of approximately 4%.

A typical middle-income U.S. household would lose an estimated $1,700 per year due to these tariffs. The Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, projects even higher losses, estimating that middle-income families could see annual financial hits ranging from $2,500 to $3,900.

Several economists have warned that another large round of tariffs could contribute to increased domestic inflation.

Job Market Effects

Trump has repeatedly justified his tariffs as a means to protect and create American jobs. “Under my plan, American workers will no longer be worried about losing your jobs to foreign nations, instead, foreign nations will be worried about losing their jobs to America,” he stated during his campaign.

His tariffs were introduced in response to longstanding concerns over the decline of U.S. manufacturing jobs due to globalization, particularly following the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico in 1994 and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001.

In January 1994, when NAFTA came into effect, the U.S. had nearly 17 million manufacturing jobs. By 2016, that number had fallen to about 12 million.

However, many economists argue that this decline is not solely due to trade agreements but also reflects the rise of automation and other technological advancements.

Studies analyzing Trump’s first-term tariffs found no substantial overall employment gains in U.S. industrial sectors that were protected by these policies.

For example, in 2018, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on imported steel to support domestic steel producers. Yet, by 2020, employment in the U.S. steel industry had actually declined, standing at 80,000 jobs—down from 84,000 in 2018.

It is possible that without the tariffs, steel industry employment would have dropped even further. However, detailed economic studies concluded that the tariffs did not lead to meaningful job growth.

Moreover, some industries suffered indirect job losses due to higher material costs. For example, manufacturers reliant on steel, such as agricultural machinery producer Deere & Co, reportedly experienced lower employment levels as a result of higher steel prices.

Trade Deficit Challenges

Trump has frequently criticized the U.S. trade deficit, arguing that it harms the economy. “Trade deficits hurt the economy very badly,” he has claimed.

In 2016, before Trump assumed office, the U.S. trade deficit for goods and services was $480 billion, or about 2.5% of GDP. By 2020, despite his tariff policies, the deficit had ballooned to $653 billion, approximately 3% of GDP.

Economists attribute this increase partly to the impact of tariffs on currency values. By reducing demand for foreign currencies in international trade, tariffs strengthened the U.S. dollar, making American exports less competitive globally.

Additionally, tariffs in a globalized economy can often be circumvented.

For instance, Trump imposed a 30% tariff on Chinese solar panel imports in 2018. However, the U.S. Commerce Department later found that many Chinese manufacturers had relocated assembly operations to countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. By exporting finished solar panels from these nations, companies effectively evaded U.S. tariffs.

Limited Support for Tariffs Among Economists

While most economists oppose Trump’s tariffs, some believe they could benefit U.S. industry. Jeff Ferry of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a domestic industry advocacy group, supports the tariffs as a means of strengthening American manufacturing.

Similarly, Oren Cass, director of the conservative think tank American Compass, argues that tariffs can incentivize companies to keep production in the U.S., which he believes has national security and supply chain benefits.

Despite Trump’s aggressive trade policies, the Biden administration has retained many tariffs introduced after 2018. Additionally, Biden has imposed new tariffs on certain Chinese imports, including electric vehicles, citing concerns over national security, domestic industry protection, and unfair subsidies from Beijing.

Looking Ahead

As Trump prepares for a potential return to office, his tariff policies remain a focal point of economic debate. While he insists that tariffs will boost U.S. industry and protect jobs, economic studies suggest they have primarily increased costs for American consumers without delivering significant employment benefits.

With China, Canada, and Mexico vowing to retaliate, the long-term consequences of these policies remain uncertain.

Democrats Face Perception Problem on Economic Focus, New Poll Finds

A recent poll conducted by The New York Times and Ipsos indicates that many Americans do not view the Democratic Party as prioritizing economic issues. When asked about the issues they believe are most important to the Democratic Party, only 17 percent of respondents identified “the economy/inflation” as a key focus. By contrast, 31 percent cited “abortion” and “gay/lesbian/transgender policy” as central concerns for the party.

The findings come in the wake of President Donald Trump’s reelection and the Republican Party securing a majority in the Senate while maintaining control of the House. These developments have left Democrats grappling with their party’s direction following the 2024 elections.

Ken Martin, the new chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), expressed concern about how the party is currently perceived by the American public. Speaking to The New York Times in November, Martin said, “I found it deeply alarming … that for the first time in modern history, the majority of Americans believe that the Republican Party best represents the interests of the working class and the poor.”

He further noted, “And that the Democratic Party represents the interests of the wealthy and the elite. That would suggest we have a huge branding problem, because that is not who our party is.” Martin emphasized the need for Democrats to improve their messaging, stating, “And we’ve got to do a better job of making sure people know that wherever they live, wherever they are from, no matter who they are, we’re fighting for them and we’re their champion in this country.”

The poll also reflected positive public sentiment regarding Trump’s economic policies. When asked whether they believe Trump’s policies would benefit the national economy, 45 percent of respondents said they would, while 39 percent disagreed.

The New York Times and Ipsos poll was conducted from January 2 to January 10, surveying 2,128 individuals. The margin of error for the poll was 2.6 percentage points.

Trump’s Cabinet Picks Face Intense Scrutiny in Heated Confirmation Hearings

President Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees endured rigorous questioning from both Republican and Democratic senators during marathon confirmation hearings on Thursday. Two nominees in particular, Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence and Kash Patel for FBI director, faced sharp interrogations about their controversial past remarks and associations.

Tulsi Gabbard Questioned on Putin Ties and Snowden Support

Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii and military veteran, now Trump’s choice for director of national intelligence, encountered tough questions regarding her prior statements about Russia, her meeting with Syria’s former dictator Bashar al-Assad, and her past defense of whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Gabbard, who left the Democratic Party after her unsuccessful 2020 presidential bid and endorsed Trump in 2024, was grilled over comments that seemed sympathetic to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s stance on NATO. Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado highlighted Gabbard’s past remarks, quoting her statement that Putin had “legitimate security concerns” about NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe. Bennet accused her of rationalizing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, pointing out that Russian state television even referred to her as “our friend Tulsi.”

Defending herself, Gabbard cited her military background as a lieutenant colonel in the National Guard, with deployments to the Middle East. However, critics emphasized her lack of formal intelligence experience, raising concerns about her suitability for the role.

When pressed about her past support for Edward Snowden, Gabbard remained evasive. Both Republican and Democratic senators questioned her stance on the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked classified documents exposing U.S. surveillance programs. Although Snowden’s leaks sparked widespread debate about government overreach, many argued his actions endangered national security.

Lawmakers repeatedly asked Gabbard if she considered Snowden a traitor, given that she had previously described him as “brave” and advocated for his pardon. Gabbard resisted providing a clear answer, creating an uncomfortable moment, particularly among Republican senators. “Snowden broke the law,” she acknowledged. “He released information about the United States… I have more immediate steps that I would take to prevent another Snowden.”

Controversy Over Gabbard’s Meeting with Assad

Another contentious topic was Gabbard’s 2017 trip to Syria, where she met with then-President Bashar al-Assad. The visit occurred despite the U.S. government’s strong opposition to Assad due to his regime’s brutal attacks on civilians, including chemical weapon use. Her meeting sparked bipartisan criticism at the time, raising questions about her judgment.

During the hearing, Gabbard defended the trip, stating she had posed “tough questions about his own regime’s actions.” She attempted to preempt criticism in her opening remarks, saying, “I have no love for Assad or Gaddafi or any dictator.” Addressing her stance on Assad’s eventual fall, she remarked, “I shed no tears for the fall of the Assad regime,” referencing the Syrian civil war’s shifting dynamics. However, she added, “But today we have an Islamist extremist who is now in charge of Syria,” suggesting that Assad’s ousting led to the rise of even more dangerous forces.

Kash Patel Faces Tough Questions About Capitol Riot Ties

Following Gabbard’s hearing, Kash Patel, nominated to lead the FBI, faced a grueling five-hour session dominated by questions about his ties to the January 6 Capitol riots and his previous controversial statements. Patel, a former federal prosecutor and Trump administration aide, was scrutinized for his support of individuals involved in the Capitol insurrection.

Senators focused on Patel’s role in promoting a charity song recorded by some January 6 rioters while in prison, including individuals convicted of violence against law enforcement. Democratic lawmakers repeatedly pressed him on his connections to these rioters and his broader views on the events of that day.

One senator asked pointedly, “Was President Donald Trump wrong to give blanket clemency to individuals involved in the January 6 attack?” The question referenced Trump’s public support and legal advocacy for some rioters. Patel dodged giving a direct answer, emphasizing his commitment to upholding the rule of law. “My focus will be on ensuring the FBI remains an independent agency, free from political influence,” he said, though his past affiliations left some senators unconvinced.

Patel’s Ties to the QAnon Movement Under Scrutiny

In addition to questions about the Capitol riots, Patel faced intense scrutiny over his alleged connections to the QAnon conspiracy movement. His previous social media activity, where he appeared to endorse QAnon-related content, raised alarms among senators concerned about the FBI’s leadership under someone with such associations.

Patel denied any formal ties to QAnon but struggled to explain his past comments praising figures linked to the movement. “I have never been part of any conspiracy group,” Patel asserted. “My priority is the safety and security of the American people.” Despite his denials, senators expressed doubts about his impartiality, given his public support for individuals who propagated election-related conspiracy theories.

A Polarizing Set of Hearings

The confirmation hearings highlighted the deep political divisions in Washington, with nominees like Gabbard and Patel embodying Trump’s unconventional approach to governance. Both faced bipartisan criticism, illustrating that their controversies transcended party lines.

Gabbard’s complex foreign policy views and past praise for figures like Snowden, coupled with her meeting with Assad, made her a target for Democrats and skeptical Republicans alike. Meanwhile, Patel’s alignment with Trump loyalists and his connections to the January 6 events fueled concerns about his ability to lead an agency tasked with protecting American democracy.

Throughout the hearings, the nominees attempted to deflect criticism and emphasize their qualifications. Gabbard leaned on her military service, while Patel pointed to his prosecutorial background. Yet their evasive responses on key issues left many senators frustrated.

Final Takeaways

The hearings reflected not only the contentious nature of Trump’s cabinet selections but also the broader ideological battles shaping U.S. politics. As the Senate prepares to vote on their confirmations, both Gabbard and Patel face uncertain paths forward, with bipartisan skepticism threatening to derail their nominations.

Ultimately, these hearings served as a reminder that even in a polarized environment, certain issues—like national security and the integrity of democratic institutions—can unite lawmakers across the aisle in demanding accountability from those seeking high office.

Trump Administration Orders Google Maps to Display “Gulf of America” in the U.S.

Google Maps users in the United States will soon see the “Gulf of Mexico” labeled as the “Gulf of America” following a name change mandated by the Trump Administration. The update will take effect after the federal mapping database reflects the alteration, Alphabet-owned Google announced on Monday.

The decision aligns with an executive order issued by President Donald Trump last week, which renamed multiple American landmarks. In response, the U.S. Department of the Interior confirmed the changes were official and stated that America’s Geographic Names System was working “expeditiously” to implement the President’s directive.

“We have a longstanding practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in official government sources,” Google posted on X.

The modification means that users in the United States will see “Gulf of America” on Google Maps, while the name will remain “Gulf of Mexico” in Mexico. Users in other countries will see both names displayed.

Trump’s Renaming Orders

According to the Interior Department, the Gulf of Mexico’s official designation has been changed to the Gulf of America. Additionally, the highest peak in North America, Denali, has been renamed Mount McKinley.

Google Maps will also apply this change to Mount McKinley, which was originally named after the 25th U.S. President, William McKinley, in 1917. However, the Obama administration changed the mountain’s name back to Denali in 2015, in recognition of its historical significance to Alaska’s Indigenous people.

President Trump enacted these renaming measures through a series of executive orders issued hours after he assumed office on January 20, fulfilling a campaign pledge.

Earlier this month, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum jokingly suggested that North America, including the United States, be called “Mexican America,” referencing an early map that used this historical designation.

Google’s Approach to Naming Disputes

Google has a history of adapting place names based on regional and geopolitical considerations. For instance, the body of water situated between Japan and South Korea is labeled as the “Sea of Japan (East Sea)” outside both countries to reflect the ongoing naming dispute.

Similarly, in 2012, Iran threatened legal action against Google for omitting the name “Persian Gulf” from Google Maps, leaving the body of water between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula unnamed. The platform later revised its labeling to “Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf)” in certain regions.

Trump Says India Will Act Right on Deportation of Illegal Migrants After Call with Modi

US President Donald Trump has expressed confidence that India “will do what’s right” concerning the deportation of undocumented migrants after a phone conversation with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The two leaders spoke on Monday, marking their first discussion since Trump took office last week. Their conversation covered immigration, security, and trade, with the White House describing it as a “productive call.”

Following the call, Trump informed reporters that Modi was expected to visit the United States “sometime in February.”

Since assuming the presidency on 20 January, Trump has issued multiple executive orders related to immigration, aiming to intensify measures against undocumented migrants in the US.

As per the Pew Research Center, approximately 725,000 undocumented Indian immigrants were residing in the US as of 2024.

Last week, India’s foreign ministry stated that Delhi was willing to accept Indian nationals who had overstayed “anywhere in the world,” provided their documents were submitted and their nationality was verified.

During their phone call on Monday, the ministry noted that Trump and Modi discussed bilateral relations, particularly in “technology, trade, investment, energy, and defence.”

The leaders also exchanged views on security matters in the Indo-Pacific region, the Middle East, and Europe.

According to a White House statement, Trump underscored the need for India to expand its purchase of US-made security equipment and work towards a “fair” trade relationship.

Modi, in a post on X (formerly Twitter), referred to Trump as a “dear friend” and affirmed their commitment to a “mutually beneficial and trusted partnership.”

The White House further noted that both leaders emphasized their dedication to strengthening their countries’ strategic ties and the Indo-Pacific Quad alliance, which also comprises Japan and Australia.

India is set to host Quad leaders for the first time later this year.

Modi and Trump had shared an amicable relationship during the US president’s first term from 2017 to 2021.

However, India endured a contentious tariff dispute with the Trump administration, impacting businesses in both nations.

Following Trump’s election victory in November, India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar asserted that the country had no apprehensions about working with the US president.

Trump had previously lauded Modi as a “great leader” but also criticized India for imposing high tariffs.

Observers believe it remains to be seen whether their rapport will help address concerns over trade and immigration.

Scott Bessent Confirmed as Treasury Secretary, Receives Bipartisan Support

Scott Bessent, a prominent Wall Street investor and hedge fund manager, was confirmed by the Senate on Monday as the next U.S. Treasury secretary. Garnering a vote of 68 to 29, Bessent’s appointment demonstrated a notable level of bipartisan support, reflecting confidence in his business acumen and economic approach.

Known for his wealth and success in the hedge fund industry, Bessent is considered a business-friendly choice for the role. His confirmation positions him as a key voice for the administration’s economic policies. In his new role, Bessent is anticipated to focus on advocating for the extension and possible expansion of the 2017 tax cuts, which have been a cornerstone of recent economic discussions.

Bessent’s appointment is also historic, as he becomes the first openly gay individual to serve as the Treasury secretary, marking a significant milestone in the representation of LGBTQ+ individuals in top government positions.

California Woman Sentenced for Role in Birth Tourism Scheme

A California woman, Phoebe Dong, was sentenced on Monday to 41 months in prison for her role in a business that facilitated “birth tourism,” helping pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to deliver babies who automatically became U.S. citizens. Dong and her husband, Michael Liu, operated the company USA Happy Baby and were convicted in September of conspiracy and money laundering. U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner handed down the sentence in a federal court in Los Angeles and ordered Dong into custody immediately after the hearing.

This sentencing comes amid renewed debate over birthright citizenship in the United States, which has become a focal point following Donald Trump’s return to the political stage. As president, Trump issued an executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, a move blocked by a federal judge who deemed it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

Dong and Liu were among over a dozen individuals charged in a crackdown on birth tourism schemes initiated during the Obama administration. These businesses, which cater primarily to women from China, Russia, Nigeria, and other countries, have been accused of helping pregnant women disguise their pregnancies and travel to the United States to give birth. Under the 14th Amendment, all children born in the U.S. are automatically granted citizenship. For many, this pathway provides their children with access to a U.S. education and the opportunity to eventually sponsor their parents for permanent residency when they reach the age of 21.

In her emotional testimony during the sentencing, Dong reflected on her upbringing in China, which was shaped by the country’s one-child policy. She tearfully recounted how the government forced her mother to have an abortion, and she described the struggles she faced after immigrating to the U.S. Despite these hardships, Dong said she was inspired by having children of her own and hoped to help other Chinese women seeking similar opportunities in California.

“I don’t want to lose my kids,” Dong told the court. “I hope you can give me fair judgment. I will take all my responsibility.”

Federal prosecutors, however, sought a more severe penalty, recommending a sentence exceeding five years. They accused Dong and Liu of orchestrating a scheme that enabled more than 100 pregnant Chinese women to enter the United States. According to prosecutors, the couple coached these women on how to deceive immigration officials by arriving at airports with less stringent screening procedures and wearing loose clothing to conceal their pregnancies.

“For tens of thousands of dollars each, defendant helped her numerous customers deceive U.S. authorities and buy U.S. citizenship for their children,” prosecutors stated in court documents. After the sentencing, they declined to provide further comment.

Michael Liu had already been sentenced in December to 41 months in prison for his involvement in the scheme. Dong’s lawyer, John McNicholas, requested that her prison term be postponed until Liu completed his sentence so that their three children, the youngest of whom is 13, would not be left without parental care. While federal prosecutor Kevin Fu agreed to the proposal, Judge Klausner denied the request, ordering Dong to begin her sentence immediately. As she was led away, Dong handed a necklace to a family member.

The USA Happy Baby case is part of a larger investigation into businesses that facilitate birth tourism in California. Prosecutors have pursued multiple cases, including one involving the operator of a company called “You Win USA.” That operator was sentenced in 2019 to 10 months in prison after pleading guilty to charges of conspiracy and visa fraud. Another individual linked to these schemes is believed to have fled to China, according to court filings.

McNicholas argued that Dong received a disproportionately harsh sentence due to the perception that she and Liu were responsible for enabling the birth of U.S. citizen children through their business practices. He contended that this perception unfairly influenced the sentencing, as the issue of citizenship was not directly related to the charges of conspiracy and money laundering.

“Our position was these children are born in America. They’re citizens,” McNicholas said, adding that Dong plans to appeal the verdict. “Implicitly, he’s saying being born here is not enough.”

The broader issue of birthright citizenship remains contentious, particularly as political debates intensify around immigration and citizenship policies. For individuals like Dong, the intersection of legal and ethical considerations continues to spark discussions on the implications of birth tourism and the responsibilities of those involved.

Trump’s Inspector General Firings Ignite Controversy

President Donald Trump dismissed inspectors general (IGs) from over a dozen federal agencies in a late-night shake-up on Friday, a move paving the way for him to appoint his own candidates to these key oversight roles. According to a Trump administration official, the firings targeted independent watchdogs at agencies including the Departments of State, Energy, Defense, Transportation, and the Interior.

Inspectors general were informed of their termination via an email from Sergio Gor, head of the White House Office of Presidential Personnel, citing “changing priorities” as the reason for their removal. These dismissals immediately sparked bipartisan concerns over the independence and effectiveness of government oversight mechanisms.

Inspectors general play a critical role in maintaining government transparency. They are tasked with investigating allegations of fraud, abuse, and misconduct within federal agencies and providing independent recommendations to ensure accountability. These positions are designed to operate autonomously to avoid political interference.

This is not the first time Trump has clashed with government watchdogs. During his first term, he removed several IGs he deemed disloyal to his administration. The recent firings have raised questions about the motivations behind these actions and whether they comply with federal law.

Legal Concerns Over Firings

In 2022, Congress enacted a law requiring the White House to provide a clear and substantive rationale for the removal of inspectors general. Moreover, federal law mandates a 30-day notice to Congress before such dismissals take effect. Some senators, including prominent Republicans, criticized the administration for failing to adhere to these legal requirements.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, known for his advocacy of government watchdogs, expressed his concerns, stating, “There may be good reason the IGs were fired. We need to know that if so. I’d like further explanation from President Trump. Regardless, the 30-day detailed notice of removal that the law demands was not provided to Congress.”

Trump’s Justification

Speaking aboard Air Force One on Saturday, Trump defended his decision, claiming, “I did it because it’s a very common thing to do.” While asserting that not all IGs were dismissed, he added, “I don’t know them, but some people thought that some were unfair or were not doing the job. It’s a very standard thing to do.” However, his explanation lacked evidence or specific examples of misconduct.

Historically, such sweeping removals of IGs during a presidential transition have been rare. A Congressional Research Service report noted that the last comparable instance occurred in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan controversially dismissed all inspectors general following his inauguration. Since then, it has been customary for IGs to remain in their roles during transitions to ensure continuity and independence.

Reactions From Lawmakers

The firings drew swift criticism from lawmakers across the political spectrum. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska described the action as “relatively unprecedented” due to the lack of prior notice. She remarked, “I can understand why a new president coming in would want to look critically at the IGs and the role that they have played within the various agencies, but … the summary dismissal of everybody, I think, has raised concerns.”

Senator Susan Collins of Maine echoed these sentiments, questioning how the dismissals aligned with Trump’s stated commitment to combating corruption. “I don’t understand why one would fire individuals whose mission is to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. So this leaves a gap in what I know is a priority for President Trump,” Collins said.

Other Republican senators, including Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota, voiced frustration over the lack of communication from the White House. Thune commented, “I haven’t [received notice], so I better reserve comment. I’m sure I will.”

Democratic lawmakers were far more critical, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer denouncing the firings as “a chilling purge” that could signal “a golden age for abuse in government, and even corruption.”

Defense of IGs’ Independence

Hannibal “Mike” Ware, the former inspector general of the Small Business Administration and one of those dismissed, emphasized the importance of maintaining the nonpartisan nature of IG roles. “IGs across the Federal government work every day on behalf of American taxpayers to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the programs and operations of their agencies,” Ware said. He acknowledged that IGs are not immune to removal but stressed that dismissals must follow established legal protocols to preserve the integrity of government oversight.

The chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency also issued a statement underscoring the importance of adhering to the law in such decisions. “IGs are not immune from removal. However, the law must be followed to protect independent government oversight for America,” the statement read.

Broader Implications

The abrupt firings have left a cloud of uncertainty over the affected agencies. Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota suggested that more information was needed to assess the rationale behind the dismissals. “I honestly would just be guessing at this point as to what it actually entails,” Rounds said. “Are there deputies that step in? Was it specific to individuals? I just simply don’t have that information.”

Lawmakers are now calling for the administration to provide detailed explanations for the removals. The lack of clarity has led to speculation about whether the firings were politically motivated or intended to dismantle oversight mechanisms perceived as obstacles to Trump’s agenda.

Conclusion

The sweeping dismissal of inspectors general by President Trump has reignited debates over the role of independent oversight in government. While the administration argues that such actions are standard, the lack of transparency and adherence to legal requirements has drawn bipartisan criticism. As lawmakers push for answers, the controversy underscores the ongoing tension between political authority and institutional accountability in Washington.

Judge Blocks Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship, Calling It Unconstitutional

President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at denying U.S. citizenship to children born to parents living illegally in the country has encountered its first significant legal obstacle. It faced a critical test in a Seattle courtroom on Thursday and did not fare well.

During the hearing, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour questioned the Justice Department’s arguments and labeled the executive order “blatantly unconstitutional.” The judge issued a temporary restraining order, preventing the administration from enforcing the order nationwide while legal challenges proceed.

Understanding Birthright Citizenship

Birthright citizenship grants citizenship to individuals born in a country, a principle enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It was established to ensure citizenship for former slaves following the Civil War.

Critics argue that this provision incentivizes illegal immigration, as it allows children born in the U.S. to gain citizenship and potentially help their parents secure legal status in the future. Seeking to address this perceived issue, Trump signed the executive order shortly after being sworn in for his second term.

The order sparked immediate legal challenges nationwide. Five lawsuits, brought by 22 states and various immigrant rights groups, have been filed. The first hearing involved a case led by Washington, Arizona, Oregon, and Illinois.

What’s Next for Legal Challenges?

The judge’s temporary restraining order halts enforcement of the executive order for 14 days. During this period, both sides will file further arguments on the legality of the order. Judge Coughenour scheduled a follow-up hearing on February 6 to decide whether a preliminary injunction should be issued. Such an injunction would block the order indefinitely while the case progresses.

Meanwhile, other lawsuits against the order are moving forward. On February 5, CASA, a nonprofit immigrants’ rights organization, will have a hearing in Greenbelt, Maryland. Other cases, including one led by New Jersey representing 18 states, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco, as well as another brought by the Brazilian Worker Center in Massachusetts, have yet to schedule hearings.

Opponents of the order argue it would lead to severe consequences for affected children. They claim it could render many stateless, strip them of their rights, and prevent them from participating in civic or economic life.

Judge’s Reasoning

While Judge Coughenour did not provide an extensive explanation during the hearing, his statements made his stance clear. Calling the order “blatantly unconstitutional,” he grilled Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate while refraining from questioning Washington’s assistant attorney general, Lane Polozola.

The opposing states argue that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship is well-established and that the president lacks the authority to unilaterally decide citizenship qualifications.

Judge Coughenour emphasized the clarity of the issue, stating: “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is.”

The Justice Department responded with a statement asserting its intent to defend the executive order. “We look forward to presenting a full merits argument to the Court and to the American people, who are desperate to see our Nation’s laws enforced,” the department declared.

Judge Coughenour’s Background

At 84, Judge John C. Coughenour has served as a federal judge for over four decades. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, he graduated from the University of Iowa’s law program in 1966. Although semi-retired, he continues to hear cases and is known for his independence and assertive judicial style.

Newly elected Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, who previously served as a U.S. attorney in Seattle, expressed little surprise at the judge’s reaction. “I’ve been in front of Judge Coughenour before to see his frustration personally,” Brown said. “But I think the words that he expressed, and the seriousness that he expressed, really just drove home what we have been saying. … This is fairly obvious.”

Coughenour has presided over thousands of cases, including criminal and environmental matters. One of his most notable cases involved Ahmed Ressam, the so-called “millennium bomber,” who was arrested in December 1999 while attempting to enter the U.S. with explosives intended for a New Year’s Eve attack on Los Angeles International Airport.

Coughenour clashed with prosecutors over Ressam’s sentencing, disagreeing on how much leniency should be granted for Ressam’s cooperation after his conviction. After sentencing Ressam to 22 years twice—only to have the rulings overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—Coughenour ultimately imposed a 37-year sentence in 2012. Reflecting on the case, he remarked that it was the only instance where an appellate court had deemed him excessively lenient.

The Broader Implications

The temporary restraining order represents the first major legal setback for Trump’s executive order. The case is expected to set the stage for prolonged legal battles over the scope of presidential authority and the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship.

As additional hearings and rulings unfold, the outcome could have far-reaching consequences for immigration policy and the lives of millions of children born in the United States to parents without legal status. For now, the order remains blocked, and its fate will depend on arguments presented in the weeks and months ahead.

Library of Congress: A Timeless Repository of Knowledge

Established in 1800, the Library of Congress holds the distinction of being the oldest federal cultural institution in the United States. Its origin is intertwined with the establishment of Washington, D.C., as the nation’s capital. The legislation that relocated the U.S. capital from Philadelphia also created the Library of Congress, with President John Adams approving the bill. This initial act allocated $5,000—equivalent to around $122,000 today—for purchasing books to serve Congress. Recognizing the growing significance of the library, Thomas Jefferson elevated the librarian of Congress to a presidential appointment two years later.

From these modest beginnings, the Library of Congress has grown into the largest library in the world. As of September 2022, its vast collection housed over 175 million items, with an impressive 10,000 additions each day. This monumental repository of knowledge spans a wide array of formats and subjects, reflecting centuries of intellectual pursuit.

A Collection Like No Other

The Library of Congress boasts an assortment of unique and captivating artifacts. Among its treasures is the smallest book in its collection, Old King Cole, a nursery rhyme that measures just 1/25th of an inch—about the size of a period. On the other end of the spectrum, the largest item is a photo book showcasing images of Bhutan, measuring a remarkable 5 by 7 feet.

While books form the cornerstone of the library, its holdings extend far beyond print. The collection encompasses audio materials, maps, sheet music, photographs, newspapers, manuscripts, presidential papers, and various other media. Together, these resources provide an unparalleled window into human history and creativity.

Fascinating Facts in Numbers

The Library of Congress is not only a treasure trove of information but also a symbol of scale and diversity. In 2022, it welcomed 370,000 visitors, highlighting its enduring appeal to scholars, tourists, and history enthusiasts.

Its National Film Registry, a celebrated archive of culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant films, includes 850 movies. These films span decades of cinematic history and reflect the diverse narratives that have shaped American culture.

Remarkably, the library’s collection represents over 470 languages, underscoring its commitment to preserving global heritage. This linguistic diversity ensures that the Library of Congress serves as a resource not just for the United States but for the entire world.

Behind the scenes, a dedicated team of 3,172 permanent staff members maintains the library’s operations. Their efforts ensure that this institution remains a vital hub for research, education, and preservation.

Conclusion

The Library of Congress, established during the formative years of the United States, stands as a testament to the enduring value of knowledge and culture. From its tiny beginnings with a modest budget to its current status as the world’s largest library, it has grown into a beacon of intellectual achievement. Whether through its collection of rare books, diverse media, or unique artifacts, it continues to inspire curiosity and serve as a cornerstone of the nation’s cultural legacy.

House Passes Laken Riley Act: Immigration Legislation Sent to President Trump for Approval

The House of Representatives passed the Laken Riley Act on Wednesday, delivering an immigration-focused bill to President Trump’s desk. This marks a potential legislative victory for Trump following his return to the White House earlier this week.

The bill was passed by a vote of 263-156, with 46 Democrats joining all present Republicans in support. The House’s approval followed the Senate’s bipartisan vote on Monday, where the measure was cleared by a margin of 64-35.

Trump is expected to sign the bill into law, making it the first legislation enacted during his second term. Immigration and border security have been central to Trump’s agenda and campaign messaging.

“The Laken Riley Act will now go to President Trump’s desk for him to sign into law,” said Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on social platform X. “Criminal illegal aliens must be detained, deported, and NEVER allowed back into our country. The American people demand and deserve safety and security.”

While the White House has not confirmed a signing ceremony, Trump is scheduled to leave for North Carolina on Friday.

Provisions of the Laken Riley Act

The legislation mandates the detention of a wide range of migrants without legal status, including those legally allowed into the United States to seek asylum, if they have been accused of crimes such as theft, burglary, or shoplifting.

The bill is named after Laken Riley, a nursing student from Georgia who was killed by a Venezuelan migrant previously arrested for shoplifting. This incident occurred after the individual had been paroled into the U.S.

Criticism and Concerns

The bill has drawn criticism for requiring the detention of individuals based on accusations rather than convictions. Critics argue this could lead to unjust detainment and deportation.

“Under this bill, a person who has lived in the United States for decades, say for most of her life, paid taxes and bought a home, but who is mistakenly arrested for shoplifting would not be free to resume her life, but rather would be detained and deported, even if the charges are dropped,” said House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) during earlier debates.

Legislative Journey

The passage of the bill in the House marks the culmination of months of effort by Republicans. The legislation was first approved by the House in March, shortly after Riley’s death. However, it stalled in the then-Democratic-controlled Senate.

The bill was reintroduced earlier this month as the first measure of the 119th Congress. With a Republican majority in the Senate, the legislation quickly advanced. The Senate made minor technical adjustments and added two amendments before sending it back to the House for final approval.

One amendment, introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), adds assault of a law enforcement officer to the list of crimes triggering detainment. Another amendment, known as Sarah’s Law and proposed by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), requires the detention of migrants without legal status who are charged with crimes resulting in death or serious bodily harm. This provision honors Sarah Root, a victim of a fatal car crash in 2016 caused by a migrant who later fled the country after posting bond.

Twelve Democrats joined all Senate Republicans in passing the final version of the bill.

Dividing Democrats

The legislation has exposed divisions among Democrats, who are still grappling with the aftermath of their losses in the November elections. Immigration and border security were pivotal issues during the campaign, with polls consistently identifying these topics as top concerns for voters.

Trump frequently highlighted Riley’s case on the campaign trail, using her death to critique the Biden administration’s immigration policies. When a Georgia court sentenced Jose Ibarra, the Venezuelan migrant who killed Riley, to life in prison in November, Trump described the verdict as “justice.”

“The Illegal who killed our beloved Laken Riley was just found GUILTY on all counts for his horrific crimes,” Trump said at the time, shortly after his election victory.

Executive Actions on Immigration

Immigration remains a priority for the Trump administration. On his first day back in office, Trump issued several executive orders aimed at tightening border security and restricting migration.

One order pauses refugee admissions, while another reinstates a program that partners local law enforcement with immigration officials. Additionally, Trump declared a national emergency to allow for greater deployment of active-duty military personnel at the southern border and to allocate resources for border wall construction.

Another executive order frames migration as an “invasion” and seeks to halt asylum processing by citing public health and national security concerns.

The Path Forward

With the Laken Riley Act expected to be signed into law, Republicans view this as a significant step toward fulfilling their campaign promises on immigration. However, critics warn that the bill’s provisions may lead to human rights concerns and unintended consequences for migrants who have long been part of American society.

As immigration continues to be a contentious issue, the passage of this legislation highlights the deep divide between Republicans and Democrats on how to address border security and the treatment of migrants.

Trump’s Executive Orders: A First 3-Day Policy Blitz on Immigration, Trade, Civil Rights, and Government Efficiency

In his first three days, President Donald Trump launched a flurry of executive orders aimed at reshaping the U.S. government across multiple sectors, reflecting his commitment to campaign promises and a rightward shift in policy. These orders span immigration, trade, civil rights, government efficiency, and climate action. While some have immediate implications, others face legal challenges, and several have symbolic significance.

Immigration and Border Security

Trump focused heavily on immigration, declaring a national emergency at the southern border, characterizing the influx of migrants as an “invasion.” His orders trigger several immediate actions, including utilizing military personnel for border enforcement—a move that could challenge the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement. Other directives include halting refugee arrivals, redefining birthright citizenship, prioritizing border wall construction, and revoking the “catch-and-release” practice. Trump also authorized local law enforcement to assist federal immigration enforcement and mandated DNA collection from immigration detainees. The orders aim to streamline deportations and curtail family reunification programs, setting the tone for a tough stance on immigration.

International Trade and the Economy

Trump took steps to address trade imbalances by ordering reviews of U.S. trade relations, especially with Mexico, Canada, and China. He proposed new tariffs, including a 25% tariff on Mexican and Canadian goods. He also directed the establishment of an “External Revenue Service” to handle tariffs and foreign trade revenues. Additionally, Trump suspended U.S. participation in the Global Tax Deal, aiming to protect American interests in international corporate taxation.

Climate, Energy, and Environmental Policy

In a significant move away from the Biden administration’s climate policies, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, blocking funding for the International Climate Finance Plan. He also declared a national energy emergency to promote fossil fuel production, including streamlining permitting processes for energy projects. Trump rolled back numerous regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions, including restrictions on fossil fuel extraction in Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. His directives signal a push for greater energy independence and a reversal of the green energy push under Biden.

Civil Rights and Transgender Rights

Trump issued orders to roll back Biden-era initiatives on racial and ethnic equity and transgender rights. The White House ordered the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, including positions like “chief diversity officer.” Trump also mandated the recognition of only male and female gender categories on government documents, ending policies that supported transgender individuals in federal programs and military service. He directed that civil rights laws be interpreted with the understanding that “sex” excludes “gender identity.”

Federal Workers and Government Efficiency

On the domestic front, Trump focused on streamlining government operations. He established the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, to recommend cuts in federal programs and spending. Additionally, Trump froze federal hiring, with exceptions for immigration, border enforcement, and military positions. His orders also make it easier to remove, demote, or reassign senior federal employees, effectively tightening control over the federal workforce.

These executive actions highlight Trump’s goal of centralizing power within the executive branch and taking swift action on key issues. They reflect his unwavering commitment to his political base and his ambition to reshape U.S. policies on immigration, trade, civil rights, and government structure. However, many of these orders face legal hurdles and will continue to spark debates over the balance of power in the U.S. government.

Capitol Riot Participant Rejects Trump Pardon, Stresses Accountability for Actions

Pamela Hemphill, a person who served time in prison for her involvement in the U.S. Capitol riot four years ago, has rejected a pardon from former President Donald Trump. Hemphill, who had been sentenced to 60 days behind bars after pleading guilty, expressed to the BBC that there should be no pardons for those involved in the January 6, 2021 riot.

“We were wrong that day,” Hemphill said, acknowledging her illegal actions during the riot. She added, “Accepting a pardon would only insult the Capitol police officers, rule of law, and, of course, our nation.” Hemphill explained that by pleading guilty, she took full responsibility for her actions, and accepting a pardon would contribute to a false narrative, one that she believes is being pushed by the Trump administration.

The 60-year-old woman, who gained the nickname “Maga granny” from social media users due to her association with Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan, also criticized the Trump government for what she described as an attempt to “rewrite history.” She firmly rejected any notion of forgiveness, emphasizing, “We were wrong that day, we broke the law – there should be no pardons.” Hemphill made these statements on the BBC World Service’s Newsday programme.

Her stance comes amid a broader context of pardons granted by Trump, who, within hours of taking office, made the controversial decision to pardon or commute the sentences of nearly 1,600 individuals involved in attempts to violently overturn the 2020 presidential election. Speaking during a White House news conference, Trump defended his actions, stating, “These people have already served years in prison, and they’ve served them viciously. It’s a disgusting prison. It’s been horrible. It’s inhumane. It’s been a terrible, terrible thing.”

Trump’s actions, while celebrated by some, have drawn criticism from various quarters, including within his own party. Republican Senator Thom Tillis from North Carolina voiced his disapproval of the decision, saying, “I just can’t agree” with the pardons. He added that such a move “raises legitimate safety issues on Capitol Hill.” Another Republican, Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma, also spoke against the pardons, emphasizing the importance of law and order. “I think if you attack a police officer, that’s a very serious issue and they should pay a price for that,” Lankford said in an interview with CNN.

The refusal of a pardon is not a new occurrence. Under the U.S. Constitution, it is within an individual’s rights to reject a pardon, a position upheld by the Supreme Court. Legal experts, including those at Cornell Law School, have confirmed that individuals who choose not to accept a pardon cannot be forced into doing so. This highlights the autonomy individuals have regarding their own legal matters.

Among the individuals who did accept pardons was Jacob Chansley, one of the most recognizable faces from the Capitol riot. Known as the self-styled “QAnon Shaman,” Chansley had been sentenced to 41 months in prison but was released in 2023 after serving 27 months of his sentence. Upon hearing about his pardon, Chansley was reportedly working out at a gym and learned of the news from his lawyer. His reaction was one of elation. “I walked outside and I screamed ‘freedom’ at the top of my lungs and then gave a good Native American war cry,” Chansley recalled, describing his emotional response to the pardon.

Hemphill’s rejection of the pardon and her call for accountability underscores the growing divide over the Capitol riot and its aftermath. For her, the message is clear: those who participated in the riot must face the consequences of their actions. “I pleaded guilty because I was guilty,” she emphasized, reinforcing her stance that accepting a pardon would undermine both her personal accountability and the wider rule of law.

The ongoing debate over pardons and the Capitol riot reflects larger issues concerning justice, accountability, and the interpretation of events that continue to resonate in the political landscape. As public figures, including Hemphill, take stands on the issue, the conversation about the proper response to the January 6 riot remains deeply polarized, with both supporters and detractors of the pardons offering strong views.

As the political ramifications of the Capitol riot continue to unfold, figures like Hemphill provide a stark contrast to those seeking leniency or a rewriting of history. For Hemphill, the rejection of a pardon is not merely a personal decision but a statement about the need for a just society, where individuals are held accountable for their actions, no matter their political affiliation. She rejected any attempts to downplay the events of January 6, 2021, saying, “We were wrong that day, we broke the law – there should be no pardons.”

Trump Administration Moves to Eliminate Federal DEI Roles

The Trump administration has mandated that all federal employees working in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) roles be placed on administrative leave by Wednesday evening, with agencies required to devise plans to terminate these positions by the end of the month.

This directive, issued via a memorandum from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on Tuesday, marks a significant reversal of the DEI policies instituted by the previous administration. The memo demands immediate action, giving federal agencies until 5 p.m. ET Wednesday to suspend DEI employees with paid leave and remove all online content related to DEI offices. By January 31, agencies are expected to submit comprehensive plans for a “reduction-in-force” targeting these positions.

The memorandum further orders the cancellation of all DEI-related training and contracts. Additionally, federal employees are encouraged to report any programs that might be attempting to continue DEI efforts under alternative labels, warning of “adverse consequences” for failing to comply.

The exact number of federal employees impacted by these changes remains unclear. However, the White House has framed the move as a positive development for the country.

“President Trump campaigned on ending the scourge of DEI from our federal government and returning America to a merit-based society where people are hired based on their skills, not for the color of their skin,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Tuesday night.

President Trump, during his campaign, made dismantling DEI initiatives a central promise, claiming such programs undermine fairness and meritocracy. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at closing all federal DEI offices, describing them as “illegal and immoral discrimination programs.”

The broader Republican movement has frequently targeted DEI programs as part of an effort to oppose what they label as “woke” policies. Critics argue that these initiatives promote reverse discrimination and exacerbate racial divisions. For instance, during the election, some used “DEI hire” accusations as a pointed critique of Vice President Kamala Harris, implying her position was influenced by such policies.

Advocates for DEI, however, contend that these programs are essential tools for fostering equality in education and workplaces. They argue that DEI initiatives help diversify recruitment and retention efforts, allowing organizations to draw talent from nontraditional backgrounds. While acknowledging that DEI efforts may have imperfections, proponents emphasize their role in creating more equitable opportunities across various sectors.

Trump Sworn in as 47th U.S. President, Vows to Reverse America’s Decline and Bring Change

Donald Trump has been officially sworn in as the 47th President of the United States by Chief Justice John Roberts, marking a dramatic political return after his felony convictions. His running mate, JD Vance, took the oath of office administered by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

In his inauguration speech, Trump declared that “the golden age of America begins right now.” The new administration is preparing to implement numerous executive actions, including efforts to end birthright citizenship and declaring a national emergency regarding the U.S.-Mexico border, according to incoming White House sources. Additionally, sources informed CNN that Trump plans to pardon some individuals involved in the January 6 riots on his first day in office.

The inauguration event was attended by a broad spectrum of political figures, former presidents, and influential billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. Country music sensation Carrie Underwood performed “America the Beautiful” at the event. The world was able to tune in to the proceedings via various media platforms.

In the lead-up to the inauguration, outgoing President Joe Biden took a significant step by issuing pardons for key individuals. These included General Mark Milley, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and members of Congress who had been involved in investigating the January 6 events. Biden also granted preemptive pardons to his family members, including his brothers James and Frank, his sister Valerie, and their spouses.

Trump took the opportunity in his speech to reflect on his personal journey and the significance of his victory. In particular, he referenced a moment of personal reflection tied to an assassination attempt during his campaign. “My life was saved by the grace of God to make America great again,” Trump said, evoking religious imagery. This sentiment was shared by many of his supporters, who believed his survival of the assassination attempt was a divine sign.

Trump further characterized Inauguration Day, January 20, 2025, as “liberation day,” emphasizing the hope that the presidential election would be remembered as “the greatest and most consequential election in the history of our country.” He argued that his victory marked a broad and rapidly growing unity among the American people. “The entire nation is rapidly unifying behind our agenda with dramatic increases in support from virtually every element of our society,” he stated.

Acknowledging the diverse coalition that helped propel him to victory, Trump expressed gratitude toward Black and Hispanic voters. He thanked them for the “tremendous outpouring of love and trust that you have shown me with your vote.” He vowed to remember this support, saying, “We set records and I will not forget it. I’ve heard your voices on the campaign, and I look forward to working with you in the years to come.”

Trump also addressed the recent devastation caused by wildfires in Los Angeles, where numerous homes were destroyed. These fires, exacerbated by high winds, affected not only the general public but also some of the “wealthiest and most powerful” individuals in the country. “They’re raging through the houses and communities, even affecting some of the wealthiest and most powerful individuals in our country, some of whom are sitting here right now. They don’t have a home any longer,” Trump remarked. Despite the loss, he underscored the importance of preventing further tragedies, stating, “That’s interesting. But we can’t let this happen.”

In another portion of his speech, Trump criticized the Biden administration, which was present at the inauguration, for its handling of domestic and international challenges. “We now have a government that cannot manage a simple crisis at home while at the same time stumble into a continuing catalog of catastrophic events abroad,” he claimed. He also expressed frustration over immigration policies, asserting that the government had “failed to protect our magnificent law-abiding citizens but proves sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals.” Trump continued, emphasizing the disparity in border protection efforts: “We have a government that has given unlimited funding to the defense of foreign borders but refuses to defend American borders or, more importantly, its own people.”

Trump highlighted his commitment to ending what he described as America’s ongoing decline, particularly in sectors like education and healthcare. He vowed to reverse the current trajectory swiftly: “All of this will change starting today, and it will change very quickly,” he said. His victory, he asserted, was a mandate to undo “a horrible betrayal” of the American people. “From this moment on, America’s decline is over,” Trump declared, signaling his intention to enact sweeping reforms.

As the 47th president, Trump expressed optimism and confidence about the future. He promised to lead the country into “a thrilling new era of national success” and emphasized that “a tide of change is sweeping the country.” Reflecting on the opportunities before the nation, he said, “Sunlight is pouring over the entire world and America has the chance to seize this opportunity like never before.” His words were an indication of his hope to restore American greatness and assert the country’s place on the world stage.

With his inaugural speech, Trump set the tone for his presidency, stressing the need for immediate change and national unity. From addressing the wildfires to criticizing the previous administration, he laid out an ambitious agenda aimed at reasserting American values and interests. As the nation looks forward to the new administration, Trump’s bold promises will serve as a framework for the first term of his presidency.

The inauguration of President Donald Trump marks the beginning of a new chapter in American politics, characterized by promises of national revitalization and a determination to reverse the country’s perceived decline. His speech touched on various themes, from personal reflections to critiques of the previous administration, and outlined his vision for the future. With a strong emphasis on unity and restoration, Trump’s presidency begins with a clear sense of direction, ready to implement the changes he campaigned on.

Donald Trump’s Second Presidency Begins with Bold Moves, Controversy, and Power Plays

On Monday, Donald Trump launched his second term with swift and sweeping actions, aiming to redefine his presidency while addressing his previous term’s shortcomings. Proclaiming the dawn of a “Golden Age” for America, Trump quickly consolidated his authority, implementing measures that targeted Joe Biden’s legacy and signaling an aggressive approach to governance.

Within hours, he pardoned hundreds of January 6 rioters, initiated stringent immigration reforms, and solidified alliances with influential tech leaders. His unorthodox foreign policy decisions sent ripples through global capitals, underscoring a dramatic pivot from the internationalism championed by most presidents since World War II.

In a press conference at the Oval Office, Trump showcased a confident, decisive demeanor, drawing on lessons from his first term to maximize his control over executive powers. However, alongside ambitious goals and bold rhetoric, Trump’s actions were accompanied by grievances, misinformation, and a growing sense of self-importance, raising concerns about his commitment to democratic principles.

The day’s rapid sequence of events, including the issuance of numerous executive orders, hinted at looming legal battles. Despite the theatrics, Trump’s agenda faces challenges, with new legislation requiring cooperation from a narrowly Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Without such legislative backing, many of his actions could be reversed by the next administration, much like his dismantling of Biden-era policies.

Pardons for January 6 Rioters

In a polarizing move, Trump issued blanket pardons to approximately 1,500 individuals convicted or accused of crimes during the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. These pardons extended to high-profile members of extremist groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, erasing distinctions between violent offenders and those guilty of lesser charges.

This act underscored Trump’s willingness to shield his supporters from legal consequences, even at the cost of undermining democratic norms. Critics warned this could embolden future acts of political violence. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced the move, stating, “Trump’s actions are an outrageous insult to our justice system and the heroes who suffered physical scars and emotional trauma as they protected the Capitol, the Congress, and the Constitution.”

Biden’s Preemptive Pardons

Trump wasn’t the only president accused of misusing pardon power. Before leaving office, Biden issued blanket pardons to officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, and members of the House committee investigating January 6. Biden justified these actions as necessary protections against Trump’s threats of retribution.

Additionally, Biden preemptively pardoned several family members, including his brothers and sister, claiming it was to safeguard their reputations. Critics argued this expanded the potential misuse of presidential pardon power, setting a dangerous precedent. Trump seized on this development, remarking, “Now every president, when they leave office, they are going to pardon everyone they met.”

Immigration Overhaul

Trump moved swiftly on immigration, declaring an emergency at the southern border, ending the use of an app facilitating legal migrant entry, and initiating efforts to terminate birthright citizenship. He also suspended refugee resettlement for four months and dismissed senior Justice Department officials overseeing immigration courts.

While his actions aimed to fulfill campaign promises, they also set the stage for constitutional and legal challenges. Trump’s broader vision for mass deportations requires congressional approval, highlighting the limitations of executive orders in enacting lasting policy changes.

Rolling Back Diversity Policies

Fulfilling another campaign promise, Trump revoked Biden’s executive orders protecting against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Federal diversity programs were also dismantled, with changes extending to documentation requirements, such as passports and visas reflecting applicants’ biological sex.

These actions catered to Trump’s base but risked alienating many Americans who viewed such policies as steps backward in civil rights.

Tech Titans Join Trump’s Inner Circle

Trump’s inaugural celebrations prominently featured Silicon Valley leaders, marking a shift in allegiance from Democrats to his administration. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai, and Mark Zuckerberg attended events and appeared alongside Trump, signaling their willingness to collaborate with his government.

Musk, who received significant federal contracts, was even appointed to lead a newly established Department of Government Efficiency. While Trump argued that leveraging tech pioneers was in America’s interest, their proximity to power raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of tech giants on public discourse.

Shaking Global Norms

Trump’s return to power reverberated across the globe. In his first press conference, he demanded NATO allies increase defense spending to 5% of GDP—a nearly unattainable goal for many nations. He also reignited tensions over the Panama Canal, falsely claiming, “China is operating the Panama Canal and we didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama and we’re taking it back.”

Additionally, Trump labeled Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and hinted at deploying special forces into Mexico—a proposal fraught with diplomatic and security risks. On Ukraine, he increased pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiate peace, asserting, “The war does not make him look very good.”

Economic and Trade Policies

While Trump refrained from immediately imposing new tariffs, he confirmed plans to introduce 25% duties on Mexican and Canadian imports starting February 1, risking a trade conflict within North America. Although tariffs on China remain unimplemented, Trump hinted at using them as leverage in upcoming negotiations.

Trump’s assertion that tariffs would generate significant revenue for the U.S. was misleading, as their costs are typically borne by American consumers. Potential inflationary effects and rising prices for essentials like food and fuel could pose challenges to his administration’s economic agenda.

Challenges Ahead

Despite a dramatic start, Trump’s second term faces significant hurdles. His reliance on executive orders underscores his difficulty in securing legislative support, a necessity for long-lasting reforms. Additionally, his tendency toward grievance politics and self-promotion could distract from meaningful governance.

The widespread pardons and sweeping policy changes highlight Trump’s determination to reshape America, but they also risk deepening divisions and eroding democratic norms. As he seeks to solidify his legacy, the success of his presidency will hinge on balancing bold ambitions with the practicalities of governance.

By the end of his first day back in office, Trump had cemented his reputation as a disruptor, willing to challenge conventions and push the boundaries of presidential power. However, whether this approach can deliver sustained progress or merely provoke further polarization remains to be seen.

Trump’s Inaugural Committee Raises Stakes with $1 Million Donation Package

Major donors seeking access to Donald Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance during the upcoming inauguration are facing a significantly higher price tag. The committee’s latest fundraising materials reveal that the minimum contribution for top-tier perks has doubled, rising from $500,000 during Trump’s first inauguration to $1 million this time around.

The $1 Million Package

This premium package offers two tickets to a private dinner with Vance and six tickets to the prestigious “candlelight dinner,” where Trump is expected to attend. For lobbyists and high-profile donors eager to curry favor with the incoming administration, such opportunities are seen as vital, particularly as Trump resumes power.

Rising Costs Reflect Increased Demand

The steep increase in donation requirements reflects heightened enthusiasm following a polarizing election. The committee has already raised over $170 million, with projections exceeding $200 million. These funds far surpass the estimated costs of the events, which include multiple receptions, lunches, and celebratory balls. For many donors, particularly those with business interests requiring governmental cooperation, the $1 million contribution is viewed as a strategic investment.

Fewer Benefits for Smaller Contributions

Smaller donations, ranging from $100,000 to $250,000, now offer far fewer privileges. A transition official acknowledged the diminishing returns for donors at these levels, suggesting that such contributors might gain more by supporting Trump-aligned political action committees instead. “At $100,000, you’re not even noticed,” the official remarked, emphasizing the exclusivity of the inaugural fundraising strategy.

Donation Tiers and Their Perks

The committee has outlined a five-tier donation structure, ranging from $50,000 to $1 million, with varying degrees of access:

  • $1 Million: Grants admission to both the candlelight dinner and the private vice-president’s dinner.
  • $500,000: Includes access to the candlelight dinner but excludes the vice-president’s dinner, a notable reduction from 2017 when this tier provided access to both.
  • $50,000: Offers limited access to events, such as those featuring Cabinet officials, though the price for this level has been halved compared to 2017.

Promotional materials highlight the candlelight dinner, held at the National Building Museum, as a glamorous black-tie event attended by Trump and Melania Trump. Meanwhile, the vice-president’s dinner at the National Gallery of Art is promoted as an exclusive gathering for high-level donors.

Reduced Perks Even at Premium Levels

Despite its hefty price tag, the $1 million package offers fewer benefits compared to 2017. Notably, the “leadership luncheon,” which previously included appearances by Cabinet appointees and congressional leaders, has been removed from the itinerary. Some insiders suggest that private events hosted by prominent Trump allies, including Donald Trump Jr., Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, and Steve Bannon, may provide more meaningful opportunities for influential interactions.

Limited Returns for Smaller Donors

Contributors at the lower end of the spectrum, such as those donating $50,000 or $100,000, should not expect personal access to Trump. However, they may still attend events featuring Cabinet members and other figures from Trump’s political circle. Nevertheless, with perks scaled back across all donation levels, the value for smaller donors has diminished compared to previous inaugural celebrations.

Strategic Investments by Donors

The dramatic price increases underline the fundraising committee’s emphasis on exclusivity, catering primarily to high-net-worth individuals and organizations seeking to secure influence. The $1 million contribution is positioned as not just a donation but a calculated move to align with Trump’s administration during its return to power.

In summary, Trump’s inauguration committee has raised the bar for donor contributions, reflecting both increased demand for access and a strategic shift toward exclusivity. While the enhanced price tags may deter smaller donors, they highlight the administration’s focus on courting top-tier supporters willing to invest in influence and proximity.

Trump Begins Second Term with Ambitious Policies Amid Mixed Reactions

Donald Trump has started his second term as President of the United States with a flurry of executive orders, policy announcements, and international reactions. On his first full day back in the White House, the president set the tone for his administration’s direction, emphasizing themes of strength, transparency, and economic growth.

A Bold Start: Executive Orders and National Emergency Declaration

On Monday, Trump initiated the process of withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Paris Climate Agreement. He also declared a national emergency at the southern border, citing the need to address immigration issues. Mexico’s President Claudia Scheinbaum criticized these moves, stating that the emergency declaration is a rehash of a similar order from 2019 and labeled the “Remain in Mexico” policy as a repeat from 2018. On a lighter note, Scheinbaum dismissed Trump’s directive to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” asserting that Mexico and the rest of the world would continue using its current name.

The president also granted nearly 1,600 pardons related to the Capitol riots of January 6, 2021. Many prisoners are expected to be released promptly, a move that has sparked intense debate.

Press Briefings Absent but Transparency Promised

Nearly a full day into Trump’s second term, the White House has yet to hold a press briefing. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in an interview with Fox News, stated that “the American people won’t be hearing from me today,” redirecting attention to Trump’s infrastructure announcement planned for later. Leavitt described Trump as “the most transparent president in history,” suggesting more direct interactions between the president and reporters in the future.

Reporters in the White House press area expressed eagerness for clarity on Trump’s policies and plans. News briefings typically offer opportunities to scrutinize presidential decisions and understand the administration’s perspective. These sessions can be tense, as seen during Joe Biden’s tenure, particularly when the press queried sensitive topics like the Gaza conflict or the president’s age.

Canada Responds to Tariff Threats

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to Trump’s renewed threat to impose 25% tariffs on Canadian imports, emphasizing the interconnectedness of the two countries’ economies. “Canadian energy powers American manufacturing, business, homes,” Trudeau remarked. Referring to Trump’s vision of a “golden age” for America, Trudeau noted that achieving it would require critical resources such as steel, aluminum, and minerals—many of which Canada provides.

Trudeau warned of retaliatory measures should the tariffs proceed. “Canada will respond—and everything is on the table,” he stated. Trump, meanwhile, has instructed his administration to review U.S. trade relationships, with findings expected by April 1.

Rubio Takes Helm as Secretary of State

Florida Senator Marco Rubio has been sworn in as Secretary of State, becoming the first member of Trump’s new cabinet to secure Senate approval. Known for his hawkish foreign policy stance, Rubio emphasized a transformative approach to U.S. diplomacy. “Does it make us stronger? Does it make us safer and does it make us more prosperous? If not, we will not do it,” he declared.

Rubio, who has a reputation for taking firm positions on issues involving Iran and China, described this period as a “new era” for U.S. foreign policy. He reiterated Trump’s focus on promoting peace as the primary goal of international engagement.

Infrastructure Announcement and Religious Observance

Today, Trump is scheduled to attend an interfaith prayer service at Washington, D.C.’s National Cathedral, joined by notable figures such as JD Vance. Later in the day, he plans to unveil a “massive announcement” regarding infrastructure. Leavitt hinted that this initiative would showcase America’s resurgence on the global stage, though no specific details were disclosed.

Global Reactions to U.S. Policies

International responses to Trump’s decisions have been swift and varied. Laurence Tubiana, a key architect of the Paris Climate Agreement, urged nations to persist with climate action despite the U.S. withdrawal. “We should not be frightened by shouting or declarations,” Tubiana asserted, adding, “Let’s not be derailed or distracted. It is a moment of courage I’m waiting for.”

In Germany, Chancellor Olaf Scholz commented on Elon Musk’s controversial gesture at Trump’s inauguration, which some compared to a Nazi salute. Scholz reiterated Germany’s commitment to freedom of speech while condemning any actions that support extremist views. Musk dismissed the criticism on social media, calling it a “tired attack.”

Challenges and Opportunities Ahead

Political analyst Anthony Zurcher highlighted the challenges and opportunities Trump faces in his second term. His policies on trade, climate, and immigration will shape both domestic and international perceptions. Meanwhile, his approach to transparency and press relations could redefine the dynamics of presidential accountability.

As the day unfolds, Trump’s actions will likely continue to spark debates, signaling an administration eager to implement its vision while navigating complex political landscapes. Whether these early moves will lead to the promised “golden age” remains to be seen.

Trump’s Inauguration Festivities and Protests Kick Off Ahead of Monday’s Ceremony

Festivities marking the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump have commenced, drawing both his supporters and protesters to Washington, D.C. The series of events, leading up to Monday’s swearing-in as the 47th president, began on Saturday with Trump’s arrival and a host of planned celebrations and demonstrations.

Trump’s schedule included his anticipated arrival at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, followed by a reception and a fireworks show at his Virginia golf course. Additionally, Vice President-elect Vance was set to be honored at a Cabinet reception and dinner at the National Gallery of Art that evening.

In parallel, the D.C. People’s March, spearheaded by multiple activist organizations, began on Saturday morning. The demonstration culminated in a rally outside the Lincoln Memorial at 3 p.m., where approximately 50,000 participants were expected. The march showcased impassioned calls for change, with chants of unity led by organizers.

On Sunday, Trump plans to host a rally at Capital One Arena in Washington, featuring speeches from notable allies, including tech entrepreneur Elon Musk. The event is also set to include performances by artists such as the Village People, Kid Rock, and Billy Ray Cyrus.

The weather played a significant role in reshaping the inaugural plans. Although Saturday was mild, the forecast of a snowstorm and freezing temperatures prompted the ceremony to be relocated inside the Capitol on Monday.

Trump Heads to Washington

At 4:35 p.m. on Saturday, President-elect Trump, joined by his wife, Melania, and their son, Barron, boarded a plane at Palm Beach International Airport. Waving from the top of the stairs, Trump set off for Washington to prepare for his inauguration.

Earlier in the afternoon, Trump’s adult children and their families also departed for Washington. Eric and Lara Trump, alongside Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, and their children, were seen boarding the family’s plane at the airport. Trump himself was expected to leave at 4:30 p.m., traveling aboard an official government aircraft.

Dignitaries to Attend the Inauguration

Vice President-elect Vance is expected to participate in Monday’s ceremony, joining a host of prominent figures, including current President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, and former President George W. Bush. The event’s relocation to an indoor venue underscores the logistical challenges posed by the severe weather.

Protests Amplify Voices

The People’s March, which concluded around 3 p.m. on Saturday, was marked by fervent chants of “I believe we will win!” as attendees rallied for justice and equality. Raquel Willis, co-founder of the Gender Liberation Movement, delivered a stirring speech urging attendees to assert their presence and power. “Take up space,” she proclaimed. “If you feel disempowered, if you feel angry and afraid, it’s time to take up space.”

Willis further emphasized inclusivity, advocating for autonomy and understanding across all gender identities. “If you know that women and girls and dolls and fems are the rulers of their own lives, take up space,” she declared. “If you know men and boys and masculine folk, especially my trans men and trans masculine folk, can be empathetic and understanding, take up space.”

Call for Ceasefire in Gaza

Palestinian rights advocate Iman Abid also addressed the crowd, urging an end to the ongoing violence in Gaza. As director of advocacy and organizing for the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, Abid called for a lasting ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and demanded the cessation of U.S. arms sales to Israel.

“Days ago, we learned that a temporary ceasefire deal has been reached after over 15 months of Israel bombarding Gaza and massacring tens of thousands of Palestinians,” Abid said. “This is urgently needed relief, but it is only the beginning. We will not stop until the occupation ends, the blockades are lifted, and the violence ends.”

Abid’s remarks echoed the broader political divide over U.S. policy toward Israel. The ongoing conflict in Gaza, exacerbated by Hamas’ invasion of Israel, has stirred heated debates within the Democratic Party, influencing the presidential primary.

Snowstorm Looms Over Washington

As festivities continue, Washington braces for a significant winter storm. The predicted snowfall and freezing temperatures have added a layer of urgency to the logistical arrangements for Monday’s inauguration. With Trump’s allies and detractors converging in the capital, the weekend is shaping up to be a pivotal moment, both in celebration and resistance.

The upcoming events promise a mix of jubilance and defiance, reflecting the complex emotions surrounding Trump’s presidency. As Washington prepares for the historic ceremony, all eyes remain on the unfolding dynamics of America’s political landscape.

Donald Trump Sworn In As The 47th US President

“The golden age of America begins right now,” declared Donald Trump in his inaugural address on January 20, 2025, immediately after he was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States. Trump said the US would “flourish and be respected” under his leadership. Trump is taking charge of the world’s most powerful nation, even as the Republicans claim unified control of Washington and setting out to reshape the country’s institutions.

Trump was sworn in by Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court John Roberts, marking a political comeback after being convicted of felonies. His running mate, JD Vance, was sworn in by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The ceremony was moved inside to the U.S. Capitol Rotunda because of frigid weather for only the first time since Ronald Reagan’s second inauguration 40 years ago.

Photos of the swearing-in show Trump with his hand at his side, not on the Bible, as has been a long held tradition. Using a Bible during the presidential oath is traditional but not required; only the oath is mandated by the Constitution. Theodore Roosevelt, John Quincy Adams, and Lyndon B. Johnson did not use a Bible for their oaths.

The high-profile, solemn ceremony was attended by, among others, Tech billionaires, including Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, cabinet nominees, and former presidents, who were all at the ceremony in the rotunda of the US Capitol. Country music star Carrie Underwood performed “America the Beautiful.”

President Donald Trump claimed today, January 20, 2025, is “liberation day.”  He went on to state that, “It is my hope that our recent presidential election will be remembered as the greatest and most consequential election in the history of our country.” Trump added that his presidential victory showed that “the entire nation is rapidly unifying behind our agenda with dramatic increases in support from virtually every element of our society.”

Inauguration ceremony for Trump's second presidential term
Photo Credit: Reuters

He went on to thank Black and Hispanic voters for “the tremendous outpouring of love and trust that you have shown me with your vote. We set records and I will not forget it,” the president said. “I’ve heard your voices on the campaign, and I look forward to working with you in the years to come.”

In his inaugural address Trump slammed the Biden administration — as former President Joe Biden sat steps away — for failing to “manage simple crisis at home. We now have a government that cannot manage a simple crisis at home while at the same time stumble into a continuing catalog of catastrophic events abroad,” Trump said.

Per reports, Trump is expected to sign an executive order declaring that the federal government would recognize only two genders as well as a series of orders aimed at remaking America’s immigration policies, including ending asylum access, sending troops to the southern border and ending birthright citizenship.

Focusing on immigration, a major focus of his new administration, Trump said, the government “fails to protect our magnificent law-abiding citizens but proves sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals. We have a government that has given unlimited funding to the defense of foreign borders but refuses to defend American borders or, more importantly, its own people.”

Hours before the change in US leadership, President Joe Biden issued pardons for Gen. Mark Milley, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and members of Congress who served on the committee investigating January 6. He also issued preemptive pardons for his brothers, James and Frank, his sister Valerie, and their spouses.

A coalition of veterans, public health professionals, teachers, and consumer advocates has filed a federal lawsuit against Trump’s special commission on government efficiency. Filed after Trump’s swearing-in, the suit seeks an injunction against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. It claims Trump is not complying with federal transparency laws and argues that private commission activities must be public. Trump mentioned DOGE, led by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, in his inauguration speech.

Rabbi Ari Berman, president of Yeshiva University, delivered the first benediction after Trump’s inaugural address. He is the second Orthodox rabbi to do so at a presidential inauguration. The tradition of clergy offering prayers at inaugurations dates back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s second inauguration in 1937. Rev. Lorenzo Sewell, pastor of 180 Church Detroit, delivered the second benediction, expressing gratitude for the “millimeter miracle” given to the 45th and 47th presidents.

Trump’s Unfulfilled Promises

Ordinarily, presidents wait until they are in the Oval Office before breaking campaign promises. However, Donald Trump began this process before Inauguration Day. As a candidate, Trump promised to lower grocery prices. As president-elect, he acknowledged that achieving this goal would be “very hard” and expressed uncertainty about his ability to do so.

Trump had claimed that Elon Musk would find ways to cut “at least $2 trillion” from the federal budget. As president-elect, his GOP megadonor publicly stated that the $2 trillion figure was more of a “best-case outcome” than a realistic goal, though there might still be a “good shot” at achieving half of it.

Perhaps most notably, Trump asserted during his campaign that he would successfully broker an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine within 24 hours, even during his transition period. He reiterated this promise during his presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, assuring Americans that “I will get it settled before I even become president.”

Despite these assurances, as Trump prepares to return to the White House, it is evident that this promise remains unfulfilled. Nearly three years after Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the war, Europe’s worst since World War II, continues with no end in sight. The New York Times published an analysis noting that Trump “not only has failed to keep his promise; he has also made no known serious effort to resolve the war since his election in November.”

In summary, the president-elect did not attempt to honor his commitment. This was not merely a one-time statement; according to data published by NOTUS, Trump told voters on 33 occasions that he would end the conflict within one day. A recent Reuters report added that the president-elect’s team now concedes “that the Ukraine war will take months or even longer to resolve, a sharp reality check on his biggest foreign policy promise.”

A New Beginning in 2025

Trump’s second inaugural speech today marked a major departure from his tone the first time he took the Oath of Office in 2017, when Trump put aside the typical optimism and promises of unity with a dark portrait of national life as he spoke of “American Carnage.” He had declared then,  “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it’s going to be America first.”

However, today, Trump portrayed himself in a positive manner. “Many people thought it was impossible for me to stage such a historic political comeback, but as you see here today, here I am,” Trump said in his inaugural address in 2025. “I stand before you now as proof that you should never believe that something is impossible to do in America,” he went on, adding: “In America, the impossible is what we do best.”

Biden’s Final Farewell: A Reflective End to a Half-Century Political Journey

As President Joe Biden delivered his farewell addresses to his diplomatic corps, military leaders, and the nation, the scene contrasted sharply with the vision he had for the end of his political career. After over 50 years in Washington, Biden’s departure on Monday is marked by reluctance, as he firmly believes he had more to contribute. However, questions about his health and vitality linger.

Biden’s record in office is a mixture of achievements and lingering frustrations. His political career’s conclusion has left him estranged from some former allies who urged him to step aside. Many Democrats blame him for paving the way for Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Furthermore, his relationship with Vice President Kamala Harris has become strained, adding complexity to his final days in office.

As Biden departs Washington on his helicopter, the city he leaves behind is now under the control of his rival Trump. Biden’s ambition to solidify his legacy as the leader who vanquished Trump once and for all has given way to a more somber reality. Instead of being remembered as a transformative statesman, Biden fears he will be seen as an interim figure between two Trump administrations.

“While my term in office is ending, the work continues,” Biden said during a speech to mayors on Friday, signaling hope for the future while reflecting on his presidency.

A Term Defined by Highs and Lows

Biden’s presidency was eventful, defined by significant challenges and mixed outcomes. He guided the nation out of a devastating pandemic but faced criticism for the inflation that followed, partly fueled by his stimulus spending. Although he ended Trump-era immigration policies deemed inhumane, the surge in illegal crossings and the eventual reinstatement of some restrictions sparked backlash.

In foreign policy, Biden made the historic decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan, ending the nation’s longest war. However, the chaotic and deadly withdrawal left a lasting stain on his administration. The war in Ukraine saw renewed alliances with Western nations, but the conflict continues with no clear resolution. In the Middle East, Biden brokered a last-minute ceasefire in Gaza, but critics noted Trump’s role in securing the deal.

Domestically, Biden’s investments in infrastructure and manufacturing created thousands of jobs, fostering new industries. Yet, as Biden himself acknowledged, “It will take time to feel the full impact of all we’ve done together. But the seeds are planted, and they’ll grow and they’ll bloom for decades to come.”

A Legacy of Contradictions

Biden’s efforts to restore normalcy to the presidency after Trump’s tumultuous years were overshadowed by decisions such as pardoning his son, Hunter. Despite criticism, he remains hopeful that history will ultimately recognize the merits of his administration.

During a 19-minute farewell address from the Oval Office, Biden emphasized the long-term impact of his presidency rather than listing immediate accomplishments. He also warned against the rise of a “tech-industrial complex” that he believes threatens democratic institutions. Critics, however, noted his reliance on financial support from billionaires, including those in Silicon Valley and Wall Street.

“He’s forever frustrated we didn’t tell a good enough story about what the administration did,” a senior White House official remarked, highlighting Biden’s concerns about how his achievements were communicated to the public.

Biden’s allies remain optimistic about his legacy. “I think historians are not gonna be dealing with sound bites… They’re going to deal with the substance, and on substance, I think you’re going to find that Joe Biden is going to be treated very, very well,” said Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.

Strained Dynamics with Harris

As Biden’s presidency concludes, his comments about the election have strained his relationship with Kamala Harris. Biden has suggested in private conversations and interviews that he could have defeated Trump had he not been pressured to step aside. “It’s presumptuous to say that, but I think yes, based on the polling,” Biden told USA Today. However, polling data offered no such indication.

Every mention of Biden’s belief that he could have won is seen as a slight against Harris, who ultimately failed to defeat Trump. A former Harris adviser noted, “It’s a sign of disrespect whether he intends it or not.”

Although Biden has not directly criticized Harris, his remarks have caused friction within the Democratic Party. Harris’ supporters have expressed frustration over her unwavering loyalty to Biden during her campaign, with one former adviser commenting, “She was loyal to her detriment.”

The tension between Biden and Harris became evident when Biden modified his language after a conversation with Harris about his election comments. “I think I would have beaten Trump, could’ve beaten Trump,” Biden said. “I think Kamala could have beaten Trump, would have beaten Trump.” While the adjustment aimed to acknowledge Harris’ efforts, it further frustrated her supporters.

Despite these tensions, Harris has maintained a public show of unity with Biden. In the final days of their partnership, she stood by his side during key moments, including the announcement of the Middle East ceasefire deal and his farewell address from the Oval Office.

Reflecting on the Road Ahead

Biden’s departure from public office marks the end of a remarkable political career. As the nation’s youngest senator in 1972 and its oldest president, Biden is set to enter private life while remaining engaged in public discourse. “I’m not going to be out of sight or out of mind,” he assured reporters.

Biden’s post-presidency plans include raising funds for a presidential library and potentially writing a book. His legacy, however, remains a topic of debate. Democratic leaders have expressed a desire to move past the 2024 election losses. “This is our reality, and we have to move forward,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove of California.

Harris, 22 years younger than Biden, faces a different set of challenges. Many believe her political career is far from over, with possibilities ranging from a 2026 bid for California governor to a 2028 presidential campaign. “It is not my nature to go quietly into the night,” Harris told staffers, signaling her intent to remain active in politics.

A Complicated Legacy

As Biden and Harris part ways, their final days reflect the divergent paths they will take. Biden’s focus will shift to solidifying his legacy and ensuring his contributions are recognized. Harris, on the other hand, must navigate the challenges of shaping her own political future.

For Biden, the hope remains that time will provide a more favorable assessment of his presidency. “The seeds are planted,” he said, “and they’ll grow and they’ll bloom for decades to come.” Whether those seeds bear fruit as he hopes, only history will tell.

Biden’s Presidency Marred by Supreme Court Defeats as Conservative Majority Dominates

During his tenure as president, Joe Biden faced a string of significant defeats at the U.S. Supreme Court, where the conservative-dominated bench dismantled parts of his agenda and upended legal precedents long upheld by liberals.

The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, delivered one of its most seismic rulings in 2022 by overturning Roe v. Wade, a 1973 landmark decision that had guaranteed the constitutional right to abortion. Despite the Biden administration’s efforts to safeguard it, the ruling marked a major blow to reproductive rights.

In 2023, the court further undermined Biden’s priorities by striking down race-conscious admissions policies at colleges and universities. These policies, long defended by his administration, were designed to boost representation among Black, Hispanic, and other minority students. Additional setbacks followed, including the court’s decision to expand gun rights in 2022 and, in 2024, invalidate a federal ban on bump stocks, devices enabling semiautomatic weapons to mimic machine guns.

One of the most striking defeats came in 2023 when the justices blocked Biden’s $430 billion student loan relief program. The court also curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory reach as part of broader efforts to limit the power of federal agencies.

Legal experts compared the scope of these defeats to challenges faced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, whose New Deal initiatives were struck down by a similarly conservative Supreme Court. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley Law School, noted, “I think it is the toughest series of defeats since Franklin Roosevelt… had many New Deal programs declared unconstitutional.”

John Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer under President George W. Bush, echoed this sentiment, stating, “It’s hard to think of another president in our lifetimes who lost so many high-profile cases on issues so near and dear to his constitutional agenda.”

Conservative Majority Solidified Under Trump

Biden’s presidency began just months after the Senate confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s third appointee, cementing a solid conservative majority. Trump’s other nominees—Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—joined Barrett and fellow conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito to form the 6-3 divide.

In contrast, Biden managed to appoint only one justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who became the first Black woman on the court. However, her appointment replaced another liberal justice, Stephen Breyer, leaving the court’s ideological balance unchanged.

As Biden’s presidency concludes, Trump’s second term could allow him to further shape the judiciary. By potentially replacing senior conservative justices with younger counterparts—or even filling a liberal vacancy—Trump could ensure a long-lasting conservative influence.

Chemerinsky attributed Biden’s judicial losses to the “ideological difference between the Supreme Court’s majority and the Biden administration.” These defeats underscored Biden’s frustration, with the president at one point describing the court as “not a normal court.”

In his final year, Biden proposed significant judicial reforms, including term limits for justices and enforceable ethics rules. He argued that “extreme opinions that the Supreme Court has handed down have undermined long-established civil rights principles and protections.” However, these proposals found no traction in a Republican-controlled Congress.

Conservative Legal Philosophy and Administrative Constraints

John Yoo criticized Biden’s administration for failing to adapt to the court’s conservative approach, which emphasizes the Constitution’s “original understanding, history, and tradition.” He argued, “By refusing to accept this change, the administration rendered itself irrelevant on the most important constitutional questions of the day. That is a recipe for defeat.”

The Supreme Court’s conservative bloc has been advancing a campaign to rein in federal agencies, a movement sometimes referred to as a “war on the administrative state.” This philosophy proved instrumental in high-profile rulings during Biden’s presidency.

Faced with a gridlocked Congress, Democratic presidents have increasingly relied on federal agencies to enact policy. However, during Biden’s term, the court embraced the major questions doctrine, a principle granting judges discretion to invalidate agency actions with significant economic or political impact unless Congress explicitly authorized them.

This doctrine was pivotal in the court’s decision to block Biden’s student debt relief program and restrict the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants.

Cornell Law School professor Gautam Hans highlighted the challenges this posed, noting, “The environmental law and student loan cases show how disdainful the court is of Democratic executive action, precisely because the lack of congressional movement means that executive action remains the only avenue for any kind of policy progress in the U.S.”

In another blow to regulatory power, the court in 2024 overturned the Chevron deference, a 1984 precedent that required courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws. This longstanding principle had been a target of conservative and business interests.

Limited Wins for Biden

While major defeats dominated Biden’s record at the Supreme Court, his administration did secure some victories. In a significant ruling, the justices upheld a law requiring the sale of TikTok by its Chinese parent company or its ban in the U.S., citing national security concerns.

Additionally, the court preserved the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and upheld a law barring individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms.

However, other cases resulted in more tentative victories. The court dismissed several challenges against Biden-backed policies due to a lack of legal standing, including cases involving access to the abortion pill mifepristone, immigration enforcement priorities, and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

Hans cautioned that these outcomes were not definitive triumphs, explaining, “These cases didn’t really resound to validate political goals of the Biden administration.” Instead, he warned that the issues might return in future cases, potentially leading to adverse rulings.

Trump’s Legal Wins

While Biden grappled with setbacks, Trump enjoyed notable victories at the Supreme Court, particularly in cases addressing presidential immunity.

In 2023, the court ruled in favor of Trump’s request for immunity following his indictment on federal charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The decision marked the first time the court recognized presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts. Biden criticized the decision as setting “a dangerous precedent.”

Steve Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, observed that Biden’s challenges reflect broader trends in the court’s jurisprudence. These include curbing federal agency powers and expanding presidential authority. Schwinn remarked, “We’ll see this immediately in the second Trump administration, with a president who has promised to take full advantage of these trends.”

Biden’s presidency may ultimately be remembered for its confrontation with a Supreme Court determined to reshape the balance of power in American governance. As Trump prepares to assume office again, the court’s conservative majority appears poised to continue its transformative agenda.

Trump’s Inauguration Moved Indoors Amid Frigid Weather Concerns

President-elect Donald Trump announced Friday that his inauguration will be moved indoors due to dangerously cold temperatures forecasted for the nation’s capital. “I have ordered the Inauguration Address, in addition to prayers and other speeches, to be delivered in the United States Capitol Rotunda, as was used by Ronald Reagan in 1985, also because of very cold weather,” Trump stated on Truth Social.

He further revealed that Capital One Arena would open on Monday to facilitate live viewing of the event and host the Presidential Parade. “I will join the crowd at Capital One, after my Swearing In,” Trump added.

Indoor Venue Confirmed

Reports earlier in the day from CNN indicated plans for Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance to take their oaths inside the Capitol Rotunda. Discussions were also underway regarding the use of Capital One Arena, where Trump is scheduled to hold a rally on Sunday, for some of the inaugural festivities.

The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies issued a statement confirming the move: “The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies will honor the request of the President-elect and his Presidential Inaugural Committee to move the 60th Inaugural Ceremonies inside the U.S. Capitol to the Rotunda.”

Such contingency plans are always considered to accommodate weather or other unforeseen obstacles, but the shift raises logistical concerns. The Rotunda’s limited capacity leaves the committee grappling with how to accommodate the thousands of ticketed guests who were to attend the outdoor ceremony.

In a notice to ticket holders, the committee explained, “The vast majority of ticketed guests will not be able to attend the ceremonies in person.” Spectators were encouraged to view the event at designated indoor venues, with further details promised. Members of Congress and those with tickets for the Presidential Platform, however, will retain in-person access.

Adjusting Security Measures

The Secret Service, alongside the DC and U.S. Capitol Police, is working to revise security plans for the event, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the matter. This shift presents a logistical challenge, as agencies must condense months of preparation into a three-day window.

Trump’s inauguration, initially planned as an outdoor ceremony and parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, had been declared a National Special Security Event by the Department of Homeland Security, triggering extensive federal coordination. More than 30 miles of fencing had already been erected to manage the anticipated crowds, which law enforcement estimated would include hundreds of thousands of attendees.

By moving the ceremony indoors, security requirements may become more manageable in certain aspects, sources told CNN. The Rotunda, with a capacity of about 700 people, will only admit members of Congress, their spouses, and VIPs. Public access will be restricted, and attendees have been redirected to Capital One Arena, which has a seating capacity of just over 20,000.

However, this adjustment leaves a significant gap, as over 200,000 tickets were distributed for the outdoor inauguration. In a communication to congressional offices, the Sergeant at Arms clarified, “The weather plan precludes the vast majority of ticketed guests from attending the ceremonies in person.” Tickets are being offered as commemorative keepsakes for those unable to attend.

Security measures for the arena and its surroundings remain under discussion between the Secret Service, DC police, and other agencies.

Health and Weather Concerns

Trump emphasized his concerns for the health and safety of attendees, citing the extreme cold as a risk. “I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way. It is dangerous conditions for the tens of thousands of Law Enforcement, First Responders, Police K9s and even horses, and hundreds of thousands of supporters that will be outside for many hours on the 20th (In any event, if you decide to come, dress warmly!),” he posted on Truth Social.

The last time a U.S. president was inaugurated indoors was in 1985, during Ronald Reagan’s second term. Temperatures that year reached a daytime high of just 7 degrees, with wind chills plunging to -25. Reagan took his oath inside the Capitol Rotunda, and the inaugural parade was canceled.

The dangers of frigid weather during such events are well documented. President William Henry Harrison, in 1841, is believed to have contracted pneumonia after delivering a two-hour inaugural address outdoors without wearing a coat or hat. He died one month later.

Forecast for Inauguration Day

This year’s inauguration day weather is shaping up to be the coldest since Reagan’s second inauguration. Temperatures at noon, when Trump is scheduled to take the oath, are expected to be in the low 20s—approximately 20 degrees below average for this time of year.

Wind gusts of 10 to 20 mph, with peaks of up to 30 mph, will create even harsher conditions, making it feel like 10 degrees during the day and potentially dropping wind chills to single digits after sunset.

A mix of rain and snow is predicted for Sunday, the day before the inauguration, but Monday is forecasted to be dry, albeit cold and windy.

Conclusion

While the decision to move the inauguration indoors prioritizes safety, it has necessitated significant adjustments for attendees and security personnel alike. Capital One Arena and designated viewing venues will play a crucial role in accommodating the public as the nation witnesses this historic event.

U.S. Department of State Enhances Travel and Visa Services to Meet Record Demand

The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs has undertaken major initiatives to address unprecedented demand for travel documents and improve accessibility for Americans. With innovative measures and technological advancements, the Department aims to streamline processes and meet the needs of millions of travelers while bolstering the economy.

In 2024, the Department launched its most extensive expansion of passport services in decades, introducing plans to open six new passport agencies across the country. This effort is intended to make essential services more accessible to millions of Americans. That same year, the Department achieved a milestone by reducing passport processing times to 4–6 weeks, the fastest in over five years. Between 2021 and 2024, the Department issued an extraordinary 90 million U.S. passports, bringing the total number of valid passports in circulation to a record-breaking 170 million.

The State Department also highlighted the growing accessibility of travel to the U.S., facilitated by its consular operations. A statement from the Department noted, “Today, more people can safely and securely travel to the United States than ever before. Since 2021, U.S. embassies and consulates abroad have issued approximately 30 million nonimmigrant visas, with a record 11.5 million visas issued in FY 2024 alone. These efforts have facilitated legitimate travel while safeguarding U.S. borders, fueling the $2.3 trillion travel and tourism sector, and supporting an estimated 10 million American jobs.”

One of the Department’s most significant advancements was the September 2024 launch of the Online Passport Renewal (OPR) platform. This new service allows U.S. citizens to complete passport renewals entirely online, including uploading a digital photo. Over 1.5 million citizens have already used the platform, with millions more expected to benefit from its convenience. By integrating OPR and improving staffing and technology, the Department has often exceeded its advertised processing times.

In addition to passport services, visa processing has seen considerable innovation. In 2024, the Department piloted a domestic visa renewal program for skilled workers. This initiative enables visa holders to renew their visas within the U.S., removing the need for international travel. The program has supported over 6,000 applicants from 2,400 companies, minimizing disruptions and enhancing productivity across industries.

To attract and retain global talent in research and academia, the Department revised the Exchange Visitor Skills List. This change aims to support U.S. universities and businesses in advancing cutting-edge work, particularly in science and technology, by fostering innovation and maintaining the nation’s competitive edge.

The Department has also demonstrated its commitment during crises, providing critical support to Americans abroad. Since 2021, more than 10,000 U.S. citizens have been evacuated from high-risk areas, including Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Haiti, Sudan, and Niger. These operations utilized a variety of resources, such as boats, buses, and helicopters. Embassies, consulates, and task forces worked tirelessly to assist Americans in need, underscoring the Department’s dedication to safeguarding its citizens during emergencies.

“We have also empowered U.S. travelers, providing the tools they need to make informed, confident decisions about their overseas travel. By enhancing travel advisories to include warnings about wrongful detentions by foreign governments, we are helping Americans to stay safer abroad,” the statement added.

The Department’s focus on supporting Afghan allies who served alongside U.S. personnel during two decades of conflict has also seen remarkable progress. Since January 2021, over 78,000 Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) have been issued to Afghan allies, accounting for more than half of all SIVs granted since the program’s inception in 2009. This achievement underscores the U.S.’s commitment to honoring those who contributed to its mission and shared its values.

Through these initiatives, the Bureau of Consular Affairs continues to meet growing demand while ensuring the safety, security, and convenience of American and global travelers. Its efforts not only facilitate legitimate travel but also significantly contribute to the economy and uphold U.S. leadership in innovation and global diplomacy.

Jack Smith Defends Rule of Law Amid Controversy Over Trump Investigation

Special counsel Jack Smith, in a highly anticipated report released on Tuesday, defended his team’s work investigating former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Smith emphasized that his decision to bring criminal charges against Trump was firmly rooted in the belief that the evidence would have led to a conviction, had Trump not been re-elected in 2024.

“Our team stood up for the rule of law,” Smith wrote, adding that Trump’s actions were marked by “deceit — knowingly false claims of election fraud — used as a weapon to undermine a fundamental democratic process.”

The report, published just days before Trump’s return to the White House on January 20, casts a harsh light on the Republican leader’s failed attempts to cling to power after losing to Joe Biden in 2020. It serves as the Justice Department’s final account of events that threatened the bedrock principle of a peaceful transfer of power, complementing previously released indictments and investigations.

Trump responded with a defiant post on Truth Social, declaring his innocence and dismissing Smith as “a lamebrain prosecutor who failed to get his case tried before the election.” He concluded with, “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”

Legal and Procedural Challenges

In August 2023, Trump was indicted on charges related to efforts to overturn the election. However, the case was delayed by appeals and ultimately stymied by a conservative-majority Supreme Court ruling that former presidents enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

According to Smith’s report, the Supreme Court decision introduced unresolved legal questions that would have required further litigation. While Smith sought to press forward, longstanding Justice Department policies prohibit the indictment or prosecution of a sitting president.

“The Department’s position that the Constitution bars prosecuting a president is absolute and unaffected by the seriousness of the charges or the strength of the evidence,” the report stated. “Had it not been for Mr. Trump’s re-election, we believed the evidence was sufficient to secure a conviction at trial.”

Faced with these constraints, Smith’s team dismissed the indictment in November 2023.

Trump’s Attempts to Subvert the Election

The report provides an exhaustive account of Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, describing them as an “unprecedented criminal campaign to retain power.” These included pressuring the Justice Department to pursue baseless fraud claims, orchestrating a scheme involving fake electors in battleground states, and inciting an angry mob to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

One particularly contentious moment occurred when Trump clashed with then-Vice President Mike Pence. On the morning of January 6, Trump urged Pence to refuse to certify the electoral vote count. When Pence resisted, Trump reportedly expressed anger and instructed staff to include language targeting Pence in his speech at the Ellipse.

The report also sheds light on Trump’s attempts to intimidate state and federal officials, judges, and election workers through social media.

“Mr. Trump’s conduct during the investigation and his use of platforms like Twitter to attack those who opposed his false claims of election fraud were part of a broader strategy of intimidation,” Smith wrote.

Defense Against Criticism

In the report, Smith strongly refuted accusations by Trump and his allies that the investigation was politically motivated or carried out in collaboration with the Biden administration.

“The suggestion that our inquiry was influenced by political bias is laughable,” Smith stated, adding, “While we could not bring the case to trial, our commitment to the rule of law and justice remains critical.”

Smith also detailed the obstacles his team faced, including Trump’s frequent invocation of executive privilege to block witness testimony and his use of social media to target prosecutors, witnesses, and courts.

Weighing Charges

The special counsel’s report offers insights into the decisions behind the charges brought against Trump. Smith’s team opted not to charge Trump with incitement due to concerns about free speech and declined to pursue insurrection charges, citing legal uncertainty about trying a sitting president for an offense with no historical precedent.

Additionally, the report confirmed that a separate volume detailing Trump’s handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago remains sealed.

Closing Reflections

In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland included with the report, Smith emphasized the broader significance of the investigation.

“Even though we were unable to prosecute the case, the example set by our team — fighting for justice despite personal costs — is what matters most,” Smith wrote.

He concluded with a call to vigilance, urging future administrations to safeguard democratic processes against efforts to subvert them.

Joe Biden’s Tumultuous Presidency: Achievements, Missteps, and the Road to Trump’s Return

Standing at a lectern in Washington’s National Cathedral, Joe Biden eulogized former President Jimmy Carter as three former presidents—Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama—and Donald Trump looked on. Biden, like Carter, is a one-term president. The parallels were evident as Biden paid tribute to Carter, commending his foresight and achievements in civil rights, peace, nuclear non-proliferation, and environmental protection.

“Many think he was from a bygone era, but in reality, he saw well into the future,” Biden said.

Earlier that week, Biden reflected on his own presidency. “I hope history says I came in with a plan to restore the economy and America’s global leadership,” he stated in an interview. “And I hope it records that I did it with honesty and integrity.”

As Biden prepares to leave office with approval ratings near their lowest at 39%, history’s judgment remains uncertain. His presidency ends with his 2020 opponent, Donald Trump, poised to reclaim power, framing Biden’s tenure as a bridge between Trump’s two terms.

Author and strategist Susan Estrich summarized Biden’s legacy as one tied to Trump. “He’d like his legacy to be that he rescued us from Trump. But sadly, for him, it’s Trump again.”

Early Missteps and Challenges

Biden’s presidency faced setbacks from its early days. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 was a turning point. Though the Trump administration had negotiated the exit, Biden approved it despite military advisors’ warnings. The resulting turmoil in Kabul damaged Biden’s approval, which fell below 50% and never recovered.

Domestically, inflation surged past 5% for the first time in 30 years by mid-2021. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Biden initially called it “transitory,” a stance contradicted by economists like Larry Summers. By June 2022, inflation peaked at 9.1%, forcing the administration to concede its miscalculations. Although inflation later dropped below 3%, public sentiment remained pessimistic.

The administration also struggled with the post-Covid surge in undocumented migration and was unprepared for Republican-led efforts to relocate migrants to northern cities. Other crises—shortages in Covid tests, rising egg prices, and the overturning of Roe v. Wade—compounded public dissatisfaction.

While many challenges were global in scope, including the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, they heightened the stakes for Biden, who sought to position Democrats as a competent counterweight to authoritarian regimes.

Biden’s Public Perception

Biden’s communication skills, once praised, appeared diminished. A senior White House official noted, “Watching Biden speak, I’m like, oh my God, this is a different person.” Special counsel Robert Hur’s report on Biden’s handling of classified documents described him as an “elderly man with a poor memory,” reinforcing Republican attacks on his age.

The administration restricted Biden’s media interactions and carefully scripted his public appearances. Yet verbal gaffes and stumbles became ammunition for opponents. Biden’s age became a defining issue, particularly as his performance in public events appeared inconsistent.

Legislative Wins and Long-Term Goals

Despite challenges, Biden’s administration achieved significant legislative milestones. Early successes included the $2 trillion American Rescue Plan, which funded Covid vaccine distribution and reduced child poverty to record lows. His bipartisan infrastructure bill allocated $1 trillion to transportation, clean energy, and broadband expansion.

However, critics like historian Brent Cebul argued that the administration’s focus on long-term policy outcomes was out of sync with voters’ immediate needs. Biden himself admitted the delay in tangible benefits during a later interview.

Internal Struggles and Political Battles

Biden’s team excelled at navigating narrow congressional majorities, but internal dynamics became strained over time. A senior official admitted that as progress stalled, “infighting and frustration” grew. The administration faced mounting Republican opposition, including hearings on Afghanistan, Hunter Biden’s business dealings, and an impeachment inquiry in September 2023.

Biden’s presidency was marked by two distinct phases, says Cebul. The early period saw major accomplishments, but the later years were defined by less focus and greater public dissatisfaction.

A Beleaguered Re-election Campaign

On April 25, 2023, Biden announced his re-election campaign, framing it as a battle against Trump’s “extremists.” He championed “Bidenomics,” touting economic growth and inflation reduction. However, his message failed to resonate with many Americans.

During a June 2023 trip to Chicago, Biden emphasized restoring the American dream. “Bidenomics is about the future,” he declared. Yet his halting delivery and missteps undermined the message. Cebul criticized Biden’s focus on economic success, calling it “discordant” given public sentiment.

Despite internal and external doubts, Biden maintained he was the best candidate to defeat Trump. “I’m not a young guy,” he acknowledged in a campaign ad, “but I understand how to get things done for the American people.”

New Crises: Hamas and Hunter Biden

The October 7 Hamas attack on Israel added another challenge to Biden’s presidency. While Biden cautioned Israel against overreach, domestic support for his handling of the conflict waned.

Meanwhile, Hunter Biden’s legal troubles, including a gun charge conviction and tax-related indictments, became a distraction. Biden’s decision to pardon his son after November’s election drew widespread criticism.

The End of a Presidency

Biden’s campaign effectively ended during a June debate with Trump in Atlanta. His confused performance reinforced concerns about his age and capabilities. Trump’s subsequent resurgence, marked by a unified party convention and response to an assassination attempt, solidified his lead.

In July, Biden withdrew from the race. Kamala Harris, Biden’s chosen successor, lost to Trump in the general election, sealing the final judgment on Biden’s political career as one of defeat.

Reflecting on Biden’s decision to seek re-election, Estrich argued, “We should have had primaries. His successor would have had time to make the case.”

Biden’s Legacy in Retrospect

Had Biden stepped aside after one term, his legacy might have been different. Avoiding a grueling campaign could have allowed him to be remembered for legislative achievements rather than missteps.

With Trump’s imminent return to office, much of Biden’s work faces potential dismantling. Attorney General Merrick Garland succinctly captured the uncertainty surrounding Biden’s legacy: “I’ll leave that to the historians.”

As Biden departs the White House, his presidency is framed by the successes of his early years and the challenges that defined its conclusion. His ultimate place in history rests on how the next chapter of American politics unfolds.

Wind-Fueled Wildfires Threaten Los Angeles Area, Push Firefighters to Their Limits

A growing force of firefighters arrived in the Los Angeles area on Monday, preparing for another round of fierce winds expected to spark new wildfires and potentially undo recent progress in battling devastating blazes. These wildfires have already claimed at least 24 lives and destroyed thousands of homes.

Reinforcements, including water trucks and planes loaded with fire retardants, came from across the United States as well as Canada and Mexico. The National Weather Service warned that conditions over the next few days could turn “particularly dangerous,” with gusts in the mountains expected to reach up to 65 mph (105 kph). Dennis Burns, a fire behavior analyst, cautioned at a community meeting on Sunday night that Tuesday would likely be the most perilous day.

Sunday’s relative lull allowed some evacuees to return home, but the respite also brought grim news: the death toll rose late Sunday after a report from the Los Angeles County medical examiner. Authorities revealed that 16 people remained missing, with the number expected to climb further as search efforts continued.

In a chilling reminder of the destruction, a car drove past homes and vehicles reduced to ash by the Palisades Fire in the Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates on Sunday, January 12, 2025. The area has become emblematic of the destruction caused by the Santa Ana winds, which have been a key factor in turning last week’s small wildfires into raging infernos.

The fires have ravaged areas around Los Angeles, a region that has seen no significant rainfall for over eight months. In less than a week, four major wildfires have consumed more than 62 square miles (160 square kilometers), an area roughly three times the size of Manhattan.

The Eaton Fire near Pasadena and the Palisades Fire along the Pacific Coast have been particularly destructive. While firefighters have made significant strides in containing these blazes, with the Eaton Fire now about one-third contained, the forecasted high winds could exacerbate the situation. These conditions may lead to rapid fire growth and spark new blazes in areas that have so far remained unscathed, creating additional challenges for already exhausted crews.

“We are prepared for the upcoming wind event,” said Los Angeles County Fire Chief Anthony C. Marrone. He confirmed the arrival of 70 additional water trucks to bolster efforts against flames that could spread quickly with the renewed gusts. Fire retardants dropped by aircraft are being deployed to create barriers along vulnerable hillsides, offering some hope of limiting the damage.

Meanwhile, residents have taken matters into their own hands in some areas. In Topanga Canyon, a community of artists, musicians, and friends joined forces to prevent fires from spreading by shutting off gas lines and propane tanks. Their quick actions may have saved several homes, according to Derek Mabra, who witnessed the devastation firsthand.

“We helped hopefully save a couple of houses, and we put out a couple of spot fires,” Mabra said as he drove along the coast, surveying the destruction. “It’s complete and total devastation.”

As the battle against these wildfires continues, firefighters and residents alike brace for the dangerous winds ahead, knowing that their efforts over the coming days could be the difference between further catastrophe and eventual recovery.

Paris Hilton Shares Heartbreak Over Malibu Home Lost in Pacific Palisades Fire

Paris Hilton has shared her grief and devastation over the Pacific Palisades Fire, returning to the ruins of her Malibu home and expressing hope that Los Angeles will rebuild and recover from this tragedy.

The socialite and reality television star posted a video of herself walking through what remains of her once-beautiful home. The clip captures the heartbreaking scene, with walls reduced to rubble and small flames still smoldering amid the destruction. “There’s nothing left to destroy,” she revealed, as the fire had consumed everything.

In an emotional caption accompanying the video shared Thursday night, Paris described her pain as “indescribable” and likened it to her heart shattering into “a million pieces.” She reflected on the cherished memories she created in the home with her family, noting how the loss was even harder to bear knowing that thousands of others are enduring the same sorrow.

Despite the tragedy, Paris acknowledged her fortune in the midst of such devastation, emphasizing the safety of her loved ones, including her children and pets. “I am so grateful that everyone I love is safe,” she wrote, extending her heartfelt gratitude to the first responders who have risked their lives to battle the flames and protect others.

In a message of resilience, Paris promised that Los Angeles would rise again. “We will rebuild, heal, and rise like a phoenix from the ashes,” she stated, urging people to hold their loved ones close and to treasure every moment.

Earlier this week, Paris learned of her Malibu property’s destruction. While the beachfront home was not her primary residence, its loss remains deeply personal. Paris, known for her luxurious lifestyle and multiple homes, has shown that even icons of glamour are not immune to the impact of such disasters.

In the wake of the tragedy, Paris has received an outpouring of support from her famous friends. Celebrities like Jessica Alba and Gigi Gorgeous have reached out on social media, sending love and strength during this challenging time.

The Pacific Palisades Fire continues to rage, having already burned through nearly 20,000 acres of land. The fire is one of several blazes wreaking havoc across the region, including the Eaton Fire in northeastern Los Angeles. As these wildfires persist, they serve as a stark reminder of the immense challenges communities face in recovering and rebuilding.

Paris Hilton’s story reflects not only her personal loss but also the collective grief and resilience of those affected by this devastating natural disaster.

Trump Sentenced in “Hush Money” Case, Escapes Jail Time

On Friday, President-elect Donald Trump appeared virtually from his Mar-a-Lago residence for his sentencing in the New York “hush money” case. He was granted an unconditional discharge, meaning he faced no jail time or other restrictions ahead of his inauguration on January 20. Justice Juan Merchan, who had made a promise a week earlier, adhered to his commitment by giving Trump a sentence free of any conditions that could hinder his presidency.

Merchan explained that the decision stemmed from his belief that it was the only legal option, considering Trump was just 10 days away from assuming office. He remarked that while the trial had been extraordinary in nature, the trial itself had followed normal legal procedures. However, Merchan noted that the circumstances surrounding Trump’s sentencing were unprecedented due to his imminent return to the presidency. He clarified that the extraordinary nature of the case was not linked to Trump, but rather the legal protections afforded by the office of the president. “This has been a truly extraordinary case,” Merchan remarked. “But because of the office you once occupied and will soon occupy again, the legal protections afforded to the office were extraordinary.”

The judge emphasized that these protections, although significant, were not a mitigating factor. They did not reduce the seriousness of the crimes Trump was convicted for, nor did they erase the jury’s verdict. Merchan concluded that the only lawful sentence, one that did not encroach on the office of the president, was an unconditional discharge. He stated that had Trump been a civilian, he may not have received such leniency.

During the proceedings, Trump was seen virtually alongside his attorney, Todd Blanche. Trump had the opportunity to address the court, describing the trial as “a very terrible experience” and “a tremendous setback for New York.” He expressed his frustration at being indicted for what he believed was a legitimate expense. “With all the horrible things that are going on, I got indicted for calling a legal expense a legal expense,” Trump stated, referring to the falsified reimbursements that formed the heart of the case.

Trump called the investigation a “political witch hunt” aimed at damaging his reputation and preventing his victory in the 2016 election. “It was done to damage my reputation so that I’d lose the election, and obviously, that didn’t work,” he added. Trump also maintained his innocence, stating, “The fact is I’m totally innocent. I did nothing wrong.”

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, ahead of the sentencing, accused Trump of attacking the judicial system and prosecutors. He argued that Trump’s actions had been a direct assault on the rule of law and that the former president had not expressed any remorse for his crimes. “Far from expressing any kind of remorse for his criminal conduct, the defendant has purposefully bred disdain for our judicial institutions and the rule of law,” Steinglass stated. “He’s done this to serve his own ends, and to encourage others to reject the jury verdict that he finds so distasteful.”

Steinglass further argued that Trump’s actions had caused lasting harm to public perception of the criminal justice system, endangering officers of the court. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was present in the courtroom but chose not to address the court during the proceedings.

Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, disagreed with Steinglass’ assessment, claiming that not only Trump but also experts and many American citizens, particularly those who voted for Trump, felt the case should never have been pursued. He asserted that the prosecution was unjust and echoed Trump’s sentiment that the case was politically motivated. “It’s not just Trump and experts cited by Trump who feel the case should not have been brought, but the majority of the American people, particularly those who voted for the Republican in November,” Blanche stated.

Trump’s legal team had been battling Manhattan prosecutors since 2018, when the “hush money” investigation began. They contested subpoenas and rulings by Merchan, even taking their case to the U.S. Supreme Court multiple times. One such instance occurred earlier this week, when the court refused to intervene on Trump’s behalf, clearing the way for the sentencing.

After the high court’s decision, Trump expressed his thoughts, admitting that he found the Supreme Court’s decision fair. “I thought it was a fair decision, actually,” Trump said, noting that the justices had pointed out that Trump could appeal the case. However, he made it clear that an appeal was forthcoming. “But we’re going to appeal anyway,” he stated. “So, I’ll do my little thing tomorrow. They can have fun with their political opponent,” Trump added.

The courtroom, although without cameras, was the site of significant public interest. While the trial had attracted large crowds in earlier proceedings, the general public line for the sentencing was notably sparse. No onlookers were visible outside the courthouse on Friday morning, with no large crowds forming in the park across the street, a stark contrast to previous days.

In May, Trump had been found guilty by a jury of 34 felonies, including his role in authorizing a scheme to falsify records. This was done to cover up reimbursements for the $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who testified during the trial. Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, who acted as his “fixer,” also provided testimony, confirming that the reimbursement was to silence Daniels regarding an alleged affair with Trump prior to the 2016 election. Multiple witnesses testified that Trump was relieved that the story did not break before the election.

Throughout the trial, Trump had been held in contempt 10 times by Merchan for violating a gag order that prevented him from making public statements about court witnesses, staff, and others involved in the case. The 10th contempt citation, which came just before sentencing, foreshadowed the likelihood of the discharge sentence. Merchan had made it clear during the trial that he was reluctant to imprison Trump. “The last thing I want to do is to put you in jail,” Merchan had said earlier in the proceedings.

As the sentencing concluded, Merchan extended a final remark to Trump, saying, “the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching on the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge. Godspeed as you assume your second term in office.”

Deadly Wildfires Ravage Los Angeles County, Forcing Mass Evacuations

The ongoing wildfires in Los Angeles County have created apocalyptic scenes, with devastation widespread and authorities scrambling to respond. These infernos, which remain largely uncontained, have claimed at least five lives, though officials admit the true death toll remains uncertain. “Frankly, we don’t know,” said officials on Thursday, highlighting the unpredictability of the situation. Evacuation orders have been issued for nearly 180,000 residents as firefighters battle to contain the flames.

Thousands of Homes Destroyed by Palisades Fire

The Palisades Fire, which continues to ravage the coastal stretch between Malibu and Santa Monica, has earned the grim distinction of being the most destructive wildfire in Los Angeles County’s history. Preliminary assessments suggest the number of structures either damaged or obliterated is likely “in the thousands,” according to Los Angeles Fire Chief Kristin Crowley. Firefighters are still evaluating the extent of the damage.

A Day of Temporary Relief Amidst Persistent Danger

A slight lull in the Santa Ana winds on Thursday morning provided a window for firefighters to conduct water-dumping operations from the air. However, this respite was short-lived as strong winds, with gusts of up to 60 miles per hour, are forecast to persist throughout the day. The situation remains perilous for residents, with fire-related pollution and unsafe water supplies adding to the risks. Smoke and ash from the fires can travel far and have significant health impacts, penetrating deep into the lungs and bloodstream.

Infrastructure Severely Damaged

Mark Pestrella, Los Angeles County’s Public Works Director, reported extensive damage to the county’s sewer, power, and transportation systems. “The heat of this system, the wind that blew also knocked down thousands of trees in the roadways,” he said, emphasizing the enormous amount of debris clogging affected communities.

Efforts are underway to safely clear hazardous materials from properties, but Pestrella cautioned residents against attempting to remove debris themselves. “It is not safe to touch the debris, it is not safe to remove the debris yourselves,” he warned, describing the materials as potentially toxic.

Devastation Compared to a War Zone

Sheriff Robert Luna likened the destruction in some areas to the aftermath of a bombing. “Some areas look like a bomb was dropped in them,” he said, noting that officials are still unable to confirm the total number of fatalities. Search teams, including cadaver dogs, will eventually comb through the hardest-hit areas, though Luna expressed hope that they wouldn’t uncover many more deaths.

“We don’t know what to expect,” the sheriff admitted. “We’re working with our coroner’s office, and we’ll figure out those numbers. Right now, frankly, we don’t know yet. We eventually will.”

Evacuation Orders and Warnings Affect Nearly 380,000 Residents

As of Thursday, 179,783 residents in Los Angeles County are under mandatory evacuation orders, with another 200,000 on evacuation warnings, meaning they must be prepared to leave at a moment’s notice. Sheriff Luna urged residents to take these warnings seriously.

“The refusal of some people to heed evacuation orders is putting law enforcement officers’ lives in danger,” he said. “I cannot emphasize enough that I urge residents that are asked to evacuate to follow our warnings.”

Palisades Fire: A Historic Natural Disaster

Fire Chief Kristin Crowley described the Palisades Fire, which ignited on January 7, as “one of the most destructive natural disasters in the history of Los Angeles.” As of Thursday morning, the blaze had consumed 17,234 acres with no containment in sight.

“Extreme fire behavior continues to challenge firefighting efforts,” Crowley said, noting that fierce winds are exacerbating the situation. The destruction caused by this fire alone has left an indelible mark on the region.

Despite the ongoing battle, the safety of residents and first responders remains paramount. Crowley urged vigilance, noting the unpredictability and danger posed by these wildfires.

Active Wildfires in California Started Acres Burned Pct. Contained
Palisades Fire Jan. 7 17,234 0%
Eaton Fire Jan. 7 10,600 0%
Hurst Fire Jan. 7 855 10%
Lidia Fire Jan. 8 348 40%
Sunset Fire Jan. 8 42.8 0%

Wildfires Ravage Los Angeles County, Forcing Mass Evacuations

Los Angeles County is grappling with seven wildfires that have ignited chaos across various neighborhoods, including Pacific Palisades, Sylmar, and areas near Pasadena. The fires, which erupted on Wednesday, have left thousands of residents in peril as they battle to protect their homes and lives.

The fires currently raging across the county include the Palisades Fire, Eaton Fire, Hurst Fire, Lidia Fire, and Sunset Fire, according to CAL FIRE. These blazes have triggered widespread evacuations and overwhelmed local resources.

The Eaton Fire has been particularly devastating, claiming at least five lives as of Wednesday night. Authorities report that it remains completely uncontained, with crews struggling to make progress. The Palisades Fire, another major threat, is similarly at 0% containment, compounding fears of further destruction.

Meanwhile, the Sunset Fire, which erupted near the Hollywood Hills on Wednesday evening, appears to be under control. Officials speaking to Fox News expressed cautious optimism about this blaze, suggesting it might not pose an immediate threat.

The wildfires have prompted evacuation orders for hundreds of thousands of residents as flames advance toward densely populated areas. Local authorities estimate that at least 28,000 structures are currently at risk.

Adding to the chaos, power outages have left over 536,600 residents without electricity as of Wednesday afternoon, according to utility companies in the region. These outages have further complicated efforts to communicate evacuation notices and coordinate responses.

The fires are being driven by powerful Santa Ana winds originating from the east, a common yet destructive weather phenomenon in Southern California. Officials have warned that these winds could intensify, potentially worsening the already dire situation.

As residents brace for more challenges, local authorities and firefighting teams continue their relentless battle against the flames, hoping to bring some measure of relief to those affected. “The worst is yet to come,” officials cautioned, highlighting the unpredictable and dangerous nature of the fires.

This ongoing crisis underscores the vulnerability of the region to wildfire disasters, with dry conditions and strong winds creating a volatile environment for flames to spread rapidly.

Trump’s Business Ventures Raise Ethical Concerns Amid Presidential Transition

In the two months since his election victory, President-elect Donald Trump has utilized his social media platform, Truth Social, to market a variety of Trump-branded products. Among the offerings are limited-edition signature guitars, fragrances described as epitomizing “winning,” and watches. Recently, an $899 gold-plated inauguration edition joined the Trump watch collection, launched earlier this year. His sneaker line now features footwear adorned with a map of his electoral success.

These product promotions underscore the intricate link between Trump’s political persona and his business empire. However, with less than two weeks until his inauguration, Trump and the Trump Organization have yet to clarify how they plan to separate his multifaceted business interests—spanning real estate, golf resorts, licensing deals, and even cryptocurrency—from his presidential duties.

Recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission reveal that Trump has transferred his shares in Truth Social’s parent company into a longstanding trust, where he remains the sole beneficiary. His eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., acts as the trustee. Yet, ethics experts argue this measure falls short of the blind trusts and divestitures adopted by previous presidents to avoid conflicts of interest.

Notably, the Trump Organization appears poised to impose fewer restrictions on its business dealings compared to Trump’s first term. Eric Trump, who manages the company’s daily operations, has confirmed the company’s intent to pursue international ventures, abandoning a self-imposed ban on foreign deals from Trump’s earlier presidency.

Kedric Payne, senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, observed, “The marketing activity around Donald Trump’s return to the White House indicates that there is clearly a focus on monetizing the presidency.” He added, “The concern is that he will now use the presidency to benefit himself and his family beyond what is imaginable.”

Payne also noted that Trump, no longer seeking voter approval for another term, has minimal incentive to address potential conflicts of interest. “His supporters were well aware of the conflicts and did not view it as disqualifying,” Payne remarked.

Trump’s spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, defended the president-elect, emphasizing his altruistic motivations. “President Trump removed himself from his multi-billion-dollar real estate empire to run for office and forewent his government salary, becoming the first President to actually lose net worth while serving in the White House,” she said. “Unlike most politicians, President Trump didn’t get into politics for profit—he’s fighting because he loves the people of this country and wants to make America great again.”

Despite such assertions, the president-elect’s transition team declined to elaborate on plans to address ethical concerns. Eric Trump and other company representatives did not respond to inquiries about their strategies for a potential second term.

Ethics challenges were evident at a recent Mar-a-Lago event. Eric Trump met with Hussain Sajwani, a UAE-based billionaire and longtime business associate. Shortly thereafter, Donald Trump announced Sajwani’s pledge to invest $20 billion in U.S. data center projects, while reiterating his intent to streamline federal permitting for major corporate initiatives. Eric Trump attended the announcement but remained in the background.

The Trump family’s business dealings extend beyond real estate. Recently, Eric Trump promoted World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency platform, at a conference in the UAE. Investors in the venture include cryptocurrency entrepreneur Justin Sun, accused of securities law violations by the SEC in 2023, though Sun has denied wrongdoing. Sun reportedly invested $30 million in the Trump family enterprise.

Trump’s business partners may benefit from his stated commitment to fostering a crypto-friendly administration. He has already named David Sacks, a close ally and donor, as the head of cryptocurrency policy in his upcoming administration. Steve Witkoff, another Trump business partner, was recently named Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East. At a Mar-a-Lago press conference, Witkoff referenced prior work with the Biden administration on a hostage deal involving Hamas and Israel.

Presidents are exempt from many conflict-of-interest laws that govern other federal officials, but previous presidents have taken steps to eliminate even the appearance of impropriety. For instance, George W. Bush sold his Texas Rangers baseball team stake before entering politics. When Trump first became president in 2016, he placed his assets in a trust but retained ownership, delegating management to his sons and a senior executive. Critics called this insufficient, as it failed to resolve potential conflicts.

Trump’s initial presidency included a self-imposed ban on new foreign deals. However, Eric Trump recently stated the company would pursue overseas opportunities, though it would not work directly with foreign governments.

Meanwhile, the Trump Organization continues to profit from his political brand. Trump’s recent campaign launched numerous products, including shoes, watches, coins, and NFTs, through licensing agreements. Limited information is available about these ventures, as many partners operate under opaque business entities. For example, efforts to trace the manufacturer of Trump’s luxury watches, including a $100,000 model, led only to a nondescript Wyoming office, a state known for lenient disclosure laws.

The Trump Store is already capitalizing on his anticipated return to power, selling memorabilia such as polo shirts, mugs, and glasses featuring “45” and “47” to mark Trump’s place in presidential history. However, questions remain about whether Trump will continue leveraging his presidential role to promote business ventures once inaugurated.

Critics argue that Trump’s dual focus on politics and profit represents a departure from precedent. Previous presidents, including Barack Obama and George W. Bush, avoided personal profit-driven endeavors during their tenures. In contrast, Trump’s entrepreneurial activities remain intertwined with his public office.

Ethics experts warn that Trump’s unique approach to blending politics and business could set new and potentially troubling precedents. “The blurred lines between Trump’s personal financial interests and his political decisions will inevitably raise questions,” Payne said.

For now, Trump has yet to address how he will separate his commercial pursuits from his official responsibilities, leaving watchdogs and voters uncertain about what lies ahead.

Let’s Try Something Different in How We Deal With Trump

(Rep. Tom Suozzi, a Democrat, represents New York’s 3rd Congressional District. He is a former Nassau County Executive and the Mayor of Glen Cove on Long Island.)

President-elect Donald Trump and the Republicans have managed to sell themselves as the party of change. It worked: They will soon control the presidency, Congress and, in essence, the Supreme Court. But to change and fix America requires both parties to work together. As a Democratic member of Congress, I know my party will be tempted to hold fast against Mr. Trump at every turn: uniting against his bills, blocking his nominees and grinding the machinery of the House and the Senate to a halt.

That would be a mistake. Only by working together to find compromise on parts of Mr. Trump’s agenda can we make progress for Americans who are clearly demanding change in the economy, immigration, crime and other top issues.

I’m no dupe: Some of Mr. Trump’s actions offer little reassurance that he is ready to embrace the bipartisanship and compromise essential to a functioning democracy. His radical cabinet picks, such as the Project 2025 contributor Russell Vought and Matt Gaetz (now withdrawn); his last-minute demands on last month’s government funding bill; and the recent demonstrations of hubris, such as Republicans bringing Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to Capitol Hill and refusing to include Democrats in the meetings, offer no reason for optimism about compromise.

Rep Tom Suozzi 1

But if Mr. Trump wants to have a more effective presidency than he had in his first term, he needs to embrace his inner dealmaker and negotiate with the other party that holds just shy of half of the seats on Capitol Hill and key governorships around the country. And if he does that work, Democrats should meet him halfway rather than be the Party of No.

I know many voters reject my party’s significant leftward shift. So do I. But as a common-sense Democrat who won in a district that Mr. Trump also won, I am certain our closely divided electorate would rather have bipartisan solutions than political gridlock. After Mr. Trump almost caused a federal shutdown with the funding bill antics, the government was able to stay open only through Democrats joining with some Republicans to pass compromise legislation. Americans shouldn’t have to hold their breath to see if we’ll do the right thing together.

The election was a mandate. But it wasn’t for one-party rule — Mr. Trump won with less than 50 percent of the popular vote, and Republicans have thin majorities in the House and the Senate. But as I see it, the results of the 2024 campaign were a mandate for border security, immigration reform, low inflation, economic stability and common ground on culture-war fights. That’s good for America. So let’s make that our shared agenda in 2025. There are a majority of votes for all of it.

And let’s try something different when it comes to the president-elect.

Rep Tom Suozzi

Since the day Mr. Trump announced his candidacy at the tower bearing his name almost 10 years ago, many politicians, pundits, activists and members of the news media have detailed every one of his failings and missteps. Every word he’s ever spoken has been criticized. Yet he just won again. People are exhausted by the endless finger-pointing, nit-picking and daily battling for political advantage. They want leaders to work together to get things done.

Some members of my party and left-leaning advocacy groups are now branding themselves as the leaders of a national “resistance” movement, reflexively opposing ideas from the incoming administration. That’s a bad idea.

Resistance has a role. During the prior Trump presidency, I resisted his efforts to undo the Affordable Care Act and to deport the Dreamers. And we can and should continue to resist Mr. Trump’s efforts to retaliate against his perceived political enemies by weaponizing the Justice Department, his pledge to gut policies that combat climate change and protect our environment, and his threat to bring the United States back to an isolationist view of the world. To lead effectively, we must find common ground, build consensus and offer solutions. Democrats must resist when necessary, but our general outlook must be to go beyond resistance and articulate a vision that inspires.

For instance, while it is essential to secure the border and deport criminals, we must also reform the broken asylum system and modernize legal immigration to provide pathways to legalization for Dreamers, Temporary Protected Status recipients and farmworkers. Immigration must be governed by the rule of law while protecting immigrant families from fear and ensuring our economy is kept stable while treating human beings like human beings.

Under President Biden, Democrats refocused national policy on rebuilding the middle class by creating solid job opportunities with the Infrastructure Law and promoting manufacturing under the CHIPs Act. Unfortunately, we failed to communicate the effort effectively. While Mr. Biden was often quoted saying, “It’s time to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out,” no one really understood that he was talking about creating more solidly middle-class jobs and putting forth a real policy to do just that.

Republicans claim they are for working families, but it is Democrats who support an increase in the minimum wage, adoption of the union-friendly PRO Act and a robust enhancement of the child tax credit. Voters need to hear that.

Democrats cannot abandon our zeal to combat climate change. At the same time, let’s balance our commitment to environmental protection with pragmatic measures that safeguard affordable utility bills and manageable costs at the pump. Let’s move beyond the relentless attacks on widely held religious values while ensuring that the rights, safety and dignity of all are upheld. And Democrats should be supportive of efforts to make government more efficient and effective, but we must fiercely defend and advocate the strengthening of Social Security, Medicare and the Affordable Care Act.

Both parties should seek new ideas and leaders to demonstrate a willingness to break away from the restrictive orthodox ideologies of some of the more extreme members of the Democrats’ Progressive Caucus and the Republicans’ Freedom Caucus, who limit our ability to seek common ground and get things done.

This time in history is both a warning and an opportunity. My New Year’s resolution is to rise above partisanship and bickering, reject extremism and embrace common sense, and keep building relationships with Republicans and Democrats to get things done. I’ll work with anyone who wants to solve problems and make things better for people, but I’ll never abandon my values. If Republicans and Democrats choose the path of division and overreach, they will deepen the partisan divides that have already weakened our democracy. But if they embrace bipartisanship and cooperation, 2025 can be a better year for all Americans. We have to remember that the ultimate goal of government should be serving the American people, not our respective parties.

Majority of Congress Members Remain Christian, Pew Research Report Reveals

A new Pew Research Center report, titled Faith on the Hill, sheds light on the religious makeup of the 119th Congress, which is convening today. According to the findings, the vast majority of members in the Senate and House of Representatives continue to identify as Christian.

The data for the report was gathered by CQ Roll Call, a publication known for tracking congressional activities and maintaining legislative data. To gather accurate religious affiliation information, the publication sends questionnaires to incoming members of Congress and follows up with re-elected members.

“Christians will make up 87% of voting members in the Senate and House of Representatives, combined, in the 2025-27 congressional session,” the report states.

Although the number of Christian members of Congress has slightly declined from the previous session’s 88% and from a decade ago, when it stood at 92%, the overall representation of Christians in Congress remains significantly higher than in the general American population. Currently, less than two-thirds of Americans, specifically 62%, identify as Christian.

In stark contrast to the American public, the report highlights that less than 1% of Congress members identify as religiously unaffiliated, often referred to as “nones.” In fact, while “nones” comprise 28% of the U.S. population, only three members of Congress reported having no religious affiliation. This marks an increase of two non-religious members from the previous session.

The 119th Congress will include 71 non-Christian members, a rise of six members compared to the previous session. Among them are 32 Jews, four Muslims, four Hindus, three Unitarian Universalists, three Buddhists, three members who are unaffiliated, and one Humanist. Notably, all but five of these non-Christian members are affiliated with the Democratic Party.

In terms of Christian representation, the new Congress will have 461 Christian members. Of these, 295 are Protestant. As in previous years, Baptists are the most represented denomination, with 75 Baptist members, a rise of eight from the last session. While the report does not specify the exact Baptist group these members align with, it is clear that Baptists remain a dominant force in Congress. Other notable Protestant denominations include Methodists and Presbyterians, both with 26 members each, Episcopalians with 22 members, and Lutherans with 19 members.

The presence of these denominations has diminished in recent years, both within the general American population and in Congress. When the report first debuted in 2011, the religious representation for the 112th Congress showed 51 Methodists, 45 Presbyterians, 41 Episcopalians, and 26 Lutherans. Over the last decade, their numbers have steadily declined.

Notably, Baptists make up a slightly higher percentage in the House of Representatives (15%) than in the Senate (12%). Similarly, Catholics are more prominent in the House, accounting for 29% of its members, compared to 24% in the Senate. Conversely, denominations like Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Lutherans are more prevalent in the Senate than in the House.

The report also observes that, of the 295 Protestant members, 101 did not provide specific details on their denomination. Many gave vague responses like “Protestant” or “evangelical Protestant.” This marks a significant shift compared to a decade ago. In 2015, during the 114th Congress, only 58 members reported being “just Christian” without specifying a denomination.

Regarding party affiliation, Republicans continue to exhibit a higher rate of Christian identification. Of the 218 Republican members, 98% are Christian. Only five Republican members identify as non-Christians — three as Jewish, one as religiously unaffiliated, and one declined to respond to the question of religious affiliation. On the other hand, while both Democrats and Republicans are largely Protestant, the Democratic Party has a notably higher percentage of Catholics, with 32% of Democratic members identifying as Catholic, compared to 25% of Republicans.

Religious diversity is much more pronounced within the Democratic Party. While roughly three-quarters of Democratic members are Christian, the party also includes 29 Jews, three Buddhists, four Muslims, four Hindus, three Unitarian Universalists, one Humanist, and two members who are unaffiliated. Additionally, 20 Democratic members declined to disclose their religious affiliation.

The 119th Congress also includes 166 non-Protestant Christians, 150 of whom are Catholic, nine members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (all Republicans), and six Orthodox Christians. Notably, one Republican member identifies as a Messianic Jew.

The religious affiliation of 21 members remains unreported, either because they chose not to disclose it or were unreachable for comment. The analysis also did not include Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, who will become vice president on January 20, Representative Matt Gaetz, who resigned amidst allegations of sexual misconduct, or Representative Michael Waltz, who announced his resignation to serve as a national security adviser to the Trump administration. All three had reported being Christian.

In summary, the new Pew Research report on the 119th Congress paints a picture of a legislative body that remains predominantly Christian, even as the share of Christians within the U.S. population continues to decrease. While the religious composition of Congress has become slightly more diverse in recent years, the overwhelming majority of members still identify with one form or another of Christianity. The report also highlights the political implications of these trends, showing clear differences in religious diversity between the Republican and Democratic parties. Despite these shifts, the balance of religious representation in Congress continues to reflect a nation whose roots remain firmly grounded in Christianity, though the face of that belief system is changing in subtle ways.

Trump’s Coalition Faces Rift: Immigration Debate Sparks MAGA Tensions

Donald Trump’s coalition is showing signs of strain even before his anticipated inauguration, with open conflict erupting between his billionaire supporters and his working-class base. Analysts view this as a glimpse into the challenges that could fracture his fragile alliance, especially over contentious issues like immigration policy.

At the heart of the debate is whether to embrace skilled foreign workers. This issue has revealed deep divisions between staunch immigration hardliners who have backed Trump from the beginning and wealthy tech moguls who invested heavily in his reelection campaign.

These tensions have prompted prominent figures in Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement to criticize what they see as the irony of a populist agenda being influenced by the ultra-rich.

“I think this most recent war of words between traditional MAGA and big-tech MAGA was an opening salvo in a long-running battle over the future of the MAGA movement,” said Flavio Hickel, a political analyst, in an interview with AFP.

Tech Titans vs. Immigration Hardliners

Elon Musk, the billionaire CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, leads the Silicon Valley faction of Trump’s coalition. Musk, a South African-born entrepreneur, contributed a staggering $250 million to Trump’s campaign, even as Trump emphasized anti-immigrant rhetoric.

However, Musk’s support for visas for skilled foreign workers quickly made him a target of MAGA loyalists. Many in the movement oppose any form of immigration that they believe undermines American jobs, a sentiment that extends to Musk’s own business practices.

Hickel noted that figures like Musk and other tech leaders such as Vivek Ramaswamy are ideologically libertarian and prioritize conservative economic goals, including budget discipline and legal immigration reform. “Traditional MAGA seems to care little about the budget and found Trump’s nativism to be the most appealing feature of his candidacies,” Hickel explained.

This internal conflict, labeled “Oligarchs vs. Nativists” by U.S. media, escalated when Musk lashed out at his critics within the MAGA base, calling them “contemptible fools.” Steve Bannon, a former White House strategist and a prominent MAGA figure, responded sharply on his War Room podcast, warning Musk to tread carefully.

“I’ll rip (Musk’s) face off,” Bannon declared, accusing the billionaire of undermining MAGA principles. He urged Musk and other newcomers to the movement to “sit back and study” its core belief in prioritizing American workers.

Bannon has called for reparations from Silicon Valley, blaming the tech industry for displacing middle-class American workers. “The visa issue is central to the way they gutted the middle class in this country,” he said.

Trump’s Position

Trump, whose wealth is estimated at $5.5 billion, has aligned himself with Silicon Valley on this issue, surprising many of his blue-collar supporters. This stance has even drawn criticism from moderates within his party, including Nikki Haley, his former UN ambassador.

Yet Donald Nieman, a political analyst and professor at Binghamton University, believes Trump’s broader coalition strategy may explain his actions. “He knows he has to deliver on the economy — the issue that brought him to the White House — so kicking the tech sector in the teeth is bad politics,” Nieman told AFP.

Some analysts argue that this rift could ultimately weaken Musk’s influence within the movement. Trump has always relied on his appeal to working-class voters and may prioritize their support over the financial backing of Silicon Valley elites.

Others, however, suggest that the influx of tech money might permanently reshape MAGA. Trump, known for his pragmatism, may choose to steer the movement toward the center rather than letting his base push him further to the right.

Future of MAGA

Jeff Le, a former deputy cabinet secretary for California Governor Jerry Brown, who worked on immigration policy during Trump’s first term, believes the conflict reflects a broader philosophical divide.

“The tension between Mr. Musk, Mr. Ramaswamy… (and) Mr. Bannon and the MAGA wing represents significant philosophical differences,” Le said.

Le also noted that Trump’s base might remain loyal if he focuses on other immigration measures, such as expanded judicial authority, aggressive ICE enforcement, and enhanced border security. “If Mr. Trump continues to emphasize other tools for immigration reform… his base will likely stick with Mr. Trump,” he added.

As Trump’s coalition grapples with these divisions, the resolution of this conflict will likely define the future of the MAGA movement. Whether Trump can balance the interests of his billionaire backers and his working-class supporters remains an open question, but the outcome will undoubtedly shape the direction of his political agenda.

Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and Denzel Washington to Receive Highest US Civilian Honor

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, renowned philanthropist George Soros, and celebrated actor-director Denzel Washington will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the United States’ highest civilian honor. The awards will be presented in a White House ceremony on Saturday, marking a significant moment of recognition for their contributions to society.

President Joe Biden will confer the honor on 19 prominent individuals across various fields, including politics, sports, entertainment, civil rights, LGBTQ+ advocacy, and science. The White House has described the honorees as individuals who have made “exemplary contributions to the prosperity, values, or security of the United States, world peace, or other significant societal, public or private endeavors.”

Posthumous Honors for Four Figures

Four of the 19 medals will be awarded posthumously. One recipient is Fannie Lou Hamer, a pivotal figure in the civil rights movement who founded the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. Her efforts laid the groundwork for the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. Another is Robert F. Kennedy, the former attorney general and senator known for his advocacy for justice and equality.

George W. Romney, a former Michigan governor and secretary of housing and urban development, will also be honored. Romney is recognized for his significant public service and contributions to governance. Notably, he is the father of former Utah Republican Senator Mitt Romney, a leading conservative critic of Donald Trump.

Ash Carter, a former secretary of defense who played a key role in shaping U.S. defense policy, is the fourth posthumous recipient.

Major Figures in Philanthropy Recognized

The awards also highlight prominent philanthropists. Chef José Andrés, a Spanish-American culinary icon, is among the honorees. Andrés’ World Central Kitchen has become one of the most recognizable food relief organizations globally, providing meals to communities in crisis.

Bono, the lead singer of U2 and a passionate advocate for social justice, will also be honored. Known for his work in addressing global poverty and health issues, Bono has long been a figure at the intersection of art and activism.

Sports and Entertainment Icons Honored

In the realm of sports and entertainment, several distinguished figures are being recognized. Lionel Messi, widely regarded as one of the greatest soccer players in history, is among the recipients. His influence extends beyond the field, inspiring millions worldwide with his achievements and dedication.

Earvin “Magic” Johnson, the legendary retired Los Angeles Lakers basketball player and successful businessman, will also receive the honor. Johnson’s contributions to sports and his work as an advocate for HIV/AIDS awareness have cemented his legacy.

Actor Michael J. Fox, renowned for his roles in television and film, will be awarded for his advocacy in Parkinson’s disease research. Fox’s openness about his own diagnosis has brought significant attention and funding to the cause.

William Sanford Nye, affectionately known as “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” will be celebrated for his efforts to promote science education. Generations of students have benefited from his engaging and accessible approach to complex scientific concepts.

Contributions to Arts, Fashion, and Activism

Other recipients include conservationist Jane Goodall, whose groundbreaking work with primates has advanced global conservation efforts. Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, a driving force in the fashion industry, will be honored for her influence on culture and style.

American fashion designer Ralph Lauren, known for his iconic contributions to the industry, is another recipient. Lauren’s work has defined a timeless aesthetic in American fashion.

George Stevens Jr., the founder of the American Film Institute, will also be recognized. His work in film and his efforts to preserve cinematic history have left an indelible mark on the arts.

Tim Gill, an entrepreneur and LGBTQ+ activist, will receive the honor for his advocacy for equal rights and inclusion. David Rubenstein, co-founder of The Carlyle Group global investment firm, will also be acknowledged for his philanthropic contributions.

Building on Tradition

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is an annual tradition that highlights the achievements of individuals who have significantly impacted society. Last year, President Biden honored 19 individuals, including civil rights leader Medgar Evers, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Representative James Clyburn, and actor Michelle Yeoh.

This year’s honorees, ranging from politicians and philanthropists to athletes and entertainers, reflect a diverse array of achievements and contributions. As the White House noted, the awards underscore the values of prosperity, peace, and societal progress that the recipients embody.

With these accolades, the ceremony not only celebrates the accomplishments of the honorees but also underscores the enduring power of individual contributions to the collective good.

House Republicans Name Committee Leaders: No Women at the Helm for the First Time in Two Decades

For the first time in two decades, no women will lead a House committee after House Republicans announced their roster of committee chairs for the 119th Congress on Thursday. The selection, made by the House Republican Steering Committee, will result in all 17 standing committees being led exclusively by white men when the new Congress convenes on January 3.

This marks the first absence of women heading House committees since the 109th Congress, which lasted from 2005 to 2006. Additionally, no people of color were chosen to chair any of the committees.

“From securing our southern border, to unleashing American energy, to fighting to lower Bidenflation, and making our communities safe again, our Committee Chairs are ready to get to work fulfilling the American people’s mandate and enacting President Trump’s America-First agenda,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said while announcing the list of chairs. He added, “House Republicans are heading into the 119th Congress prepared to address the issues most important to hardworking Americans and fight for meaningful legislative wins.”

Scalise emphasized his support for the committee leaders, stating, “I look forward to working with these strong leaders and their Committees to advance President Trump’s priorities and deliver the American people the government they voted for in November.”

In the outgoing 118th Congress, three Republican women held committee leadership positions. Texas Rep. Kay Granger chaired the Appropriations Committee, Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers led the Energy and Commerce Committee, and North Carolina Rep. Virginia Foxx chaired the Education and the Workforce Committee. However, Granger and McMorris Rodgers did not seek reelection in 2024, and while Foxx won an 11th term, she did not request a waiver to continue chairing her committee.

Foxx, 81, had previously been granted a waiver to lead the Education and the Workforce Committee during the 118th Congress, despite the House GOP’s six-year term limits for committee chairs. She had also served as chairwoman in the 115th Congress and ranking member during the 116th and 117th Congresses. With Foxx stepping down, Michigan Rep. Tim Walberg will take over as chair of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

House Speaker Mike Johnson addressed concerns about the lack of female leadership earlier this week, stating, “Chairmen of committees are very important positions, but we really do engage all the membership. We have extraordinary women serving in Congress and in the Republican Conference. In fact, we elected some really strong women in the upcoming freshmen class.” Johnson added, “We value those voices. And everybody has an equal say at the table. These are thoughtful elections. We have an embarrassment of riches, frankly.”

Among the notable appointments, Florida Rep. Brian Mast, a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump, will lead the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Other prominent figures retaining their leadership roles include Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan as chair of the Judiciary Committee, Kentucky Rep. James Comer as head of the Oversight Committee, and Missouri Rep. Jason Smith as chair of the influential Ways and Means Committee.

The absence of women in committee leadership drew sharp criticism from some within the Republican Party. Former Virginia Rep. Barbara Comstock, a Republican, expressed her dismay on social media, stating, “Very fitting in the MAGA Era – No Women Need Apply.”

The Republican Party enters the new year holding a political trifecta, controlling the House, Senate, and White House. However, the narrow majority in the House, with 220 Republicans to 215 Democrats, leaves little room for internal dissent. This slim margin is further complicated by the anticipated departure of two House Republicans for positions in the Trump administration and the resignation of Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz.

“After four years of suffering under the radical policies of the Biden-Harris Administration and a Democrat-controlled Senate, the American people made clear they are ready for a change,” Scalise said, underscoring the stakes of the GOP’s unified control. He added, “With Republicans taking control of the White House, Senate, and House, it is imperative we are in position to move President Trump’s agenda efficiently and thoughtfully so we can quickly restore our nation to greatness.”

This shift in leadership reflects the priorities of the GOP as it navigates its agenda under unified government control. While the absence of women and minority representation in committee leadership has sparked criticism, Republican leaders have emphasized their focus on addressing the policy issues they believe resonate most with their constituents. Whether these decisions will yield legislative success remains to be seen as the new Congress begins its work.

Trump Faces Sentencing Amid Historic Return to the Presidency

Before his return to the White House, President-elect Donald Trump will face sentencing in a New York court for his conviction in the “hush money” case. Justice Juan Merchan ruled on Friday that the sentencing will occur on January 10, just ten days before Trump’s inauguration, marking an unprecedented moment in U.S. history.

Trump’s conviction stems from a $130,000 payment made by his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the closing days of the 2016 presidential campaign. The payment was intended to secure Daniels’ silence about an alleged affair with Trump. The case and the subsequent conviction have placed Trump in the unique position of being the first former president in American history to be criminally convicted.

The decision concludes two months of speculation over the case following Trump’s narrow election victory on November 5. Despite the legal cloud, Trump’s supporters propelled him back into office, making him the first individual to win the presidency after being convicted of a crime.

Trump’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the conviction, citing the demands of his new role as president-elect. They argued that his election victory necessitated the dismissal of the charges. However, Justice Merchan dismissed these claims in his Friday ruling, stating, “This court finds that neither the vacatur of the jury’s verdicts nor dismissal of the indictment are required by the Presidential immunity doctrine, the Presidential Transition Act, or the Supremacy Clause.”

While sentencing options included incarceration, Merchan indicated that Trump would not serve time behind bars. He also suggested that Trump could attend the sentencing virtually. “It seems proper at this juncture to make known the court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration,” Merchan wrote, adding that prosecutors concurred with this approach.

Merchan’s ruling highlighted the constitutional limits of presidential immunity, noting that even Trump’s motion to dismiss acknowledged the lack of immunity for a president-elect. “Undoubtedly, the transition period between election and the taking of the presidential oath is one filled with enormous responsibility,” Merchan wrote. “Yet, even (the) defendant in his motion refers to presidential immunity as one relating specifically to a sitting president no fewer than 33 times.”

Despite the conviction’s potential for up to four years of jail time, Merchan’s ruling opened the door to alternatives like probation or fines. Trump’s legal team shifted their tone following the election, adopting what Merchan described as rhetoric “dangerously close to crossing the line.” He criticized their language, stating, “Counsel has resorted to language, indeed rhetoric, that has no place in legal pleadings.”

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by Alvin Bragg, proposed several unconventional measures to address the unprecedented situation. These included postponing proceedings until after Trump’s presidency or terminating the case with an acknowledgment of the unresolved verdict. Bragg’s team argued for creative solutions to balance the justice system’s integrity with the demands of Trump’s presidency.

Outside the courtroom, Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, condemned the case as a politically motivated attack. He labeled the proceedings a “witch hunt” and described Merchan as “deeply conflicted,” stating, “This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed.”

Trump’s trial, which began in March 2023 with his indictment, captivated the nation. The seven-week trial, coinciding with the Republican presidential primaries, saw a jury deliver a unanimous guilty verdict in May. Inside the courtroom, Trump often appeared disengaged, at times leaning back with his eyes closed or seemingly dozing off. Outside, he continued to campaign, surrounded by Republican allies, attorneys, and Secret Service agents.

The trial revealed intricate schemes involving Trump, Cohen, and former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker. Prosecutors presented evidence of efforts to suppress damaging stories about Trump’s 2016 campaign through hush money payments and nondisclosure agreements. Pecker testified about three such arrangements, including the $130,000 payment to Daniels.

Cohen detailed how he was covertly reimbursed for the payment through falsified business records. Prosecutors argued that Trump authorized the scheme while in office, resulting in 34 falsified records disguised as payments for legal services. These records, in reality, covered Cohen’s reimbursements.

Witnesses recounted Trump’s relief that Daniels’ story remained hidden before the election. The jury deliberated for less than two days before delivering their verdict. When the foreperson read the 34 guilty counts, Trump, who had frequently stared at the jury during the trial, avoided eye contact.

Justice Merchan reprimanded Trump’s team for violating a gag order prohibiting public statements about jurors and witnesses, holding him in contempt ten times during the trial. Merchan also referenced concerns raised by the Supreme Court’s chief justice about political leaders undermining judicial institutions, warning that Trump’s attorneys’ arguments could have a chilling effect on the judiciary.

After the sentencing date was set, Trump’s reaction was defiant. Emerging from the courtroom, he grasped his son Eric’s hand, addressed the cameras, and declared his innocence. He described the proceedings as unjust and resumed his presidential campaign.

As January 10 approaches, Trump’s legal troubles and his return to the White House promise to make his sentencing a historic moment. The case not only underscores the challenges of balancing justice with political realities but also marks a pivotal chapter in America’s legal and political history.

Tesla Cybertruck Explosion in Las Vegas Leaves One Dead, Sparks Investigation into Terrorism Links

A tragic incident unfolded on Wednesday morning in Las Vegas when a Tesla Cybertruck exploded outside the Trump International Hotel, resulting in one death and injuries to seven others. Authorities, including the Las Vegas Police Department, are investigating the explosion as a potential act of terrorism.

The blast occurred near S. Sammy Davis Jr. Drive and Fashion Drive, with the fire reported at the hotel entrance. The Clark County Fire Department Deputy Chief, Thomas Touchstone, stated that emergency crews arrived at the scene within four minutes of receiving reports of a vehicle fire. Responders from Las Vegas police, fire departments, and rescue teams were quickly on-site, extinguishing the fire and attending to the injured.

Touchstone confirmed that seven individuals sustained minor injuries, two of whom were transported to a hospital for further treatment. Tragically, one person was found deceased inside the Cybertruck. Details about the deceased individual have not yet been disclosed.

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Chief Kevin McMahill assured the public that the situation at the scene is now under control. He detailed that officers were dispatched to the area at 8:40 a.m. following reports of an explosion and fire. McMahill also highlighted a concerning connection to another incident in New Orleans earlier that day.

In New Orleans, a man driving a pickup truck, adorned with an ISIS flag on its trailer hitch, rammed into a crowd on Bourbon Street. The attack resulted in the deaths of 10 people and injuries to dozens more. McMahill acknowledged the timing and nature of these incidents, noting that police are taking extra precautions, such as searching for potential secondary devices.

Jeremy Schwartz, the FBI’s acting special agent in charge, confirmed the death resulting from the Las Vegas explosion but admitted that many questions remain unanswered.

Eric Trump, son of President-elect Donald Trump, addressed the incident on social media platform X. He wrote, “Earlier today, a reported electric vehicle fire occurred in the porte cochère of Trump Las Vegas. The safety and well-being of our guests and staff remain our top priority. We extend our heartfelt gratitude to the Las Vegas Fire Department and local law enforcement for their swift response and professionalism.”

Tesla CEO Elon Musk also took to X to comment on the event. Initially, Musk stated, “The whole Tesla senior team is investigating this matter right now. Will post more information as soon as we learn anything. We’ve never seen anything like this.” Later, Musk clarified the cause of the explosion, saying, “We have now confirmed that the explosion was caused by very large fireworks and/or a bomb carried in the bed of the rented Cybertruck and is unrelated to the vehicle itself. All vehicle telemetry was positive at the time of the explosion.”

Both the Cybertruck involved in the Las Vegas explosion and the truck used in the New Orleans attack were rented vehicles obtained through the peer-to-peer car rental platform, Turo. Fox News Digital has reached out to Turo for a statement but has not yet received a response.

Paul Mauro, a former New York City Police Department official and Fox News contributor, provided his perspective on the two events. “I cannot recall two terrorist events occurring on the same day that were not coordinated,” Mauro remarked. “While chances are that these two events are not related, it is something investigators have to consider.”

As authorities continue their investigations into the two tragic incidents, the connection, if any, between them remains a critical focus. The safety and security measures on Las Vegas Boulevard and other high-profile locations are being heightened to prevent further occurrences.

Chief Justice Roberts Stresses Judicial Independence Amid Political Tensions

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a strong message on Tuesday, emphasizing the necessity of preserving judicial independence in the United States. This declaration came just weeks before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, as Roberts released his annual report on the federal judiciary.

In his 15-page report, Roberts warned against politicizing the judiciary. “It is not in the nature of judicial work to make everyone happy. Most cases have a winner and a loser. Every Administration suffers defeats in the court system—sometimes in cases with major ramifications for executive or legislative power or other consequential topics,” he stated. Roberts highlighted the longstanding tradition of respecting court rulings, which has helped the nation avoid conflicts reminiscent of those in the 1950s and 1960s.

However, Roberts expressed concern about recent attitudes toward federal court decisions. “Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings,” he observed. While refraining from naming specific individuals like Trump or Biden, he emphasized, “These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected. Judicial independence is worth preserving.”

Roberts invoked the words of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who described an independent judiciary as “essential to the rule of law in any land,” but cautioned that it “is vulnerable to assault; it can be shattered if the society law exists to serve does not take care to assure its preservation.” Echoing this sentiment, Roberts urged Americans to value and protect the judicial system. “I urge all Americans to appreciate this inheritance from our founding generation and cherish its endurance,” he wrote.

Roberts also cited former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, emphasizing the necessity of collaboration among the three branches of government to uphold the rule of law. “Our political system and economic strength depend on the rule of law,” he asserted.

The chief justice’s remarks came in a politically charged atmosphere. A recent Supreme Court decision penned by Roberts provided immunity to Trump in a landmark case, and the court’s intervention to block efforts to disqualify Trump from the ballot were seen as significant victories for the former president. However, these rulings drew criticism from Democrats, including President Biden, who has advocated for judicial term limits and an enforceable ethics code. Such calls arose after controversies involving justices receiving undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors.

Roberts also referenced incidents where public officials suggested bypassing court rulings. Last year, some Democrats and one Republican urged President Biden to disregard a Trump-appointed judge’s decision to revoke the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. Biden chose not to circumvent the ruling, and the Supreme Court eventually granted a stay, allowing the drug to remain available.

Further, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled last year against Biden’s sweeping student loan forgiveness initiative, deeming it an unconstitutional use of executive power. Such decisions underscore the ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the executive branch.

Roberts has not shied away from addressing conflicts with political figures. In 2018, he criticized Trump for referring to a judge who blocked his asylum policy as an “Obama judge.” Similarly, in 2020, Roberts condemned Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer for making provocative remarks while the court deliberated a prominent abortion case.

In his report, Roberts also included historical context, recounting how King George III once stripped colonial judges of lifetime appointments, a move that was met with widespread disapproval. This anecdote served as a reminder of the importance of judicial independence, particularly as Trump prepares for a possible second term with a conservative agenda that may face legal challenges before a Supreme Court with three Trump-appointed justices.

Roberts stressed the importance of other branches of government enforcing judicial decisions, even when those rulings are unpopular. He cited the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which required federal enforcement to overcome resistance from southern governors who opposed desegregation.

Additionally, Roberts condemned attempts to pressure judges over their rulings. “Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed,” he wrote. While public criticism of court decisions is valid, Roberts cautioned that such statements could incite dangerous reactions. “Violence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our Republic and are wholly unacceptable,” he added.

The chief justice highlighted the rising threats against federal judges, with U.S. Marshals Service data revealing a more than threefold increase in such threats over the past decade. Roberts referenced two tragic incidents: the murders of state court judges in Wisconsin and Maryland at their homes in 2022 and 2023, respectively.

Roberts also addressed the role of disinformation in undermining judicial independence. He noted how social media amplifies distortions of court rulings, sometimes exploited by hostile foreign actors to deepen societal divisions.

“Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our democracy,” Roberts concluded, urging Americans to safeguard this principle amid mounting political and social pressures. His message underscored the judiciary’s critical role in maintaining the rule of law and the enduring strength of the nation’s democratic institutions.

Trump Endorses Speaker Mike Johnson, Highlighting GOP Tensions Over Leadership

President-elect Donald Trump has formally declared his unwavering support for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), just days before a critical House vote to elect a new Speaker. Trump expressed his endorsement on Monday through a post on Truth Social, calling Johnson a principled leader aligned with his vision.

“Speaker Mike Johnson is a good, hardworking, religious man. He will do the right thing, and we will continue to WIN. Mike has my Complete & Total Endorsement. MAGA!” Trump wrote.

Trump’s endorsement is seen as pivotal, given the delicate balance within the Republican majority in the House. Johnson faces the challenge of uniting a divided GOP caucus, as he can afford only minimal defections to secure his position as Speaker.

Tensions within the Republican Party have complicated Johnson’s leadership prospects. Discontent over his handling of issues like the end-of-year funding package, intended to prevent a government shutdown, has drawn criticism. Several conservative hardliners, including Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), have openly opposed Johnson or refused to confirm their support.

With the GOP holding a razor-thin majority, Johnson’s margin for error is slim. If all House members are present and voting, he can afford to lose no more than one Republican vote.

In response to Trump’s backing, Johnson expressed gratitude and reinforced his commitment to advancing the “America First” agenda. “Thank you, President Trump! I’m honored and humbled by your support, as always. Together, we will quickly deliver on your America First agenda and usher in the new golden age of America. The American people demand and deserve that we waste no time. Let’s get to work!” Johnson posted on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Trump’s endorsement accompanied a broader message in which he celebrated his electoral success and criticized the Democratic Party. He accused Democrats of running a “very expensive ‘sinking ship’” and weaponizing federal agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI against him.

“BUT IT DIDN’T WORK, IT WAS A DISASTER!!!” Trump wrote. “LETS NOT BLOW THIS GREAT OPPORTUNITY WHICH WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN. The American people need IMMEDIATE relief from all of the destructive policies of the last Administration.”

The stakes of the Speaker vote have been closely tied to Trump’s influence within the GOP. Many lawmakers have indicated that Trump’s stance will significantly shape the outcome of the vote.

“It’s going to be more up to Trump than anybody else. He’s going to weigh in on it, I’m sure,” said Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who, like several colleagues, has withheld commitment to supporting Johnson.

Trump’s endorsement is particularly noteworthy in light of prior disagreements between the two leaders. These tensions were most evident during negotiations over the year-end funding package. Trump had pushed for a debt ceiling increase to be included in a short-term funding bill, aiming to prevent Democrats from leveraging it later in 2025. However, Johnson was unable to fulfill this request due to resistance within the Republican ranks.

Ultimately, House Republicans reached a compromise, agreeing to raise the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion alongside $2.5 trillion in spending cuts. This agreement is part of a reconciliation bill designed to align with Trump’s legislative priorities while circumventing the need for Democratic support.

Despite this resolution, Trump has continued to advocate for immediate action on the debt ceiling. On Sunday night, he reiterated his stance on Truth Social, urging Republicans to address the issue before the end of President Joe Biden’s term.

“The Democrats must be forced to take a vote on this treacherous issue NOW, during the Biden Administration, and not in June,” Trump wrote. “They should be blamed for this potential disaster, not the Republicans!”

In the same post, Trump criticized former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) for his handling of the debt ceiling, suggesting that past decisions have contributed to the current predicament. “The extension of the Debt Ceiling by a previous Speaker of the House, a good man and a friend of mine … will go down as one of the dumbest political decisions made in years,” Trump said.

The interplay between Trump’s directives and Johnson’s leadership will likely define the early days of the new Congress. Johnson’s ability to navigate GOP divisions and maintain Trump’s support could determine whether he can consolidate his position as Speaker and advance the Republican agenda.

As the House prepares for the Speaker vote on Friday, Johnson faces the dual challenge of securing internal GOP unity and managing the expectations set by Trump’s public endorsement.

Jimmy Carter Dies at 100: Tributes Pour in for Former President

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, passed away at the age of 100. The Carter Center confirmed that he was “surrounded by his family” at his home in Plains, Georgia, during his final moments on Sunday. His death marks the end of a remarkable life that included his time as a Navy lieutenant, peanut farmer, governor, and president.

The announcement prompted a wave of tributes from world leaders, including current and former U.S. presidents, who reflected on Carter’s enduring legacy. Preparations for a state funeral are underway to honor the only former U.S. president to reach the milestone age of 100.

Remembered by Leaders Across the Political Spectrum

President Joe Biden praised Carter’s life and character, calling him a “model of what it means to live a life of meaning and purpose.” In his statement on Sunday, Biden remarked, “He stands as a model of principle, faith, and humility. His life was dedicated to others.” Biden also expressed deep personal sorrow, describing Carter as a “dear friend.”

Vice President Kamala Harris joined the chorus of condolences, emphasizing Carter’s moral integrity and faith. “Carter was guided by a deep and abiding faith — in God, in America, and in humanity,” Harris said. She highlighted his ability to remind the nation and the world of “the strength in decency and compassion.”

Donald Trump, the president-elect, also paid his respects. While noting that he “strongly disagreed with [Carter] philosophically and politically,” Trump described him with “highest respect” and acknowledged Americans’ collective “debt of gratitude.”

State Funeral Plans

A series of public observances will take place to commemorate Carter’s legacy, beginning in Atlanta and Washington, D.C. A private interment will follow in Plains, Georgia, the small town where Carter was born and spent much of his life. Final arrangements are still being planned, and the ceremonies will be conducted by the Department of Defense’s Joint Task Force – National Capital Region.

A Life of Service and Principles

Before entering politics, Carter served as a U.S. Navy lieutenant and managed his family’s peanut farm in Georgia. His career in public service began when he was elected as Georgia’s governor, eventually leading to his presidency from 1977 to 1981.

Carter’s time in the White House was marked by significant accomplishments and challenges, including brokering the Camp David Accords, which led to a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Although his presidency was limited to one term, Carter remained an influential figure on the global stage through his humanitarian and advocacy work.

Tributes from Past Presidents and World Leaders

Other living former U.S. presidents also expressed their sorrow over Carter’s death. Barack Obama described him as “a beacon of moral clarity,” George W. Bush referred to him as a “great American,” and Bill Clinton honored his lifelong dedication to public service.

Condolences also poured in from leaders across the globe. Heads of state and lawmakers praised Carter’s unwavering commitment to peace, human rights, and humanitarian causes, reflecting the deep respect he garnered internationally.

Rosalynn Carter’s Legacy

Carter’s passing comes just a month after the death of his wife, Rosalynn Carter, who died in November 2023 at the age of 96. The couple had been married for over 75 years, making them the longest-married presidential couple in U.S. history. Rosalynn was widely recognized for her advocacy for mental health and humanitarian efforts, often working alongside her husband in their shared pursuits.

Honoring Carter’s Legacy

Jimmy Carter’s century-long life stands as a testament to a life well-lived in service to others. As President Biden aptly noted, he represented “faith and humility,” qualities that will continue to inspire generations.

The nation and the world now prepare to bid farewell to a leader whose legacy transcends politics, leaving behind a lasting imprint on history.

Trump’s Historic Comeback: A Journey of Struggles, Achievements, and American Resilience

Vinod George Abraham, CISA, CPA M.S (Tax)

In 2024, former President Donald Trump achieved a remarkable political victory, one that could reshape the future of America. After facing unprecedented challenges, including unfair treatment by political elites and the justice system, Trump made a historic comeback to win the popular vote, becoming the second president in U.S. history to regain the presidency after a loss. The first was Grover Cleveland, who defeated Benjamin Harrison in 1892, a resounding victory after losing his reelection bid four years prior. Trump, much like Cleveland, overcame immense adversity to return to the White House, earning the people’s vote in what many called a “golden age” for America.

Trump’s victory was not just a win for him, but a win for the American people, especially those tired of the Washington elite and the political establishment. The Democrats, backed by the powerful left-wing media, have long criticized Trump, claiming he was unfit for office. Despite this, he continued to fight for the people, and his resilience is evident in the battles he faced from the justice system.

The Federal Election Interference Case

One of the most significant legal challenges Trump faced was the Federal Election Interference Case, a politically motivated charge pushed by the left-wing establishment and the Justice Department. The case accused Trump and his allies of attempting to interfere with the election process, despite the overwhelming evidence showing his win was fair and square. For fair-minded people, this was a case built on a flimsy theory, and the injustice of the situation could not have been clearer. Trump fought back, and before the case even reached the Supreme Court, the American people voiced their support through their votes, ultimately proving the charges were baseless.

The Georgia Election Interference Case

Another case that gained significant attention was the Georgia Election Interference Case, which alleged that Trump had attempted to pressure state officials to change the outcome of the election. However, once again, there was no real evidence of wrongdoing. The case was nothing more than a political attack aimed at damaging Trump’s credibility. His supporters stood firm, recognizing the case for what it truly was—an attempt by Democrats to prevent his return to power.

The Classified Documents Case

The Classified Documents Case, in which Trump was accused of mishandling classified information, also became a focal point for his political opponents. The charges seemed exaggerated and politically motivated, as many saw parallels with other public officials who had mishandled sensitive materials without facing similar scrutiny. For the fair-minded, this case was another example of a biased justice system targeting Trump while ignoring the wrongdoings of others in power.

The Hush Money Case

Perhaps one of the most sensationalized cases was the Hush Money Case, which centered around alleged payments to silence individuals during the 2016 election. Once again, the charges were politically driven, aimed at tarnishing Trump’s reputation. Fair-minded individuals recognized that these charges were an attempt to distract from the real issues facing the nation. The case ultimately failed to hold any significant weight against Trump’s legacy and his enduring popularity.

The Supreme Court Victory

All of these cases were built upon novel legal theories, but ultimately, Trump triumphed. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor, affirming that the charges against him were based on flimsy arguments and political motivations. It was a historic win for the American legal system, which rejected the attempts to undermine a democratically elected leader. Trump’s victory was a testament to the strength of the people’s voice and the resilience of the American political system.

Trump’s Leadership: A New Era for America

Trump’s leadership has been defined by his relentless fight for the American people. His “America First” policies focused on securing the borders, reducing illegal immigration, and making the U.S. energy independent. His first tax cut, which made permanent reforms to the tax code, was a win for businesses and working-class Americans. Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which was highly successful during his first term, was a cornerstone of his immigration agenda, one that he promised to reinstate on day one of his second term.

Throughout his campaign, Trump emphasized a bold vision for America’s future. He promised to defeat inflation, lower energy costs, and restore the American dream. His proposed tariffs on foreign imports, particularly from China, were designed to protect American workers and bring manufacturing back to the U.S. By taking such a hard stance, Trump vowed to level the playing field for American businesses and consumers.

Trump’s work ethic, even at 78 years old, has been nothing short of inspiring. He tirelessly campaigned across the nation, speaking to voters in every state, whether red or blue. His message was clear: he was for the people, and he would fight for their interests no matter the obstacles.

A Golden Age for America

The promise of a “Golden Age” of America is now within reach, as Trump sets his sights on his second term in office. With the help of influential figures like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who have joined forces to cut government waste, Trump is prepared to tackle the challenges that lie ahead. His proposed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) aims to reduce unnecessary spending and streamline federal operations. Trump’s ability to build alliances with former adversaries and unite the country under his vision for a prosperous America demonstrates his unparalleled political acumen.

As President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris continue to peddle optimism in the face of a faltering economy, Trump remains the only major candidate willing to confront the nation’s economic challenges head-on. His bold promises, such as revitalizing manufacturing, tackling inflation, and reducing government waste, have struck a chord with Americans who are ready for change.

Conclusion

Trump’s historic comeback is not just a personal victory but a triumph for the American people. His leadership has shown that when the people speak, nothing can stand in their way. With his unmatched work ethic, bold vision for America’s future, and unwavering commitment to putting the interests of the nation first, Trump has proven that he is a force to be reckoned with. His second term promises to bring about the Golden Age of America—a time of unparalleled prosperity, security, and national pride.

Why the US Government Faces Frequent Shutdowns

The United States government has experienced shutdowns ten times over the past four decades, a phenomenon rare in other nations, even during wars or constitutional crises. These shutdowns have become a uniquely American occurrence, tied to the country’s political structure and legislative gridlock.

For most nations, a government shutdown signals extreme turmoil—such as a revolution, invasion, or disaster. In the US, however, it has evolved into a bargaining tactic for political leaders, occurring with notable regularity. But why does this happen in the US when it is virtually unheard of elsewhere?

At the heart of the issue lies America’s federal system, which allows different political parties to control different branches of government. This system, crafted by the nation’s founders, was designed to foster compromise and thoughtful deliberation. Unfortunately, in recent decades, it has often achieved the opposite, fueling division and dysfunction.

This situation traces back to a 1980 decision under President Jimmy Carter’s administration. The attorney general at the time issued a strict interpretation of the 1884 Anti-Deficiency Act, a 19th-century law that prohibits the government from committing to expenditures without congressional approval. Historically, the government permitted essential spending to continue during budget gaps. However, the 1980 ruling enforced a stricter policy: no approved budget, no spending.

This interpretation sets the US apart from other non-parliamentary democracies, such as Brazil. In Brazil, a strong executive branch ensures that government operations continue during a budget impasse, avoiding the shutdown scenarios seen in the US.

The first US government shutdown occurred in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan vetoed a funding bill, resulting in a brief halt in services. Since then, at least ten shutdowns have taken place, ranging from less than a day to over a month. The most prolonged shutdown occurred from December 21, 2018, to January 25, 2019.

What Happens During a Shutdown?

During a shutdown, certain critical services, such as Social Security and military operations, continue. However, hundreds of thousands of federal employees are left unpaid. The White House estimated that during the 2018-2019 shutdown, the US economy lost 0.1 percentage points in GDP growth for each week that salaries went unpaid.

In stark contrast, other countries have mechanisms that prevent such shutdowns. Most European democracies operate under parliamentary systems, ensuring that the executive and legislative branches are controlled by the same party or coalition. If a parliament rejects a budget proposed by the government, it typically triggers new elections rather than halting services like national parks, tax refunds, or food assistance programs.

Canada offers an example of this system in action. In 2011, opposition parties in Canada’s parliament rejected the budget proposed by then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party, which held a minority of seats. The House of Commons subsequently passed a motion of no confidence, forcing an election. Despite the political crisis, government services continued without interruption.

Even Belgium, which went without an elected government for a record 589 days between 2010 and 2011, maintained essential public services, including its train system.

Similarly, Ireland operated smoothly from 2016 to 2020 under a minority government using a confidence-and-supply arrangement. This setup involves opposition parties agreeing to support critical spending bills and votes of confidence, ensuring stability despite political disagreements.

A Unique Challenge in the US

In the US, such cooperation has grown increasingly rare. Political parties are often willing to use the functioning of government as leverage to extract concessions from their opponents. The resulting gridlock has made shutdowns a recurring issue.

Government funding has been temporarily extended multiple times since last autumn, following political turbulence that included the ousting of Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy and his replacement by current Speaker Mike Johnson. These stopgap measures were passed through bipartisan efforts, temporarily avoiding shutdowns.

However, with President-elect Donald Trump and tech mogul Elon Musk opposing a short-term funding bill that would extend government operations through March 14, the current budget is set to expire at 12:01 a.m. local time on Saturday. This raises the likelihood of an eleventh government shutdown.

As political divisions deepen, the US faces recurring brinkmanship over funding, with potentially significant consequences for government workers and the broader economy.

Immigration Fuels U.S. Population Growth to 23-Year High in 2024

The U.S. population grew at its fastest pace in 23 years during 2024, surpassing 340 million residents, the U.S. Census Bureau reported on Thursday. With a growth rate of 1%, this year marked a significant rise compared to the record low of 0.2% recorded in 2021, when pandemic-related travel restrictions curbed immigration.

Immigration played a pivotal role in this demographic surge, adding nearly 2.8 million people to the population. A new method of counting individuals admitted for humanitarian reasons contributed to this increase. Net international migration accounted for 84% of the 3.3 million-person population rise between 2023 and 2024.

Births continued to outnumber deaths, with 519,000 more births than deaths recorded between 2023 and 2024. This figure represented an improvement from the historic low of 146,000 in 2021 but remained below the peaks observed in previous decades.

Immigration also significantly impacted population trends in individual states. In 16 states, population growth driven by immigration offset losses caused by residents moving to other states or deaths surpassing births. William Frey, a demographer at The Brookings Institution, emphasized this in an email, stating, “While some of the surge may be attributed to border crossings of asylees and humanitarian migrants in an unusual year, these numbers also show how immigration can be an important contributor to population gains in a large swath of the nation that would otherwise be experiencing slow growth or declines.”

The South continued its trend as the fastest-growing region in the United States, adding 1.8 million new residents in 2024—more than the combined total of all other regions. Texas led the nation with 562,941 new residents, followed by Florida, which gained 467,347 residents. The District of Columbia recorded the highest growth rate at 2.2%.

While most states experienced growth, three—Mississippi, Vermont, and West Virginia—saw slight population declines, losing between 127 and 516 residents.

The movement of residents from coastal urban states like California and New York to Sunbelt states such as Florida and Texas, a trend accelerated during the pandemic, showed signs of slowing in 2024, according to Frey. However, the broader demographic shift of population concentration moving south has continued, representing a dramatic change in the settlement patterns of the United States. Alex Zakrewsky, an urban planner in New Jersey, described this phenomenon as “a demographic shock to the evolving settlement pattern of the United States.”

A significant portion of international migration figures came from individuals entering the U.S. through humanitarian parole, a policy granting temporary entry to those unable to use standard immigration channels. The Migration Policy Institute noted that over 5.8 million individuals had been admitted under various humanitarian policies between 2021 and 2024.

Accurately estimating the number of new immigrants remains one of the most challenging aspects of the Census Bureau’s population calculations. While this year’s revised methodology was unrelated to political shifts, it comes just a month before President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Trump has pledged to carry out mass deportations of undocumented individuals in the U.S.

Discrepancies in immigration figures have been notable in recent years. For instance, the Census Bureau estimated 1.1 million immigrants entered the U.S. in 2023, compared to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of 3.3 million. With the updated methodology, the Census Bureau recalculated 2023 immigration figures at nearly 2.3 million, adding an extra 1.1 million to previous estimates.

The previous undercounting stemmed from the bureau’s reliance on surveys of households with established addresses, which often excluded immigrants admitted for humanitarian reasons. Jennifer Van Hook, a demographer at Penn State who contributed to the Census Bureau’s methodological changes, explained, “What has happened over time is that immigration has changed. You have numbers of people coming in who are claiming asylum and being processed at the U.S.-Mexico border from across the globe.”

The Census Bureau’s annual population estimates provide critical data between the decennial census counts. These figures not only track population trends across the U.S., its states, counties, and metro areas but also serve as the basis for distributing trillions of dollars in federal funding.

Congress Faces Urgent Deadline to Avert Partial Government Shutdown Amidst Debt Ceiling Debate

The U.S. Congress has a mere two days to avoid a partial government shutdown, following President-elect Donald Trump’s rejection of a bipartisan deal on Wednesday. Trump has demanded lawmakers not only pass a funding extension but also address the nation’s debt ceiling before he assumes office next month.

Trump urged his Republican colleagues to oppose a stopgap bill that would extend government funding past the deadline of midnight on Friday. Without congressional action, a partial shutdown is set to commence on Saturday, affecting key services such as air travel and law enforcement during the crucial days leading up to Christmas.

The proposed bipartisan agreement, negotiated on Tuesday, aimed to maintain funding through March 14. However, Trump warned Republicans of political repercussions if they supported the deal. “Any Republican that would be so stupid as to do this should, and will, be Primaried,” Trump stated on his Truth Social platform, referencing the possibility of intra-party challenges during primary elections.

If a shutdown occurs, it will be the first since the 2018-2019 closure, which also took place during Trump’s presidency.

Trump has called for Congress to pass legislation addressing multiple issues, including raising the government’s borrowing limit, a contentious matter, and enacting temporary funding measures. Additionally, he insisted on removing certain provisions in the current deal supported by Democrats, whose cooperation is essential for the bill’s passage.

Trump’s ally, Elon Musk, further complicated negotiations by urging Congress to reject the bill. Musk, who has been enlisted by Trump to scrutinize federal spending, argued that lawmakers supporting the measure should face electoral consequences.

Late-Night Negotiations Continue

Top Republican leaders, including Vice President-elect JD Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson, met late Wednesday to discuss the looming crisis. Following the meeting, Johnson described the discussions as a “productive conversation” but declined to provide specifics.

House Republican leader Steve Scalise was noncommittal when asked whether raising the debt ceiling would be part of the final agreement, saying, “We’re not there yet.” Similarly, House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole expressed uncertainty, stating, “I’m not confident of anything.”

Unclear Path Forward

The path to resolving the crisis remains uncertain. Any spending bill will require bipartisan support to pass through the House, where Republicans hold a slim 219-211 majority, and the Senate, where Democrats maintain a narrow edge.

President Joe Biden’s White House, which remains in power until Trump’s inauguration on January 20, criticized Republican tactics, stating that “Republicans need to stop playing politics” and warning that a shutdown would be detrimental to the country.

The current stopgap measure seeks to fund federal agencies at existing levels while allocating $100 billion for disaster relief and $10 billion for farm aid. It also includes unrelated items such as a pay raise for lawmakers and new rules targeting hidden hotel fees.

Trump has opposed these additional provisions, arguing that the bill should focus solely on temporary funding, disaster relief, and raising the debt ceiling. He emphasized the urgency of addressing the debt ceiling now to avoid a fiscal showdown next year.

The stopgap bill has become necessary because Congress has failed to approve standard spending legislation for the fiscal year, which began on October 1. Essential programs like Social Security are unaffected, as they operate independently of annual appropriations.

Mounting Debt and Economic Risks

For more than two decades, the U.S. government has spent beyond its revenues, driven by Democratic expansions of healthcare programs and Republican tax cuts. The national debt now stands at $36 trillion, necessitating an eventual increase in the debt ceiling.

Lawmakers face a choice: raise the borrowing limit now or when the government reaches its borrowing capacity next year. Failure to act could lead to severe economic repercussions. As discussions drag on, the stakes for Congress, the incoming administration, and the nation remain high.

Trump Names Loyal Allies to Key Positions in His Administration

President-elect Donald Trump is selecting a group of loyal allies for key federal government roles after their electoral defeats in recent years, often linked to their support for Trump’s controversial political claims. These selections highlight Trump’s enduring focus on loyalty and his tendency to reward those who have steadfastly supported him, even if their political races ended in defeat.

Among the notable picks are two former Georgia senators who lost their 2020 Senate races after promoting Trump’s unfounded claims of a stolen election. David Perdue, who also lost the 2022 gubernatorial primary while aligning himself with Trump’s election denial narrative, is being considered for the position of ambassador to China. Kelly Loeffler, who also lost her Senate seat in 2020, has been chosen to head the Small Business Administration.

Former football player Herschel Walker, whom Trump backed for the Georgia Senate seat in 2022, was appointed late Tuesday as ambassador to the Bahamas. Although Walker lost his Senate bid, he remains a strong Trump supporter.

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the TV personality and doctor who ran for Senate in Pennsylvania in 2022 with Trump’s endorsement, has been selected to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Similarly, Kari Lake, who lost races for governor in Arizona in 2022 and for Senate in 2024, has been chosen to run Voice of America, a U.S.-funded international news broadcaster.

Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer from Oregon, who lost re-election after being tied to Trump by her Democratic opponent, was selected for the position of labor secretary. Former Georgia congressman Doug Collins, a pro-Trump figure who lost a 2020 primary to Loeffler, is set to head the Department of Veterans Affairs. Former New York congressman Lee Zeldin, who lost his 2022 gubernatorial race, was picked to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

For Trump, the central consideration behind these picks is loyalty. He has long placed great value on those who remain loyal to him, a trait that is evident in his choices for his second administration. Trump’s inner circle is unsurprised by these appointments. “He values loyalty, hard stop. At times, beyond all else. We were not surprised by anyone you mentioned was picked,” said a Trump ally familiar with the transition process. “They are not only qualified for the positions they are nominated for, but have shown great loyalty to President Trump. He’s trying to change Washington and wants people who he knows he can trust.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell of California critiqued Trump’s selections, arguing that the president-elect was rewarding loyalists and sending a message to Republicans: “Don’t cross me if you’re in Congress. Because he remembers.” However, Swalwell questioned whether Trump’s picks were the most qualified. “I don’t know why you’d want a Cabinet full of electoral losers,” he said in an interview.

Rep. Hillary Scholten from Michigan echoed concerns about competence, emphasizing that it’s essential to prioritize the most qualified individuals for these critical roles. “I cannot begin to get in the mind of Trump, but it certainly seems from the outside that this is a way to keep people who were close to him, who took a stand for him, within the inner circle,” Scholten said. “I’m glad that we have a vetting process in the Senate, because these are positions of incredible trust, and we need to make sure that we’re not only rewarding political loyalty here… We need the most competent person for the job in these roles.”

Senator John Cornyn of Texas defended Trump’s choices, expressing confidence in the talents of the nominees. “I’m glad he’s taking advantage of some of the talent that’s out there,” Cornyn said. “And so I’m encouraged by that.”

Trump’s strategy of elevating loyalists has, however, meant that those who challenged him have been sidelined. Notably, figures like Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and U.N. ambassador, and Mike Pompeo, Trump’s former secretary of state, have been excluded. Haley, who ran against Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, and Pompeo, who is seen as disloyal by some in the MAGA movement, were both bypassed in favor of those who remained faithful to Trump’s brand of politics.

“I will not be inviting former Ambassador Nikki Haley, or former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, to join the Trump Administration, which is currently in formation,” Trump declared on his social media platform following the election.

For Trump’s loyalists, their dedication to his cause has helped them secure prominent positions. Kari Lake, for instance, has been a vocal promoter of Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election, and she has remained a frequent presence at Mar-a-Lago during the 2024 election period. Her continued allegiance to Trump, however, has at times led to friction with some of his advisers. “At the end of the day, those are not the sort of things that will end a relationship with Trump,” said a Trump ally in response to reports that Trump encouraged Lake to focus more on campaigning for her Senate race instead of staying at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump’s approach to political loyalty has also been a means for former political foes to regain favor with him. One such example is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who after a bitter primary contest with Trump in 2016, recalibrated to become one of Trump’s staunchest allies. This shift in allegiance has earned him a key position in Trump’s second administration. “He will be a strong advocate for our nation, a true friend to our allies, and a fearless warrior who will never back down to our adversaries,” Trump said in announcing Rubio as his pick for secretary of state in November.

Lee Zeldin, who came within seven points of winning the New York governor’s race in 2022, stands out among the group of underperforming Republican nominees. His relatively strong performance in a heavily Democratic state has earned him a spot in Trump’s administration, signaling that political success, even if not entirely victorious, can still earn favor in Trump’s eyes.

Some of Trump’s appointments also appear to be more transactional in nature, such as his selection of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy, a member of the prominent Democratic family who ran in the Democratic 2024 primary before endorsing Trump, is another example of Trump’s pragmatic approach.

“There is very little that someone can do to Trump, even if they were once political enemies, that can’t be fixed by showing that you are committed to his message and his movement,” said a Trump ally. “I think he has every right to expect that sort of loyalty for those around him.”

In sum, Trump’s cabinet selections reveal a clear pattern of prioritizing loyalty over other factors, including electoral success or political competence. His picks not only reinforce his influence within the Republican Party but also send a message that loyalty is the most crucial element in his approach to governance. As his second term in office begins to take shape, it remains to be seen whether these picks will prove effective in their respective roles, or whether they will further alienate critics who argue that competence should come first.

Trump Vows to Eliminate Daylight Saving Time: Winners and Losers of the Shift

Like many Americans, Donald Trump has expressed his dislike for the practice of switching clocks forward in March and back in November for daylight saving time. Last Friday, the former president pledged to put an end to this longstanding practice.

In a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump wrote, “The Republican Party will use its best efforts to eliminate Daylight Saving Time, which has a small but strong constituency, but shouldn’t! Daylight Saving Time is inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation.”

Initially introduced during both World Wars as a measure to save energy, daylight saving time has become a subject of contention in recent years. While it promises an extra hour of evening sunlight, studies have raised questions about whether the benefits outweigh the disruptions. Changing the clocks is a source of frustration for many, and earlier this month, Tesla CEO Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who are part of Trump’s semi-official Department of Government Efficiency, also criticized the practice.

It remains unclear whether Trump supports making daylight saving time permanent—leading to longer afternoons—or reverting to standard time year-round, which would ensure brighter mornings. Trump’s team declined to comment on the matter. In 2022, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, whom Trump has nominated to lead the State Department, co-sponsored the Sunshine Protection Act. This bipartisan bill, now stalled, proposed making daylight saving time permanent. On the other hand, most health experts advocate for staying on standard time due to its alignment with natural body rhythms.

Ending clock changes would have far-reaching implications, with economic consequences for several sectors. If the proposal to remain on permanent daylight saving time gains traction, there will be distinct winners and losers.

Winners

Tourism

One of the biggest beneficiaries of permanent daylight saving time would be the tourism industry. Longer afternoon and evening daylight hours encourage more visitors to outdoor attractions and landmarks. Kurt Janson, policy director of the U.K.’s Tourism Alliance, estimated in 2011 that Britain’s tourism sector could gain an additional £3.5 billion (around $5.6 billion at the time) annually if daylight saving time were made permanent. “In a nutshell, it would extend the spring and fall shoulder seasons for the tourism industry,” Janson told National Geographic.

Retail

Retailers would also stand to gain from permanent daylight saving time. Extended daylight hours encourage shoppers to spend more, particularly during the evening. Two years ago, an industry representative told a House committee that daylight saving time contributed to increased consumer spending. Similarly, a 2016 JPMorgan Chase Institute study revealed that consumer spending dropped by 2.2% to 4.9% in various cities following the return to standard time.

The Stock Market

Interestingly, the stock market also seems to fare better during daylight saving time. Between 2007 and 2022, the S&P 500 recorded an average gain of 7.5% during daylight saving months, compared to just 2% during the rest of the year, according to Bespoke Investment Group. While correlation does not imply causation, it appears that Wall Street traders—like many Americans—dislike losing an hour of sleep in March. A study conducted by researchers from several business schools, including Kentucky and Emory, found that participants in capital markets were slower to react to earnings news during the week after clocks “spring forward.”

Losers

Your Health

Health experts overwhelmingly favor standard time over daylight saving time, citing its better alignment with the body’s circadian rhythm. The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Sleep Medicine both argue that standard time is healthier. Research published in the British Medical Journal highlights a range of health risks linked to daylight saving time, including increased rates of heart attacks, strokes, and other medical conditions.

A recent analysis by Chmura Economics & Analytics estimated the annual economic cost of daylight saving time at $672 million. This figure includes $375 million attributed to higher rates of heart attacks, $252 million linked to strokes, $18 million from workplace injuries, and $27 million due to a rise in traffic accidents.

Morning Commuters

Making daylight saving time permanent has historical precedent—and mixed results. In December 1973, President Nixon signed a law to implement permanent daylight saving time during the oil crisis. However, the change quickly became unpopular during the dark winter months. Americans disliked commuting and sending children to school before sunrise, and the problem gained national attention when incidents of schoolchildren being hit by vehicles were reported. In Florida alone, eight children died, prompting then-Governor Reubin Askew to urge Congress to reverse the measure.

By October 1974, President Gerald Ford signed legislation to reinstate standard time for four months each year. If daylight saving time were made permanent again, similar objections could arise from parents, commuters, and others, particularly in regions located on the western edges of time zones where sunrise would be significantly delayed.

As Trump continues to advocate for eliminating daylight saving time, the debate highlights the complexities and trade-offs involved in changing how the nation observes time. Whether his pledge materializes into a legislative proposal or remains a talking point, the potential winners and losers are clear.

New York Judge Upholds Trump’s Conviction in Hush Money Case Despite Claims of Presidential Immunity

A New York judge upheld the conviction of President-elect Donald Trump on felony charges, ruling that the verdict from a jury in the hush money case remains valid even under the Supreme Court’s new test for presidential immunity. This ruling came shortly after Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election, in which voters chose to return him to the White House despite his ongoing legal challenges.

The decision, made by Judge Juan Merchan, addresses a key aspect of Trump’s legal battle: whether the president-elect could use his status to dismiss the case entirely. At the heart of the issue was whether certain evidence, presented by New York prosecutors during Trump’s seven-week trial, was protected under the Supreme Court’s doctrine of presidential immunity. Trump’s legal team argued that evidence such as testimony from White House aides, social media posts sent during his presidency, and his government ethics form should have been shielded from scrutiny.

Judge Merchan, however, ruled that Trump’s immunity objections had been improperly preserved, as some of the arguments had not been raised earlier in the case. Moreover, he concluded that none of the evidence in question fell under the protection of presidential immunity. In his ruling, Merchan explained, “The evidence related to the preserved claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections; and as to the claims that were unpreserved, this Court finds in the alternative, that when considered on the merits, they too are denied because they relate entirely to unofficial conduct.”

This ruling comes at a time when the Supreme Court has recently clarified the scope of presidential immunity. The Court held that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions related to core constitutional powers. However, it also made clear that while unofficial conduct can be prosecuted, juries are not allowed to probe the motivations behind presidential decisions. The high court’s decision sets a precedent that Trump’s defense could not use to block evidence in this case.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg strongly opposed Trump’s claims, urging Judge Merchan to dismiss the arguments about immunity. Bragg contended that no evidence presented to the jury was protected by presidential immunity and emphasized that, even if immunity applied, it would not diminish the weight of “other overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.” Merchan agreed with this assessment, stating that even if the immunity argument held, he would still find that the evidence used against Trump—particularly relating to falsifying business records—did not infringe upon the authority of the Executive Branch. He concluded that such acts were personal in nature, and were not related to presidential duties, which would justify their inclusion in the case.

Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, all related to a $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election. The payment was intended to conceal an affair, which Trump has consistently denied. Prosecutors argued that the scheme was a deliberate attempt to unlawfully influence the outcome of the election. This case is significant because it represents the first-ever criminal prosecution of a former U.S. president and is the only one to have reached trial.

Despite the jury’s conviction, Trump has continued to argue that his victory in the 2024 presidential election should lead to the dismissal of the verdict and the case itself. Bragg has opposed these claims, suggesting alternative approaches such as freezing the proceedings during Trump’s time in office. As of now, Judge Merchan has not yet made a ruling on this matter.

Trump’s spokesperson, Steven Cheung, expressed frustration with the decision, accusing Judge Merchan of violating Supreme Court rulings on immunity. “Today’s decision by deeply conflicted, acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence,” Cheung said in a statement. In contrast, Bragg’s office declined to comment on the judge’s ruling.

In another development, Judge Merchan also revealed that Trump had submitted a letter on December 3, alleging juror misconduct. While Merchan offered few details, he indicated that the matter would be made public with certain redactions.

Trump’s legal situation has become more complicated since his return to the presidential race. While the Manhattan hush money case progresses, other criminal proceedings have taken more favorable turns for the president-elect. Special Counsel Jack Smith dropped all charges against Trump in relation to his federal election subversion and classified documents cases. Meanwhile, the Georgia criminal case, concerning alleged election interference, has been temporarily paused as an appeals court reviews a pretrial defense challenge. Trump’s legal team has also pushed for the dismissal of this case.

Despite these legal challenges, Trump’s supporters remain confident in his ability to overcome the hurdles. The ongoing legal drama surrounding him has yet to definitively affect his ability to govern or his political future. However, his legal battles will likely continue to be a central issue as he embarks on his second term in office.

Confusion Over Mysterious Drone Sightings Raises Concerns and Calls for Action

In recent weeks, reports of mysterious flying objects have sparked concern and confusion across several states, with calls for military intervention. These objects, potentially drones, have been spotted over residential areas, restricted sites, and critical infrastructure, prompting increased scrutiny from federal agencies. Despite public concern, officials have stressed that there is no evidence suggesting that these sightings pose a serious security threat.

White House National Security spokesperson John Kirby reassured the public on Monday, stating that there have been no indications of any national security or public safety risks associated with these sightings. “We assess that the sightings to date include a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircrafts, helicopters, and even stars that were mistakenly reported as drones,” Kirby explained. He added that the FBI is reviewing around 100 tips related to the sightings, but none have raised alarms about malicious intent.

The U.S. government is taking steps to address the situation, including deploying advanced drone detection and tracking systems to two military facilities in New Jersey. The systems are being moved to Picatinny Arsenal, a U.S. military research facility in northern New Jersey, and Naval Weapons Station Earle, located in central New Jersey. These facilities have been the site of several reported drone sightings, which led to temporary flight restrictions in the area. “Several instances of unidentified drones entering the airspace” were noted above Naval Weapons Station Earle, though no direct threats were identified.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy was briefed by the FBI on the investigation into the drone sightings, particularly around the Naval Weapons Station Earle. He expressed the state’s readiness to support federal authorities in resolving the matter. The sightings have disrupted some local air traffic, including a temporary closure of Stewart International Airport in New York due to drone activity. At the same time, airspace above Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio was restricted because of similar concerns. Pentagon spokesperson Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder emphasized that the presence of drones is not uncommon, given that thousands of drones are flown across the U.S. daily. “It’s not that unusual to see drones in the sky, nor is it an indication of malicious activity or any public safety threat,” Ryder stated.

Despite these reassurances, local politicians continue to demand further investigation into the drone sightings. In Morris County, New Jersey, officials have called on the federal government to mobilize all available resources to address the unauthorized drone activity. Former President Donald Trump also weighed in on the situation during a news conference, raising questions about the government’s knowledge of the drone activities. “The government knows what is happening. Look, our military knows where they took off from,” Trump said. “If it’s a garage, they can go right into that garage. They know where it came from and where it went, and for some reason they don’t want to comment.”

Kirby responded to Trump’s remarks, emphasizing the administration’s commitment to transparency, but also cautioned against speculation. “What we’re not going to do is speculate, and we’re not going to hypothesize – we’re not going to, we’re not going to provide content that we can’t be sure is accurate,” Kirby remarked.

In an effort to manage public safety, the FBI and New Jersey State Police issued a joint statement urging the public not to shoot at suspected drones, warning that such actions could result in deadly consequences if manned aircraft are mistakenly targeted. The statement highlighted instances where pilots of manned aircraft had been struck in the eyes by lasers, likely due to misidentification of drones.

Drone ownership in the U.S. is widespread, with around 792,000 drones registered with the FAA, used for a variety of purposes such as photography, agriculture, and law enforcement. However, there remains significant uncertainty regarding the exact nature of the recent sightings. Some experts, including FBI supervisory special agent Tom Adams, believe that many sightings could be cases of mistaken identity, with people confusing aircraft or even stars with drones. “I can tell you from my firsthand experience…it was fairly common for planets, crewed aircraft and even low Earth orbit satellites to be misidentified as drones at night,” Adams explained.

The sightings have occurred across multiple states, including New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio. In Morris County, New Jersey, residents have frequently reported seeing drones, often in clusters. Democratic Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey shared a video of what appeared to be a cluster of drones flying over the Round Valley Reservoir but later acknowledged that most of the objects were likely planes. Local officials have been briefed by federal agencies, with some reports indicating that the drones appear to fly in a coordinated pattern and can remain airborne for extended periods.

In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul directed the state’s Intelligence Center to investigate the sightings, and announced that new drone detection systems would be deployed in the state. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also called for advanced detection technologies to be used to track drones. New York State Police reported that they were investigating numerous drone sightings, although no public safety threat has been identified.

Drone sightings have also been reported in other states, with Connecticut deploying a detection system to assist with investigations in Fairfield County. In Massachusetts, two men were arrested for flying a drone near Logan International Airport in Boston, while in California, a Chinese national was charged for illegally filming a SpaceX launch with a drone near Vandenburg Space Force Base.

Despite federal officials’ assurances that the drones do not pose a threat, there is still significant uncertainty about the source and intent of these sightings. Some officials, including U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, have called for greater transparency regarding the investigation. “One, we need a briefing for the members of the Senate to figure out what’s going on here,” Klobuchar said during an interview. “Two, we need more transparency.”

Local officials like Belleville Mayor Michael Melham have adopted a cautious approach, instructing police to call the bomb squad and requiring hazmat suits when dealing with downed drones. “We just don’t know what these things are, so we are being cautious,” Melham said.

As the investigation continues, federal authorities are working to clarify the situation, but some have suggested that the drone activity could be linked to a broader trend of increasing drone use, with some instances possibly being “copycat” behavior fueled by media coverage. The FBI, along with the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, is working to determine whether the sightings represent a national security concern or simply a misunderstanding.

Despite ongoing investigations and heightened concerns, officials remain cautious about jumping to conclusions, and many agree that there is no immediate evidence to suggest that these drones represent a serious threat to national security. As the situation develops, authorities are continuing their efforts to monitor the skies and address the public’s concerns.

Trump Administration Stacked with Donors and Billionaire Backers

Nearly three dozen individuals appointed to serve in Donald Trump’s incoming administration have contributed financially to his campaign or supporting groups, according to an analysis of federal campaign records conducted by CNN. This highlights the significant role of wealthy donors in shaping the new government.

Notable among these donors is tech mogul Elon Musk, recognized as the largest disclosed political contributor in the 2024 election cycle. Although not officially part of Trump’s Cabinet, Musk has taken a central role in the administration’s transition process. He has been instrumental in developing the Department of Government Efficiency initiative, advising on personnel decisions, interacting with global leaders, and meeting lawmakers to discuss federal downsizing.

The analysis reveals that eight Cabinet appointees and their spouses have collectively donated over $37 million to Trump’s efforts. Linda McMahon, the billionaire wrestling executive selected to head the Education Department, has led these contributions. In addition, two other Cabinet picks, New York Rep. Elise Stefanik and Florida Rep. Mike Waltz, transferred campaign funds to pro-Trump efforts.

Musk alone has donated more than $277 million during this election cycle, with over $262 million directed to Trump’s campaign. Most of Musk’s contributions flowed to a super PAC he created to mobilize Republican voters in swing states. Brendan Glavin, research director at OpenSecrets, remarked, “No individual outside of self-funded candidates has spent as much to shape federal elections in a single cycle.”

Glavin further noted that Trump’s donors are being appointed to positions directly influencing policy, unlike the traditional trend of appointing donors to ceremonial roles.

The CNN review, covering over 90 high-level appointees announced in the five weeks since Trump’s victory, identified more than 30 donors who supported his campaign or affiliated groups. Trump transition team spokesman Brian Hughes defended these appointments, stating, “Millions of Americans joined President Trump in the movement to restore our nation’s greatness. Some of those who supported the campaign and helped deliver this decisive victory will now work with the president to fulfill his vision.”

This surge in donor involvement is a marked contrast from Trump’s first term, when five Cabinet members donated nearly $8 million combined, mostly driven by McMahon’s contributions in 2016. For the 2024 election, donations by Trump’s Cabinet far exceed those of President Joe Biden’s appointees, who collectively gave less than $100,000 during the 2020 election.

Billionaires Driving Policy

Elon Musk’s financial contributions tower over other donors. McMahon follows closely, donating $21.2 million, primarily to Make America Great Again, Inc., Trump’s leading super PAC. Additional seven-figure contributors include Howard Lutnick, CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, selected for Commerce Secretary; hedge fund executive Scott Bessent, chosen for Treasury Secretary; and former Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler, tapped for the Small Business Administration.

Loeffler’s husband, Jeff Sprecher, also made substantial contributions, exceeding $2 million to pro-Trump efforts. Sprecher, CEO of the Intercontinental Exchange and owner of the New York Stock Exchange, appeared alongside Trump at the exchange’s opening bell ceremony. Loeffler’s spokesperson, Caitlin O’Dea, stated, “Senator Loeffler is proud to support President Trump for the same reasons millions of Americans gave him a historic victory: to restore prosperity, security, and opportunity.”

Trump’s renewed support from billionaires and corporate leaders represents a stark turnaround from the backlash he faced following the January 6 Capitol riot in 2021. Wealthy tech leaders are now backing Trump, seeking regulatory rollbacks and business-friendly policies.

Musk’s unprecedented donations helped Trump close the financial gap against Democratic rival Kamala Harris, who raised $1 billion after securing her party’s nomination in July. Super PACs, which face no donation limits but are prohibited from direct coordination with campaigns, became pivotal in the race. However, a 2024 Federal Election Commission ruling allowed Musk to align his ground game efforts with Trump’s campaign, further amplifying their impact.

Critics argue that such immense spending highlights flaws in the campaign finance system. Fred Wertheimer, head of Democracy 21, commented, “Musk exemplifies how campaign finance laws have failed. I fear for departments run by billionaires uninterested in their agency’s purpose.”

Still, defenders see value in wealthy appointees. Former Virginia congressman Tom Davis explained, “There’s nothing wrong with successful individuals giving back through government service. Their contributions reflect loyalty.”

Friends, Family, and High-Profile Appointments

Presidents traditionally reward donors with ambassadorships or honorary roles. Trump’s picks for such posts follow this pattern, with billionaires among his donors assuming diplomatic assignments. For instance, Arkansas investor Warren Stephens is Trump’s choice for ambassador to the United Kingdom, while Charles Kushner, named ambassador to France, is a close family member and donor.

Kushner, who donated $2 million to pro-Trump causes and received a presidential pardon in 2020, is Ivanka Trump’s father-in-law. Real estate tycoon Tom Barrack, another major donor, is Trump’s selection as ambassador to Turkey. Longtime Trump associate Steve Witkoff, who contributed $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC, will serve as a special envoy to the Middle East.

These appointments illustrate Trump’s preference for rewarding loyalty while consolidating power within a trusted network of allies and donors.

As the new administration takes shape, critics and supporters alike will closely monitor how these financially influential appointees influence policy and governance in Trump’s second term.

Trump Calls for an End to Daylight Saving Time, Citing Inconvenience and Cost

President-elect Donald Trump announced on Friday that Republicans would aim to abolish daylight saving time, describing it as both “inconvenient” and “costly” for the nation.

“The Republican Party will use its best efforts to eliminate Daylight Saving Time, which has a small but strong constituency, but shouldn’t! Daylight Saving Time is inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation,” Trump shared in a post on Truth Social.

Efforts to address daylight saving time have been a recurring topic in Congress. For years, lawmakers have introduced proposals to make daylight saving time permanent. However, these bills have consistently failed to pass through both chambers.

Advocates for making daylight saving time permanent argue that such a change would eliminate the need for Americans to reset their clocks in the fall and spring. They highlight that extended evening sunlight would provide more opportunities for outdoor activities and potentially improve overall well-being.

Critics of the proposal, however, point to its drawbacks. They argue that permanent daylight saving time would result in darker mornings for a significant part of the year. This could have safety implications, as children might have to go to school or wait for buses during hours of darkness.

An alternative proposal, making standard time permanent, would have the opposite effect. It would ensure brighter mornings throughout the year but would mean sacrificing extended daylight in the evening.

At this stage, it remains unclear whether Trump supports the adoption of permanent daylight saving time or favors reverting to permanent standard time. The Hill reached out to Trump’s transition team for clarification, but no response was provided.

Daylight saving time has been a fixture in most parts of the United States since the 1960s. Its origins, however, date back to 1918 when then-President Woodrow Wilson first introduced the concept.

India and Bangladesh: The Strain in Ties and the Rising Tide of Anger

India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri recently visited Bangladesh during a period of strained relations, carrying not a message of goodwill but a list of grievances. The visit underscored India’s growing frustration and anger over the rising incidents of violence against Hindus under Bangladesh’s current regime. The situation has highlighted the fragility of bilateral ties and the urgent need for recalibration.

In recent weeks, violence against Hindus in Bangladesh has escalated, with several attacks on temples and religious sites. India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar informed the Indian Parliament that the government had “taken serious note” of these incidents, which included attacks on a Puja mandap in Tantibazar, Dhaka, and thefts at the Jeshoreshwari Kali temple in Satkhira during Durga Puja 2024. These acts of aggression have sparked outrage in India, culminating in protests near the Bangladesh border in West Bengal and an attack on the Bangladeshi consulate in Tripura.

Adding fuel to the fire was the arrest of a Hindu monk, recently expelled from the International Society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), on charges of sedition. This incident further angered Hindu communities in India, leading to heightened tensions between the two nations.

To attribute these incidents solely to recent political developments in Bangladesh would be an oversimplification. The roots of this unrest lie in a complex and bloody history of persecution faced by the Hindu minority in Bangladesh. Anti-India sentiment has long simmered among the Bangladeshi populace, particularly among the younger generation. Many view India as an “overbearing neighbour,” and there is widespread belief that the recently ousted government under Sheikh Hasina maintained an “unequal relationship” with India.

This sentiment has only intensified under the interim government led by Dr. Mohammed Yunus. India’s perceived overreliance on Sheikh Hasina during her tenure has left the new regime viewing India as an unreliable ally. Moreover, India’s domestic policies under a pro-Hindu government have exacerbated the alienation of Bangladeshi Muslims, further straining ties.

Critics argue that India’s unyielding support for Sheikh Hasina alienated other stakeholders in Bangladesh. When Hasina was ousted and sought asylum in India, it was initially deemed a temporary measure. However, her extended stay has raised questions about India’s intentions. While granting her refuge was seen as “an honourable thing,” critics point out that India has not engaged with Bangladeshi stakeholders to facilitate her extradition. This lack of action has led to accusations of India using its flexible refugee policy as a “convenient route” to keep Hasina on Indian soil indefinitely.

Compounding the issue is Hasina’s vocal criticism of the current Bangladeshi regime from Indian territory. In a recent virtual address ahead of Misri’s visit, Hasina labeled the Yunus government as “fascist” and accused it of enabling terrorist activities. She also raised concerns about the attacks on minorities, mirroring India’s diplomatic stance. However, her remarks have been perceived as politically motivated and damaging to India-Bangladesh relations.

The Indian government’s silence on Hasina’s statements has raised questions. Why is India allowing her to use its platform for political commentary? Why is it not restraining her from worsening an already fragile relationship? This perceived indifference has fueled public anger in Bangladesh, with many attributing the attacks on Hindus not only to religious discrimination but also to frustration over India’s unwavering support for Hasina.

The perception of India as a biased neighbor is further reinforced by its inability to address historical grievances. India’s actions, or lack thereof, have widened the gap between the two nations, undermining decades of historical and cultural ties. The current dispensation in Bangladesh has ample reasons to harbor resentment against India, given the latter’s perceived meddling in its internal affairs.

India’s asylum policy for Hasina is particularly contentious. While her initial request for refuge was for a temporary period, her prolonged stay has led to accusations of favoritism. India’s refusal to visibly engage with the Bangladeshi government on her extradition has only deepened the rift. This situation, coupled with Hasina’s critical remarks against the Yunus regime from Indian soil, has strengthened the perception that India is interfering in Bangladesh’s domestic politics.

The Indian government’s support for Hasina during her tenure as Prime Minister also came at a cost. By prioritizing relations with her government, India neglected other political factions in Bangladesh, thereby alienating potential allies. This imbalance has left India in a precarious position, with its ties to the current regime hanging by a thread.

To mend this fractured relationship, India must adopt a more balanced and inclusive approach. The escalating violence against Hindus in Bangladesh is a symptom of deeper issues that require immediate attention. While it is crucial to address religious discrimination, India must also acknowledge and address the underlying political and historical grievances that fuel anti-India sentiment in Bangladesh.

The strained relations between India and Bangladesh underscore the complexities of regional diplomacy. As a neighbor, India must recalibrate its policies to ensure a more equitable and mutually beneficial relationship. This includes addressing the concerns of the current Bangladeshi regime, while also safeguarding the rights of minorities.

In conclusion, India’s relationship with Bangladesh is at a crossroads. The escalating violence against Hindus and the growing mistrust between the two nations highlight the urgent need for a reset in bilateral ties. By adopting a more nuanced and inclusive approach, India can work towards rebuilding trust and fostering a stronger partnership with its neighbor. Failure to do so risks pushing the relationship to an all-time low, with far-reaching consequences for regional stability.

Ex-Ivy League Grad Arrested in UnitedHealthcare CEO Murder

Luigi Nicholas Mangione, the 26-year-old charged with murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, has shocked friends and family with his alleged actions. Mangione, a former valedictorian and Ivy League graduate, was arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania, days after the shooting. His arrest, while dining at a McDonald’s, followed a tip from a vigilant employee who recognized him from media-circulated CCTV images.

Mangione, who was last known to reside in Honolulu, Hawaii, has no prior criminal record and comes from a wealthy family in Maryland. According to court documents, he is currently being held in Pennsylvania on gun-related charges, while New York prosecutors have filed murder charges against him.

Background of Luigi Mangione

Born and raised in Maryland, Mangione has ties to San Francisco and a previous address in Honolulu. His LinkedIn profile lists his most recent job as a data engineer at TrueCar, a California-based platform for buying new and used cars.

Mangione graduated as valedictorian from an elite prep school in Baltimore in 2016, where he delivered a graduation speech celebrating his peers’ courage to “explore the unknown and try new things.” A former classmate, Freddie Leatherbury, described Mangione as “smart, athletic, and friendly,” noting that he came from a wealthy family. “Quite honestly, he had everything going for him,” Leatherbury said, expressing disbelief at Mangione’s arrest.

Mangione went on to earn undergraduate and graduate degrees in computer science from the University of Pennsylvania in 2020, where he was a teaching assistant and founded a video game development club.

His family, which includes his cousin, Maryland state legislator Nino Mangione, issued a statement through social media. “Our family is shocked and devastated by Luigi’s arrest,” Nino Mangione wrote. “We offer our prayers to the family of Brian Thompson and ask people to pray for all involved.”

Mangione’s grandfather, Nick Mangione Sr., was a millionaire real estate developer and philanthropist, and the family once owned a country club in Baltimore.

Evidence Found on Mangione

Authorities reported that Mangione was found in possession of a 3D-printed gun and silencer, clothing and a mask resembling those used by the shooter, and a fake New Jersey ID. He also carried $10,000 in cash, including $2,000 in foreign currency, although Mangione disputed this amount in court.

Investigators discovered a three-page handwritten document that allegedly revealed Mangione’s animosity toward corporate America, which police say hints at his motivation for the crime. NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch stated that the writings “speak to both his motivation and mindset.”

Ghost Gun Connection

The weapon found with Mangione was identified as a “ghost gun,” an untraceable firearm assembled from parts, potentially made using a 3D printer. NYPD Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny noted that the weapon was capable of firing 9mm rounds and was likely used in the shooting.

Arrest and Legal Proceedings

Mangione was arrested without incident after police approached him at McDonald’s, where he was wearing a blue medical mask and working on a silver laptop. Officers recognized him immediately, and when asked for identification, he provided a fake ID. Upon being questioned about his recent whereabouts, Mangione became visibly nervous and started shaking, according to a criminal complaint.

He is currently being held without bail in Pennsylvania and faces extradition to New York to stand trial for murder.

Investigation Details

The investigation into Brian Thompson’s murder included the release of CCTV footage and nine photos, some showing the suspect at a Starbucks shortly before the attack. Surveillance videos captured the gunman, who had worn a mask during the crime, discarding evidence, including a backpack in Central Park. He was later seen taking a taxi to a bus station near the George Washington Bridge, where he likely fled Manhattan.

The FBI offered a $50,000 reward, adding to the NYPD’s $10,000 reward for information leading to the suspect’s capture.

Reaction from UnitedHealth Group

Following Mangione’s arrest, UnitedHealth Group released a statement expressing hope that the apprehension would bring relief to Thompson’s family, friends, and colleagues. “We thank law enforcement and will continue to work with them on this investigation. We ask that everyone respect the family’s privacy as they mourn,” a spokesperson said.

Praise for the Tipster

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro commended the individual who recognized Mangione at McDonald’s and alerted authorities. “A Pennsylvania resident saw something early this morning and said something to our local police,” Shapiro stated. “The real hero in this story is the person who called 911.”

Shapiro also condemned online narratives portraying the alleged killer as a hero. “In some dark corners, this killer is being hailed as a hero. Hear me on this, he is no hero,” he said.

Next Steps

As authorities backtrack Mangione’s movements from Manhattan to Pennsylvania, investigators continue to piece together the timeline of events leading to his arrest. “We’ll be working, backtracking his steps from New York to Altoona,” Chief Kenny said.

Video footage shows Mangione arriving at the Blair County Courthouse in Pennsylvania in handcuffs. When asked if he required a public defender, Mangione requested more time to decide.

Brian Thompson’s tragic murder has left a void in the corporate world, and Mangione’s arrest marks a significant step in the ongoing investigation. The case, which has drawn national attention, highlights the importance of public vigilance and the collaborative efforts of law enforcement.

Trump Reaffirms Tough Immigration Policies, Suggests Flexibility for Dreamers

In an interview with Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press,” President-elect Donald Trump stated his intention to pursue a comprehensive deportation program targeting individuals residing in the United States illegally. He emphasized, “you have no choice” but to remove all undocumented immigrants, including potentially deporting American citizen family members of those individuals. Additionally, Trump plans to end birthright citizenship, a right guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Despite these hardline measures, he expressed a willingness to work with Democrats to protect Dreamers—undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children—allowing them to stay in the country.

Trump’s remarks represent his most detailed comments on immigration since his election victory in November. He reiterated his campaign pledge to focus first on deporting undocumented immigrants with criminal records before extending efforts to include others. “We have to get the criminals out of our country,” Trump asserted. However, he declined to clarify the specific crimes that would qualify for deportation.

Addressing the deportation program’s scope, Trump acknowledged its difficulty but insisted it is necessary. “It’s a very tough thing to do…but you have rules, regulations, laws. They came in illegally,” he explained. He contrasted undocumented immigrants with those waiting for legal entry, saying, “The people that have been treated very unfairly are the people that have been on line for 10 years to come into the country.”

When pressed by Welker on who else might face deportation, Trump said, “Others are other people outside of criminals,” suggesting the program could expand beyond those with criminal records.

The discussion comes amid an increase in unauthorized border crossings during President Joe Biden’s tenure, though recent executive actions have reduced the numbers. Trump has long made border security a cornerstone of his political agenda, frequently citing crimes committed by undocumented immigrants to justify stricter policies. However, a 2024 study by the National Institute of Justice found that undocumented immigrants in Texas were arrested for violent crimes at less than half the rate of native-born Americans between 2012 and 2018.

Trump also addressed families with mixed immigration status, where some members are U.S. citizens while others are undocumented. Echoing comments by Tom Homan, his choice for border czar, Trump indicated that such families would be deported together. “I don’t want to be breaking up families,” he said, adding, “The only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back.”

Welker questioned Trump about the controversial zero-tolerance policy from his first term, which led to the separation of families at the border. Trump ultimately ended the practice but faced widespread criticism. “We don’t have to separate families,” he said. “We’ll send the whole family very humanely back to the country where they came.”

When asked if family separations would return under his administration, Trump responded, “It depends on the family. If they come here illegally but their family is here legally, then the family has a choice. The person that came in illegally can go out, or they can all go out together.”

Trump also announced plans to end birthright citizenship, describing it as “ridiculous” and vowing to achieve this through executive action. Such a move would almost certainly face legal challenges. Trump argued that birthright citizenship is unique to the U.S., stating, “We’re the only country that has it, you know.” However, a review by the Library of Congress contradicts this claim, noting that over 30 countries, including Canada and Brazil, grant birthright citizenship.

In contrast to his firm stance on deportations and birthright citizenship, Trump adopted a more conciliatory tone when discussing Dreamers—individuals covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Many Dreamers have lived in the U.S. for decades and are now contributing members of society. “We have to do something about the Dreamers,” Trump said. “These are people that have been brought here at a very young age, and many of these are middle-aged people now; they don’t even speak the language of their country.”

Trump emphasized his willingness to collaborate with Democrats to address the status of Dreamers. “I will work with the Democrats on a plan,” he said, acknowledging that many Dreamers have established successful lives in the U.S. “Some of them are no longer young people, and in many cases, they’ve become successful. They have great jobs. In some cases, they have small businesses. Some cases they might have large businesses, and we’re going to have to do something with them.”

Trump’s immigration policies remain a polarizing issue, blending stringent enforcement measures with selective accommodations for certain groups. His plans to end birthright citizenship and expand deportations signal a continuation of the hardline approach that defined his first presidential campaign. At the same time, his openness to bipartisan solutions for Dreamers suggests some room for compromise in an otherwise uncompromising agenda.

Trump’s Vision for His Second Term: Policy Plans and Promises

President-elect Donald Trump has laid out his agenda for his upcoming presidency, detailing plans to address a range of issues including immigration, the economy, and foreign policy. Speaking in a recent interview with Kristen Welker of NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” Trump emphasized several key areas where he plans to make immediate and sweeping changes upon taking office on January 20. These include granting pardons to those convicted in the January 6 Capitol attack, extending tax cuts, and working towards legislative solutions to ensure Dreamers can remain in the United States legally.

Trump also indicated his intention to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, a move he reiterated as part of his broader approach to immigration reform. Regarding the January 6 rioters, Trump expressed that he would issue pardons on his first day in office, citing the harsh treatment they have endured in prison. “These people are living in hell,” Trump stated, underscoring his commitment to taking action.

In the interview, Trump spoke about the extension of tax cuts passed during his first term, stating he would work to maintain those policies. He also made it clear that he would not impose restrictions on abortion pills. In terms of immigration, Trump reiterated his stance on deportation, saying he would begin by targeting convicted criminals and proceed with broader efforts to remove those who entered the country illegally. He also emphasized his intent to tackle birthright citizenship, stating that he might seek a constitutional amendment to end the practice, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of the parents’ legal status.

Despite these hardline positions, Trump showed flexibility on certain issues. When discussing the future of Dreamers, the young undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, he expressed willingness to work with Democrats on a legislative solution to allow them to stay in the country. “I will work with the Democrats on a plan,” he said, acknowledging the positive contributions of many Dreamers who have become successful in the U.S.

On the subject of raising the federal minimum wage, which has remained stagnant at $7.25 per hour since 2009, Trump indicated he might consider such a move but emphasized the need for discussions with state governors. “I will agree, it’s a very low number,” he said, signaling openness to raising the wage.

Trump’s comments extended to his approach to federal programs like Social Security and Medicare, where he promised not to raise the age for eligibility or impose cuts, which had been proposed by other figures such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. When asked about whether increasing the eligibility age or cutting benefits was “off the table,” Trump firmly agreed, saying, “I won’t do it.”

Trump’s posture throughout the interview remained calm and measured, but at times he engaged in pointed exchanges with Welker, especially when questioned about past statements. When asked about the 2020 election, Trump repeated his claim that the election was “stolen,” refusing to accept Joe Biden’s victory. He explained that he believed the 2020 race was “too big to rig,” in contrast to this year’s election, which he described as less susceptible to manipulation. Trump expressed pride in his election win, emphasizing his success in the popular vote and his capture of all seven key battleground states. “I’m getting called by everybody,” he said, recounting that Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and owner of The Washington Post, had even reached out for dinner. “People like me now, you know?” Trump remarked, reflecting on his increased popularity compared to his first presidential run.

In a strikingly mixed message, Trump discussed political retribution, expressing that although he feels he has been wronged, he would not seek vengeance through a special prosecutor to investigate Biden. “I’m not looking to go back into the past,” he said. “Retribution will be through success.” Nonetheless, Trump made it clear that he would seek to appoint loyal allies to key law enforcement positions, including Pam Bondi for attorney general and Kash Patel for FBI director. These appointments, Trump suggested, would have autonomy in their work. He also targeted figures involved in investigations into his actions, calling special counsel Jack Smith “very corrupt” and labeling the members of the House committee investigating January 6 as “political thugs and, you know, creeps,” adding that they should face jail time for their conduct.

In terms of foreign policy, Trump reiterated his aim to bring an end to the war in Ukraine, though he hinted that the U.S. might reduce military aid to the country under his administration. When questioned about NATO, Trump suggested that the U.S. could withdraw from the alliance if European nations did not fulfill their financial obligations. “If they pay their bills, absolutely,” he said, signaling his conditional support for NATO. On Syria, Trump expressed doubt about President Bashar al-Assad’s ability to maintain power, given the challenges he has faced, but acknowledged that Assad has remained resilient despite expectations of his downfall.

Trump also indicated that his second term would emphasize unity, a contrast to the divisive rhetoric of his first term. When asked whether the message of his second inaugural address would be similar to his 2017 speech, which famously highlighted “American carnage,” Trump asserted that his new message would focus on healing and bringing the country together. “We’re going to have a message,” he said, adding, “It’s going to be a message of unity.” When Welker pressed him on whether that meant there would be “no American carnage,” Trump confirmed, saying, “No American carnage, no.”

Trump’s comments also covered his personal plans for his second term. He confirmed that his children would not be joining him in the White House as aides, as they did during his first term. While he did not reveal the role his wife, Melania Trump, would play, he described her as both “very elegant” and “very popular.”

Trump’s vision for his second term remains focused on addressing key issues that resonate with his base, from immigration reform to tax cuts and foreign policy shifts. His willingness to work with Democrats on issues such as Dreamers and his openness to raising the minimum wage reflect his nuanced approach to governance. At the same time, his hardline stance on issues like deportation and birthright citizenship signals his commitment to his core policy promises. The coming months will determine how these promises are translated into action as Trump prepares to take office again in 2025.

Joe Biden’s Legacy: Challenges Await Donald Trump in January

Joe Biden’s presidency appears set to leave behind a legacy of significant challenges for Donald Trump when he assumes office on January 20. The issues range from economic instability, including a skyrocketing $36 trillion federal debt—up by $13 trillion since 2020—to broader domestic and international crises. These include persistent inflation despite falling energy prices, dangerously depleted Strategic Petroleum Reserves, and a dwindling weapons stockpile. Other concerns include an educational system that struggles to teach basic skills, a housing crisis, a manufacturing slowdown, and a Justice Department facing waning public confidence.

Compounding these problems is the responsibility of managing U.S. involvement in Ukraine’s war with Russia and restoring stability in the Middle East. The multitude of challenges underscores the urgency for Trump to prepare to “hit the ground running.”

“If Joe Biden were a decent fellow and a patriot,” the article states, “he would be using his remaining weeks as president to fix some of the disasters he has created. Instead, he is doing just the opposite.”

Rather than seeking to rectify the issues created under his administration, Biden appears focused on spending what remains of the $375 billion authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The administration’s approach seems designed to ensure that these funds, controlled by former Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, remain out of reach for Trump’s incoming team.

Despite the billions allocated for green initiatives and infrastructure projects, including $7.5 billion for electric vehicle charging stations and $42 billion to improve rural internet access, many programs have failed to deliver results. For instance, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s promise of 500,000 charging stations resulted in only eight being constructed. Similarly, Vice President Kamala Harris’s internet expansion efforts yielded little progress, symbolizing the administration’s inefficiency.

A hidden-camera video from Project Veritas captured Environmental Protection Agency adviser Brent Efron acknowledging the administration’s race to spend IRA funds. “Now we’re just trying to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in and stop it all,” Efron said, likening the situation to being on the Titanic and “throwing gold bars off the edge.” He also admitted that safeguards to prevent fraud and abuse had been overlooked in the rush, with funds being directed to tribes, nonprofits, and states to circumvent potential clawbacks by a Trump administration.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk commented on the video, suggesting it shows “The U.S. government is actively working to undermine the American people.”

In another move perceived as undermining Trump’s agenda, Biden agreed to protect some 42,000 Social Security Administration employees from returning to in-person work, a decision that complicates efforts to reform the federal workforce.

Additionally, Biden has not prioritized refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which was depleted in 2022 to combat soaring gasoline prices. At the start of Biden’s presidency, the SPR held 638 million barrels of crude oil; today, it holds just 392 million barrels, marking the lowest reserve level in 40 years. Although there has been a 12 percent increase in reserves over the past year, the stockpile remains insufficient to cushion against significant price shocks.

On the fiscal front, Biden leaves behind a Treasury portfolio that relies heavily on short-term debt, a shift attributed to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. Instead of issuing long-term bonds to finance the $1.8 trillion federal budget deficit, Yellen opted for two-year Treasury bills to avoid triggering a surge in mortgage rates. However, this strategy has left the country vulnerable to higher interest costs.

Robbert van Batenburg of the Bear Traps Report estimates that 30 percent of the debt is now in short-term notes, compared to just 15 percent in 2023. “The Treasury now faces a substantial volume of short-term debt maturing annually, which must be refinanced at significantly higher interest rates,” van Batenburg said, emphasizing the strain this will place on future budgets.

Beyond the economic challenges, Detroit automakers are grappling with billions in losses and layoffs, spurred by Biden’s aggressive electric vehicle mandates. Meanwhile, millions of undocumented migrants are straining budgets in cities led by Democrats, violent crime rates have risen due to weakened law enforcement policies, and military leaders warn of dwindling weapon supplies.

The incoming Trump administration will inherit these compounded challenges, described as “land mines on many fronts.”

Rather than attempting to mitigate the damage, the Biden administration appears focused on accelerating its policy agenda. “Now we’re just trying to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in and stop it all,” Efron reiterated in the undercover video.

The extent of the challenges underscores the uphill battle that awaits Trump’s team, as they prepare to address the economic, social, and geopolitical issues left in Biden’s wake.

US Faces Alarming Health Challenges Amid Minimal Life Expectancy Gains

The United States is projected to experience only marginal improvements in life expectancy over the coming decades, underscoring significant health challenges, according to researchers. Forecasts by the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) suggest life expectancy in the U.S. will rise from 78.3 years in 2022 to just 80.4 years by 2050.

Published in The Lancet, the analysis assessed the effects of hundreds of diseases and health risks on the U.S. and individual states while comparing these outcomes to over 200 other countries. The findings indicate that the U.S. is falling behind in life expectancy gains, ranking 66th out of 204 countries by 2050, a steep drop from 49th in 2022. This decline places the U.S. behind most high-income nations and even some middle-income ones.

The gender gap in life expectancy is also expected to narrow, with women seeing smaller improvements compared to men. By 2050, the U.S. is forecasted to rank 74th globally for female life expectancy, down from 51st in 2022, while men’s rankings will fall from 51st to 65th.

IHME attributes the modest gains in U.S. life expectancy to a predicted decline in mortality from major causes of death such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. However, the models highlight that tackling key health risks could significantly boost longevity. Reducing obesity, smoking, and drug use disorders could each add approximately half a year to life expectancy by 2050.

Christopher Murray, IHME director and co-senior author of the research, emphasized the critical role of obesity in shaping the nation’s health trajectory. “In spite of modest increases in life expectancy overall, our models forecast health improvements slowing down due to rising rates of obesity, which is a serious risk factor to many chronic diseases and forecasted to leap to levels never before seen,” he stated. He also warned of the growing scale of the problem, predicting that over 260 million Americans will be affected by obesity by 2050. “This signals a public health crisis of unimaginable scale,” Murray said.

While some advancements, like the popularity of GLP-1 medications, show promise in combating obesity, their long-term adoption and impact remain uncertain. IHME’s analysis did not incorporate these medications into its projections.

Another major challenge facing the U.S. is the ongoing drug overdose crisis. Although recent data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest overdose deaths have started to decline from record highs, IHME predicts the overall rates will rise significantly over the next few decades. The study estimates that by 2050, the U.S. will have the world’s highest rate of age-standardized mortality due to drug use disorders, more than double that of Canada, the second-highest country.

Ali Mokdad, IHME professor and lead author of the report, highlighted the lasting effects of the opioid epidemic, declared a public health emergency in 2017. “The stark contrast that’s forecasted in the next 30 years comes after a concerted effort by federal, state, and local government agencies and health systems. The opioid epidemic is far from over, and greater effectiveness and continued expansion of programs to prevent and treat drug use are still needed,” Mokdad said.

The IHME models also suggest that eliminating risks in three crucial areas—environmental, behavioral and metabolic factors, and childhood nutrition and vaccination—could result in 550,000 fewer deaths in 2050 alone. This improvement would bring U.S. life expectancy up by nearly four years, aligning it with Canada’s current projections.

“The rapid decline of the U.S. in global rankings from 2022 to 2050 rings the alarm for immediate action,” said Dr. Stein Emil Vollset, co-senior author and IHME affiliate professor. “The U.S. must change course and find new and better health strategies and policies that slow down the decline in future health outcomes.”

While some progress is anticipated in the fight against heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, the U.S. faces an uphill battle in addressing obesity, drug use, and other health risks. Without decisive action, the country’s global standing in life expectancy is set to deteriorate further, presenting a critical challenge for policymakers and public health experts.

US economy remains strong despite uncertainty

The US economy is currently performing well, with economists from Bank of America (BofA) projecting continued growth into 2025. According to a research note released on Monday, the bank’s economics team, led by Claudio Irigoyen, anticipates the economy will expand at an annualized rate of 2.4% in 2025. This projection surpasses the consensus estimates, which expect growth of around 2%. Despite the challenges posed by President-elect Donald Trump’s economic policies, including proposed tariffs, corporate tax cuts, and restrictions on immigration, BofA maintains a positive outlook.

These proposed policies, which many economists view as inflationary, could slow economic growth and add pressure to the already high federal deficit. In particular, the Federal Reserve’s decision-making regarding interest rates could be complicated, given the potential economic effects of these policies. Higher rates, combined with a tough tariff stance, would likely strengthen the US dollar, creating ripple effects across global financial markets. BofA has warned that such a combination could lead to “a major shock, not only for the US economy but the rest of the world.”

Despite these concerns, BofA emphasizes that the US is better positioned than many other nations to weather any economic disruptions stemming from Trump’s policies. “We like to say that the US imports a lot of stuff, but it doesn’t import recessions,” said Aditya Bhave, senior US economist at Bank of America, during a press briefing on Monday. “It only exports recessions.” Bhave explained that any changes in US trade policy are more likely to affect other economies than the US itself, due to the inherent resilience of the US economy compared to other developed countries.

Recent economic data supports this optimistic view. Consumer confidence in the US is at its highest level in 18 months, and economic output has reached levels not seen since April 2022. Retail sales in October exceeded expectations, and the unemployment rate remains steady at around 4%. Inflation has also moderated, moving closer to the Federal Reserve’s target of 2%. “The world right now is one in which the US economy has consistently outperformed [for] almost two years,” Bhave said. “Europe is struggling, China is struggling, so the US is going into any potential disruption to trade policy on much more solid footing than Europe and China are.”

One of the most discussed elements of Trump’s economic agenda is his stance on tariffs. The president-elect has promised to impose blanket tariffs of at least 10% on all trading partners, with a particularly harsh 60% tariff on Chinese imports. If other countries retaliate with their own tariffs, the resulting trade war could lead to prolonged inflationary pressures. However, BofA does not expect this scenario to materialize in full. The bank’s baseline forecast anticipates tariffs on China and other countries, but it expects the actual tariffs to be lower than those promised during the campaign. BofA remains “moderately optimistic” that a full-blown trade war can be avoided.

Despite these risks, Bhave noted that tariffs would likely have a larger impact on capital expenditures and exports than on the US itself. “Tariffs can be very disruptive in terms of capital expenditures [and] obviously exports,” he said. However, since the US imports more goods and services from other countries than it exports, the impact of tariffs would be more detrimental to those regions than to the US. “Just by definition, the tariffs pose a much greater threat to those regions than to the US,” Bhave explained.

While there are uncertainties surrounding Trump’s trade policies and other proposed economic changes, BofA’s outlook on the US economy remains positive. The country’s economic resilience, along with strong domestic growth trends, positions it well to handle potential disruptions in global trade. The combination of consumer confidence, strong retail sales, and a steady labor market are key factors supporting this outlook. Furthermore, while tariffs may cause short-term disruptions, their long-term effects are expected to be less severe for the US than for other countries that rely more heavily on exports to the US.

As the US economy heads into 2025, it faces some challenges, but the fundamentals appear strong. The Bank of America’s optimistic forecast of 2.4% growth for the year ahead reflects the confidence that many economists have in the resilience of the US economy. Although trade policies and other economic changes could create uncertainties, the US is better equipped than other nations to manage these challenges. According to Bhave, “The US imports a lot of stuff, but it doesn’t import recessions.” The US economy, supported by strong consumer confidence, solid economic output, and low unemployment, is likely to continue outperforming other developed economies in the years to come.

CAPAC Elects New Leadership for the 119th Congress, Highlighting Diversity and Representation

The Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) has announced its leadership team for the 119th Congress, with key roles assigned to representatives emphasizing the growing influence and diversity of South Asian Americans in U.S. politics. Representative Ami Bera, M.D. (D-CA), was elected as Whip, while Representative-elect Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) was named Freshman Representative. These appointments underscore the caucus’ commitment to representing a broad spectrum of Asian American voices.

Representative Ami Bera, the longest-serving Indian American in Congress, has been a consistent advocate for healthcare reform and international diplomacy throughout his tenure. In his new role as Whip, Bera will take on a central responsibility in coordinating legislative strategies and promoting unity within CAPAC. Expressing his enthusiasm for the position, Bera stated, “Deeply honored to serve as Whip for the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus in the next Congress! I look forward to working with this new leadership team to advance CAPAC’s vital mission.”

Suhas Subramanyam, who recently achieved a historic milestone as the first Indian American to represent Virginia in Congress, joins the CAPAC leadership with a vision for progress. His commitment to tackling pressing issues, such as climate change and technological innovation, will add a fresh perspective to the caucus. “It is an honor to serve in CAPAC’s leadership,” Subramanyam said. “As Freshman Representative, I look forward to working with my colleagues to uplift the voices of Asian American communities and tackle pressing challenges.”

The leadership of CAPAC for the 119th Congress will be headed by Representative Grace Meng (D-NY), who was elected Chair. Meng, a prominent advocate for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) communities, has dedicated her congressional career to addressing critical issues impacting these groups. “It is an honor to serve as Chair of CAPAC,” Meng said. “Throughout my time in Congress, I have championed the Asian American community, tackling issues like combating hate, reducing healthcare costs, and supporting small businesses.”

Meng’s leadership follows that of outgoing Chair Judy Chu, and she has pledged to build upon the caucus’ achievements by intensifying advocacy efforts. Her focus includes combating the surge in anti-Asian hate crimes, promoting economic equity, and ensuring federal policies address the unique challenges faced by AANHPI communities. “CAPAC was created to ensure the voices of AANHPI communities are not only heard but strongly represented at the federal level,” Meng explained. “I look forward to working with our diverse members to fight for policies that empower our communities.”

Representative Jill Tokuda (D-HI) will serve as Second Vice-Chair, adding to the diverse leadership that reflects CAPAC’s mission to amplify the voices of all AANHPI individuals. The caucus’ leadership team is determined to uphold CAPAC’s founding purpose of advocating for policies that address the needs and concerns of these communities.

As CAPAC prepares for the 119th Congress, the new leadership team is poised to champion transformative initiatives. Their collective efforts aim to address a range of issues, from combating hate and ensuring economic justice to fostering opportunities for small businesses and supporting climate resilience. The caucus’ work promises to amplify the voices of AANHPI communities while striving for inclusivity and equity on a national scale.

Tulsi Gabbard Faces Toughest Confirmation Challenge Among Trump’s Picks

Former Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, nominated by President-elect Trump to serve as Director of National Intelligence (DNI), is emerging as one of the most contentious confirmation cases in the new administration. While Trump’s other picks, such as Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense and Kash Patel for FBI Director, have encountered obstacles, many believe Gabbard’s path is the steepest.

“I think Gabbard, out of the three, still has the toughest path,” a Senate GOP aide told The Hill. “[She] is the most at risk.” This sentiment reflects growing skepticism among Senate Republicans about Gabbard’s foreign policy positions and whether she can be trusted to oversee the nation’s intelligence apparatus.

Though Gabbard enjoys strong support from Trump’s inner circle, the Senate Republican Conference is less united. The conference includes defense hawks and staunch backers of Ukraine in its ongoing war with Russia—groups critical of Gabbard’s past comments about the conflict. She has been accused of expressing views sympathetic to Moscow, with her remarks echoed by Russian state media, which has praised her nomination. These concerns are compounded by her controversial 2017 visit to Syrian President Bashar Assad. While she later described Assad as a “brutal dictator,” her earlier comments suggesting he was not an enemy of the U.S. have left many uneasy.

Behind the scenes, some GOP members express fears about Gabbard’s reliability. “Behind closed doors, people think she might be compromised. Like it’s not hyperbole,” one GOP aide said. “There are members of our conference who think she’s a [Russian] asset.”

Publicly, however, Republican senators have rejected such allegations, standing by Gabbard despite the controversy. Notably, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who worked with her in Congress, has also dismissed claims of Russian influence. Yet bipartisan support for her nomination remains unlikely. “She’s not going to get any Democratic votes,” a Senate Republican said, emphasizing the narrow margin for error. To secure confirmation, Gabbard can afford to lose no more than three Republican votes.

Although Gabbard’s challenges are formidable, she is not alone in facing scrutiny. Pete Hegseth, nominated for Secretary of Defense, has also drawn significant criticism. His tenure leading veterans’ organizations was marred by allegations of financial mismanagement and sexual impropriety, including a 2017 sexual assault accusation, which he denies. “The allegation was ‘fully investigated’ and I was completely cleared,” Hegseth said before Thanksgiving. Despite this, Senator Lindsey Graham described the allegations as “very disturbing,” acknowledging that they complicate Hegseth’s path to confirmation.

Kash Patel, Trump’s pick to head the FBI, has sparked his own controversy. A staunch ally of the president, Patel has vowed to reform the bureau, including plans to purge personnel seen as disloyal to Trump and shut down its Washington, D.C., headquarters. While Senate Republicans have not outright dismissed Patel, some worry about his polarizing approach. Nonetheless, his resume, which includes roles as a prosecutor, National Security Council member, and aide to former House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes, has earned praise from certain lawmakers. “I think the conference will get behind him,” said Senator Bill Hagerty. He added, “What you’re seeing here in Washington is a lot of people that are shocked that we’re going to see real reform in an agency that is completely broken.”

For Gabbard, the concerns are more fundamental. Despite her military service in the Hawaii Army National Guard, including a deployment to Iraq, she has no experience in the intelligence community or its oversight. As DNI, she would oversee 18 intelligence agencies and a $70 billion budget. “Gun to my head, Gabbard is probably the toughest,” another GOP aide said, citing her controversial Syria stance and recent switch from the Democratic to the Republican Party as major issues. “Those are real concerns members have,” the aide added.

Next week, Gabbard plans to begin meeting with Senate Republicans to address their concerns, following the lead of Hegseth and Patel, who have already started lobbying lawmakers. While some senators remain apprehensive about all three nominees, others are inclined to respect Trump’s choices. “You take each one individually,” Senator Mike Rounds explained. “You look at … will they be a good fit for the department? What’s the reason why the president wants this person? You look at—is there any reason why this person should not be in that position?” He added, “You always do your best to give the president the benefit of the doubt because he’s the one who’s accountable for making the nomination in the first place.”

Despite these sentiments, Gabbard’s path to confirmation is fraught with hurdles. Her polarizing reputation and lack of bipartisan support mean her nomination hangs in a delicate balance. Whether she can overcome skepticism and secure the necessary votes remains to be seen, but her nomination has undoubtedly sparked debate about the direction of U.S. intelligence leadership.

Republicans Face Narrow Majority in House After Democrats Flip Key California Seat

Republicans will hold a slim majority in the House of Representatives next year, facing greater challenges to advance President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda as Democrats successfully flipped a significant seat in California. Democrat Adam Gray defeated GOP Rep. John Duarte in California’s 13th District, according to NBC News projections, following an extended vote count. This brings the Republican total to 220 seats versus 215 for Democrats. With such a narrow margin, Republicans can afford to lose only two votes on any House legislation if Democrats remain unified in opposition.

Duarte conceded the race on Tuesday evening, saying he called Gray to acknowledge the outcome, as reported by the Turlock Journal. This victory marks a crucial gain for Democrats, who flipped nine Republican-held seats across the nation, including three in California, while Republicans flipped eight Democratic-held seats.

California proved pivotal for the Democrats, with Gray’s win accompanied by victories for Democrats Derek Tran and George Whitesides, who unseated Republican Reps. Michelle Steel and Mike Garcia. Democrats also secured three seats in New York, one in Oregon, and benefited from redrawn congressional maps to flip one seat each in Alabama and Louisiana.

Meanwhile, Republicans gained seats in North Carolina due to its new congressional map and won key contests elsewhere. They unseated Democratic Reps. Susan Wild and Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania, flipped an open seat in Michigan, and defeated incumbents in Alaska and Colorado.

House races this election cycle attracted significant spending from campaigns and outside groups. Ad-tracking firm AdImpact reported that over $1.1 billion was spent on ads between September and Election Day. Democratic campaigns and allied organizations outpaced their Republican counterparts, spending $662 million compared to $485 million spent by the GOP.

The tight Republican majority reflects an increasingly competitive political landscape, partly influenced by the latest redistricting process. This narrowed the field of competitive races, leaving only about 40 House seats—roughly 10% of the chamber—decided by margins of less than 5%, according to NBC News Decision Desk data.

Despite losing control of the House, Democrats saw some encouraging trends. Vulnerable Democratic incumbents performed notably better than Vice President Kamala Harris, outpacing her by an average of 2.7 percentage points in House races, according to preliminary analysis by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The analysis, shared with NBC News, highlighted that Democratic candidates outperformed Harris in counties with lower education levels and a majority of voters of color.

Challenges Ahead for GOP Leadership

With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, the party has a rare opportunity to advance its priorities through budget reconciliation. This legislative tool enables the majority party to bypass Senate filibusters and pass budget-related measures without needing Democratic support. However, the fragile Republican majority in the House could hinder these efforts.

Speaker Mike Johnson, who is expected to retain his position in the next Congress, will face significant hurdles in maintaining unity among his colleagues. The reconciliation package is expected to include extensions of tax cuts enacted in 2017 under Trump, which are set to expire next year. Proposals such as a tax exemption for income from tips, dubbed by Trump as “no tax on tips,” and the removal of the cap on the state and local tax deduction are likely components of this package.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a key Trump ally, is advocating for border security measures to be included in the reconciliation process. Trump has promised to initiate what he describes as “the largest deportation program in American history,” making immigration a central focus for his administration.

Further complicating the GOP’s legislative strategy are potential resignations and vacancies within the House. Trump has nominated two sitting House Republicans for key positions in his administration: Elise Stefanik of New York as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and Mike Waltz of Florida as national security adviser.

Adding to the uncertainty is the recent resignation of Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, who stepped down after Trump selected him as the next attorney general. Gaetz later withdrew from consideration due to allegations of sexual misconduct but confirmed he would not join the next Congress despite winning re-election.

Should Stefanik and Waltz resign simultaneously, the Republican majority in the House could narrow to just one seat, 217 to 215, until their replacements are elected.

Special Elections on the Horizon

Efforts to fill these vacancies are already underway. Florida’s State Department has scheduled a special election to replace Gaetz and Waltz, with primaries for their deep-red districts set for January 28 and special elections to follow on April 1.

In New York, Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul will be responsible for setting a special election to replace Stefanik once she formally resigns. According to state law, the special election must take place 70 to 80 days after the governor issues a proclamation.

The upcoming special elections will be critical for both parties as they navigate the challenges of a closely divided Congress. For Republicans, maintaining unity and avoiding further internal divisions will be essential to advancing their legislative priorities. Meanwhile, Democrats will likely leverage their gains to resist key aspects of Trump’s agenda, ensuring a contentious political landscape in the months ahead.

Trump May Replace Pentagon Nominee Pete Hegseth with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis

President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly reconsidering his decision to nominate Pete Hegseth for the position of defense secretary, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal. The publication, citing sources familiar with the matter, revealed that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is being considered as a replacement candidate.

Hegseth’s nomination has encountered significant challenges in Congress, primarily due to allegations surrounding both his personal conduct and professional life. According to the Journal, Trump’s allies are increasingly skeptical about Hegseth’s ability to withstand further scrutiny during the confirmation process. A combat veteran and former Fox News personality, Hegseth would require the backing of Senate Republicans to secure the role.

When contacted for comments regarding these developments, neither Trump’s transition team nor DeSantis’ office responded immediately.

This potential shift comes after two of Trump’s other nominees for senior positions have already withdrawn. Chad Chronister pulled out of consideration for heading the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on Tuesday. His decision followed that of former Representative Matt Gaetz, who dropped out of the running for attorney general amid allegations involving inappropriate conduct with an underage girl.

Ron DeSantis, who previously competed against Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, had initially been on the list of candidates for defense secretary. However, Trump ultimately chose Hegseth at the time, as noted by The Wall Street Journal.

DeSantis has military experience, having served in the Navy’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps between 2004 and 2010. Despite the current discussions, the Journal indicated that Trump could still opt for another replacement should Hegseth’s nomination fail to proceed.

This ongoing reshuffle highlights the complexities of Trump’s transition team as they navigate Senate confirmations and public scrutiny for key appointments.

Trump Allies Musk and Ramaswamy Signal Interest in Abolishing Daylight Saving Time

After securing a second term, Donald Trump has named Tesla CEO Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to spearhead his administration’s push for government efficiency. Their mission involves slashing federal regulations and reducing the size of the federal workforce. While it’s unclear how voters will respond to this agenda, Musk and Ramaswamy recently focused on an issue that many Americans may support: ending daylight saving time.

Last week, Musk engaged with a poll posted by a user on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). The poll asked whether daylight saving time should be abolished, and the overwhelming majority of respondents voted in favor of doing so. Reacting to the results, Musk remarked, “Looks like the people want to abolish the annoying time changes!”

Ramaswamy soon joined the conversation, echoing Musk’s sentiment. “It’s inefficient & easy to change,” he said in response to Musk’s comment. Musk’s statement also caught the attention of Utah Senator Mike Lee, who directly asked the Tesla CEO if he supported ending the “semi-annual time changes.” Musk replied with a simple “Yes.”

Despite their comments, neither Musk nor Ramaswamy elaborated on concrete plans to tackle the issue. The Department of Government Efficiency, which they are set to lead, is merely an advisory body. It lacks the authority to create or implement policies, meaning any influence they wield will come in the form of recommendations. Nevertheless, having two influential figures in Trump’s inner circle voicing support for the idea could reignite discussions on the matter.

Congress has explored the possibility of making daylight saving time permanent several times. Since 2018, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has championed the “Sunshine Protection Act,” a legislative effort aimed at ending the biannual time changes. For years, the bill saw little progress in Congress, remaining stuck in committee. However, in 2022, the U.S. Senate unexpectedly passed the bill, a significant step forward. Yet, the legislation stalled in the House of Representatives, leaving its future uncertain. With Rubio now poised to join Trump’s administration as secretary of state, the bill’s fate remains unclear.

If Musk and Ramaswamy choose to advocate for this change seriously, they could find an ally in Trump himself. During his first term, Trump expressed openness to making daylight saving time permanent. In a 2019 social media post, he stated, “Making Daylight Saving Time permanent is O.K. with me!”

The push to establish permanent daylight saving time is not without support. A 2022 poll conducted by Monmouth University revealed that only 35 percent of Americans favored continuing the practice of changing clocks twice a year. Historically, the nation briefly experimented with permanent daylight saving time during the 1970s as a response to the energy crisis. However, the shift, initially intended to last for two years, faced significant public backlash and was eventually reversed.

Musk and Ramaswamy’s involvement could lend momentum to an issue that has struggled to gain widespread legislative traction. While their ability to directly influence policy is limited, their prominence within Trump’s administration could amplify the conversation around daylight saving time and its future in the United States.

Donald Trump Appoints Kash Patel as FBI Director, Highlighting Loyalty and Vision for Reform

Donald Trump, the US President-elect, announced on Sunday that Indian-American Kashyap “Kash” Patel would lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This decision makes Patel the second Indian-American chosen for a key position in Trump’s incoming administration.

Trump took to Truth Social to express his confidence in Patel, stating, “I am proud to announce that Kashyap ‘Kash’ Patel will serve as the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Kash is a brilliant lawyer, investigator, and ‘America First’ fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending Justice, and protecting the American People.”

Trump emphasized Patel’s extensive contributions to his administration, calling him an integral figure in combating corruption and upholding justice. He praised Patel’s efforts during Trump’s first term, citing his roles as Chief of Staff at the Department of Defense, Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council. “He played a pivotal role in uncovering the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, standing as an advocate for truth, accountability, and the Constitution,” Trump added.

The President-elect further highlighted Patel’s legal expertise, mentioning that he had tried over 60 jury trials. “This FBI will end the growing crime epidemic in America, dismantle the migrant criminal gangs, and stop the evil scourge of human and drug trafficking across the Border,” Trump wrote. He also pointed out that Patel would report to Attorney General Pam Bondi, working collaboratively to restore the FBI’s core values of fidelity, bravery, and integrity.

A Glimpse into Kash Patel’s Career

Kashyap Patel has a long and varied career in government and legal service. He briefly worked in the Justice Department during the Obama administration before transitioning to prominent roles under Trump. After Trump assumed office, Patel became senior counsel to former Representative Devin Nunes, a Republican from California, who led the House Intelligence Committee from 2017 to 2018. During this time, Patel assisted in the committee’s contentious investigation into the FBI’s handling of its Russia inquiry.

In 2018, Patel transitioned to serve as Trump’s senior director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council. His responsibilities expanded further when he became a senior adviser to the directors of national intelligence. By the end of Trump’s presidency, Patel had been promoted to Chief of Staff for acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller.

Throughout his career, Patel has been recognized for his loyalty to Trump and his dedication to the “America First” agenda. His role in exposing what Trump and his allies called the “Russia Hoax” solidified his reputation as a staunch defender of the administration’s priorities.

Controversies Surrounding Kash Patel

Despite his accomplishments, Patel’s career has not been without controversy. His direct and often provocative approach has drawn criticism from some quarters. Patel has openly discussed pursuing Trump’s political opponents within the government and the media. In his book, he argued, “[T]he FBI has become so thoroughly compromised that it will remain a threat to the people unless drastic measures are taken.”

Such statements have fueled debates about Patel’s potential leadership style and the implications for the FBI. During a past interview, Patel sparked further controversy by encouraging aggressive actions against politicians and journalists perceived as adversaries of Trump. His remark to “come after” these individuals raised concerns about partisanship and the balance of power within national security frameworks.

A Polarizing Figure in National Security

Patel’s sharp critiques of the FBI and his strong advocacy for reform have endeared him to Trump’s supporters, while his detractors view his rhetoric as overly combative. His rapid rise within Trump’s administration demonstrates the trust and value Trump places on Patel’s loyalty and expertise. However, his critics argue that his statements and actions could deepen divisions within an already polarized political and security environment.

Despite the controversies, Patel remains a central figure in Trump’s vision for the FBI’s future. His appointment signifies a commitment to reshaping the agency in line with Trump’s goals of accountability and justice. As Trump stated, “Kash will work under our great Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to bring back Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity to the FBI.”

Patel’s supporters believe his leadership could restore public trust in the FBI and address concerns about crime, border security, and internal accountability. His critics, however, question whether his approach will prioritize impartiality and uphold the agency’s long-standing commitment to nonpartisanship.

As Patel assumes the role of FBI Director, his tenure will likely be closely scrutinized by supporters and critics alike. With the weight of expectations and the challenges facing the bureau, his leadership will play a pivotal role in shaping the FBI’s path forward.

New York City Faces Criticism for Renting Pakistani-Owned Hotel for Migrants

The City of New York is reportedly paying $220 million to rent the Roosevelt Hotel, a property owned by the Government of Pakistan, to house illegal immigrants. This claim, revealed on Saturday, has sparked significant backlash and raised questions about the allocation of taxpayer funds.

Republican politician Vivek Ramaswamy called the arrangement “nuts” in a social media post, expressing frustration over the deal. “A taxpayer-funded hotel for illegal migrants is owned by the Pakistani government, which means NYC taxpayers are effectively paying a foreign government to house illegals in our own country. This is nuts,” he stated. His comments highlighted the unusual nature of the agreement, which involves a foreign government benefitting from American taxpayer money.

The post was accompanied by a link to further details, amplifying public discourse on the issue. Ramaswamy’s reaction came after author John LeFevre disclosed the arrangement on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.

LeFevre stated that New York City is spending $220 million to rent the Roosevelt Hotel, located in Manhattan, entirely for the purpose of accommodating illegal immigrants. The 19-story building, which houses over 1,200 rooms, had been shuttered since 2020 due to low occupancy and a need for significant renovation. According to LeFevre, the hotel was reopened under this rental agreement as part of a broader financial arrangement tied to international assistance for Pakistan.

“The hotel is owned by the government of Pakistan, and the deal was part of a $1.1 billion IMF bailout package to help Pakistan avoid defaulting on their international debt,” LeFevre explained. The Roosevelt Hotel is under the ownership of Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), a state-run airline controlled by the Pakistani government.

This financial arrangement has drawn scrutiny not only for the use of taxpayer money but also for its implications in the context of international finance and diplomacy. The Roosevelt Hotel, named after former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, had faced years of declining business before its closure and subsequent reopening under this agreement.

In his critique, Ramaswamy, who is working alongside Tesla CEO Elon Musk on a newly created Department of Government Efficiency under the direction of President-elect Donald Trump, emphasized the need to eliminate wasteful government expenditures. The department has been tasked with improving overall government efficiency and scrutinizing spending practices.

Ramaswamy’s reaction underscores the broader concerns about fiscal responsibility and the ethics of using public funds in this manner. The agreement not only underscores issues of mismanagement but also places a spotlight on the relationship between local government spending and foreign entities.

While the city’s arrangement to rent the hotel appears to address the urgent need for housing illegal immigrants, critics argue that alternative solutions could have been pursued that did not involve a property owned by a foreign government. The deal’s connection to Pakistan’s efforts to stabilize its economy through an International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout further complicates the matter.

Before its closure, the Roosevelt Hotel was already struggling with low occupancy rates and was deemed to require substantial renovations. The current use of the hotel as a migrant shelter represents a stark transformation from its historical role as a luxury property named after an American president.

The financial dynamics of the deal and its implications for international relations have added fuel to ongoing debates about the handling of immigration and public resources. For New York City, which is facing a housing crisis and a growing number of migrants, the deal represents a significant expenditure that has polarized opinions.

Critics like Ramaswamy and LeFevre argue that the agreement highlights broader systemic issues. By involving a foreign-owned property in this capacity, the deal raises questions about oversight, priorities, and the potential for unintended consequences in international diplomacy.

This controversy arrives at a time when immigration remains a contentious topic in the U.S., and local governments are under pressure to manage increasing numbers of migrants. As the debate unfolds, the arrangement with the Roosevelt Hotel is likely to remain a focal point for critics of government inefficiency and proponents of fiscal accountability.

In response to the revelations, many are calling for greater transparency and a reevaluation of the policies and agreements that led to this situation. Whether the deal represents an innovative solution to a pressing problem or a misstep in fiscal planning will continue to be a matter of public and political debate.

Trump to Nominate Kash Patel as FBI Head, Sparking Controversy

President-elect Donald Trump has announced plans to nominate Kash Patel as the next director of the FBI, elevating a loyal ally and a figure known for his contentious role in Trump’s first administration. Patel’s potential appointment has drawn criticism and sparked debate, with some questioning his suitability for the position.

Patel has been an outspoken critic of the Justice Department and the FBI, advocating for mass firings within these institutions. He has also called for revoking the security clearances of individuals involved in investigations into Trump’s 2016 campaign. Patel has frequently accused a so-called “deep state” of obstructing Trump’s presidency during his first term.

“Kash is a brilliant lawyer, investigator, and ‘America First’ fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending Justice, and protecting the American People. He played a pivotal role in uncovering the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, standing as an advocate for truth, accountability, and the Constitution,” Trump stated on his social media platform, Truth Social, on Saturday.

This announcement also signals Trump’s intention to remove current FBI Director Christopher Wray, whom he appointed in 2017. Wray’s term is slated to run until 2027.

In response to the announcement, the FBI refrained from commenting on Patel’s potential nomination. Instead, the agency released a statement emphasizing its ongoing mission. “Every day, the men and women of the FBI continue to work to protect Americans from a growing array of threats. Director Wray’s focus remains on the men and women of the FBI, the people we do the work with, and the people we do the work for,” the FBI said.

However, Patel’s controversial past could pose challenges for his Senate confirmation.

Patel’s career trajectory began as a public defender before transitioning to a role as a national security prosecutor at the Department of Justice during the Obama administration. He later joined the political arena as a staffer for Representative Devin Nunes, advising the House Intelligence Committee.

During his tenure with Nunes, Patel played a central role in efforts to discredit the Democratic-led investigation into Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. He authored a report scrutinizing the FBI and DOJ’s handling of their investigations into Russian election interference, bolstering Trump’s narrative.

Patel’s close alignment with Trump continued throughout his career. He transitioned from Capitol Hill to the White House, serving as a senior director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council. Later, he moved to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Patel was often perceived as a staunch Trump loyalist. At one point, he was reportedly considered for the role of deputy to then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, a move Haspel allegedly opposed by threatening to resign, according to Axios.

In late 2020, Patel was assigned to the Department of Defense, where NBC News reported he obstructed collaboration with the incoming Biden administration. He allegedly sought to restrict staff from sharing information with the transition team.

On January 6, Patel was serving as chief of staff to then-acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller. Miller had been appointed following Trump’s dismissal of Defense Secretary Mark Esper. Patel’s brief tenure at the Pentagon drew scrutiny from the now-disbanded January 6 committee, which summoned him for an interview. The committee suggested he might possess “additional documents and information relevant to understanding the role played by the Department of Defense and the White House in preparing for and responding to the attack on the U.S. Capitol, as well as documents and information related to [his] personal involvement in planning for events on Jan. 6 and the peaceful transfer of power.” Patel has denied any misconduct related to the Capitol attack.

Patel also figured prominently in another legal controversy involving Trump: the mishandling of classified documents at Trump’s Florida residence. Patel claimed he witnessed Trump issuing verbal orders to declassify some of the materials found, a statement that aligns with a defense floated by Trump’s legal team but never substantiated.

In addition to his political and legal activities, Patel is the author of a children’s book, “The Plot Against the King.” The book aims to recount what it describes as “one of our nation’s biggest injustices,” presenting a satirical take on the Russia investigation. Patel portrays himself as a wizard in the narrative, while Trump is depicted as a king under siege by characters such as “Hillary Queenton” and others representing prominent political figures.

Patel remains a significant figure in Trump’s orbit, currently serving on the board of the company overseeing Trump’s social media platform.

As recently as this month, Patel has echoed Trump’s assertions of a “deep state” working against him. In a newsletter from his foundation, Patel wrote, “The Deep State cannot be trusted. They have weaponized the government for their own political and personal agenda.” He also referred to the investigation into Trump’s Russia ties as a “fraud.”

Patel’s potential appointment has drawn criticism, including from former members of the FBI. Andrew McCabe, the FBI’s former deputy director, expressed concerns about Patel’s leadership.

“No part of the FBI’s mission is safe with Kash Patel in any position of leadership in the FBI, and certainly not in the deputy director’s job,” McCabe told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. “The scope of authority is enormous.”

The nomination of Patel as FBI director underscores Trump’s preference for loyalists in key positions and his ongoing disputes with federal institutions. However, Patel’s controversial past and polarizing reputation could lead to significant resistance during the confirmation process.

Tulsi Gabbard’s DNI Nomination Sparks Controversy Amid Concerns Over Past Statements and Associations

Former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s selection as the next US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) by President-elect Donald Trump has reignited debates over her controversial political stances. Gabbard’s 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and her remarks on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have drawn intense scrutiny as she prepares for a role that would make her responsible for 18 intelligence agencies and serve as a principal adviser to the president.

If confirmed, Gabbard would oversee some of America’s most sensitive secrets, a responsibility that has raised concerns among former national security officials and lawmakers. Critics argue that her past actions and comments could damage trust and collaboration within the intelligence community and with foreign allies.

Retired diplomat Lewis Lukens, who previously served as deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in London, voiced apprehensions about Gabbard’s judgment, suggesting it could undermine intelligence-sharing relationships. “Her dubious judgment could give allies reason to question how safe it is to share intelligence with the US,” Lukens told the BBC.

Gabbard, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve with deployments to Iraq and Kuwait, has dismissed such concerns, calling her detractors “warmongers” seeking to discredit anyone challenging Washington’s foreign policy orthodoxy. Trump defended his decision, praising Gabbard’s “fearless spirit” and commitment to public service, which he claimed would benefit the intelligence community.

Yet, Gabbard’s appointment has drawn praise from Russian state media, adding fuel to the controversy. Olga Skabeyeva, a prominent Russian talk show host, highlighted Gabbard’s criticism of US actions in Ukraine and her meeting with Assad as examples of her alignment with Russian perspectives. “Virtually from the first days of Russia’s special operation in Ukraine, she explained its reasons,” Skabeyeva said.

Gabbard’s political career has been marked by a mix of anti-war rhetoric and skepticism toward US intelligence operations, earning her both admiration and criticism across party lines. However, her decision to visit Assad in 2017 during a “fact-finding” mission as a congresswoman stirred widespread outrage. Her subsequent doubts over US intelligence assessments that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons against civilians exacerbated the backlash.

After a 2017 chemical attack in Syria killed over 80 people, the Trump administration launched airstrikes on a Syrian airbase, an action Gabbard labeled “reckless and short-sighted.” She argued that such moves risked escalating the Syrian conflict and hindering investigations into the attack. US intelligence and a UN panel later concluded that Assad’s government was responsible for the sarin gas attack. However, both Assad and Russia denied the allegations, claiming the airstrike hit a rebel-held depot containing chemical munitions.

These events loomed over Gabbard’s unsuccessful 2019 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Defending her stance, she asserted that Assad was “not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat.”

Her statements regarding Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine further fueled controversy. Gabbard suggested the war could have been avoided if the US and NATO had acknowledged Russia’s security concerns over Ukraine’s potential NATO membership. Additionally, she claimed that US-funded biolabs in Ukraine might be compromised, leading to the release of dangerous pathogens. This statement aligned with Russia’s unfounded allegations that the US was aiding Ukraine in developing biological weapons, drawing sharp criticism from figures like Republican Senator Mitt Romney, who accused Gabbard of spreading “treasonous lies.” In response, Gabbard sent Romney a cease-and-desist letter.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Gabbard accused Vice President Kamala Harris of being the “main instigator” of the Ukraine conflict, citing Harris’ support for NATO’s expansion. Trump’s former UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, who opposed him in the Republican primary, recently declared that Gabbard’s views made her unsuitable for a high-level intelligence role. “This is not a place for a Russian, Iranian, Syrian, Chinese sympathiser,” Haley stated.

Some officials worry Gabbard’s appointment could jeopardize the trust between the US and its allies. A former senior White House official expressed concern that her differing views on figures like Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin might disrupt intelligence diplomacy. “It certainly will raise real questions in the minds of foreign counterparts,” the official told the BBC. A former NATO official echoed this sentiment, questioning why someone with “wacky views” and no relevant background would be entrusted with such a critical position.

However, not all foreign allies expect drastic changes. Duncan Lewis, former head of Australia’s domestic spy agency, emphasized the strength of the US-Australian alliance, saying, “Our bilateral security relationship is strong and long-standing, and I expect that to continue.”

The nomination process for DNI is expected to be contentious. The DNI shapes the president’s daily intelligence briefing, giving them significant influence over national security priorities. Some senators have expressed reservations about Gabbard’s suitability. Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat and former CIA officer, noted that Gabbard’s past statements appear to favor adversarial positions. “Certainly, it gave me pause when I heard the nomination,” Slotkin said.

Senator James Lankford, a Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, indicated that Gabbard would face tough questions about her history, including the Assad meeting. Conversely, Republican Senator Eric Schmitt criticized accusations from Democrats that Gabbard was “compromised,” calling such claims “totally ridiculous” and baseless. Senator Markwayne Mullin, also a Republican, described Gabbard as a “solid choice” and encouraged skeptics to engage with her directly. “What I’ve been telling everybody is just sit down and talk to her,” Mullin said.

Gabbard’s nomination highlights the broader divisions within US politics over foreign policy and the role of intelligence. Her anti-establishment views and unconventional approach may appeal to Trump’s base, but they also raise significant concerns about her ability to foster trust and cooperation within the intelligence community and with global allies. As the Senate gears up for what promises to be a heated confirmation process, Gabbard’s past actions and statements will undoubtedly remain under the microscope.

Kamala Harris Urges Unity and Resilience in Post-Election Address

In her first major speech to fundraisers and supporters following the November 5 electoral defeat, Vice President Kamala Harris delivered a passionate call for unity and perseverance in the face of political challenges. Addressing a private gathering, Harris reaffirmed her dedication to safeguarding core American values and urged her audience to remain steadfast in their pursuit of progress.

“The promise of America will only be achieved if we stay in the fight,” Harris proclaimed, emphasizing the need for collective determination and action to uphold key principles. Her speech was a rallying cry to continue the struggle for democracy, justice, and individual freedoms.

Harris did not shy away from the tough road ahead, speaking openly about the hurdles that lie in the path of advancing fundamental ideals. “We’re gonna continue fighting for the rights of women to make decisions about their own body,” she declared. “We’re gonna continue fighting for our democracy, for equal justice.”

Acknowledging the anxiety and uncertainty gripping many Americans in the current political climate, Harris sought to inspire confidence and underscore the power of individual and collective action. “We are not powerless,” she assured her audience. “Hard work is good work. Hard work can be joyful work. And we must remain intentional, continuing to build community and coalitions.”

Her speech outlined a clear focus on key priorities, including reproductive rights, the preservation of democracy, and the pursuit of equal justice under the law. These issues, she asserted, are fundamental to the nation’s identity and its future.

“We’re going to continue fighting for the right of women to make decisions about their own body,” Harris reiterated, doubling down on her commitment to reproductive freedoms. “We’re going to continue fighting for our democracy, for the rule of law, for equal justice.”

Asserting the importance of unity, Harris called for an approach that emphasizes shared goals over division. “I’m continuing to build community, to build coalitions,” she said, expressing her belief in the common bonds that unite Americans. “We have so much more in common than what separates us as the American people, and we must continue to organize and mobilize and stay engaged.”

Delivered with conviction and optimism, Harris’s address served as a rallying point for her supporters and reaffirmed her commitment to advancing progressive values. By calling on her audience to remain engaged and proactive, Harris sought to reinvigorate her base and encourage collective action toward achieving shared goals.

Special Counsel Drops Federal Cases Against Trump as President-Elect Gains Immunity

Special counsel Jack Smith has formally moved to dismiss the federal election subversion and classified documents mishandling cases against President-elect Donald Trump. In court filings on Monday, Smith requested the cases’ dismissal, marking a significant development in the legal battles surrounding Trump.

Trump, who had openly declared his intention to dismiss Smith upon resuming office, has continued to break with longstanding norms regarding special counsel investigations.

“The (Justice) Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” Smith wrote regarding the election subversion case in a six-page filing to US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, DC. He emphasized, “This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.”

Judge Chutkan dismissed the case without prejudice on Monday afternoon, allowing for the possibility of future prosecution.

Smith’s investigations into Trump for alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and mishandling classified documents were unprecedented, marking the first time a former U.S. president faced federal criminal charges. Despite the cases’ historic nature, the election subversion trial faced delays that prevented it from proceeding before the November election.

Smith charged Trump in Washington, DC, for efforts to overturn the 2020 election, a campaign that culminated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Regarding the dismissal, Smith clarified, “The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed.”

Prosecutors recently argued that a landmark Supreme Court ruling granting Trump partial presidential immunity should not affect the case. Judge Chutkan had been assessing how much of Trump’s conduct was protected by immunity when Smith filed the motion for dismissal.

In a related case in Florida, Trump faced charges for allegedly taking classified national defense documents from the White House and resisting efforts by the government to recover them. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases.

Reacting to the dismissal, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung hailed it as “a major victory for the rule of law.” He added, “The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.”

Appeal Continues Against Trump Employees

While the charges against Trump have been dropped, Smith indicated in a filing with a federal appeals court that the prosecution of two of Trump’s employees, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, would continue.

Nauta and de Oliveira are accused of assisting Trump in obstructing a federal investigation into classified documents taken from the White House. Both employees have pleaded not guilty, and their case is now before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reviewing Judge Aileen Cannon’s earlier dismissal of all charges.

John Irving, a defense attorney for de Oliveira, criticized the decision to continue the case against his client. “The special counsel’s decision to proceed in this case, even after dismissing it against President Trump, is an unsurprising tribute to the poor judgment that led to the indictment against Mr. De Oliveira in the first place,” Irving said. He further argued, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. If they prefer a slow acquittal, that’s fine with us.”

Stanley Woodward, Nauta’s lawyer, did not respond to requests for comment.

Temporary Immunity for President-Elect

Smith has emphasized that the dismissal of charges against Trump is “without prejudice,” preserving the option for future prosecution once Trump no longer enjoys presidential immunity. He described the immunity granted to a sitting president as “temporary.”

Smith revealed that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel had determined that prosecuting a sitting president is categorically barred, even for charges filed before they assume office.

“Accordingly, the Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” Smith wrote. He added, “Although the Constitution requires dismissal in this context, consistent with the temporary nature of the immunity afforded a sitting President, it does not require dismissal with prejudice.”

Judge Chutkan acknowledged the unusual nature of the situation in her ruling. She stated, “Dismissal without prejudice is also consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office.”

State Prosecutions Persist

Trump’s presidential immunity does not extend to prosecutions brought by state authorities, meaning cases in Georgia and New York will continue. However, these cases may still face complications as courts grapple with questions of immunity and the implications of Trump’s return to the White House.

In New York, Trump faces charges in a criminal hush money case. A jury earlier this year convicted him on 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a payment made during the 2016 campaign to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who claims to have had an affair with Trump—a claim he denies. The judge overseeing the case recently postponed Trump’s sentencing indefinitely.

In Georgia, Trump is fighting charges in a sprawling case accusing him and several allies of attempting to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.

Despite the dismissals at the federal level, these state cases ensure that Trump’s legal challenges are far from over as he prepares to take office again.

Trump’s Potential Return Sparks Concerns Over National Debt and Spending

When Donald Trump last occupied the White House in 2020, the annual cost of servicing the national debt stood at $345 billion. This figure, though substantial, was manageable due to historically low interest rates. At the time, it was feasible to accumulate more debt through tax cuts and pandemic relief measures because the low borrowing costs ensured repayment burdens remained relatively modest, even as overall debt levels rose significantly.

However, the financial landscape has shifted drastically since then. According to projections from the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of servicing the national debt could surpass $1 trillion by next year. This staggering amount is higher than the expected expenditure on national defense and exceeds combined spending on infrastructure, food assistance, and other Congressional programs.

The dramatic rise in debt servicing costs is largely attributed to climbing interest rates. In April 2020, at the height of the government’s pandemic borrowing spree, the yield on 10-year Treasury notes hit a record low of 0.6%. Fast forward to today, and those yields have surged to 4.4%. This increase reflects investors’ anticipation that a Trump administration would implement income tax cuts, potentially adding trillions of dollars to already ballooning deficits.

Democratic President Joe Biden can counter critiques by pointing to robust economic growth and his administration’s success in avoiding a recession, even as the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to combat inflation. Nonetheless, deficits have remained unusually high during his term. This is partly due to Biden’s policies, which include significant investments to boost domestic manufacturing and combat climate change, as well as the residual effects of Trump’s previous tax cuts.

As Trump’s allies and Republican lawmakers prepare for a possible return to power, they are exploring ways to curb government spending to reduce debt and lower interest rates. Criticizing Biden for his handling of deficits and inflation, they aim to set the stage for potential fiscal reforms under Trump’s leadership.

Key figures in Trump’s camp, including wealthy entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, have floated controversial ideas to address government spending. Among their proposals is the refusal to spend funds already approved by Congress, an approach Trump has shown interest in. However, such a move would almost certainly face legal challenges, as it undermines congressional authority over federal expenditures.

Russell Vought, Trump’s budget director during his first term and a likely pick for the role again, has proposed an alternative budget plan. This plan outlines over $11 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, with the ultimate goal of achieving a surplus.

Michael Faulkender, a finance professor and former Treasury Department official under Trump, has advocated for the repeal of all energy and environmental provisions within Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Speaking before a congressional committee in March, Faulkender argued that dismantling these components would significantly reduce deficits.

Additionally, Trump has expressed support for imposing tariffs on imports as a revenue-generating measure to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, some Republican lawmakers, such as House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington of Texas, have suggested implementing work requirements for Medicaid recipients as a cost-cutting strategy.

The current predicament is reminiscent of the early years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, when high interest rates similarly forced the White House to confront the escalating cost of servicing the national debt. Back then, rising yields on 10-year Treasury notes prompted Clinton and Congress to negotiate a deficit reduction agreement, which ultimately led to a budget surplus by 1998.

Reflecting on that era, Clinton political adviser James Carville famously quipped about the power wielded by bond investors in shaping government policy. “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter,” Carville said. “But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.”

As Trump eyes a return to the Oval Office, the interplay between rising debt, interest rates, and government spending will likely take center stage in the nation’s political discourse. Whether his administration can tackle these challenges while delivering on campaign promises remains to be seen.

Trump Announces New Tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China in First Executive Order

President-elect Donald Trump declared on Monday that he will implement new tariffs on goods imported from Canada, Mexico, and China via an executive order on his first day in office next year.

In a series of posts shared on Truth Social, Trump detailed plans to impose a 25 percent tariff on all Canadian and Mexican imports. Additionally, Chinese imports, already subject to tariffs from his previous term, will face an additional 10 percent tariff. These measures, Trump stated, aim to pressure the three nations to strengthen border security and take decisive action to reduce fentanyl exports to the United States.

“Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem. We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

During his campaign, Trump promised to introduce broad tariffs of 10 percent to 20 percent on all foreign goods, with tariffs on Chinese imports reaching as high as 60 percent. Canada, Mexico, and China are the United States’ top trading partners, making these proposals significant in the context of international commerce.

The announcement comes shortly after Trump revealed his intention to nominate investor Scott Bessent as his Treasury secretary. Bessent’s role will be pivotal in executing Trump’s trade agenda and maintaining stability in financial markets during the anticipated economic disruptions caused by these new measures.

Trump’s tariff plans have a precedent in his previous presidency, during which he frequently shook financial markets and strained relations with major U.S. trading partners. He previously imposed tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, including imports from Canada and Mexico, citing national security concerns. This action led to the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), resulting in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which aimed to boost U.S. manufacturing and enforce stricter labor compliance.

China, however, bore the brunt of Trump’s trade policies during his first term. Trump implemented tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods in an effort to force Beijing to renegotiate critical aspects of the U.S.-China economic relationship. These actions were part of a broader strategy to address perceived trade imbalances and intellectual property theft, which Trump consistently highlighted as major grievances.

The newly announced tariffs indicate that Trump intends to adopt an even more aggressive stance on trade in his upcoming term. His focus on border security and the opioid crisis, particularly fentanyl, aligns with his broader political messaging, emphasizing national security and economic self-reliance.

With his return to the presidency looming, these tariff proposals are likely to reignite debates over their economic implications and effectiveness in achieving the desired policy outcomes. Critics argue that such tariffs could lead to higher costs for American consumers and businesses, potentially straining the economy. Supporters, however, see them as a necessary step to hold trading partners accountable and prioritize U.S. interests.

As Trump’s trade policies take shape, the impact on international relations and global markets remains to be seen. For now, his proposed tariffs signal a continuation of his confrontational approach to trade, with significant implications for the United States and its trading partners.

Trump Faces Republican Resistance Over Controversial Appointments as Gabbard Sparks Debate

Donald Trump’s Republican allies in the Senate are rallying to defend Tulsi Gabbard, his controversial pick to lead U.S. intelligence services, marking a potential test of both his provocative nominations and the GOP’s willingness to challenge his decisions. Alongside Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Defense, also faces growing scrutiny, intensifying political tensions as the president-elect prepares for his second term.

Concerns Over Gabbard’s Past Statements and Actions

During an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union, Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth questioned Gabbard’s suitability for the intelligence role, citing her controversial 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and past policy positions. Duckworth alleged, “I think she’s compromised,” adding that some of Gabbard’s remarks align with Russian propaganda. These concerns were echoed by Senator-elect Adam Schiff, who criticized her nomination, describing her as “someone with very questionable judgment and no experience.”

Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin, however, dismissed Duckworth’s remarks as “ridiculous” and “outright dangerous,” calling on her to retract the statements. Mullin defended Gabbard, stating, “If she was compromised, if she wasn’t able to pass a background check, she still wouldn’t be in the Army.”

Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt also came to Gabbard’s defense, condemning the accusations as baseless. “I think it’s really interesting that anybody that has a different political view now is being cast as a Russian asset. It’s totally ridiculous,” he said, emphasizing that such attacks were insulting and unwarranted.

Despite these defenses, questions persist within the GOP. Republican Senator James Lankford acknowledged the controversy surrounding Gabbard’s qualifications, noting, “We will have lots of questions. She met with Bashar al-Assad. We will want to know what the purpose was and what the direction for that was as a member of Congress.”

Hegseth’s Troubles and Trump’s Aggressive Agenda

Meanwhile, Hegseth’s nomination has come under fire due to a 2017 police report alleging sexual assault, which he denies. Though he was not charged, the report has cast uncertainty on his confirmation prospects. Trump’s earlier nominee for attorney general, Matt Gaetz, faced similar scrutiny and ultimately withdrew due to allegations of sexual misconduct, which he also denied.

Trump’s replacement pick for attorney general, Pam Bondi, has been met with a more favorable reception among Republicans. Bondi, a former Florida attorney general, is seen as a staunch supporter of Trump’s agenda, including his claims of election fraud in 2020. Lankford defended her nomination, saying, “You have got to actually be balanced and about justice, not about attacking the president.”

A Push for Radical Government Reform

The president-elect’s selections signal his intention to pursue sweeping changes in government. His pick for the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, has been tasked with implementing significant government cuts as part of Trump’s broader reform agenda. Trump has also enlisted Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to spearhead efforts to streamline the federal bureaucracy.

Economic picks like hedge fund manager Scott Bessent for Treasury and Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick for Commerce are aimed at reassuring Wall Street amid Trump’s proposed tariff hikes. While these measures are designed to target foreign trading competitors, critics warn they could lead to higher inflation and hurt American consumers.

Foreign Policy and the Ukraine Conflict

Trump’s vow to end the Ukraine war has emerged as a major foreign policy challenge. Representative Mike Waltz, Trump’s incoming national security adviser, expressed concerns about the ongoing conflict, stating on Fox News, “The president-elect is incredibly concerned about the carnage that is taking place there. How do we restore deterrence and how do we bring peace?” Trump has pledged to resolve the conflict swiftly, but critics fear his approach could legitimize Russia’s invasion by allowing Moscow to retain captured territories.

A Controversial Path Forward

The rapid pace of Trump’s staffing decisions and the ideological leanings of his appointees suggest a tumultuous term ahead. Republican lawmakers, emboldened by their control of both chambers of Congress, believe Trump has a mandate for significant change. However, concerns remain about whether his administration can balance its ambitious agenda with the operational focus required for effective governance.

As the debate over Gabbard’s nomination unfolds, it encapsulates Trump’s fraught relationship with the intelligence community, which he has accused of working against him during his first term. Gabbard’s limited experience in intelligence and her defense of figures like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have fueled criticism. Reports of her inclusion on a Transportation Security Administration watchlist, though unverified, have further raised eyebrows.

Democrats view Gabbard’s nomination as a political vulnerability for Trump, with Duckworth questioning her loyalty: “The US intelligence community has identified her as having troubling relationships with America’s foes. My worry is that she couldn’t pass a background check.”

Defending Gabbard Amid GOP Divisions

Despite the controversy, some Republicans have rallied behind Gabbard. Tennessee Senator Bill Hagerty pointed out that her role would involve implementing Trump’s policies rather than her own. “President Trump will fire people that don’t do their job well,” Hagerty said. Schmitt similarly argued that differing political views should not disqualify Gabbard, calling the accusations against her a “slur.”

However, divisions within the GOP remain evident. Lankford acknowledged the need for a thorough vetting process, emphasizing the importance of understanding Gabbard’s past actions and statements.

Potential Shakeups in Federal Leadership

Bondi’s nomination signals Trump’s intent to overhaul the Justice Department. The president-elect has long accused the FBI and DOJ of targeting him unfairly, particularly in relation to his handling of classified documents and attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Speculation has grown that Trump may replace FBI Director Christopher Wray, potentially appointing loyalists like Kash Patel to senior roles within the bureau.

Patel, a staunch supporter of Trump’s MAGA agenda, has expressed a desire to revisit past investigations, stating on Fox Business, “Put out the documents. Put out the evidence. We only have gotten halfway down the Russiagate hole.” Critics worry such moves could politicize federal law enforcement and undermine public trust in these institutions.

A High-Stakes Transition

As Trump’s second term approaches, his appointments and policy priorities are setting the stage for significant upheaval in Washington. While Republicans believe they have a mandate for bold action, the challenges of governing amid political polarization and internal divisions within the GOP could complicate Trump’s efforts to implement his ambitious agenda.

Whether Gabbard’s nomination will withstand scrutiny remains uncertain, but the debate underscores the broader tensions surrounding Trump’s leadership and the direction of his presidency.

Donald Trump Secures Narrow Yet Historic Win in 2024 Presidential Election

Donald Trump achieved a significant milestone by winning both the Electoral College and the popular vote in the 2024 presidential election. This victory marks Trump as only the second Republican to secure the popular vote since 1988. The majority of counties in the U.S. saw their voting margins shift toward Trump, reflecting gains in both Republican-stronghold regions and traditionally Democratic areas.

Despite this accomplishment, Trump’s margins were relatively modest, especially by historical standards. Over the past 25 years, U.S. presidential elections have often been tightly contested, as seen in the 2000 Florida recount election and Trump’s own races in 2016 and 2020.

Adding to the complexity of his victory, Trump’s success did not translate into substantial gains for down-ballot Republicans. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives remains slim, and Democrats managed to win four Senate races in key battleground states, even as Vice President Kamala Harris lost those states to Trump.

During his election night celebration, Trump confidently declared, “America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate.”

However, Wayne Steger, a political scientist at DePaul University, interpreted the results differently, describing the election as sending “mixed signals.” According to Steger, a combination of factors such as inflation, immigration, identity politics, crime, education, and a growing conservative sentiment favored the Republican candidate. Still, he characterized the outcome as a “close election in which there was enough anti-Democratic sentiment to carry the day.”

Trump’s Victory in Context

Trump’s performance in the 2024 election has several notable aspects. He managed to secure wins in all seven battleground states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Harris, in comparison, performed worse in these states than President Joe Biden did in 2020.

Trump’s margin of victory in these battleground states was significantly larger than the margins seen in close elections over the past two decades. For example, his combined margin in these seven states was approximately 760,000 votes. In contrast, the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore produced a collective margin of just 46,000 votes across the seven closest states—a figure about one-sixteenth of Trump’s margin in 2024.

Historical comparisons further underscore Trump’s achievement. Since 1932, only six candidates from the party out of power have garnered as large a share of the vote as Trump’s near 50%. These figures include political heavyweights such as Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1980, Barack Obama in 2008, and Biden in 2020.

In the Electoral College, Trump secured 312 votes out of 538. While this figure falls short of the landslide victories achieved by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Richard Nixon in 1972, or Reagan in 1984, it surpasses four of the seven elections held this century, including Biden’s win in 2020.

The Narrowness of Trump’s Victory

Despite his notable successes, other metrics highlight the narrow nature of Trump’s win. In terms of both percentage and raw vote counts, Trump’s margin of victory ranks as one of the slimmest in recent history.

As of November 20, Trump’s lead over Harris was 1.62%—a smaller margin than any winner since Bush in 2000, who prevailed with just a 0.51% lead. In the broader historical context, only John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Nixon in 1968 had smaller popular vote margins, at 0.17% and 0.7%, respectively.

In terms of raw votes, Trump’s margin of approximately 2.5 million is the fifth smallest since 1960. This figure is less than half of Biden’s margin in the 2020 election.

Moreover, Trump’s strong showing at the top of the ticket did not result in widespread Republican success down-ballot. In the seven battleground states, five held Senate races and one held a gubernatorial contest. While Republicans won Pennsylvania’s Senate race, Democrats triumphed in the Senate contests in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, as well as in North Carolina’s gubernatorial race.

In North Carolina, Democrats also secured wins in elections for lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, and superintendent of public instruction. They were also narrowly leading in a state Supreme Court race.

The U.S. House of Representatives is poised to retain a narrow Republican margin, similar to the previous two years. In state legislatures, Republicans made only modest gains in chamber control, while Democrats managed to make inroads in other areas.

Barry Burden, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, described Trump’s victory as “solid and convincing.” However, he noted, “the 2024 elections were not a general endorsement of the Republican Party. Many Republicans down ballot did not perform as well as Trump.”

Implications for Future Elections

The 2024 election continues a broader pattern of close contests and fluctuating political control. Since 2000, the presidency, Senate, or House has changed hands 16 times across 13 election cycles.

This trend suggests that Democrats may be well-positioned for the 2026 midterms and potentially the 2028 presidential race. Claremont McKenna College political scientist Jack Pitney emphasized the electorate’s dissatisfaction with the state of the country, remarking, “Unless Trump creates an abrupt change in the national mood, Democrats have a good chance at a successful 2026 midterm.”

Trump’s 2024 victory represents a blend of significant achievements and historical narrowness. His success in battleground states and his strong showing against an incumbent party underscore his electoral strength, but the modest margins and lack of a down-ballot boost highlight the complexities of his win. As the U.S. political landscape remains deeply divided, the coming years will test the durability of Trump’s mandate and the Republicans’ ability to consolidate their gains.

New Dawn For Thanksgiving

“May your Thanksgiving be filled with blessings, warmth, and joy.” Wishing you all bountiful Thanksgiving, a happy holiday season, and a healthy New Year.
Meticulously, we need to be thankful for all the blessings we acquired, both in personal and social life, indeed.
“It’s dawn again in America” ​​was part of the slogan, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan’s 1984 presidential campaign displayed. The slogan may have been even more relevant this year, as the Republican Party won the presidential election and won a majority in the Senate.
“Thanksgiving” is an expression of gratitude and deep appreciation for the good things in life. Gratitude is a small word, but its scope, breadth, and depth are indescribable. Although we can express our gratitude to each other without any price, it is human nature to forget to express our gratitude. Thanksgiving is a wonderful time of the year when we gather with friends and family over turkey, stuffing, and other delicious home-cooked meals. It’s a great opportunity to remember with gratitude the most inspiring holiday in our lives. Americans celebrate Thanksgiving Day on the last Thursday of November every year.
This year, Thanksgiving Day will be a grand celebration, coming right after the presidential election. The media has assessed that the American people have brought Donald Trump and the Republican Party to power with a huge majority, realizing that the failed four-year administration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris has pushed the United States into a difficult situation of inflation. Political leaders of the world have recognized that the massive and decisive victory achieved by voting for obvious reasons such as millions of illegal immigrants, rising prices, and increasing crime is a victory for the American people.
In the Holy Bible, as per Chronicle 16:34  “Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good; his love endures forever.”.
“He showed us extraordinary kindness. Let us not grow weary in doing good (Galatians 6:9),” Christian political thinkers have also come forward, citing many of the biblical verses. Let us hope that Trump and his followers will understand the will of the people and try to move forward by doing good, rather than wasting time on unnecessary talks and accusations of the past. Let us continue our work for the good of our country and the purpose of expressing gratitude to God. A slight feeling is on the horizon that we are starting to see changes!
Change was inevitable, and we brought it- let us be thankful.

Trump Secures Victory in 2024 as America Swings Right

The nation witnessed a significant shift to the right in the 2024 presidential election compared to the 2020 race. Four years ago, President Joe Biden secured six out of seven critical battleground states, but this time, all those states moved toward President-elect Donald Trump. Furthermore, Trump is on course to win the popular vote, a stark contrast to Biden’s 7-million-vote lead in 2020.

Trump Dominates the Suburbs

Suburban areas played a decisive role in the election outcome. According to exit polls, over half of the voters in 2024 resided in suburban regions, making these areas pivotal swing zones in both the presidential race and closely contested House districts. Historically, the suburban victor has won 11 of the past 12 presidential elections, dating back to 1980. This year, Trump emerged victorious in the suburbs, securing 51% of the vote compared to Vice President Kamala Harris’s 47%.

Harris had hoped to mobilize suburban women in key swing states to her advantage. However, the anticipated support did not materialize. Exit polls revealed that Trump won white suburban women by a margin of seven points and white suburban men by a significant 27 points. While some suburban households had split votes, it wasn’t enough to propel Harris to victory.

In several swing states, Trump’s gains in suburban areas were substantial, based on near-final vote counts. The Philadelphia suburbs and two major counties near Detroit saw a net swing of nearly 60,000 votes in Trump’s favor. Similarly, in Wisconsin’s “WOW” counties—Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington—Trump gained over 10,000 votes. Georgia’s suburban counties near Atlanta also leaned toward Trump, contributing to his overall success.

Interestingly, in certain Atlanta metro counties, Harris outperformed Biden’s 2020 numbers, and her losses in the Charlotte metro area were not as severe as in the industrial Midwest. These trends offer Democrats a glimmer of hope for the Sun Belt’s future, even as the Midwest becomes increasingly challenging terrain.

Rural Areas Deepen Their Support for Trump

Rural America, long a Republican stronghold, turned out in record numbers for Trump. In 2024, he won 64% of the rural vote, the highest margin for any candidate since 1980. This performance surpassed even Trump’s previous high of 61% in 2016.

Trump’s dominance in rural regions helped him secure wins in key battlegrounds and bolster his popular vote tally in traditionally red states like Texas. In Texas alone, Trump gained a net of over 900,000 votes compared to 2020, and in Florida, his lead expanded by more than 1 million votes.

These gains were partly driven by Trump’s significant inroads with Latino voters, particularly in South Florida and South Texas. The shift among Latino communities further solidified his position in these critical states.

Harris Falls Short in Urban Centers

Urban areas, typically Democratic strongholds, presented challenges for Harris. While large cities remain central to Democratic success in swing states, Harris secured just 59% of the urban vote. This figure lagged behind the performances of Biden, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton in previous elections.

This underperformance contributed significantly to Harris’s defeats in key states. For instance, in Maricopa County, Arizona, which encompasses Phoenix, Harris received approximately 61,000 fewer votes than Biden did in 2020. In contrast, Trump gained about 56,000 votes, resulting in a 117,000-vote swing in a single county.

A similar trend was observed in Wayne County, Michigan, home to Detroit. Harris’s support fell by more than 60,000 votes, while Trump gained roughly 24,000. Wayne County is home to a significant Black voter base, as well as the nation’s largest Arab American population in Dearborn, which numbers around 100,000. Many Arab American voters expressed dissatisfaction with the Biden administration’s stance on the Gaza conflict, a factor that may have impacted Harris’s performance in the region.

The story was much the same in other major urban centers across swing states, including Las Vegas and Philadelphia. Even in traditionally blue states, Harris struggled to match Biden’s 2020 numbers. In New York, for example, Harris’s vote total declined by more than 800,000 compared to Biden’s performance four years earlier.

A Broader Electoral Landscape

The 2024 election results highlighted stark regional and demographic divides in American politics. Trump’s ability to consolidate support in rural areas and among suburban voters proved decisive, while Harris’s challenges in urban centers and among key demographic groups weakened her chances of victory.

These shifts suggest a changing political landscape, with Republicans making gains in areas where Democrats traditionally performed well, and Democrats focusing on emerging opportunities in the Sun Belt. As America moves forward, both parties will likely analyze these trends to shape their strategies for future elections.

Tulsi Gabbard’s Controversial Nomination for Director of National Intelligence Raises Concerns

Donald Trump’s announcement of Tulsi Gabbard as his nominee for director of national intelligence has sparked intense debate, with critics from both major political parties voicing objections. Gabbard’s connections to a politically active Hindu organization, the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF), and her past political affiliations are under scrutiny.

John Bolton, former national security advisor, called her nomination “one of the nation’s worst,” while Democratic leaders have labeled her a “Russian asset” and a “national security threat.” The Daily Beast ran a report on November 14 titled, “Tulsi Gabbard’s Ties to ‘Cult’ Could Cost Her Intel Job,” which highlighted her lifelong association with SIF. The foundation is a Hawaii-based offshoot of the Krishna Consciousness movement, founded in the U.S. and popularized by Beatle George Harrison.

A Shifting Political Journey

Gabbard’s political career began in 2002 when she was elected to Hawaii’s state house at the age of 21, making her the youngest woman to hold such a position in the U.S. state legislature. In 2013, she made history as the first practicing Hindu elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. She garnered national attention in 2016 by endorsing Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton and later ran for president in 2020.

Her political evolution has been striking. Gabbard left the Democratic Party in 2022 to become an independent, later endorsing Donald Trump, aligning with the Republican Party, and actively campaigning for Trump this year.

Connections to the Science of Identity Foundation

Gabbard’s ties to SIF, founded in 1977 by Chris Butler (known as Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa), have been reported extensively over the years, including in 2017, 2019, and again this year by Honolulu’s *Civil Beat*. Gabbard attended an SIF boarding school and met both of her husbands through the organization.

The foundation traces its roots to Butler’s early discipleship under AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who founded the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) in 1966. ISKCON became widely recognized for its public chanting of “Hare Krishna” and fundraising campaigns but also faced allegations of cult-like practices, such as strict obedience and isolation from the outside world. Disagreements between Butler and Prabhupada led Butler to break away and establish SIF, introducing a more politicized form of Hinduism that included relaxed traditions, such as allowing devotees to forgo shaving their heads.

Butler’s influence extended into politics, with the establishment of the Independents for Godly Government, a political party that promoted conservative candidates in Hawaii. Gabbard’s parents were also prominent within SIF, founding groups such as Stop Promoting Homosexuality in 1991 and the Alliance for Traditional Marriage in 1995. The latter supported an anti-same-sex marriage amendment, which passed in Hawaii in 1998. Gabbard, as a teenager, appeared in a campaign ad for the amendment but later cited her military service as a catalyst for her changed views on LGBTQ+ rights.

International Ties and Allegations of Religious Bias

Questions have also been raised about Gabbard’s connections to Hindu nationalist groups in India that support Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Critics allege these groups promote persecution of Muslims and Christians. India’s ambassador to the U.S. attended Gabbard’s second wedding in 2015, and she traveled to India at Modi’s personal invitation. When questioned about these ties, Gabbard has dismissed the criticism as religious prejudice, accusing detractors of “Hinduphobia.”

Controversial Nominees in Trump’s Cabinet

Gabbard is not the only contentious nominee in Trump’s proposed administration. Conservative Christian Family Research Council President Tony Perkins called for “urgent prayer” on November 11, urging that Trump surround himself with “godly counsel” in his cabinet selections. Among Trump’s choices are Vivek Ramaswamy, another Hindu nominee, and three individuals accused of sexual abuse: Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, and Robert Kennedy Jr.

Trump has signaled his intention to bypass Senate scrutiny for his appointments by using recess appointments, avoiding potentially uncomfortable confirmation hearings.

Gabbard’s nomination remains polarizing, with her political journey and ties to a controversial spiritual movement at the forefront of public debate.

Trump’s Bold Cabinet Picks: Provocation or Strategy?

President-elect Donald Trump has stirred controversy with his selection of key cabinet members, signaling a combative approach to shaping his administration. Among the most talked-about nominations are former Rep. Matt Gaetz as attorney general, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as director of National Intelligence, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of Health and Human Services, and Fox News commentator Pete Hegseth as secretary of Defense. These appointments have overshadowed more traditional choices like Sen. Marco Rubio as secretary of State and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum as secretary of the Interior.

The quartet of controversial nominees has placed Senate Republicans in a challenging position. With the GOP holding a slim 53-47 majority in the Senate, all four appointees require confirmation. Trump’s picks appear to reflect his tightening grip on the Republican Party following his decisive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the presidential election.

This show of dominance poses a dilemma for Senate Republicans, particularly those skeptical of Trump. Figures like Sens. Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, who previously voted to convict Trump during his second impeachment trial, are likely to voice concerns. Trump’s tense relationship with outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell adds another layer of complexity.

Republican strategist Susan Del Percio, a vocal Trump critic, remarked that nominating individuals like Gaetz tests the party’s willingness to align with Trump’s agenda. “It shows you are not serious. You are really just giving Republicans a test to see how much they will bend to your will,” she said.

Gaetz’s nomination has already sparked significant turbulence. The Florida congressman resigned his seat upon being nominated, effectively halting a House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct, illegal drug use, and potential misuse of his position. Gaetz denies any wrongdoing.

The question of whether senators should have access to the committee’s findings has become contentious. Speaker Mike Johnson argued against releasing the report, calling it a “terrible breach of protocol and tradition.” Nevertheless, the delay in the Ethics Committee’s vote to decide on the report’s release has intensified scrutiny.

Republican senators, including Collins and Murkowski, have expressed skepticism. Murkowski dismissed Gaetz’s nomination as “not a serious nomination for attorney general,” while Collins said she was “shocked” by the decision. Sen. Joni Ernst added that Gaetz faced an “uphill climb” for confirmation.

A new complication emerged when an attorney representing two women involved in the Ethics Committee investigation alleged that one of the women had witnessed Gaetz engaging in sexual activity with a minor. This accusation has further clouded Gaetz’s prospects for confirmation.

Trump’s other nominations have also raised eyebrows. Gabbard, in particular, may face intense opposition from Republicans wary of her past comments that align closely with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Former Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz accused Gabbard of being “likely a Russian asset” during an MSNBC interview, although Gabbard has dismissed such allegations as “completely despicable.”

Kennedy’s controversial views, particularly his vaccine skepticism, pose another obstacle. Hegseth, despite his military background, has limited experience managing an organization as vast as the Defense Department, which employs nearly three million people.

The motivations behind Trump’s choices have sparked debate. Some observers believe he is determined to assemble a cabinet more aligned with his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda, distancing himself from the traditional GOP establishment that characterized parts of his first term. Others see the nominations as a power move to assert control over remaining skeptics within the party.

A third theory posits that Trump may be deliberately advancing polarizing nominees to allow Republican senators to reject one and demonstrate independence while confirming the others. Under this scenario, Gaetz could serve as the sacrificial nominee. However, some argue that Gabbard’s contentious past could make her even more vulnerable to rejection.

Dan Judy, a Republican strategist, cautioned against overanalyzing Trump’s approach. “He is a creature of instinct and he acts on instinct,” Judy said. “For someone like Gaetz, [Trump] thinks, ‘He is loyal to me, he looks good on TV, and he is sitting next to me on the plane right now — why don’t we make him attorney general?’ I don’t think there is any Machiavellian strategy to it.”

Whether driven by strategy or impulse, Trump’s cabinet picks highlight the challenges his administration will bring. Senate Republicans now face the difficult task of balancing loyalty to their party leader with their constitutional duty to vet his nominees.

Lawmakers Join Indian Americans for Annual Diwali on Capitol Hill Celebration  

Over two dozen U.S. lawmakers joined Indian Americans in celebrating Diwali during the annual “Diwali on Capitol Hill” event on November 13. The gathering, organized by the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in collaboration with several partner organizations, underscored the growing recognition of Indian culture and its integration into American society.

Prominent attendees included Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Hyde Smith (R-MS), along with U.S. Representatives Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Jonathan Jackson (D-IL), Haley Stevens (D-MI), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Andy Ogles (R-TN), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Shri Thanedar (D-MI), Ben Cline (R-VA), Ben Hoyer (D-MD), Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Dan Meuser (R-PA), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Nick LaLota (R-NY), Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), Darin LaHood (R-IL), and Scott Perry (R-PA).

The celebration also saw the presence of Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Vinay Mohan Kwatra, alongside representatives from co-hosting organizations such as the Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA), Hindu American Foundation (HAF), and the U.S. Indian Community Foundation. Other partner groups included the Shrimad Rajchandra Mission Dharampur, Federation of Jain Associations in North America (JAINA), and the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

During his address, Ambassador Kwatra highlighted the global embrace of Diwali, emphasizing its universal appeal. “This is an Indian festival which is embraced and celebrated the world over,” he stated. “Your presence here, the presence of so many congressmen and senators, has made it all the more special.”

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a key figure among Indian American lawmakers, delivered his greetings while underscoring the significance of the Indian diaspora’s contributions to American society. “I have to say, as one of the five current members of Congress who are Indian American, I affectionately call them the Samosa Caucus. We need more samosas in Congress,” he said, referring to the growing representation of Indian Americans in politics. He also shared the news of Suhas Subramanyam’s expected addition to this group, noting, “Indian Americans in this country have arrived.”

The event was marked by bipartisan appreciation for the values represented by Diwali—particularly the triumph of good over evil. Lawmakers expressed their admiration for the Indian American community and emphasized their commitment to protecting the cultural and religious diversity that enriches the United States.

Rep. Andrew Garbarino, in his address, stressed the importance of safeguarding Hindu temples across the country. “There is a bipartisan effort to make sure Hindu temples are protected,” he said. He also pointed to the Homeland Security Committee’s ongoing work in this area. “We’re going to continue to work to make sure that the temples get the security protection that they need,” Garbarino added, referencing a recent visit to the Melville BAPS temple as an example of community engagement.

Echoing similar sentiments, Rep. Tom Suozzi spoke about the values of respect and divinity intrinsic to Indian culture. “When Indian Americans place their hands like this and say namaste, they’re really recognizing the divinity and the respect they have for the person in front of them,” he noted. “We need more of that in our country today.”

Rep. Shri Thanedar addressed the gathering with a focus on the challenges faced by Hindu communities, both domestically and internationally. “There’s a lot that needs to be done,” he said. “I’m working with the State Department on the attacks on Hindu temples and making sure our community is protected all across America.” He further highlighted his efforts to address issues beyond U.S. borders, adding, “I’m also working with the State Department on the atrocities on Hindus in Bangladesh.”

The gathering reinforced the shared commitment of lawmakers and community leaders to fostering inclusivity, promoting cultural understanding, and ensuring the safety and freedom of all religious practices. As Diwali symbolizes the victory of light over darkness, the event served as a reminder of the values that unite diverse communities across the U.S.

Lawmakers and attendees alike emphasized the need for continued collaboration to address concerns and support the flourishing Indian American community. The “Diwali on Capitol Hill” celebration highlighted the growing significance of Indian culture in the national fabric, while also paving the way for meaningful conversations about unity, security, and shared values.

Trump’s Shockwaves Reshape Washington with Controversial Nominations

A political whirlwind swept through Washington on Wednesday as President-elect Donald Trump reshaped the political landscape with startling nominations that surprised even some members of his party. After meeting with President Biden at the White House and receiving a warm reception from the House GOP on Capitol Hill, Trump made bold moves that commanded the nation’s attention.

Among the most shocking decisions was his nomination of Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz as attorney general. The announcement came shortly after Trump revealed his choice of Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman turned Republican from Hawaii, as director of national intelligence (DNI). These appointments overshadowed even Trump’s meeting with Biden and left other major announcements, such as the nomination of Sen. Marco Rubio as secretary of state, largely unnoticed.

Trump had also surprised many a day earlier by naming Fox News host Pete Hegseth as his pick for defense secretary. Though criticized for his lack of relevant experience, Hegseth’s selection paled in comparison to the controversies surrounding Gabbard and Gaetz. Collectively, these choices signaled Trump’s intent to deliver a seismic jolt to Washington as he prepares to return to the White House after his recent election victory.

Trump’s decisive win over Vice President Kamala Harris was his strongest showing across three presidential campaigns, giving him a mandate he appears eager to leverage. His actions highlight his determination to dismiss traditional political norms and intensify his brand of right-wing populism. His victory also cemented his complete takeover of the GOP, sidelining figures like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and retiring Sen. Mitt Romney. In the next Trump administration, the old Republican establishment may have no significant influence.

The appointment of Gaetz as head of the Department of Justice epitomizes this shift. A staunch Trump ally, Gaetz is well-known for his outspoken support of the former president and his penchant for media attention. He played a pivotal role in the ousting of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and has remained a polarizing figure, even among Republicans. However, his nomination is clouded by past controversies, including his involvement in a Department of Justice investigation into alleged sex trafficking. Although he was not charged, Gaetz remains under scrutiny by the House Ethics Committee, which is investigating allegations of sexual misconduct and illegal drug use—charges he vehemently denies.

Gaetz’s confirmation in the Senate, where Republicans will hold a narrow 53-47 majority, is far from guaranteed. His divisive reputation has drawn criticism even from fellow GOP lawmakers. When informed of the nomination, Rep. Mike Simpson reportedly reacted with disbelief, saying, “Are you s—ting me?” according to a Huffington Post reporter.

Meanwhile, Trump’s choice of Gabbard as DNI has raised concerns for different reasons. In announcing her nomination, Trump praised her “fearless spirit” and her shift from the Democratic to Republican Party. Gabbard, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, is remembered for challenging Harris’s record on criminal justice during a 2019 debate. However, her stance on issues like Russia and Ukraine has been a source of controversy. Gabbard suggested that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine might have been avoided if NATO had addressed Moscow’s “legitimate security concerns.” Additionally, she claimed the U.S. was involved in developing biological weapons in Ukraine, a statement that prompted Romney to accuse her of spreading “false Russian propaganda.” If confirmed, Gabbard would gain access to the nation’s most sensitive intelligence.

Trump’s unorthodox appointments highlight the stark contrast between him and the man he is set to replace in the Oval Office, both in temperament and ideology. Despite their fraught history, Biden hosted Trump at the White House for a two-hour meeting. This marked a significant departure from 2020, when Trump refused to extend the same courtesy to Biden after losing the election. Trump had then insisted, without evidence, that he had won—a claim that culminated in the January 6 Capitol riot.

Photos of Biden and Trump seated together before a roaring fire symbolized an uneasy truce. Trump described Biden as “very gracious,” a sentiment echoed by White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who called Trump’s demeanor during the meeting “substantive.” Despite the pleasantries, it was a bittersweet moment for Biden, whose 2020 campaign framed his battle against Trump as a fight for the “soul of America.” Biden’s reelection hopes had dimmed following a lackluster debate performance, and Harris’s failure to extend his legacy added to the disappointment.

Elsewhere on Capitol Hill, Trump received a hero’s welcome from House Republicans, who celebrated his election victory. In a buoyant meeting, Trump joked about assembling a Cabinet with 15 members of the House GOP and teased his ally, Elon Musk, in good humor.

However, not everything went Trump’s way. Sen. John Thune triumphed in the race for Senate majority leader, defeating John Cornyn and Rick Scott. Scott, the preferred candidate of Trump’s MAGA base, received the least support in the secret ballot. Nonetheless, this development was a minor blip in an otherwise chaotic day dominated by Trump’s bold moves.

Trump’s decisions signal a willingness to challenge established norms and consolidate his grip on power. His nominations underscore his readiness to prioritize loyalty and ideological alignment over conventional qualifications, ensuring his second term will be as disruptive as his first. While the day included minor setbacks, it was largely a showcase of Trump’s unyielding drive to reshape Washington on his terms.

Republicans Secure Control of U.S. House, Paving the Way for Trump’s Agenda

The Republican Party has clinched enough seats to assume control of the U.S. House of Representatives, solidifying its hold on the federal government alongside President-elect Donald Trump. This development completes the GOP’s power sweep, following their earlier success in gaining control of the Senate.

A victory in Arizona and another in California’s slow-counting race on Wednesday granted Republicans the 218 seats required for a majority in the House. With these wins, the GOP gains an opportunity to enact sweeping changes to federal policies, aligning with Trump’s vision for the nation.

Republican leaders, buoyed by their hard-fought yet narrow majorities, believe they now have a mandate to drastically reshape the federal government. President-elect Trump has pledged significant moves, including the largest deportation operation in U.S. history, expanded tax breaks, retribution against political adversaries, and major economic reforms. These electoral victories ensure Congress is in sync with his agenda, leaving Democrats with little ability to counter it.

In 2016, when Trump first assumed the presidency, Republicans also controlled Congress, but internal GOP resistance and a divided Supreme Court posed challenges. This time, Trump returns to the White House backed by a party transformed by his “Make America Great Again” movement and a Supreme Court dominated by conservative justices, three of whom he appointed during his previous term.

On Wednesday morning, Trump made his first post-election visit to Washington, addressing House Republicans at a Capitol Hill hotel. “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you say, ‘He’s good, we got to figure something else,’” he joked to the assembled lawmakers, who responded with laughter.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, who secured Trump’s endorsement to retain his position next year, has expressed an intent to overhaul federal government programs. “The American people want us to implement and deliver that ‘America First’ agenda,” Johnson declared earlier in the week. Known for his staunch conservatism, Johnson has aligned the House Republican Conference closer to Trump’s vision and is preparing an ambitious legislative plan for the first 100 days of the new Congress.

The GOP majority also positions Trump’s allies to pursue retribution for legal challenges he faced while out of office. On Wednesday, Trump announced he would nominate Rep. Matt Gaetz, a vocal supporter, for attorney general. Meanwhile, Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, signaled plans to investigate special counsel Jack Smith, who is concluding federal probes into Trump’s actions surrounding the 2020 election and classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago.

Despite the victory, the GOP’s hold on the House is slim, with only a few races yet to be decided. This narrow margin could complicate Johnson’s efforts to maintain unity, particularly as Trump taps House members like Gaetz, Mike Waltz, and Elise Stefanik for administration roles. Gaetz announced his resignation on Wednesday, effective immediately, prompting Johnson to express hope that his seat would be filled by special election before the new Congress convenes on January 3.

The slim Republican majority could face challenges in maintaining cohesion. In the last Congress, infighting among hardline conservatives often hampered the GOP’s ability to govern effectively. While Johnson, with Trump’s support, has managed to suppress overt rebellions, the party’s right wing has gained momentum following Trump’s election victory.

Further complicating matters is a contingent of Republican lawmakers who won tight races by campaigning as moderates. Their willingness to support Trump’s more extreme proposals remains uncertain.

On the Democratic side, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is striving to keep his party relevant in shaping legislation, despite being outnumbered. This effort requires unity among over 200 Democratic members, even as the party evaluates the reasons behind its electoral losses.

In the Senate, the GOP’s commanding majority enables swift confirmation of Trump’s Cabinet picks. On Wednesday, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota succeeded Sen. Mitch McConnell as the party’s leader. Thune, who had previously criticized Trump, struck a conciliatory tone during his leadership bid. “This Republican team is united. We are on one team,” he said, expressing enthusiasm for working with House Republicans to advance Trump’s agenda.

The Republicans’ 53-seat Senate majority provides them with breathing room to confirm Cabinet members and potentially Supreme Court nominees, should a vacancy arise. However, not all nominations are expected to sail through without controversy. News of Gaetz’s prospective nomination as attorney general drew skepticism, even among Trump’s Senate allies, due to past allegations of misconduct against him.

Despite resistance, Trump has demanded that Republican leaders allow him to make administration appointments during Senate recesses without a formal vote, a move that would shift significant power from the Senate to the president. GOP leaders have largely agreed to this proposal, though Democrats may attempt to block it.

Meanwhile, Trump’s supporters on social media, including billionaire Elon Musk, have voiced opposition to appointing traditional Republicans to key Senate roles. Thune’s leadership has drawn particular scrutiny, given his past association with McConnell, who once referred to Trump as a “despicable human being.”

However, McConnell himself acknowledged that Republican resistance to Trump has largely evaporated. On Capitol Hill, the party appears unified in its commitment to advancing Trump’s policy goals, setting the stage for significant changes in the coming years.

Trump Hints at Third Presidential Run, But Constitutional Barriers Stand Firm

Newly re-elected President Donald Trump has hinted at the possibility of seeking an unprecedented third term, suggesting it might depend on the encouragement of his supporters. Speaking to House Republicans, Trump remarked, “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you [supporters] say otherwise.” His statement was met with enthusiastic support from his audience during a Washington D.C. address, shortly before his scheduled meeting with outgoing President Joe Biden.

Currently, the U.S. Constitution, through the 22nd Amendment, bars any president from serving more than two terms. Trump’s suggestion of a third term raises questions about the solidity of these constitutional limits and whether they could realistically be altered to permit another run in 2028. However, legal experts and constitutional scholars view any attempt to dismantle these term limits as highly improbable.

The 22nd Amendment: Limiting Presidential Terms

The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, strictly limits presidents to a maximum of two terms, regardless of whether these are consecutive or separated by other administrations. Section 1 of the Amendment clearly states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

Further restrictions apply to presidents who have assumed office mid-term; if a vice president or other official completes more than two years of a previous president’s term, they may only serve one full additional term. This provision has set firm boundaries on presidential tenure since its ratification, creating substantial obstacles for any president, including Trump, who might aim to exceed these limits.

Historical Background of the 22nd Amendment

The drive to limit presidential terms arose from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four-term presidency. Roosevelt, who served from 1933 until his death in 1945, remains the only U.S. president to have held office for more than two terms. His extended time in office spurred bipartisan support for setting a ceiling on presidential tenure, leading to the 22nd Amendment’s passage in 1951. Both Republicans and Democrats supported the amendment, viewing two-term presidencies as aligned with the precedent established by George Washington, who voluntarily stepped down after two terms.

Amending the U.S. Constitution: A Daunting Task

For Trump to legally pursue a third term, the 22nd Amendment would have to be repealed—a challenging and unlikely endeavor due to the complex process involved in altering the U.S. Constitution. Repealing an amendment requires a new amendment, which demands a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This process would necessitate the support of 290 of the 435 House members and 67 of the 100 senators.

However, congressional approval is only the first hurdle. Following a successful vote in Congress, the proposed amendment would then need to be ratified by three-fourths of the U.S. states. With 50 states in total, at least 38 state legislatures would need to approve the change. The checks and balances embedded in this process make constitutional amendments—especially those repealing existing amendments—extraordinarily difficult to enact. A Stanford law professor recently underscored the improbability of a third term for Trump, saying, “No, there are none. This will be his last run for President.”

The Role of State Ratification

For any proposed constitutional amendment to succeed, it must clear not only the federal legislative threshold but also earn widespread state-level support. Even if Congress were to agree on repealing the 22nd Amendment, achieving a three-fourths majority in state legislatures presents another formidable obstacle. This requirement underscores the federal nature of the U.S. Constitution, as amendments must reflect not only national but also broad regional support. Given the diversity of political views across the states, securing this level of agreement is challenging for any constitutional change.

The framers of the 22nd Amendment designed it to be durable, creating a high bar for repealing presidential term limits. The lengthy, multi-stage process ensures that such changes cannot be enacted based on short-term political interests. Consequently, although Trump has floated the idea of a third term, the constitutional and political landscape renders it highly improbable.

The Symbolism of Presidential Term Limits

Presidential term limits, now embedded in the 22nd Amendment, symbolize a commitment to democratic principles and a resistance to prolonged executive power. Even in times of crisis or popular support, the two-term limit reinforces the idea of leadership turnover as a democratic ideal. Proponents of term limits argue that they prevent any one individual from amassing too much power, ensuring that leadership opportunities rotate among qualified candidates.

Term limits also serve to maintain a balance of power, reinforcing the separation of powers within the government. By restricting the presidency to two terms, the amendment ensures that executive influence cannot extend indefinitely, safeguarding the democratic process against potential abuses of authority.

Realistic Prospects for Trump’s Third Term

While Trump’s statements have rekindled discussions about potential third-term presidential runs, the practical hurdles make this an unlikely prospect. In addition to the legislative and state-level challenges involved in amending the Constitution, there is currently no significant bipartisan support for repealing presidential term limits. Both major U.S. political parties view the two-term limit as a safeguard against authoritarianism and a critical component of the nation’s democratic structure.

In his recent remarks to House Republicans, Trump’s statements may have been more rhetorical than realistic, aiming to engage his supporters with the idea of his extended leadership. However, with the constitutional boundaries firmly in place, any actual move toward a third-term presidency would face insurmountable obstacles.

The U.S. Constitution’s amendment process, designed to require widespread consensus and deliberation, functions as a robust guardrail against quick or politically motivated changes. Even for a popular or controversial figure like Trump, the procedural hurdles for repealing the 22nd Amendment render any attempt at a third term virtually impossible. Consequently, while the notion of Trump seeking a third term has sparked public interest, the Constitution’s checks and balances appear likely to prevent such an occurrence.

Although Trump has teased the possibility of a third term contingent on his supporters’ enthusiasm, the constitutional framework remains a powerful impediment. As it stands, the United States remains bound by a foundational commitment to two-term presidencies, a principle rooted in the country’s democratic legacy and supported by both historical precedent and legal barriers.

Vivek Ramaswamy’s Role in Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy: From Presidential Candidate to Key Conservative Voice

Vivek Ramaswamy, a businessman with Indian immigrant roots, has become a significant figure in the American political landscape. Born in Cincinnati to parents who emigrated from India, Ramaswamy’s influence has primarily centered around his bold immigration views. Although he ended his bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2023 after finishing fourth in the Iowa caucuses, his voice continues to resonate in conservative circles, especially on immigration issues.

Throughout his campaign, Ramaswamy consistently championed strict immigration policies, particularly advocating for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. He emphasized that those who entered the country illegally should not be allowed to stay, citing the importance of “restoring the rule of law” in the U.S. During a recent interview with ABC News, he argued that immigrants who entered the country illegally in recent years did not have deep connections to the nation. He proposed cutting government benefits for undocumented immigrants as a way to encourage voluntary departures. “Those who have committed a crime should be out of this country. That alone would be the largest mass deportation,” Ramaswamy stated, highlighting his firm stance on the issue.

Ramaswamy has also been a vocal supporter of Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” platform. Despite ending his presidential bid, he was reportedly chosen to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) should Trump win the 2024 election. His advocacy on immigration reform is often informed by his own family’s immigration experience. His mother, who is now a U.S. citizen, immigrated from India with his father. Interestingly, his father, who has lived in the U.S. for decades, chose to retain his Indian citizenship, a decision Ramaswamy has defended as a personal one based on familial connections. Speaking at the Iowa State Fair in August 2023, Ramaswamy discussed his father’s choice, emphasizing that it was not a reflection of any political stance but a decision rooted in family ties.

Ramaswamy’s views extend beyond deportation, as he advocates for a more rigorous approach to education. He has called for a civics test requirement for all high school graduates in the U.S., similar to the citizenship test immigrants must take. “I think every high school student who graduates in this country should have to pass the same civics test that an immigrant, like my parents, had to pass,” he said. This proposal aligns with his broader efforts to reshape American institutions, pushing for reforms that he believes would strengthen national identity and legal standards.

Despite stepping out of the presidential race and lending his support to Trump, Ramaswamy’s political influence remains significant. His continued commitment to the overhaul of U.S. immigration law reflects his belief in practical reforms to address illegal immigration, framed by the symbolism of his own family’s immigrant journey. Whether or not he returns to the political arena, Ramaswamy’s views on immigration and his role in the conservative movement will likely continue to shape the national conversation on immigration policy.

Trump Appoints Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to Lead “Department of Government Efficiency

President-elect Donald Trump has named Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to head a new initiative he has dubbed the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). The acronym, which shares its name with a dog-themed cryptocurrency that gained popularity after Musk’s endorsement, will focus on reducing government spending and eliminating inefficiencies within federal agencies.

Trump made the announcement in a statement Tuesday evening, emphasizing that Musk and Ramaswamy would be tasked with reforming government operations. While it remains unclear whether this new entity will be part of the federal government or operate independently, creating an official government agency requires approval from Congress.

In his statement, Trump praised the two men, calling them “wonderful Americans” who would help his administration eliminate bureaucracy, reduce unnecessary regulations, cut wasteful spending, and restructure federal agencies. He added, “Essential to the ‘Save America’ Movement,” Trump stated, “I look forward to Elon and Vivek making changes to the Federal Bureaucracy with an eye on efficiency and, at the same time, making life better for all Americans.”

This appointment represents another break from traditional political practices for Trump as he assembles his administration. It also underscores the close relationships he has developed with both Musk and Ramaswamy, businessmen who, while new to politics, have become trusted allies of the incoming president.

During his campaign, Trump hinted at creating a government role for Musk, the billionaire behind Tesla, SpaceX, and the social media platform X. Musk, who has grown increasingly influential in conservative political circles, had previously proposed the creation of a “government efficiency commission” to monitor federal agencies. This proposal came during an exchange with Trump on X. Since the election, Trump and Musk have maintained a close working relationship.

Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur and former Republican presidential candidate, is also making his official entrance into Trump’s administration with this new role. He had previously been considered as a potential vice-presidential candidate. In a post on X responding to the announcement, Ramaswamy declared, “We will not go gently,” tagging Musk in his post. Musk, in turn, commented separately on Trump’s announcement, stating, “This will send shockwaves through the system, and anyone involved in Government waste, which is a lot of people!”

Typically, department heads must be confirmed by the Senate, but it is unclear what formalities Musk and Ramaswamy will need to follow for their new positions. For Musk, there are concerns about potential conflicts of interest, given that his companies, which receive government funding, may fall under regulatory authority from the new department. Tesla, SpaceX, and Starlink, all part of Musk’s empire, have been subjects of federal investigations.

Musk’s relationship with Trump has become a defining feature of the final phase of Trump’s presidential campaign. As one of Trump’s most vocal supporters, Musk not only appeared on the campaign trail but also made significant financial contributions, spending over $100 million through his super PAC, America PAC. His financial backing surpassed the total contributions from the entire oil industry during that period.

Musk’s decision to back Trump was an unconventional move. While Musk made his fortune in the electric vehicle sector with a stated commitment to addressing climate change, he now finds himself supporting a politician who has been dismissive of concerns about carbon emissions. Trump, for his part, has publicly acknowledged Musk’s influence, even softening his rhetoric on electric vehicles in response to Musk’s endorsement. Trump referred to Musk as a “super genius” during his victory speech and included him in a family photo after the election.

Musk’s approach to government spending aligns with Trump’s goal of budget cuts. The tech magnate had previously suggested that the federal budget could be significantly reduced, proposing cuts of at least $2 trillion during a rally with Trump supporters in New York City just before the election.

In addition to his financial contributions, Musk has a history of cost-cutting within his own businesses. After acquiring X (formerly Twitter), Musk implemented mass layoffs, reducing the company’s workforce from 8,000 employees to just 1,500. This track record of cost reduction within his own ventures supports his role in leading efforts to streamline federal agencies.

Musk has also indicated that he plans to keep his super PAC active as the Republican Party prepares for special elections and midterm races. This could help sustain his influence on the political landscape, particularly as it relates to federal spending and regulatory reform.

Like Musk, Ramaswamy has long been a proponent of cutting federal expenditures. He gained attention during his bid for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination for his calls to shrink the size of the federal government. His proposals included cutting the Federal Reserve’s workforce by 90% and deporting American-born children of undocumented immigrants. After exiting the race and endorsing Trump, Ramaswamy’s political focus has shifted to supporting Trump’s vision for government reform.

Ramaswamy’s policies on reducing federal spending echo Musk’s beliefs, positioning both men as advocates for drastic government reforms. Their combined efforts in leading the “Department of Government Efficiency” will likely have a significant impact on Trump’s administration and its approach to managing federal resources.

Trump’s appointment of Musk and Ramaswamy to lead DOGE reflects his commitment to reducing government inefficiency and cutting federal spending. The duo, both relatively new to politics, has proven to be valuable allies to Trump, and their efforts to dismantle bureaucratic waste are expected to be a focal point of the incoming administration. Despite questions about potential conflicts of interest, especially concerning Musk’s business empire, the duo’s shared vision for efficiency and fiscal responsibility could shape Trump’s policy direction moving forward. As Ramaswamy put it, “We will not go gently,” indicating the sweeping changes they plan to implement in the federal government.

Florida Lawmakers in Contention for Major Roles in Trump’s Administration

Two prominent Florida lawmakers with firm positions against China are contenders for senior roles in President-elect Donald Trump’s administration. According to sources, Senator Marco Rubio may become the future secretary of state, while military veteran Michael Waltz is being considered for national security adviser, CBS News reports. Another potential key figure in Trump’s government is South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, who may take on the role of homeland security secretary.

Currently, neither Rubio nor Waltz’s offices have commented on these possible appointments. Trump’s administration is beginning to solidify following his recent election victory, and his Republican Party is on the verge of holding a majority in both chambers of Congress. They have regained the Senate and are approaching a majority in the House as vote-counting continues. Certain appointments, such as secretary of state, would need Senate approval, although Trump has expressed a desire for the Senate leader to allow him to bypass this requirement. Other positions, including national security adviser, can be filled directly by the president without Senate involvement.

The possible appointments for Rubio, Waltz, and Noem follow several recent decisions by Trump. He selected Susie Wiles as his chief of staff, nominated former immigration official Tom Homan as “border tsar,” and chose New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik as his future ambassador to the United Nations. Trump has the authority to make around 4,000 political appointments, and his first presidency demonstrated the challenges of assembling a cabinet, which took him several months to complete.

Marco Rubio: The Foreign Policy Hawk

Though unconfirmed, Rubio, 53, is widely seen as a strong candidate for the secretary of state position, the top U.S. diplomatic role. Rubio’s political career has prepared him well for such a post. He currently serves as vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. Known as a foreign policy “hawk,” Rubio has been a vocal advocate for strict stances against both Iran and China. He has also shown support for Ukraine but has remarked that the ongoing conflict with Russia “needs to be brought to a conclusion.”

Rubio and Trump were once bitter rivals during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, with disagreements on multiple issues, especially immigration. Their clashes led to public exchanges of insults, with Trump dubbing him “little Marco,” and Rubio making comments about Trump’s “small hands.” However, Rubio eventually endorsed Trump and campaigned for him ahead of the 2024 election. He was even a potential candidate for vice president before the role went to JD Vance, who holds a similar view to Trump on China.

The son of Cuban immigrants, Rubio has a background that resonates with many working-class voters. He was first elected to the Senate in 2010, bringing with him a tough stance on foreign policy that has positioned him as a prominent voice on global security issues within the Republican Party.

Michael Waltz: Soldier Turned Congressman

Michael Waltz, 50, is expected to take on the role of national security adviser, as reported by CBS. His military background and long-standing support for Trump have made him a fitting candidate for the position, which focuses on identifying and countering threats to the U.S. Unlike other appointments, the role of national security adviser does not require Senate approval. Waltz, a decorated Green Beret, has completed multiple tours in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Africa. His experiences, which he documented in his book Warrior Diplomat: A Green Beret’s Battles from Washington to Afghanistan, include time spent in combat operations overseas and in policy roles within the Pentagon under President George W. Bush.

Waltz is also a staunch advocate for U.S. preparedness in the Pacific, a stance shaped by his concerns over China’s expanding influence. Serving as chair of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, he has called for increased measures to prepare for potential conflicts in the region. While he has supported U.S. aid to Ukraine, Waltz has suggested recently that the extent of American spending on the war effort might need reevaluation. He believes NATO allies should bolster their defense spending, though he has not gone as far as Trump, who has reportedly floated the idea of the U.S. withdrawing from the alliance.

“Look, we can be allies and friends and have tough conversations,” Waltz remarked last month, highlighting his stance on balancing alliances with a strong national defense policy. Following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, Waltz has been a vocal critic of President Joe Biden’s handling of foreign policy.

If appointed, Waltz would be required to resign from his seat in the House of Representatives, potentially affecting a Republican majority if they end up holding a slim lead. Waltz would be the fifth national security adviser appointed by Trump, who replaced three of his four previous advisers during his first term. This included Michael Flynn, HR McMaster, and John Bolton, the latter actively opposing Trump’s 2024 campaign.

Kristi Noem: The South Dakota Governor

Governor Kristi Noem, 52, is anticipated to oversee U.S. homeland security, a critical role addressing border security, cyber threats, terrorism, and emergency response. The Department of Homeland Security, which she may head, operates with a $62 billion budget and has thousands of employees. Noem would collaborate with Tom Homan, who was named “border tsar,” and Stephen Miller, Trump’s policy lead, to implement the administration’s immigration objectives.

Noem was bypassed for the vice-presidential nomination in part due to a curious revelation in which she admitted to killing her pet dog. Her political journey began when she dropped out of college at age 22 to take over her family’s farm, a decision that eventually led her to public office. In 2018, she became the first woman elected governor of South Dakota.

Known for her close association with Trump, Noem reportedly gifted him a 4-foot replica of Mount Rushmore with his likeness added alongside former presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln. Trump once jokingly expressed a desire to see his face carved on the monument, a sentiment that Noem took as an opportunity to humor him with the personalized replica.

As Trump’s administration takes shape, figures like Rubio, Waltz, and Noem are set to play vital roles if their nominations are confirmed. Each brings a distinctive perspective and approach to Trump’s national and international policies, particularly in areas of foreign relations and domestic security. Whether Rubio’s foreign policy rigor, Waltz’s military insight, or Noem’s firm stance on immigration, the selections underscore Trump’s commitment to security and a hardline approach in dealing with global adversaries like China. Their combined influence would contribute significantly to the Trump administration’s stance on both domestic and international fronts.

Trump’s second term promises a familiar yet more resolute lineup, as allies and long-time supporters join his administration.

Republicans Retain Control of House, Securing All GOP Power in Washington with Trump’s Return

Republicans are expected to maintain control of the House of Representatives, solidifying GOP dominance in Washington as President-elect Trump prepares to re-enter the White House in January. Decision Desk HQ announced on Monday that Republicans had secured their 218th seat, achieving the majority needed in the House.

This victory is a significant achievement for Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican who rose to prominence rapidly and has since played a substantial role in shaping the House GOP’s legislative and campaign agendas. Notably, Republicans managed to secure some of their more at-risk seats, including those held by Representatives Don Bacon of Nebraska and David Valadao of California. In contrast, some Democratic incumbents, such as Representatives Susan Wild and Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, lost their seats to Republican challengers, Pennsylvania state Rep. Ryan Mackenzie and businessman Rob Bresnahan, respectively.

However, Republicans did not come away unscathed, with three first-term New York Representatives—Anthony D’Esposito, Marc Molinaro, and Brandon Williams—losing their reelection bids, along with Lori Chavez-DeRemer from Oregon. The final composition of the House remains uncertain as ballots are still being tallied for several races in California, but Republicans are predicted to hold a slim majority as the new Congress convenes.

The exact seat numbers will significantly impact Speaker Johnson’s future, the policies Republicans can push forward, and overall functionality in the lower chamber. Trump acknowledged Johnson’s efforts in his victory speech from Palm Beach early Wednesday, saying, “It also looks like we’ll be keeping control of the House of Representatives. And I want to thank Mike Johnson. I think he’s doing a terrific job.” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and House GOP Chair Elise Stefanik, who joined Trump at Mar-a-Lago, signaled the GOP’s strong support for the incoming Trump administration.

Republican leaders in the House and Senate have been working together for months to prepare a legislative agenda for Trump’s first 100 days under unified Republican control. Key legislative plans include extending tax cuts from Trump’s first term, increasing border wall funding, reversing climate policies, and advancing school choice.

Still, the GOP’s ambitious goals face potential hurdles. The previous Congress was marked by a notably slim House majority, which saw frequent internal disagreements that sometimes halted legislative proceedings. This discord was epitomized by the removal of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in a historic vote. Johnson’s future as Speaker also hangs in the balance, with the final majority size influencing his standing. Johnson has expressed intentions to pursue the Speaker role if Republicans secure a unified government, despite opposition from some hard-line conservatives. Earlier this year, he survived a challenge led by Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie, who sought to oust him; their efforts were thwarted with help from House Democrats.

Johnson will need near-total Republican backing to keep his Speaker position, as he requires a majority vote on the House floor in January 2025. “I intend to have my party’s support for Speaker on the House floor,” Johnson stated in an October interview.

The GOP win effectively blocks House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries from making history as the first Black Speaker. The contest for House control was closely fought, comparable to the presidential race, with battleground districts spread nationwide, although primarily in non-presidential battleground states. Democrats would have needed a net gain of at least four seats to claim the majority and had hoped that voters concerned about Republican positions on reproductive rights would boost their chances.

National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chair Richard Hudson, who is pursuing another term, highlighted key strategies that boosted the GOP’s House campaign. In an Election Day interview, Hudson credited the NRCC’s approach to splitting the cost of TV ads with candidates, enabling them to leverage lower ad rates and stretch campaign funds further. The NRCC also prioritized on-the-ground campaigning, with Hudson noting, “I feel like the last couple cycles, national parties have gotten away from ground game, and we made a major investment in our ground game this time around,” citing the opening of over 40 field offices, or “battle stations.”

This election outcome will shape the final legislative battles in the remaining weeks of the 118th Congress. Hard-line conservatives are likely to push to delay consideration of critical proposals until the new year when they hope a Republican-led Senate and White House will allow for more conservative policies and reduced spending. Meanwhile, the House will face pressing decisions in the lame-duck session, including funding for the government, which is set to expire on December 20.

Trump’s Potential Second Term: Sweeping Changes Across Key Policy Areas

In his campaign for a potential second term, Donald Trump has laid out an extensive vision for the U.S., advocating policies that merge conservative values with a populist focus on trade and a reduced global footprint. His agenda includes changes to immigration, tax reforms, restrictions on federal civil rights efforts, and a significant expansion of presidential power.

Immigration

Trump’s immigration strategy has evolved from his 2016 campaign slogan, “Build the wall!” to proposing “the largest mass deportation program in history.” He suggests deploying the National Guard and granting local police new powers to enforce immigration laws. While details on the program’s specifics remain limited, his approach includes implementing “ideological screening” for immigrants, ending birthright citizenship (likely requiring constitutional amendments), and reinstating policies such as “Remain in Mexico” and bans on entrants from certain majority-Muslim countries. These efforts aim to curb both illegal and legal immigration.

Abortion

Although Trump claims credit for the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, he has not prioritized abortion regulation at the federal level. His approach contrasts with the traditional Republican stance; in 2020, the GOP platform notably avoided advocating a national abortion ban. However, Trump hasn’t explicitly stated if he would veto federal abortion restrictions, leaving some ambiguity. Anti-abortion advocates may still pursue a national ban by asserting a fetus’s due process rights under the 14th Amendment, but Trump’s focus remains more on state-level regulation.

Tax Policy

Trump aims to extend his 2017 tax cuts, benefitting corporations and high-income earners. His tax plan includes reducing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, rolling back Biden-era tax increases on wealthy individuals, and eliminating climate-related taxes under the Inflation Reduction Act. He also proposes measures aimed at middle- and working-class Americans, such as exempting tips, Social Security wages, and overtime from income taxes. Yet, the tip exemption could indirectly benefit top earners if their compensation were reclassified as “tip income.”

Trade and Tariffs

With a more skeptical view of international markets, Trump’s trade strategy would impose tariffs of 10-20% on foreign goods and higher tariffs in some cases. He pledges to reinstate a 2020 executive order mandating that the FDA purchase “essential” medicines from U.S.-based suppliers and seeks to bar Chinese entities from acquiring vital U.S. infrastructure.

DEI, LGBTQ Rights, and Civil Rights

Trump intends to diminish government support for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, which he sees as promoting unnecessary societal divisions. His stance includes ending federal funding for DEI initiatives. On LGBTQ rights, Trump has taken a firm stance against transgender inclusion in sports, vowing to “end boys in girls’ sports.” He plans to rescind Title IX protections for transgender students and has called for federal legislation that only two genders be recognized at birth.

Regulation, Bureaucracy, and Presidential Power

To reduce federal bureaucratic influence, Trump proposes slashing regulations across industries, particularly those affecting fossil fuel production and housing development. He argues that deregulation would result in lower utility bills and stimulate economic growth. Furthermore, Trump intends to reclassify thousands of federal workers, removing civil service protections and thereby simplifying the process of dismissing federal employees. This approach could impact the government’s enforcement capabilities and deter employees from acting against presidential directives.

Trump also claims that presidents should have the authority to control federal spending autonomously, suggesting that congressional budget decisions set a maximum rather than a minimum for federal expenditure. This interpretation could lead to significant conflicts with Congress over budgetary control. Additionally, Trump has floated the idea of increasing presidential influence over the Federal Reserve, potentially altering its independent role in setting interest rates.

Education

Trump has proposed dismantling the Department of Education, though he still envisions using federal funds to influence state education systems. He advocates for the elimination of teacher tenure, merit-based pay, and scrapping of diversity initiatives across all education levels. At the higher education level, Trump aims to directly influence the accreditation process for colleges, calling it a strategy to counter “Marxist Maniacs” in academia. He also targets large university endowments, threatening to tax or fine institutions that do not adhere to his policies. Trump’s vision includes redirecting these funds to an online “American Academy” offering free college credentials to all U.S. citizens. He envisions this academy as a non-political, strictly regulated institution devoid of “wokeness or jihadism,” as he stated on November 1, 2023.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

In a second term, Trump promises to protect Social Security and Medicare, vital programs for older Americans. However, his plan to exempt tips and overtime wages from income taxes raises questions about the programs’ funding, as exempting these wages from payroll taxes would impact the revenue streams for Social Security and Medicare. Regarding Medicaid, Trump’s first term primarily supported granting states waivers for federal requirements and endorsing work requirements for recipients.

Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act

Trump remains committed to repealing the Affordable Care Act but has yet to present a concrete replacement. In a recent debate, he referred to having “concepts of a plan” for healthcare reform. He has aligned himself with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a critic of vaccines and certain pesticides, and hinted at giving Kennedy a role in “making America healthy again.”

Climate and Energy

Trump has criticized Biden’s investments in clean energy, framing climate change as a “hoax” and proposing an energy strategy that focuses on fossil fuels. He encourages traditional energy development, including increased oil and gas drilling, and has promised to end incentives for electric vehicles while repealing fuel efficiency standards. Although he does not oppose electric vehicles outright, he resists policies that promote their adoption.

Workers’ Rights

Trump’s second-term labor policies are aimed at defending the interests of American workers, although his stance on unionization may limit their ability to organize. He often highlights Biden’s push for electric vehicles as a primary issue facing workers, blaming “union bosses and CEOs” for supporting what he calls a misguided shift toward EVs. In a recent statement, Trump encouraged United Auto Workers members to avoid paying union dues.

National Defense and Foreign Policy

Trump’s foreign policy is more isolationist and non-interventionist compared to recent U.S. strategies. He promotes military expansion, proposes a missile defense shield similar to Reagan-era initiatives, and aims to shield Pentagon spending from budget cuts. Trump has made bold claims about ending conflicts, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war, without providing specifics on how he would achieve these goals. His “peace through strength” philosophy, borrowed from Reagan, is paired with skepticism toward NATO and critical views of U.S. military leaders. “I don’t consider them leaders,” Trump remarked about top military officials, while he has consistently praised authoritarian figures like Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

In summary, Trump’s proposed second term agenda spans sweeping changes across immigration, taxes, civil rights, federal power, education, and national defense. His approach diverges from recent presidents by combining conservative values with an intense focus on populist and isolationist themes, which, if enacted, could redefine America’s role on both the domestic and international stage.

2024 Election: Trump Secures Sweeping Victory with Unprecedented Demographic Gains

The 2024 election delivered a surprising political upheaval, with former President Donald Trump winning not only the Electoral College but making strides in the popular vote, expanding his coalition in ways not previously seen. This win grants Trump the reins of Washington with an unparalleled level of control. Central to his victory were issues that resonated deeply with voters and a campaign that saw significant support, particularly among men. Here’s a breakdown of the factors and shifts that contributed to this election’s outcome.

  1. Issues Favoring Republicans from the Start

Voters’ concerns about the economy and high rates of border crossings had simmered for two years, creating a fertile ground for Republican messaging. While indicators like low unemployment, rising wages, and reduced inflation signaled economic recovery, many Americans still felt squeezed by prices that remain higher than pre-pandemic levels. Housing affordability continued to be a top concern, as did the rising interest rates driven by the Federal Reserve’s approach to combating inflation. Though the Fed recently began cutting rates, the effects will not be felt immediately—right as Trump re-enters the White House.

Voters appeared to hold the Biden administration responsible for their struggles despite the U.S. economy outperforming other developed nations. Vice President Kamala Harris, however, couldn’t sufficiently dissociate herself from these economic woes. Polls reflected Biden’s approval at a mere 40%, with two-thirds rating the economy poorly, and 75% of voters experiencing significant inflation-driven hardships over the past year. Trump gained voter trust not only on economic issues but also immigration, crime, and even foreign policy, though the latter was less of a priority for voters.

While Harris held the edge on abortion rights, it was a narrower lead than anticipated, failing to sway enough of the electorate to offset Trump’s strengths in other areas.

  1. Surge in White Voter Turnout Boosted Trump

For the first time in decades, white voters’ share of the electorate increased—from 67% in 2020 to 71% in 2024—despite their steadily declining proportion of the overall population. This increase provided Trump with a vital advantage, as white voters have traditionally leaned Republican since at least 1976. With Latino and Asian American demographics growing, the larger-than-expected white voter turnout served as a powerful bolster to Trump’s numbers.

  1. Expanded Coalition Driven Largely by Men

Trump attracted 46% of Latino voters, setting a new record for Republican support within this demographic, surpassing even George W. Bush’s 2004 levels. This surge was fueled largely by Latino men, who supported Trump by a significant margin, whereas Harris claimed 60% of Latina voters. A similar gender gap emerged among young voters, with Harris capturing 61% of young women (18 to 29), while young men narrowly leaned towards Trump. In fact, Trump won the male vote across all age brackets, with Harris unable to secure enough support among women to offset this trend.

  1. Higher Female Voter Share Did Not Translate to Victory for Harris

While women constituted 53% of the electorate—an increase from 2020—Harris’s performance among female voters fell short of expectations. She won a majority of the female vote, including “moms,” while Trump claimed “dads,” but her 53% share was notably lower than Biden’s 57% in 2020. A divide among white women by education level was evident: Harris gained with college-educated white women, but Trump performed better with those without college degrees, who turned out in higher numbers. White men with and without college degrees also leaned towards Trump, leaving Harris unable to bridge the gap.

  1. Gender Divide Raises Questions on a Female Presidency

Harris’s loss raises questions about the readiness of the American electorate to support a female president. Some analysts believe that being tied to the Biden administration’s struggles worked against her. Had a Republican been in office during this period of economic unease, Harris might have seen a different result. Surveys indicated gendered perceptions of her campaign promises, with most women seeing her proposals as sincere, while men expressed skepticism, viewing her promises as strategic vote-seeking moves. This divide will likely prompt ongoing discussion regarding gender dynamics in U.S. politics.

  1. Ticket-Splitting Helped but Couldn’t Prevent GOP Dominance

Democratic candidates outperformed Harris in numerous House and Senate races, indicating a degree of ticket-splitting. Senate Democrats held margins against Republicans in many states, including Montana, Arizona, and Ohio, but fell short in Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Democrats also hoped to win or retain House seats in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and California, yet are expected to fall just short of the majority. The top-ticket outcome underscored the challenges of riding against a strong presidential ticket during election cycles.

  1. Democratic Voter Turnout Was Noticeably Lower

Compared to Biden’s record-breaking 81 million votes in 2020, Harris may come up nearly 10 million votes short. Blue states like New York, New Jersey, and Maryland saw substantial declines in support, with Harris receiving roughly 900,000 fewer votes in New York, 500,000 in New Jersey and Maryland, 300,000 in Massachusetts, and 180,000 in Virginia. Director of the Monmouth Poll, Patrick Murray, noted a 15% drop in Northeastern states, Minnesota, and Illinois, while red states saw a 10% decline and swing states around 4%. In contrast, Trump improved his numbers across all regions, particularly in swing states.

  1. Polls Underestimated Trump but Highlighted Key Trends

Polling averages underestimated Trump’s support, showing Harris with a slight lead, which ultimately didn’t hold. Trump is expected to win the popular vote 50%-48%, with polling largely reflecting Harris’s numbers but misjudging Trump’s base strength, especially in swing states. Historically, polls have underestimated Trump’s support, with late-deciding voters swinging his way—this election was no exception. Trump won voters who decided in the last days and weeks by significant margins, demonstrating his late-game momentum.

Despite some miscalculations, the polls accurately captured certain dynamics, like Harris’s lower support among Latinos and young voters. While Harris’s campaign opened strong, the polls showed a tightening race about a month before the election, with Trump eventually leading in the swing state average. Factoring previous polling errors, analysts noted the potential for a major Trump Electoral College victory, which ultimately materialized.

  1. Democrats Face a Crossroads on Future Strategy

As with every election loss, Democrats now face the task of analyzing their shortcomings and plotting a way forward. The Democratic Party’s ongoing struggle to connect with working-class voters—once a solidly Democratic base—remains a challenge. Harris narrowly lost suburban voters, and those earning between $30,000 and $100,000 largely supported Trump, while Democrats held onto wealthier, college-educated voters. This realignment could place Democrats at risk of becoming a party perceived as catering to elites—a demographic insufficient in numbers to guarantee future victories.

The future of the Democratic Party depends on its ability to regain working- and middle-class support, particularly as rural regions continue to favor Republicans. Yet, it’s worth noting how quickly political dynamics can shift. Just a decade ago, Republicans were worried about their standing among Latino voters and anticipated a permanent minority unless they pursued immigration reform. Yet, the party’s shift in direction resulted in record Latino support in this election.

Thus, while trends may seem to indicate one trajectory, political landscapes are fluid. The unexpected gains for Trump underscore that anticipated outcomes aren’t always what materialize. The Democratic Party now faces the challenge of recalibrating to appeal to a broader cross-section of voters as it contemplates the future.

Trump Secures Arizona, Completes Electoral Sweep in Key Battleground States

Donald Trump has secured Arizona in the presidential election, marking a complete sweep across all seven key battleground states. The Associated Press called the Arizona race for Trump on Saturday, effectively solidifying his victory over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris. With the Arizona win, Trump now has a decisive electoral college lead with an anticipated final tally of 312 votes against Harris’s 226, surpassing the 270 votes required for a White House victory.

This victory in Arizona restores the state to the Republican camp after Joe Biden won it in 2020 and represents Trump’s second win there since his initial 2016 campaign. During his campaign, Trump emphasized issues such as border security and economic stability, aligning Harris with inflation and unprecedented levels of illegal border crossings during Biden’s administration. His stance on these matters appeared to resonate with voters in Arizona, contributing to his success in the state.

Alongside Arizona, Trump clinched victories in other crucial swing states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Nevada. In 2020, Biden had defeated Trump by securing six out of these seven swing states, narrowly losing only North Carolina. Biden’s 2020 win brought him 306 electoral college votes to Trump’s 232, an inversion of Trump’s previous success. Trump’s victory in 2016 also saw him capturing 306 electoral votes in his race against Hillary Clinton.

The Associated Press reports that nationwide, Trump garnered approximately 74.6 million votes, or 50.5% of the popular vote, surpassing Harris’s 70.9 million votes, which accounted for 48%.

In Arizona’s closely watched Senate race, Republican Kari Lake trails Democratic candidate Ruben Gallego by a narrow margin. Lake, who has publicly disputed the legitimacy of Biden’s 2020 presidential win, was behind Gallego with 48.5% to his 49.5%, a gap of around 33,000 votes as of mid-morning on Saturday.

Other races within Arizona remain highly competitive, including the contest for the state’s sixth congressional district between incumbent Republican Juan Ciscomani and Democratic contender Kirsten Engel.

The broader election outcome signals a shift in power as Republicans appear to be nearing control of the House of Representatives, complementing their victory in the Senate. With majorities in both chambers, Republicans would be positioned to advance a comprehensive policy agenda, potentially focusing on tax and spending reductions, energy sector deregulation, and enhanced border security measures.

Trump’s Broadened Coalition and Key Gains Propel His Return to the White House

Donald Trump’s path back to the White House was marked by pivotal shifts among both small demographic groups and larger population categories, according to the AP VoteCast survey of over 120,000 voters nationwide. His electoral success hinged on retaining his core base—white voters, those without college degrees, and older voters—while also making gains among younger voters, Black and Hispanic men. Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent, saw slight improvement, particularly with white, college-educated men in urban areas. However, these gains fell short in balancing her losses in other groups.

Trump’s Increased Share of the Youth Vote

Compared to 2020, Trump’s coalition included a larger portion of younger voters. Trump’s base grew primarily due to his ability to secure slightly more than half of voters over the age of 45, while Harris secured a comparable share of voters under 45. However, older voters remain a larger segment of the electorate, giving Trump an advantage since roughly 60% of voters in the 2024 election were over 45 years old. Although he retained a similar portion of older voters as in 2020, Trump managed to increase his appeal among younger voters. He captured nearly half of the under-45 demographic in 2024, a notable rise from the four in 10 he won in 2020.

This increase was even more pronounced among the youngest voters aged 18 to 29. Trump garnered support from nearly 46% of this age group, marking a significant increase from the 36% he had attracted in the previous election.

Support Among Voters Without a College Degree

Voters without college degrees continued to form a core part of Trump’s coalition, with approximately six in 10 Trump voters lacking a college education. A majority of voters in this election did not hold college degrees, and Trump held a strong lead among them, securing 55% of their support compared to Harris’ 40%. This outcome reflected a downturn for the Democrats since Biden nearly matched Trump among non-college-educated voters in 2020, drawing 47% compared to Trump’s 51%.

Trump’s success among non-college-educated voters was largely driven by gains among non-white men and younger voters without college degrees. Additionally, he drew more support from non-white women without a college degree than he had in the last election. In contrast, Harris retained the level of support that Biden had achieved among college-educated voters, who constituted 44% of the electorate, with the majority backing her. About four in 10 college-educated voters chose Trump, a figure that left Harris struggling to balance her losses among voters without college degrees.

Trump’s Standing Among White, Black, and Hispanic Voters

Trump’s 2024 coalition was primarily white, much like it was in 2020, yet it grew more diverse as he made gains among small but significant groups. Approximately three-quarters of the electorate consisted of white voters, with their support for Trump remaining stable at a national level. Notably, Trump made some inroads among Black and Hispanic voters, each group making up around 10% of voters in this election.

While Harris received support from roughly eight in 10 Black voters, this figure dropped from the nine in 10 Black voters who supported Biden in the last election. Similarly, although Harris secured more than half of Hispanic voters, this figure fell slightly from Biden’s nearly 60% share.

Trump’s outreach among young Black men eroded a crucial demographic for the Democrats, as about three in 10 Black men under the age of 45 supported Trump—a near doubling of his support from 2020. Additionally, young Latino men showed increased openness to Trump; around half of Latino men under 45 cast their votes for Harris, a dip from the six in 10 who supported Biden.

Urban, Suburban, and Rural Divide in Trump and Harris Support

Much like the last election, Trump’s strongest backing came from rural areas, whereas Harris saw her most concentrated support in urban centers. Nearly 45% of voters identified as suburban residents, with approximately half supporting Harris and 46% favoring Trump. Trump commanded about six in 10 voters from small towns and rural areas, while Harris received the same level of support among urban voters.

Education also played a role in shaping regional support. Trump made modest gains among urban voters without college degrees, as well as non-white voters in urban and rural areas. His support among white men without a college degree living in urban areas also rose, with around six in 10 backing him compared to just half in 2020.

In contrast, Harris made strides over Biden’s 2020 numbers among urban, college-educated white men. About two-thirds of this group supported her, an increase from Biden’s support among half of them in the last election.

Tesla Reaches $1 Trillion Market Value, Fueling Elon Musk’s Wealth Surge Following Trump’s Re-Election

Tesla’s market value surged past $1 trillion on Friday, marking the first time it achieved this milestone since early 2022. The electric vehicle giant, helmed by billionaire Elon Musk, rode a significant stock rally that followed Donald Trump’s re-election. This impressive performance reflects investors’ optimism regarding potential policies favoring the EV industry under Trump’s renewed administration.

Key Developments

Tesla shares experienced a sharp rise, jumping over 10% in intraday trading to reach nearly $330 before closing with an impressive 8% increase at $321. This growth extended Tesla’s three-day rally to a remarkable 28%, contributing to broader stock market gains fueled by Trump’s electoral success.

With this leap, Tesla’s market capitalization surpassed $1 trillion for the first time since April 2022, nearly doubling over the last six months, according to data from YCharts.

Impact on Musk’s Wealth

Elon Musk’s wealth surged to over $300 billion on Friday, the first time he’s reached this benchmark in more than two years. Friday’s stock performance added around $13 billion to Musk’s net worth, widening his lead over Oracle’s Larry Ellison, whom Musk considers a close friend, by a substantial $70 billion.

Tesla Stake and Stock Options

Musk remains Tesla’s largest shareholder, with a 13% stake valued at about $130 billion. Additionally, he holds another 9% stake currently under appeal in Delaware court regarding a stock option bonus, which Forbes factors into Musk’s valuation at a discounted rate of 50%. Tesla shares still remain about 25% lower than their peak value of $415 in late 2021, when Musk’s net worth also peaked near $320 billion.

Musk, a known Trump supporter, openly endorsed the former president in July, contributing about $130 million to Trump’s campaign. Musk’s alignment with Trump also brought him into the spotlight on the campaign trail, and he was notably seen at Trump’s victory celebration alongside Trump’s family. Discussions have circulated about Musk potentially joining Trump’s administration in a role the president-elect described as “secretary of cost-cutting.”

Factors Behind Tesla’s Surge

This week saw a notable uptick across the stock market, with the S&P 500 poised for its best week of the year. Other American auto giants, Ford and General Motors, also saw stock increases, rising by 7% and 8%, respectively. However, Tesla stands out, benefiting from potential policy advantages linked to Trump’s administration.

Wedbush analyst Dan Ives outlined several key areas where Tesla could see gains under Trump’s leadership in a recent client note. According to Ives, one potential policy change could involve the removal of federal tax credits for electric vehicles, which could allow Tesla to enjoy a “clear competitive advantage” as smaller EV companies may face difficulties entering the market. Additionally, Trump-backed tariffs on Chinese imports could deter cheaper Chinese EV brands, further securing Tesla’s foothold in the U.S. market. Ives also speculated that Trump’s administration might expedite regulatory approvals for Tesla’s autonomous vehicle initiatives, streamlining the company’s path to innovation.

Tesla’s strong performance reflects market expectations that Trump’s pro-industry policies may yield significant advantages for major U.S.-based automakers, with Tesla well-positioned to capitalize on potential regulatory and market shifts.

Expectations about Harris and Trump as president

Voters overall are divided in their predictions about how Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump would perform as president – with negative expectations outweighing positive ones for both candidates. And while majorities of voters see both Trump and Harris as bringing change to Washington – though more say this about Trump than Harris – they are also split over whether that change would have positive or negative effects.

Would Trump and Harris be above or below average presidents?

Voters’ predictions for a Harris or Trump presidency

Voters are more likely to say each of the presidential candidates would be poor or terrible presidents than to say they would be good or great at the job.

More voters today say Trump would be a “good” or “great” president than say this about Harris (41% vs. 36%). But similar shares of voters say each would be a “poor” or “terrible” president (48% say this about Trump, 46% about Harris).

Views of a potential second Trump presidency are more polarized than views of a potential Harris presidency: Voters are more likely to say Trump would be great than to say this about Harris (22% vs. 14%). But they’re also more likely to say Trump would be terrible (38%) than to say the same for Harris (32%). Voters are more likely to predict Harris would be an “average” president (18% say this about her, 11% about him).

Supporters’ views of their candidate

While most supporters of both candidates offer positive predictions about how their candidate would perform as president, Trump supporters are more likely to say a potential Trump presidency would be good or great than Harris’ supporters are to say this about her.

  • 84% of Trump supporters say he would be a good or great president, including 46% who say he would be great. Just 13% say he’d be an average president.
  • 73% of Harris supporters say that she would be a good (44%) or great (29%) president, while 24% say she’d be an average president.

Very small shares of each candidate’s supporters (just 2% each) say their candidate would be a poor or terrible president.

Supporters’ views of the opposing candidate

About nine-in-ten among both Harris supporters (91%) and Trump supporters (89%) predict that the opposing candidate would be a poor or terrible president. Harris supporters are particularly likely to say Trump would be a terrible president (76% say this). By comparison, 67% of Trump supporters predict Harris would be terrible.

Who would bring change – for good or bad – to Washington

Most voters say Trump will change Washington but are split over whether that will be good or bad

An overwhelming majority of registered voters say that Trump would change the way things work in Washington, but they are fairly divided over whether that change would be for the better or for the worse.

While 41% say Trump would change things for the better, a somewhat larger share (48%) say he would change things for the worse. Relatively few (10%) say that he would not change things much either way.

In contrast, three-in-ten voters say Harris would not change things much either way in Washington, while 41% say she would change things for the worse and 29% say she would change things for the better.

Harris and Trump supporters have different opinions on whether their candidate would change the way things work in Washington:

  • 40% of Harris supporters say that Harris would not change the way things work much in Washington, while 59% say she’d change things for the better.
  • 86% of Trump supporters say Trump would change things for the better. Just 12% say he would not change things much.

Overwhelming shares of both Harris (92%) and Trump (83%) supporters say the opposing candidate would change things in Washington for the worse. But Trump supporters are more likely to say Harris would not change things much (16%) than Harris supporters are to say this about Trump (6%).

Harris presidency: Biden’s policies versus a new direction

Nearly six-in-ten voters (58%) expect Harris to continue President Joe Biden’s policies, while about four-in-ten (41%) expect her to take the country in a different direction.

  • Among the 58% who say Harris would continue Biden’s policies, far more say this would be a bad thing (41%) than say it would be a good thing (16%).
  • Those who say she’ll take the country in a different direction are more likely to say this would be good (30%) than bad (10%).
Most voters say Harris would continue Biden’s policiesHarris supporters

More than half of Harris supporters (58%) say she would take the country in a different direction – and they nearly unanimously view this course positively.

About four-in-ten Harris supporters (41%) say that she would continue Biden’s policies and most of this group (33%) say doing so would be a good thing for the country.

Trump supporters

Conversely, an overwhelming majority of Trump supporters (76%) say Harris would continue Biden’s policies – and this group nearly unanimously sees that as bad for the country. Only about a quarter of Trump supporters (23%) say Harris would take the country in a different direction – and most of this group (19%) say that would be a bad thing.

Have Harris and Trump clearly explained their views on issues?

When it comes to several major issues, voters are fairly divided on whether the candidates have clearly explained their policies and plans, with two notable exceptions.

  • 75% of all voters say Harris has clearly outlined her views on abortion, including 93% of her supporters and 59% of Trump backers. About six-in-ten voters (61%) also say Trump has been clear about his views on abortion.
  • 70% of all voters say Trump has clearly explained his policies and plans for addressing illegal immigration. Nearly all of his supporters (94%) and about half of Harris’ supporters (48%) say Trump has been clear about his plans on this issue.
Most voters say both candidates have made their abortion policies and plans clear, and that Trump has been clear about his plans for addressing illegal immigration

At least half of each candidate’s supporters say their candidate has clearly outlined their policies and plans for each of the policy domains asked about in the survey. But no more than a quarter of each candidate’s supporters say the other candidate has been clear about their policies and plans – with the exceptions of both candidates’ abortion policies and Trump’s policies on immigration.

Trump supporters are somewhat more likely than Harris’ to say their candidate has been clear on issues, while also being less likely to say the candidate that they oppose has clearly outlined their positions.

Addressing the concerns of supporters versus all Americans

Vast majority of voters say the candidates should address the concerns of all Americans

Both Harris (89%) and Trump (86%) supporters overwhelmingly say that, if their candidate is elected, they should focus on addressing the concerns of all Americans – even if it means that some of their supporters will be disappointed.

Only 10% of Harris supporters and 14% of Trump supporters say that their candidate should focus primarily on the concerns of those who voted for them without worrying too much about the concerns of those who did not.

These opinions closely mirror those of Biden and Trump supporters in 2020.

Views of whether the next president will work with the opposing party

Voters’ views on whether Harris and Trump, if they win the election, will work with the opposing party

A 55% majority of voters say it is likely that Harris will work with Republicans in Washington if she wins. A much smaller share (37%) say it is likely Trump will work with Democrats if he wins.

Majorities of each candidate’s supporters believe it is at least somewhat likely that their candidate will work with the opposition on important issues facing the country:

  • 91% of Harris supporters believe it is very or somewhat likely she will work with Republicans in Washington if she wins, including 38% who say this is very likely.
  • 70% of Trump’s supporters think he’d be at least somewhat likely to work with Democrats if he wins. Just 19% say this is very likely.

In 2016 – the last time this question was asked leading up to an election – voters were more likely than they are today to say Trump would work with Democrats if he won (45% said this was at least somewhat likely).

Voters’ assessments about whether Harris would work with Republicans are on par with their beliefs about a potential victory for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Ticket-Splitting Voters Shape Key Senate Races While Supporting Trump’s Presidential Win

Duane Canther, a 66-year-old union worker in Michigan, reflects a growing group of voters who split their ballots in recent elections. Although Canther supported President-elect Donald Trump, he backed Libertarian Joseph Solis-Mullen over the major party candidates in Michigan’s Senate race, which was narrowly won by Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin over former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers by just 0.4 percentage points. Trump, by comparison, led the presidential race in Michigan with a 1.4-point margin. Canther explained his choice, saying, “I voted just to say I voted for somebody. They say if you don’t vote you can’t complain.” He added, “I felt both of them were flipping back and forth on certain things,” referring to the main party Senate nominees.

Similar voting patterns were evident in Wisconsin, where Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin retained her seat despite Trump winning the state. “Ticket-splitting” voters played a significant role, as demonstrated in North Carolina, where Trump won, but voters chose Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein for governor. Trump also prevailed in Nevada, where Democratic incumbent Sen. Jacky Rosen defeated her Republican rival Sam Brown. Trump appears set to win Arizona, where Democratic Rep. Reuben Gallego is leading Republican Kari Lake in the Senate race.

Some critical exceptions to this trend included Republicans successfully ousting incumbent Democratic Senators Jon Tester in Montana, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and Bob Casey in Pennsylvania. Despite their losses, all three outperformed Vice President Kamala Harris in their respective states. Although ticket-splitting has diminished in recent decades due to increased partisanship, outcomes in key states indicate it remains influential. Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, remarked, “There are still differences between presidential and Senate races, and those differences broke in Democrats’ favor across these states.”

In these swing states, Democrats actively worked to separate themselves from President Joe Biden, whose approval ratings have been low. In Arizona, Gallego emphasized strengthening border security, while Rosen highlighted bipartisan efforts to upgrade Nevada’s infrastructure. Baldwin, in Wisconsin, focused on policies supporting farmers, and Slotkin stressed her commitment to American manufacturing in Michigan. Some experts argue that many Trump supporters either refrained from voting down-ballot or chose third-party candidates. Others contend that down-ballot Democrats swayed Trump voters by promoting a distinct image from the national Democratic Party.

Barry Burden, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explained, “The Senate candidates are often well known to voters” due to intensive campaigns, which include extensive advertising. Burden noted that similar voter turnout across both presidential and Senate races indicates that a portion of voters deliberately chose candidates from opposing parties. He elaborated, “So voters in some places are making real distinctions to say this is not somebody who is aligned with Trump or represents him in the same way, or this is someone who has the state’s interest in mind in a way that other candidates don’t. And that really is a different story from one state to the next.”

Historically, split-ticket voting was more prevalent, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, when political parties were more ideologically diverse. For instance, although Ronald Reagan won a landslide in 1984, states he won, like Iowa, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, elected Democratic Senators. Similarly, during Bill Clinton’s re-election in 1996, Republican Senators were still elected in Clinton-carrying states such as Arkansas, Oregon, and Maine. As parties have become more polarized, voters have found it increasingly challenging to justify choosing candidates from both parties. Burden estimates that only about one in ten voters now split their ballots.

Today, some of the last remaining Senate Democrats from conservative states include Tester, Brown, and retiring West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who will be succeeded by Republican Sen.-elect Jim Justice. According to political scientists, split-ticket voters typically show lower political engagement, possess limited candidate knowledge, lack strong party affiliation, and often decide late. Burden pointed out that these voters are more influenced by individual candidates’ performance rather than national politics, stating, “They’re much more responsive to who the individuals are and to their performance in office and much less susceptible to the Washington style of defining politics.”

While Trump’s victory did not hinge on split-ticket voters, their behavior shows the limits of his appeal in certain regions. He would have still achieved the 270 electoral votes necessary to win without Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, or Arizona, all states where Democratic Senate candidates won or are leading. If Trump had also lost North Carolina, the electoral map would have shifted, favoring Harris.

Ticket-splitting is also more common in gubernatorial races. Maryland’s former Republican Governor Larry Hogan, who served from 2015 to 2023, led a heavily Democratic state but lost his Senate race to Democrat Angela Alsobrooks. Voters in Maryland also chose Harris for president.

The Democratic Senate candidates’ victories will determine the scale of the Republican majority in the upper chamber. It is projected to be between 52 and 55 seats. A smaller majority would limit Republicans’ legislative leverage, requiring bipartisan support to overcome the 60-vote threshold needed to counter a filibuster. As Burden noted, “Ticket splitters are more casual voters, but they end up being the ones who make a big difference.”

Kamala Harris Concedes, Pledges Peaceful Transition as Trump Prepares for Second Term

In one of the most intense presidential elections in U.S. history, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris conceded defeat to Republican President-elect Donald Trump, ending a hard-fought campaign for the White House. Speaking to her supporters for the first time after the results, Harris, the outgoing Vice President, committed to a peaceful transition of power, a promise underscored by indirect references to Trump’s previous reluctance to leave office following his defeat in the 2020 election.

“While I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fuelled this campaign,” Harris told the crowd gathered at Howard University, her alma mater. Her supporters, visibly emotional, listened as she affirmed her continued faith in America’s promise despite the disappointing outcome. “My heart is full today—full of gratitude for the trust you have placed in me, full of love for our country, and full of resolve,” she said, expressing appreciation for her supporters’ efforts throughout the campaign.

While acknowledging the election results, Harris stressed her personal disappointment: “The outcome of this election is not what we wanted, not what we fought for, not what we voted for. But hear me when I say: The light of America’s promise will always burn bright.” She emphasized that the ideals and principles she advocated during the campaign would endure beyond the election.

In an effort to inspire hope amidst the difficult news, Harris invoked what she described as “a law of history,” referencing the belief that “only when it is dark enough can you see the stars.” She continued, “I know many people feel like we are entering a dark time, but for the benefit of us all, I hope that is not the case. America, if it is, let us fill the sky with the light of a brilliant, billion stars. The light of optimism, of faith, of truth and service.” Harris encouraged her supporters to hold onto hope and stand together with optimism and resilience.

She also urged her followers to accept the election results and come to terms with the outcome. “Folks are feeling and experiencing a range of emotions right now, I get it. But we must accept the results of this election,” she remarked, acknowledging the challenges her supporters might face in accepting the outcome but emphasizing the importance of democratic norms.

Harris disclosed that she had spoken with Trump earlier in the day to assure him of her administration’s cooperation in the transition process. “I also told him that we will help him and his team with their transition and that we will engage in a peaceful transfer of power,” Harris stated, underscoring her dedication to a smooth handover.

Meanwhile, Trump addressed his own supporters in a victory speech, promising a renewed focus on his campaign pledge to “Make America Great Again, again.” The 78-year-old Republican thanked his campaign team and his voters for their unwavering support, calling his triumph “magnificent.” Trump’s victory was clinched with wins in key battleground states, including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, among others. These decisive victories underscored the electorate’s attention to critical issues such as the economy, immigration, inflation, and healthcare.

In the lead-up to his return to the White House for a second term, Trump spoke of his confidence in reviving America’s fortunes and building on his previous policies. His return to the presidency after his controversial exit in 2020 marks a significant chapter in U.S. politics, with a historic comeback for a former president.

Current President Joe Biden also reached out to Trump by phone, with plans to address the nation on Thursday (Eastern Time). In his conversation, Biden congratulated Trump on his victory and expressed his commitment to a peaceful and cooperative transition process. According to a senior White House official, Biden reiterated the importance of unity and invited Trump to meet with him in the White House. “President Biden expressed his commitment to ensuring a smooth transition and emphasized the importance of working to bring the country together. He also invited President-elect Trump to meet with him in the White House,” the official noted. The two teams are expected to schedule a specific date for the meeting soon.

Trump’s inauguration will mark him as the 47th President of the United States, a position he last held before a contentious departure four years ago. His return to office underscores the impact of his continued influence and his enduring appeal among his base, as well as the broader American public’s division on key issues shaping the nation’s future.

-+=