Washington’s latest scandal erupted Wednesday when former White House physician Kevin O’Connor clammed up before the House Oversight Committee. In a closed-door interview that barely lasted 30 minutes, O’Connor invoked the Fifth Amendment repeatedly, dodging questions about former President Joe Biden’s health, as Fox News reports. The abrupt silence has fueled suspicions of a White House cover-up.
The House Oversight Committee, led by its chairman, James Comer (R-KY) grilled O’Connor on whether Biden’s inner circle hid evidence of mental or physical decline during his presidency. Comer’s probe targets former top aides, with O’Connor’s tight-lipped performance adding weight to claims of stonewalling. Biden’s allies, predictably, dismiss the allegations as baseless.
O’Connor’s legal team insisted his Fifth Amendment plea was about protecting physician-patient privilege, not guilt. They argued that disclosing confidential details could result in O’Connor losing his medical license or sparking lawsuits. Nice try, but Comer wasn’t buying it, pointing out that pleading the Fifth often screams liability.
The interview kicked off with Comer asking, “Were you ever told to lie about the president’s health?” O’Connor’s response? A swift Fifth Amendment dodge, leaving jaws on the floor. The follow-up—whether he thought Biden was unfit for duty -- got the same stonewall treatment.
“This is unprecedented,” Comer declared, suggesting O’Connor’s silence “adds fuel” to cover-up theories. His refusal to engage lasted less than an hour, with O’Connor and his lawyers bolting after 30 minutes. The brevity only deepened the committee’s skepticism.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) and the lone Democrat present, tried to spin O’Connor’s silence as prudent. She cited a concurrent Trump-era DOJ criminal probe involving O’Connor as justification. Convenient timing, but it smells like a distraction from the real issue: transparency.
O’Connor’s lawyers leaned hard into the physician-patient privilege defense, claiming Comer’s demands threatened ethical duties. “Revealing confidential patient information would violate the most fundamental ethical duty,” they stated. Yet, their high-minded rhetoric feels like a shield for something murkier.
Comer shot back, noting that “most people invoke the Fifth when they have criminal liability.” His blunt assessment cuts through the legal fog O’Connor’s team tried to spin. The American people deserve answers, not excuses.
The committee’s investigation isn’t slowing down, with Comer vowing to keep digging. He’s already hauled in former Biden staff secretary Neera Tanden for questioning. More aides are on deck for depositions, signaling a relentless push for the truth.
Crockett’s mention of the DOJ’s criminal probe raised eyebrows, hinting at deeper trouble for O’Connor. The doctor's lawyers even begged the committee to pause its investigation because of it. Sorry, but justice doesn’t wait for convenient scheduling.
“We have a constitutional right,” Crockett said, defending O’Connor’s Fifth Amendment play as standard under legal pressure. Her courtroom experience notwithstanding, the optics of a White House doctor ducking questions don’t inspire confidence. The public’s trust is eroding fast.
Comer’s team is undeterred, promising transparency as they chase down leads. “We’ll do everything in our ability to be transparent with the American people,” he pledged. That’s a bold commitment in a town where secrets are currency.
The committee’s next steps involve more interviews with Biden’s former aides, each a potential crack in the wall of silence. Comer’s dogged pursuit suggests he smells blood in the water. If O’Connor’s performance is any indication, the truth might be uglier than expected.
Biden’s defenders continue to cry foul, insisting there’s no cover-up to uncover. Yet, O’Connor’s refusal to answer basic questions -- like whether he was told to lie -- speaks louder than their denials. The American people aren’t dumb; they can connect the dots.
This probe is far from over, and Comer’s resolve signals more revelations to come. O’Connor’s Fifth Amendment stunt may have bought him time, but it’s lit a fire under the Oversight Committee. Washington’s swamp just got a little murkier.
President Donald Trump just scored a major win against bureaucratic bloat. The Supreme Court’s Tuesday ruling lets him temporarily slash jobs and restructure federal agencies, brushing aside a lower court’s overreach, as NBC News reports. This decision is a bold step toward draining the swamp.
The ruling, an administrative stay, greenlights Trump’s executive order and a related memo on workforce cuts across 19 federal agencies, plus the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, and U.S. DOGE Service. It stems from a challenge to U.S. District Judge Susan Illston’s May ruling, which tried to handcuff the president’s authority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter, penning a fiery objection.
Illston had argued that “agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations” without Congress’s blessing. Her decision reeked of judicial overreach, tying Trump’s hands on executive power. The Supreme Court’s stay slaps that down, affirming the president’s right to manage his administration.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer nailed it: “Controlling the personnel of federal agencies lies at the heartland” of presidential power. No president needs Congress’s permission slip to wield Article II authority. The Constitution isn’t a suggestion, despite what progressive judges might think.
White House spokesperson Harrison Fields called the ruling a “definitive victory” for Trump. He’s right -- it’s a rebuke to “leftist judges” who weaponize the bench to block efficiency. The decision keeps the MAGA promise to streamline government alive.
Jackson’s dissent labeled the ruling “hubristic and senseless.” Her outrage misses the mark -- curtailing a president’s core powers is what’s truly senseless. The Court’s majority saw through the noise, prioritizing constitutional clarity.
Unions and left-leaning groups, like the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, alongside cities like Chicago and Baltimore, launched the legal fight. They claim Trump’s plans threaten “statutorily required programs” and could gut critical departments. Their hysteria ignores the need fora leaner government.
The coalition whined that the ruling “dealt a serious blow to our democracy.” Nonsense -- democracy doesn’t mean unchecked bureaucracy. Their real fear is losing cushy federal jobs to Trump’s efficiency drive.
Lawyers for the challengers warned that “statutorily required” offices will be “abolished.” That’s a scare tactic, not a fact. The Court’s order only addresses Trump’s executive authority, not specific agency plans.
Illston’s ruling leaned heavily on Congress’s supposed mandate over reorganizations. She claimed a president can’t act “in blatant disregard” of legislative will. The Supreme Court’s stay exposes her logic as a power grab dressed in judicial robes.
The challengers doubled down, insisting that “reorganizing government functions” without Congress is unconstitutional. Their argument forgets that Article II gives the president, not bureaucrats, the reins. Trump’s not sidestepping Congress -- he’s exercising his rightful authority.
Fields hit the nail on the head: This ruling stops “continued assaults” on Trump’s powers. The left’s obsession with control can’t override the Constitution. Efficiency isn’t a crime, no matter how much unions howl.
The coalition’s claim that services Americans “rely on” are in “grave jeopardy” is pure fearmongering. Trump’s goal is smarter government, not chaos. Critics should focus on waste, not waving the panic flag.
The Court’s order doesn’t greenlight specific cuts -- it just upholds Trump’s right to plan them. Sauer’s point stands: The Constitution doesn’t presume against presidential control. Opponents need to argue facts, not feelings.
This ruling is a wake-up call for the administrative state. Trump’s push to trim fat isn’t just legal -- it’s necessary. The swamp won’t drain itself, and the Supreme Court just handed him the tools to start.
Kamala Harris scrambled to prop up a faltering Joe Biden, but her pleas couldn’t mask the obvious. A week after Biden’s disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump, Harris met with Democrat governors at the White House, desperately trying to convince them that Biden could still lead the ticket, as the Daily Mail reports. Her efforts fell flat, as skepticism about Biden’s mental sharpness grew louder.
Harris convened governors in person and via Zoom to shore up support for Biden’s campaign. Governors such as Gavin Newsom of California, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, and Andy Beshear of Kentucky attended, but many left unconvinced of Biden’s viability. The meeting’s failure foreshadowed Biden’s exit from the race just two weeks later.
Harris echoed Biden’s campaign rhetoric, framing the election as a battle to “save democracy” from Trump. “This is about saving our f***ing democracy,” she declared, but her profanity-laced plea sounded more like panic than conviction. Governors saw through the spin, sensing Biden’s campaign was on life support.
Biden’s senior advisers had pushed for an early spring debate to showcase his leadership against Trump. “The earlier you are able to debate the better,” they wrote in a six-page memo, claiming it would highlight Biden’s strength. Instead, over 50 million Americans watched Biden stumble in Atlanta, exposing his frailty to a shocked nation.
The White House meeting revealed deep cracks in Democratic unity. Govs. Newsom, Whitmer, and Beshear, all potential 2024 contenders, declined to challenge Harris for the nomination, perhaps sensing a sinking ship. Meanwhile, governors like Tim Walz of Minnesota, Kathy Hochul of New York, and Wes Moore of Maryland publicly backed Biden, but their support rang hollow.
Walz, who later joined Harris as her running mate, insisted, “Yes he’s fit for office.” His bold claim crumbled under scrutiny, as Biden’s debate performance left even loyalists questioning his capacity. Walz’s loyalty to Harris secured his spot on the ticket, but it couldn’t salvage Biden’s campaign.
Behind closed doors, Harris’ team had long prepared for Biden’s potential collapse. Starting far earlier in his term, when Biden briefly transferred power to Harris during a colonoscopy, her Chief of Staff, Lorraine Voles, led a contingency plan for Biden’s death in office. This grim foresight revealed Harris’ lack of confidence in Biden’s durability.
Jamal Simmons, Harris’ communications director until January 2023, went further, creating a “death-pool roster” of federal judges to swear Harris in if Biden’s health failed. Simmons kept Harris in the dark but left a spreadsheet with an aide, advising colleagues to alert him if Biden’s condition worsened. Such macabre planning underscored the unease surrounding Biden’s leadership.
A Democratic Party operative, speaking to author Chris Whipple, admitted, “We just feel like we should put a plan in place.” The operative’s cautious words betrayed a party bracing for disaster, knowing Biden’s age and health were liabilities. Harris’ team clearly saw the writing on the wall long before the public did.
Biden’s campaign unraveled swiftly after the governors’ meeting, culminating in his withdrawal two weeks later. He endorsed Harris as the Democratic nominee, thrusting her into the spotlight. Harris, ever the loyal soldier, publicly vouched for Biden’s ability to lead, but her earlier actions suggested she knew better.
Books like 2024: How Trump Retook the White House by Josh Dawsey and others have detailed Harris’ behind-the-scenes maneuvering. These accounts exposed a Democratic Party grappling with Biden’s decline while Harris tried to hold the line. Her efforts to rally governors and project confidence couldn’t hide the chaos within.
Harris’ campaign leaned heavily on Biden’s “defend democracy” mantra, but it failed to inspire. The strategy felt recycled, a weak attempt to distract from Biden’s obvious struggles. Voters saw through the rhetoric, rejecting the narrative that Biden -- or Harris -- could steer the nation forward.
Donald Trump’s sweeping victory in November 2024, capturing all battleground states, crushed Democratic Party hopes. Harris’ campaign, built on Biden’s shaky foundation, collapsed under the weight of voter distrust. The governors’ skepticism at that White House meeting proved prophetic, as Biden’s weaknesses became the party’s downfall.
The contingency plans, secret rosters, and frantic meetings revealed a Democratic Party in disarray. Harris’ attempts to paper over Biden’s decline only delayed the inevitable. Her “save democracy” cry rang empty when the electorate delivered its verdict.
History will remember Harris’ White House meeting as a desperate bid to salvage a lost cause. Biden’s exit and Trump’s triumph exposed the futility of her efforts. The Democratic Party’s refusal to confront reality cost them dearly, and Harris’ secret freakout was just the beginning.
Joe Biden’s debate flop wasn’t just a bad night -- it was the crack that shattered a carefully built Democratic Party facade. A former Democratic National Committee insider has blown the whistle on what she calls a concerted effort to hide Biden’s mental decline from the public. Lindy Li, once a rising star in party fundraising, now claims she was ostracized for daring to question the former president’s fitness, as Fox News reports.
Li, a former member of the National Finance Committee, told Fox News Digital that the DNC went to extraordinary lengths to prop up Biden’s image, even as concerns about his age grew. Her allegations paint a picture of a party desperate to maintain power, silencing dissenters and controlling narratives. This isn’t just politics as usual -- it’s a scandal of loyalty over truth.
Back in 2022, Sen. Tammy Duckworth privately told Li that Biden was too old to run again. Yet, by 2023, Duckworth was singing Biden’s praises on television, conveniently the same day she joined his campaign as co-chair. Hypocrisy in politics is hardly new, but this flip-flop smells like a calculated move to keep the party line intact.
Li’s troubles began when she raised concerns about Biden’s age to top DNC officials, including former chair Jaime Harrison and current chair Ken Martin. Instead of open dialogue, she says she was treated like a pariah, her questions met with hostility. The DNC’s response wasn’t debate—it was suppression, plain and simple.
At a Feb. 3 event hosting Biden and Kamala Harris, Li’s phone was confiscated by DNC staff. A coalition director ordered her to stay off social media, a gag order that reeks of control-freak paranoia. When Li posted an Instagram story of Biden at a separate dinner, the DNC erupted, demanding she scrub it immediately.
“I hosted [Biden] and Kamala Harris on Feb. 3, coinciding with the DNC Winter Meeting, and they confiscated my phone,” Li said. This isn’t the behavior of a confident party -- it’s the panic of one hiding a liability. The DNC’s obsession with controlling the narrative only fueled Li’s suspicions.
Li claims her persistence led to her being banned from the Biden White House. “I was banned from the Biden White House for telling the truth when it mattered,” she told Fox News Digital. Questioning Biden’s fitness wasn’t just frowned upon -- it was a one-way ticket to exile.
The backlash didn’t stop there. Li says former friends and colleagues turned on her after she left the Democratic Party, shunning her for breaking ranks. In a party that preaches unity, this vindictive response exposes a ruthless underbelly.
“To be treated like a complete criminal was just jarring for me,” Li said. She wasn’t hurling insults or leaking secrets -- just asking if an aging leader should step aside. The DNC’s overreaction suggests they feared her questions hit too close to home.
Biden’s debate performance was a wake-up call, but the DNC doubled down. Jen O’Malley Dillon, a Biden campaign chair, held a damage control briefing where attendees were visibly emotional, some even “misty-eyed.” The night before, shuttle passengers were crying, devastated by Biden’s faltering display.
“Jen O’Malley Dillon did a damage control briefing that morning, and people were misty-eyed,” Li recalled. Yet, Dillon and co-chair Julie Rodriguez insisted Biden couldn’t drop out due to finance regulations -- a claim that sounds more like an excuse than a fact. The party’s refusal to face reality only deepened the crisis.
After Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report described Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” the DNC went into overdrive. Li says she was instructed to attack Hur’s character, a directive she found unethical. “We were supposed to assassinate his character,” she said, exposing a strategy that prioritized smear over substance.
The DNC’s talking points urged members to paint Biden as a wise, behind-the-scenes genius, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. “They were in damage control mode,” Li said, describing a party clinging to a fiction. This wasn’t leadership -- it was a delusion, packaged for public consumption.
When asked about Li’s allegations, a former Biden official feigned ignorance, saying, “Who is Lindy Li?” The dismissiveness is telling -- a classic dodge from a team unwilling to face the truth. Li’s youth and lack of “gravitas” may have made her an easy target, but her courage in speaking out carries weight.
“It was hard for me because I was one of the youngest members on the committee,” Li said. The DNC’s refusal to listen to her wasn’t just arrogance -- it was a symptom of a deeper rot. A party that silences its own can’t claim to champion democracy.
Tiger Woods and Vanessa Trump are no longer hiding their romance, defying the woke media’s obsession with tearing down traditional love stories. Page Six broke the news in March, revealing the couple’s secret relationship, which Woods confirmed weeks later with a bold public announcement. This isn’t Hollywood’s fleeting fling; it’s a serious bond that’s got conservatives cheering for old-school commitment.
Woods, 49, and Trump, 47, kept their relationship under wraps initially, prioritizing privacy in a world where the left loves to dissect personal lives. Their romance, now public, is reportedly “wedding bells serious,” according to a source close to Vanessa. The couple’s shared values and resilience against public scrutiny make them a refreshing antidote to today’s culture of fleeting hookups.
Vanessa, once married to Donald Trump Jr., didn’t even tell her mother, Bonnie Haydon, about Woods at first. A second source noted the relationship started casually but grew steadily stronger. In an era where the progressive agenda pushes disposable relationships, this couple’s deliberate pace is a quiet rebellion.
Privacy was paramount for Vanessa, who shuns the spotlight, and Woods, no stranger to media storms. “They both know how to keep their private life private,” a source said. That’s a jab at the gossip-hungry elites who thrive on exposing what’s sacred.
The couple’s early days were low-key, building a foundation away from prying eyes. Their shared experiences as parents and public figures forged a deep connection. Unlike the left’s fixation on performative relationships, Woods and Trump are crafting something real.
Weeks after Page Six’s scoop, Woods took to X, posting a photo of the couple with a caption that shut down the naysayers. “Love is in the air and life is better with you by my side!” he wrote. The woke crowd might scoff, but this public declaration of love is a win for traditional romance.
Woods’ post also requested privacy, a classy move in a culture that demands constant access. “We look forward to our journey through life together,” he added. That’s a polite middle finger to the tabloid vultures circling for drama.
Vanessa’s pal gushed, “She’s so happy! She’s finally found happiness.” The left might roll their eyes at such sincerity, but conservatives know true joy doesn’t need a social justice hashtag to be valid.
Both Woods and Vanessa have navigated high-profile pasts, with Woods divorcing Elin Nordegren in 2010 and Vanessa parting ways with Trump Jr. “They’ve both gotten used to public scrutiny,” a source noted. Their ability to rise above the noise is a lesson in resilience the woke media could stand to learn.
The couple’s shared parenthood adds depth to their bond, grounding them in responsibilities the progressive elite often sidestep. “They’re both parents,” the source emphasized. That’s a nod to family values that resonate with heartland America, not coastal ideologues.
Donald Trump Jr., Vanessa’s ex, supports the relationship, showing a maturity that contrasts with the left’s divisive tactics. No petty feuds here—just adults prioritizing happiness over drama. The MAGA crowd appreciates that kind of class.
A source close to Vanessa declared, “They’re very serious.” The “wedding bells serious” comment has fans of traditional love buzzing with excitement. In a world where commitment is mocked, this couple’s trajectory is a beacon of hope.
Woods and Trump’s representatives stayed silent when Page Six reached out, a smart move to keep the focus on their terms. The couple’s refusal to feed the media frenzy is a power play against a culture that thrives on oversharing. Conservatives respect that kind of discipline.
Their romance challenges the woke narrative that love must be loud and performative to matter. By staying low-key initially, Woods and Trump proved authenticity trumps publicity stunts. That’s a subtle dig at the influencer age, where feelings are curated for clicks.
Tiger Woods and Vanessa Trump are writing a love story that defies the chaos of modern culture. Their serious, private, and grounded relationship is a middle finger to the progressive playbook. Here’s to a couple proving love can still win without a woke filter.
The Environmental Protection Agency just dropped a hammer on 139 employees, sidelining them for allegedly trying to derail President Donald Trump’s agenda, as the Daily Mail reports. These workers, caught signing a so-called “declaration of dissent,” thought they could play rebels without a cause. Now, they’re on paid leave, twiddling their thumbs while the EPA investigates their mutiny.
On Monday, over 170 EPA employees, plus 100 anonymous signers, backed a Stand Up 4 Science document claiming the agency abandoned its mission to protect health and the environment. The EPA, under Lee Zeldin’s no-nonsense leadership, is probing whether this stunt was an illegal sabotage attempt. This isn’t a game of academic debate—it’s a direct challenge to the administration’s mandate.
The declaration, penned by the activist group Stand Up 4 Science, even roped in non-EPA scientists and academics, according to Jeremy Berg, former Science magazine editor. How noble, hiding behind “science” to push a political agenda. Sounds like a page from the woke playbook, not a lab report.
The EPA didn’t waste time, emailing the 139 employees to inform them they were on “temporary, non-duty, paid status” for two weeks. The email insisted this isn’t disciplinary -- yet. The agency’s keeping its powder dry while it digs into this bureaucratic insurrection.
Stand Up 4 Science whined Thursday night that employees were left in the dark, as Zeldin didn’t personally respond to their letter. Poor dears, expecting a handwritten note from the boss while they try to kneecap his policies. Maybe they should’ve thought twice before signing a public hit piece.
Colette Delawalla, head of Stand Up 4 Science, called the employees “dedicated civil servants” whose only goal is keeping Americans safe. Dedicated to what -- undermining the voters’ choice? Their declaration reeks of self-righteous posturing, not public service.
Back in June, nearly 100 National Institutes of Health employees, plus 250 anonymous endorsers, pulled a similar stunt, slamming Trump policies as harmful to public health. Unlike the EPA’s firm response, NIH’s dissenters faced no administrative leave, per organizer Jenna Norton. Apparently, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya’s “dissent is the essence of science” mantra gave them a free pass.
Bhattacharya’s openness during confirmation hearings contrasts sharply with Zeldin’s hardline approach. Zeldin’s not here to coddle bureaucrats who think they’re above the administration’s goals. His EPA is about action, not endless debates with self-appointed martyrs.
Zeldin, a former congressman, is laser-focused on aligning the EPA with Trump’s vision, working alongside the Department of Government Efficiency to root out waste. In February, he exposed $20 billion in climate funds allegedly squandered by Biden’s team. That’s not pocket change -- it’s taxpayer money tossed into the progressive abyss.
Zeldin revealed Biden officials funneled millions to a shadowy “outside financial institution,” with one political appointee caught on video bragging about rushing billions out the door before Trump’s inauguration. “Tossing gold bars off the Titanic,” the appointee gloated, as Zeldin put it. That’s not governance; it’s a fire sale of public trust.
The new EPA leadership team uncovered Biden’s scheme to park billions with nonprofits, making it harder for Republicans to claw back the funds. Critics cry that Zeldin’s cutting environmental programs for minority communities and rolling back pollution rules. But an Associated Press analysis found his proposed rollbacks could save 30,000 lives and $275 billion annually -- hardly the work of a cartoon villain.
The EPA insists that Zeldin’s decisions are informed by career professionals briefing him on the latest research. “Policy decisions are a result of a process,” the agency stated, swatting away claims of reckless deregulation. Sounds like the adults are back in charge, not the woke crusaders.
Zeldin’s overhaul of the EPA’s research office, slashing climate change and environmental justice studies, has critics clutching their pearls. They accuse him of undoing an asbestos ban and loosening greenhouse gas rules for power plants. But when your predecessors treated taxpayer dollars like confetti, maybe a budget trim isn’t the apocalypse.
An EPA spokesperson told DailyMail.com the agency has “zero tolerance” for bureaucrats sabotaging the administration’s agenda, as voted for by Americans. Lee Zeldin himself called the declaration “riddled with misinformation” in a statement to the Daily Caller. That’s a polite way of saying these employees got caught peddling nonsense on company time.
The EPA’s response to the dissenters’ letter emphasized that the vast majority of its professionals take pride in their work, not in staging public tantrums. This saga proves one thing: Zeldin’s not playing games with those who think “science” is a shield for insubordination. The voters spoke, and the EPA’s finally listening.
Ohio’s Warren Davidson just flipped his vote, and it’s a win for Trump’s deal-making genius. The Republican representative, once a firm “no” on a major funding bill, now backs it, citing President Donald Trump’s negotiation prowess and the Democrats’ predictable meltdown, as Just the News reports. This isn’t just politics -- it’s a masterclass in strategy.
Davidson’s switch came after the House passed the bill in May, which he initially opposed. The Senate reworked it, passing a revised version on Tuesday with tighter state and local tax deduction caps and bold Medicaid reforms. Lawmakers are racing to get it to the president’s desk by Friday.
Trump’s influence was undeniable, as Davidson revealed multiple conversations with the president since his last vote. “I got to say, no one puts a deal together like President Trump, he’s a master,” Davidson told The Hill. That’s high praise from a man who knows a good deal when he sees one.
Davidson’s change of heart wasn’t just about Trump’s charm. The Democrats’ reaction to the bill -- even former President Barack Obama urged them to fight it -- tipped the scales. Their panic signaled the bill might deliver real conservative wins.
“Democrats’ reaction helped me persuade that, wow, maybe this bill does, does do some really good things,” Davidson said. When the left starts clutching pearls, you know you’re onto something solid. It’s almost as if their outrage is a conservative compass.
The Senate’s changes made the bill a tougher sell, slashing tax deductions and pushing Medicaid reforms that progressives hate. These tweaks turned heads among House Republicans, including Davidson. It’s a reminder that sometimes, the Senate can get it right.
House Republican leadership planned to pass the bill Wednesday night, but delays hit as they rallied support. The holdup shows the GOP isn’t just rubber-stamping; they’re ensuring every vote counts. That’s discipline, not chaos.
Davidson’s flip underscores Trump’s ability to unify his party, even when the stakes are high. His knack for cutting through bureaucratic noise is why the base loves him. The man doesn’t just tweet -- he delivers.
“I think this is probably the best product we can get,” Davidson added. He’s not wrong -- compromise doesn’t mean surrender when the bill still sticks it to the progressive agenda. It’s pragmatic, not woke.
The push to Friday’s deadline is intense, with lawmakers burning the midnight oil. The bill’s passage would be a feather in Trump’s cap, proving he can still move mountains in Washington. That’s the kind of leadership the heartland craves.
Democrats, meanwhile, are left scrambling, with Obama’s call to arms falling flat. Their opposition only strengthened GOP resolve, a classic case of overplaying their hand. Maybe next time, they’ll think twice before crying wolf.
The Senate’s Medicaid reforms are a particular sticking point for the left, who see their entitlement dreams crumbling. Tough luck -- Americans want fiscal sanity, not another bloated program. The bill’s tax deduction cap is just icing on the cake.
Davidson’s vote switch is more than a tactical move; it’s a signal to conservatives that Trump’s still got their back. His ability to sway skeptics like Davidson shows he’s not just a figurehead -- he’s a force. The GOP needs more of this, not less.
The House delays, while frustrating, prove Republicans are taking this seriously. They’re not caving to pressure or rushing a bad deal. That’s the kind of governance that rebuilds trust with voters.
As the bill nears the president’s desk, it’s clear that Trump’s deal-making and the Democrats’ overreaction handed conservatives a victory. Davidson summed it up best: He wants to “help President Trump and the team get this bill across the finish line.” With moves like this, the MAGA agenda is alive and kicking.
A former DNC insider has blown the whistle on the shadowy figures allegedly pulling the strings in Joe Biden’s White House. Lindy Li, once a Democratic National Committee fundraiser and National Finance Committee member, spilled the beans to Fox News Digital, exposing a web of operatives who, she claims, orchestrated a cover-up of the former president's mental decline, as Breitbart reports. Her revelations paint a picture of a presidency propped up by unelected aides, with the former first lady complicit in what Li calls “elder abuse.”
Li’s bombshell accusations target a cadre of Biden loyalists who ran the show while the president faltered. She names Anthony Bernal, White House deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed, counselor Steve Richetti, and senior advisors Anita Dunn and Mike Donilon as the puppet masters steering White House operations. This clique, Li alleges, wielded outsized influence, sidelining Biden’s capacity to govern.
The House Oversight Committee launched a probe to uncover the truth behind these claims. Their investigation zeroed in on former President Biden’s Cabinet, questioning whether aides concealed his declining mental state. The committee’s efforts signal a growing distrust in the narrative peddled by Biden’s inner circle.
Bernal, then-first lady Jill Biden's chief of staff, emerges as a central figure in Li’s account. She claims Bernal ruled the East Wing with an iron grip, outshining even the West Wing’s influence. “Bernal followed Jill around like a dog,” Li quipped, suggesting his loyalty to the first lady trumped all else.
Li didn’t mince words, accusing Bernal of acting like he was “in charge, like a king.” Her vivid imagery paints a White House where unelected aides, not the president, called the shots. This unchecked power, she argues, enabled a cover-up that betrayed the American public.
The Oversight Committee sought Bernal's cooperation for a voluntary transcribed interview on June 26. The White House Counsel’s office, in a rare move, waived executive privilege, clearing the way for his testimony. But Bernal, defying expectations, refused to show up, dodging accountability in a move Li says will cement his infamy.
Li’s accusations extend to Neera Tanden, Biden’s former domestic policy advisor. She claims Tanden played a key role in using the autopen to sign documents when Biden was allegedly unfit to perform his duties. This tactic, Li suggests, was a calculated effort to mask Biden’s incapacity from the public.
“Neera Tanden’s role was intricate,” Li stated, pointing to a deliberate strategy to keep the presidency on autopilot. Such maneuvers, if true, raise serious questions about the integrity of Biden’s administration. The use of an autopen to bypass a struggling president smells like a progressive sleight of hand.
Jill Biden doesn’t escape Li’s critique, either. “[She] very much knew what she was doing,” Li charged, labeling her actions “absolutely elder abuse.” This stinging rebuke frames Jill as a willing participant in a scheme to prop up a faltering presidency.
Biden’s team has denied any cover-up, but Li isn’t buying it. “I had a front-row seat watching it happen,” she declared, dismissing their deflections as hollow. Her insider perspective lends weight to claims that the administration prioritized optics over honesty.
Li’s scorn for Bernal’s refusal to testify is palpable. “He can run, but he can’t hide,” she warned, predicting his legacy will be one of disgrace. This defiance only fuels suspicions that Biden’s aides have something to hide.
The Oversight Committee’s investigation continues to unravel the truth. By questioning former Cabinet members, they aim to expose any efforts to shield Biden’s condition from scrutiny. Their work underscores a broader push to hold the progressive elite accountable.
Li’s revelations cast a harsh light on a White House allegedly run by unelected operatives. Figures like Reed, Richetti, Dunn, and Donilon, she claims, formed a shadow government that sidelined the president. This dynamic, if accurate, undermines the democratic process voters expect.
The allegations of using an autopen to bypass Biden’s duties are particularly damning. They suggest a presidency reduced to a facade, with aides like Tanden orchestrating a charade to maintain power. Such tactics reek of the kind of backroom deals conservatives have long decried.
As the Oversight Committee digs deeper, the American public deserves answers. Li’s exposé, paired with Bernal’s refusal to testify, paints a troubling picture of a White House more concerned with control than competence. This saga is a stark reminder to stay vigilant against the progressive machine’s overreach.
Conservatives scored a major win as the Senate greenlit a provision to block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, as The Hill reports. The Senate parliamentarian ruled that the GOP’s measure complies with the Byrd Rule, ensuring its place in a critical tax and spending bill. This move delivers a sharp rebuke to the progressive push for unchecked abortion funding.
The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, gave the thumbs-up Monday to a GOP provision that halts Medicaid funds to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Republicans tweaked the measure late Friday, scaling back the funding block from 10 years to one year. The provision cleverly avoids naming Planned Parenthood but targets clinics offering abortions, effectively zeroing in on the organization.
Planned Parenthood stands alone as the sole target of this funding cut. The bill’s language bars Medicaid from covering family planning and reproductive health services at abortion-providing clinics. This surgical strike against federal support for abortion providers has conservatives cheering and progressives scrambling.
The Congressional Budget Office projects this provision will cost taxpayers $52 million over a decade. Yet conservatives argue the moral and fiscal cost of subsidizing abortion outweighs any short-term budget hit. The provision’s inclusion marks a triumph for those fighting to redirect federal funds away from controversial providers.
“Republicans just got the green light to defund Planned Parenthood health centers,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) wailed. Her lament paints conservatives as villains, but the reality is simpler: taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for divisive procedures. Murray’s outrage sidesteps the fact that Medicaid already bars funding for most abortions.
“Republicans’ last-minute changes to shorten the timeline hardly matter,” Murray added, claiming clinics won’t reopen once shuttered. Her fearmongering ignores the resilience of community health networks that don’t rely on abortion to serve patients. The one-year limit shows GOP pragmatism, not weakness.
Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, both pro-abortion-rights Republicans, may balk at supporting the bill. Their hesitation could jeopardize its passage, as the GOP needs near-unanimous support to push it through. The provision’s inclusion forces these moderates to weigh their principles against party loyalty.
Planned Parenthood claims the funding cut threatens 200 health centers, mostly in states where abortion remains legal. The organization estimates over 1 million low-income patients could lose access to care if centers close. But conservatives counter that other providers can step up, offering similar services without the abortion baggage.
A recent Supreme Court ruling emboldened red states to deny funding to Planned Parenthood. This Senate provision takes that fight national, aiming to block Medicaid funds for abortion providers across the country. It’s a bold step to align federal policy with conservative values.
“Republicans will stop at nothing to control women’s bodies,” Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden (D-OR) declared. Their hyperbolic rhetoric frames the provision as an attack on personal freedom, but it’s really about fiscal responsibility. Taxpayers deserve a say in how their money is spent, not a lecture on “extremist ideology.”
“Republicans are trampling the law to force their ideology,” Merkley and Wyden continued. This accusation falls flat when the Senate parliamentarian herself approved the provision as lawful. Their outrage seems more about appeasing progressive donors than defending legal principles.
Medicaid’s existing ban on abortion funding undercuts the left’s narrative of a full-scale assault on reproductive rights. States already seeking to defund Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion services are simply extending that logic. The Senate’s move codifies a policy many Americans support: no public funds for abortion-linked providers.
If the bill passes, the Medicaid funding block will apply nationwide, reshaping the landscape for abortion providers. Planned Parenthood’s outsized reliance on federal dollars makes it uniquely vulnerable. Conservatives see this as a chance to level the playing field for providers focused on comprehensive care.
The provision’s one-year scope offers a trial run for defunding abortion providers without permanent upheaval. Critics like Murray predict doom, but conservatives argue it’s a measured step toward fiscal and moral clarity. The shortened timeline reflects the GOP's strategy to balance principle with political reality.
The Senate’s decision sets the stage for a heated showdown as moderates, conservatives, and progressives clash over the bill’s future. With Planned Parenthood’s funding on the chopping block, the outcome will signal whether conservative priorities can hold firm. America watches as principal battles politics in this high-stakes fight.
President Donald Trump is re-entering the census fight, aiming to reshape America’s political map. On January 20, 2025, he scrapped a Biden-era order that mandated counting all residents, regardless of immigration status, signaling a bold push to exclude non-citizens from congressional apportionment, as Just the News reports. This move reignites a battle that could redefine power in Washington and beyond.
Trump’s plan seeks to alter how the 2030 census counts non-citizens, potentially shrinking the influence of states such as California while boosting red states like Texas. The effort, led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, could add a citizenship question to distinguish among citizens, legal residents, and unauthorized migrants. It’s a policy that promises to shake up congressional seats, Electoral College votes, and federal funding.
In 2020, Trump’s team tried a similar tack, issuing a July memorandum to exclude non-citizens from apportionment using administrative records. Blue states and immigrant advocacy groups cried foul, claiming it violated the Constitution and scared off immigrant participation. The Supreme Court halted the move in December 2020, calling it premature but dodging the core legal question.
The Supreme Court has never settled whether excluding non-citizens from census apportionment is constitutional. A 2019 ruling rejected a citizenship question over procedural missteps, demanding better justification before further review. Trump’s team, undeterred, sees a fresh chance to push the issue with a GOP-controlled Congress.
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller is champing at the bit, declaring last month that the census issue is “approaching.” His enthusiasm suggests a strategic play to tilt political power toward citizen-heavy states. Critics, predictably, will call it voter suppression, but supporters argue it restores fairness to representation.
Republican lawmakers are rallying behind the cause, with Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-NC) and Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) introducing bills to mandate a citizenship question. These proposals would exclude non-citizens from apportionment counts, a seismic shift from decades of counting all “persons” under the 14th Amendment. The bills face legal hurdles but signal growing GOP momentum.
California, home to 2.6 million illegal aliens per Department of Homeland Security data, stands to lose the most. UC San Diego professor Thad Kousser warns that if trends hold, the state could shed four congressional seats by 2030. Meanwhile, Texas and Florida, with 2.06 million and 560,000 illegal aliens, respectively, could each gain three seats.
In 2023, California’s population shrank by 817,669, with a net outmigration of 341,866 citizens, per the Orange County Register. This exodus amplifies the stakes of Trump’s census push, as fewer citizens could mean less clout in Congress. Progressive sanctuaries might soon regret their open-door policies.
The Commerce Department is eyeing a lawsuit from Republican-led states, filed in January 2025, to justify adding a census question. The data could pinpoint non-citizens for exclusion from apportionment, though not the total census count. It’s a clever workaround, but opponents will likely scream “discrimination” before the ink dries.
A GOP-controlled Congress, unlike the Democrat-led Senate that stalled a similar 2020 House bill, boosts the odds of passing census reform by 2028. Amending the Census Act to redefine “persons” or mandate a citizenship question is on the table. Such a change would rewrite history, prioritizing citizens’ political weight.
Trump’s 2020 memorandum argued that counting non-citizens dilutes citizens’ votes, a point that resonates with his base. Sanctuary cities and blue states countered that it chilled immigrant participation, a claim the Supreme Court didn’t fully address. The argument still smolders, ready to flare up in courtrooms again.
Federal law requires census questions to be submitted to Congress two years before the 2030 count, setting a tight timeline. Trump’s team, with Lutnick at the helm, is already gearing up. The question is whether they can outmaneuver the inevitable legal onslaught from progressive strongholds.
States such as New York and New Jersey, with 540,000 and 440,000 illegal aliens, respectively, also face potential seat losses. The ripple effects could reshape federal funding and Electoral College dynamics for decades. It’s a high-stakes gamble that could cement Republican gains in red states.
Opponents will argue that excluding non-citizens undermines the Constitution’s call to count all “persons.” But supporters see it as a long-overdue correction, ensuring citizens’ voices aren’t drowned out. The debate hinges on whether “persons” includes those here unlawfully -- a question the Supreme Court may finally have to answer.
Trump’s second term is shaping up as a battleground for this census showdown. With a friendly Congress and a seasoned team, the odds of reshaping apportionment are higher than ever. Progressives may wail, but the push to prioritize citizens could redefine America’s political future.
