Elon Musk’s exit this week from leading President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has sparked a firestorm of controversy. A New York Times report alleges the tech mogul’s drug use, including ketamine and ecstasy, may have derailed his political stint, as the Daily Mail reports. The left’s outrage machine is already spinning, but let’s cut through the noise.
Musk, tasked with slashing federal bureaucracy, announced his imminent departure from D.C. on Wednesday via a post on X, the platform he owns. The Times claims that he consumed a daily drug cocktail, including Adderall and psychedelic mushrooms, blurring lines between medicine and recreation. Funny how progressive scribes clutch pearls over personal choices while ignoring border chaos.
As Trump’s aide, Musk aimed to save $2 trillion through DOGE but managed a figure only in the billions, while also slashing thousands of jobs. Insiders say his frequent ketamine use, prescribed for depression, impacted his health and behavior. Actions have consequences, and Musk’s erratic antics perhaps didn’t help his case.
Musk was accused by liberals of flashing a Nazi salute at January rally, fueling critics’ fire. He also brandished a chainsaw at a different conservative gathering, hardly the image of a sober reformer. The woke crowd loves a scandal, but where’s their scrutiny of government bloat?
The Times alleges that Musk partied with drugs at private gatherings here and abroad, basing the claim on texts and interviews. The billionaire mogul previously admitted to biweekly ketamine use, claiming it was medicinal. Transparency matters, but the left’s selective moralizing smells like a political hit job.
SpaceX, Musk’s aerospace giant, enforces a drug-free policy with random tests, yet insiders claim Musk got advance warnings. Meanwhile, Tesla shares tanked during his DOGE tenure, and SpaceX faced launch failures. Success in business doesn’t always translate when it comes to winning bureaucratic knife fights.
Trump, unfazed, called Musk “terrific” and a “genius,” even turning the White House into a veritable Tesla showroom amid protests. The duo’s bromance included UFC nights and rides on Air Force One. Loyalty is rare in politics, but Trump’s support never wavered.
Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, dismissed the Times report, focusing instead on DOGE’s fight against “waste, graft, and corruption.” “I don’t have any concerns,” Miller said. While the left obsesses over Musk’s habits, Miller rightly points to the real drug crisis at the border.
“All I can say is that DOGE has done an extraordinary job rooting out systemic waste,” Miller added. He praised Musk’s leadership in saving billions for taxpayers. The media’s drug fixation conveniently ignores DOGE’s mission to dismantle the swamp.
Musk’s personal life added fuel to the fire, with legal battles over custody of his son, X, with ex-partner Grimes. He has brought X into the public limelight, allegedly violating their agreement, and he has faced rumors of fathering a 14th child with influencer Ashley St. Clair. Personal drama shouldn’t eclipse policy goals, but the left loves a soap opera.
While at DOGE, Musk clashed with Cabinet members and sometimes insulted opponents, showing frustration with bureaucratic hurdles. He compared DOGE to a “way of life, like Buddhism,” revealing his disillusionment. Governing isn’t tweeting, and Musk learned that the hard way.
In his X post, Musk thanked Trump for the opportunity to cut wasteful spending. “The DOGE mission will only strengthen over time,” he wrote. His optimism is admirable, but results matter more than rhetoric in the fight against big government.
Musk, Trump’s largest campaign donor, regularly appeared with his son at the Oval Office and Cabinet meetings. His close ties to Trump, including at joint events, made him a MAGA icon. Yet, his DOGE struggles show that even titans stumble when tackling entrenched power.
Trump and Musk planned a Friday press conference to highlight DOGE’s work, with the president saying, “He will always be with us, helping all the way.” The president’s gratitude is clear, but Musk’s exit signals a pivot. Smart leaders know when to regroup.
Musk voiced disappointment in Trump’s recent "big, beautiful" bill, hinting at a desire to step back from politics. The MAGA base needs fighters, not part-timers, and Musk’s departure leaves DOGE’s future uncertain. Principles over personalities must guide the conservative cause.
A cunning impersonator posing as White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has targeted America’s elite with fraudulent calls and texts, as Breitbart reports. High-profile senators, governors, and business executives received suspicious communications in recent weeks, sparking an FBI investigation. This isn’t the woke left’s usual playbook -- it’s a sophisticated scam that has Washington buzzing.
Someone claiming to be Wiles contacted prominent figures, leveraging hacked personal cellphone data to access their information. The scam involved text messages and phone calls, some featuring a voice eerily similar to Wiles’s, likely crafted with artificial intelligence. It’s a stark reminder that even the MAGA inner circle isn’t immune to digital deception.
The Wall Street Journal broke the bizarre story, revealing the impersonator’s audacious tactics. None of the communications actually came from Wiles, who previously managed President Donald Trump’s successful 2024 campaign. The FBI has ruled out foreign involvement, but that doesn’t make this breach any less alarming.
Authorities were alerted after multiple high-profile individuals reported the dubious messages. Some texts seemed official at first, with one lawmaker asked to compile a pardon list for the president. Imagine the nerve -- trying to manipulate Trump’s agenda with such a blatant con.
Wiles told her inner circle that her contacts were hacked, giving the impersonator a treasure trove of sensitive connections. The scam’s precision suggests a level of tech savvy that should make every conservative wary of Big Tech’s unchecked power. This isn’t just a prank; it’s a wake-up call.
Some calls were so convincing that recipients initially believed they were speaking to Wiles herself. “Some of the calls featured a voice that sounded like Wiles, people who heard them said,” per the WSJ. AI mimicking voices? That’s a dystopian twist even Orwell couldn’t conjure.
Government officials suspect that AI was used to replicate Wiles’s voice, adding a chilling layer to the fraud. The impersonator’s messages sometimes included poor grammar, a dead giveaway for those paying attention. Sloppy syntax isn’t exactly the hallmark of a Trump appointee.
One lawmaker was brazenly asked for a cash transfer -- because nothing screams “legit” like a shady money request. Others were quizzed about Trump in ways that raised red flags, as Wiles would never phrase things so clumsily. The scam unraveled when sharp-eyed recipients smelled a rat.
Many contacted Wiles directly to verify the messages before responding, a smart move in an era of digital trickery. Some, however, engaged with the impersonator before realizing the truth. It’s a humbling lesson: even the powerful can be duped if they let their guard down.
Wiles has urged her contacts to ignore the fraudulent messages and apologized for the inconvenience. “Wiles has urged some of her contacts to disregard the messages, and she has apologized,” per the WSJ. Her quick response shows the kind of leadership the left could only dream of emulating.
The administration isn’t taking this lightly. “The White House takes the cybersecurity of all staff very seriously, and this matter continues to be investigated,” a spokeswoman said. Good, because protecting Trump’s team from these schemes is non-negotiable.
FBI Director Kash Patel is on the case, emphasizing the severity of the threat. “The FBI takes all threats against the president, his staff, and our cybersecurity with the utmost seriousness,” Patel said. His no-nonsense approach is exactly what we need to squash this nonsense.
The impersonator’s requests, such as the one requesting the compilation of a pardon list, were designed to exploit trust in Wiles’s position. “In some of the text messages, people received requests that they initially believed to be official,” per the WSJ. It’s a bold move to prey on loyalty to Trump’s administration.
This incident exposes the vulnerabilities even in a fortified MAGA camp. The use of AI and hacked data isn’t just a personal attack 00 it’s a shot at the heart of conservative leadership. Progressives might cheer, but they’d scream if their own were targeted.
America deserves better than a digital Wild West where scammers can impersonate top officials. Wiles’s team is fighting back, but this saga proves we need stronger cybersecurity, not more woke platitudes about “digital equity.” It’s time to lock down these threats.
Elon Musk just pulled the plug on his Washington adventure, leaving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with a parting shot at bureaucratic nonsense, as Breitbart reports. The tech mogul was chosen by Donald Trump in November 2024 to lead the charge against government waste and to untangle federal red tape. Now, he’s done, and the swamp’s still murky.
Musk’s stint as a special government employee leading DOGE aimed to gut excess regulations and restructure bloated agencies. His 130-day tenure, capped by law, ends as May 2025 wraps up, right on schedule. The mission to make government leaner continues, but Musk has had enough of D.C.’s inertia.
From the get-go, DOGE was Trump’s brainchild to drain the swamp of wasteful spending. Musk, a billionaire with a knack for disruption, seemed the perfect fit to shake things up. Yet, the New York Times notes that he is keeping some distance from Trump, even if White House insiders insist they’re still chummy.
Musk didn’t mince words about his D.C. experience, slamming the “rot embedded deep within Washington.” He stated, “As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending." Sounds polite, but you can hear the gritted teeth.
That frustration peaked when Musk torched the Trump-backed “big, beautiful bill” he claimed sabotaged DOGE’s efforts. Congress, he fumed, has barely budged on meaningful reform, leaving his grand vision half-baked. Turns out, even a tech titan can’t outsmart Capitol Hill’s playbook.
Still, Musk’s cheerleaders are singing his praises. “The work DOGE has done to eliminate government waste and corruption … is among the most valuable services ever rendered to government,” gushed Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff. Valuable? Sure, but the swamp’s still swampy.
Miller’s not alone in his applause. “And the work has only just begun,” he added, hinting DOGE’s mission will outlive Musk’s exit. That’s optimistic, but without Musk’s star power, will the momentum fizzle?
Conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk piled on the gratitude. “A grateful nation thanks you,” Kirk declared, crediting Musk with changing the federal government’s culture. Changing culture is nice, but bloated budgets don’t shrink on good vibes alone.
Kirk wasn’t done. “You changed the culture of the federal government for the better -- an incredibly difficult feat,” he said. Difficult? Try Herculean, when every bureaucrat has a desk to defend.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene also tipped her hat. “Thank you @elonmusk for your incredible efforts and sacrifices you made to launch DOGE to save America from our national debt crisis,” she said. Noble words, but Congress’s inaction makes her plea for “cutting waste, fraud, and abuse” sound like a pipe dream.
Greene’s not wrong, though. “This should only be the beginning of delivering government efficiency for the American people,” she urged. Too bad Congress prefers grandstanding over governing.
An anonymous supporter echoed the sentiment: “Although Congress has failed to act significantly, you have awakened many people to the true and utter corruption of our supposed representatives.” Awakened? Maybe, but sleepy Washington’s hitting the snooze button.
Another anonymous fan called Musk a “true American Patriot” who “sacrificed his billionaire lifestyle” for the cause. Sacrificed? Let’s not forget he’s heading back to Tesla and SpaceX, not a soup kitchen.
“The @DOGE mission will strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government,” Musk predicted. Bold claim, but without his boots on the ground, DOGE risks becoming another forgotten acronym.
Ultimately, Musk’s 130 days in D.C. exposed the federal government’s underbelly but didn’t gut it. “America owns a great debt to Elon Musk,” claimed another anonymous admirer. Debt? Sure, but the nation’s still drowning in red ink, and Musk’s just one man who tried.
A brawl between Secret Service officers erupted right outside Barack Obama’s D.C. doorstep last week. Two female Uniformed Division officers clashed in a late-night scuffle, captured on video, that’s now raising eyebrows about discipline within the agency, as the Daily Caller reports. This isn’t the polished image the Secret Service wants you to see.
At 2:30 a.m. on the morning in question, frustration over a late shift replacement boiled over into verbal and physical aggression, with one officer itching to “whoop” her tardy colleague, per an audio clip from Real Clear Politics. The incident, involving three individuals seen in the footage, unfolded in front of former President Obama’s Washington residence. It’s a stunning lapse for an agency tasked with protecting the nation’s elite.
The altercation began when one officer, fed up with her replacement’s delay, called for a supervisor, only to escalate things herself with fists and fury. Real Clear Politics dropped the video on Tuesday, showing the chaotic scene. Apparently, punctuality is a bigger trigger than you’d expect for those guarding former presidents.
Michael Matranga, a former Secret Service agent, reviewed the footage and didn’t mince words: one officer was the aggressor, while a third person tried to break it up. “After reviewing the footage and listening to the audio transmission of the incident, it appears there was a grievance between the two officers,” he said. Sounds like personal discipline took a backseat to personal grudges.
Matranga’s take is blunt: this mess stems from a “lack of personal discipline,” not some diversity quota gone wrong. “Furthermore, I do not believe DEI has anything to do with this situation,” he clarified. Good to know the woke agenda isn’t the culprit here -- just plain old bad behavior.
As of Tuesday afternoon, no word on injuries or disciplinary action for the brawling agents. The Secret Service, already under fire, can’t afford another black eye. Yet here we are, watching elite officers trade punches like it’s a bar fight, not a protection detail.
This incident lands as the Secret Service grapples with its reputation after two failed assassination attempts on the life of then-candidate Donald Trump in 2024. Those fumbles led to intense scrutiny and the resignation of former Director Kimberly Cheatle. The agency’s troubles didn’t end with her exit.
Cheatle had previously pushed something known as the 30×30 pledge, aiming for 30% female recruits by 2030, but incidents like this raise questions about readiness, not quotas. The Secret Service even rolled out a glitzy Michael Bay-directed ad during the 2025 Super Bowl to boost recruitment. Flashy commercials don’t fix fistfights, though.
Acting Director Ronald L. Rowe Jr. admitted in September that the agency’s resources were stretched thin. “We have finite resources and we are stretching those resources to their maximum right now,” he said at a press conference. Maybe that strain explains why tempers flared outside Obama’s house.
Despite the drama, the Secret Service hired over 400 special agents by the end of the fiscal year, Rowe boasted. That’s great, but quantity doesn’t equal quality when officers are brawling on duty. A $231 million funding boost from House Speaker Mike Johnson’s September spending bill might help, but only if it’s spent wisely.
The Department of Homeland Security, led by Secretary Kristi Noem, also launched a new ad campaign in April to lure recruits. Shiny ads and extra cash are one thing, but restoring discipline is another. You can’t protect a former president if you’re too busy fighting each other.
Matranga is confident the Secret Service will investigate and discipline the officers involved. “I am certain that through a thorough investigation, disciplinary action will be taken -- as it should be,” he said. Let’s hope so, because actions have consequences, even for those with badges.
The video’s a wake-up call: the Secret Service needs to get its house in order. Brawls in front of a former president’s home don’t inspire confidence in an agency already on thin ice. The public deserves better from those entrusted with such critical duties.
This isn’t about gender or diversity -- it’s about professionalism, or the lack thereof. Matranga’s right: personal discipline, not politics, is the issue here. The Secret Service can’t afford to let petty disputes tarnish its mission.
As the agency pushes for more recruits and funding, it must prioritize training and accountability. Flashy ads and big budgets won’t fix a culture where officers settle scores with fists. The Secret Service has work to do, and it starts with ensuring incidents like this never happen again.
Harvard University’s federal gravy train just hit a brick wall. The Trump administration is poised to terminate all remaining federal contracts with the Ivy League giant, valued at roughly $100 million, citing its failure to address antisemitism and discriminatory practices, as the New York Post reports. This bold move signals a reckoning for elite institutions dodging accountability.
The administration’s crackdown follows a freeze on $3.2 billion in Harvard contracts, with fresh orders to sever ties and find new vendors. A Tuesday memo from the U.S. General Services Administration demands that agencies report terminated contracts by June 6. Harvard’s alleged inaction on antisemitism and racial bias in admissions sparked the drastic action.
Earlier this month, the administration flagged Harvard for four violations: antisemitism, racial discrimination, declining academic rigor, and stifled viewpoint diversity. A stern letter to Harvard President Alan Garber demanded reforms, including merit-based hiring and admissions, stronger whistleblower protections, and scrapping diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. No compliance, no cash -- simple as that.
The Tuesday memo urges agencies to ditch Harvard for alternative vendors. If Harvard is deemed the only option, agencies must justify keeping it on the government’s books. “Each agency should consider its contracts with Harvard University,” the memo states, hinting at a broader push for accountability.
The memo emphasizes that taxpayer dollars should flow to vendors upholding nondiscrimination and national interests. “As fiduciaries to the taxpayer, the government has a duty,” it declares, framing Harvard as a liability. Actions have consequences, and Harvard’s facing them head-on.
Harvard’s current contracts include a $49,858 National Institutes of Health deal for coffee consumption research and a $25,800 Homeland Security contract for executive training. Nine federal agencies are affected, though specifics remain undisclosed. The administration’s resolve suggests no agency is spared scrutiny.
Harvard’s endowment, a hefty $53.2 billion, now faces new threats. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent floated the idea of revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status, which could hammer its finances. House Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” could spike endowment taxes to 21%, costing Harvard $850 million annually.
Last week, a U.S. judge temporarily blocked the administration from barring Harvard’s foreign student enrollment. With 6,800 international students -- 27% of its enrollment -- Harvard’s tuition revenue hangs in the balance. The administration’s push to deport thousands of these students adds fuel to the fire.
President Trump didn’t mince words on Truth Social, demanding a list of Harvard’s visa-backed students. He called out “radicalized lunatics” and “troublemakers,” signaling a hardline stance. Harvard’s refusal to comply only deepens the standoff.
Harvard President Alan Garber told NPR, “We need to be firm in our commitments.” Sounds noble, but it sidesteps the administration’s demands for tangible reform. Garber’s talk of “serving our nation” rings hollow when antisemitism and bias allegations pile up.
Garber claimed Harvard’s leaders “fully embrace” the national good. Yet the administration’s detailed demands -- merit-based systems, viewpoint diversity, and a crackdown on antisemitism -- suggest that Harvard has been coasting on rhetoric. Talk is cheap; results matter.
The administration pushed Harvard to negotiate and prove compliance. So far, Harvard’s response seems more about deflecting than delivering. Meanwhile, Columbia University bent to similar demands last month to save $400 million in funding.
Harvard is not alone in facing the heat. The administration’s memo signals a broader push to hold other elite institutions accountable as well. “Ensure the safeguarding of taxpayer money,” it demands, putting other universities on notice.
The move reflects a growing frustration with academia’s progressive drift. When institutions prioritize ideology over merit, they risk losing public trust and funds. Harvard’s predicament is a wake-up call for ivory towers everywhere.
Turns out, actions do have consequences. Harvard has been warned, and the clock is ticking. Will it reform, or will it double down on defiance?
President Donald Trump’s "Big Beautiful Bill" is tearing the GOP apart. Republican senators, led by Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, are digging in their heels, slamming the bill as a debt-exploding betrayal of conservative values, as the Daily Mail reports. This isn’t the MAGA revolution they signed up for, they say.
Trump’s bill, which sailed through the House last week despite five GOP defectors, slaps $3.8 trillion onto the already bloated $36 trillion national debt. It’s a cocktail of tax cuts, immigration tweaks, and deep Medicaid slashes that’s got the bond market twitching. Republican unity? More like a civil war.
The House passed the bill, but the Senate is where the real fight is brewing. With a slim 53-47 GOP majority, Senate Majority Leader John Thune can’t afford to lose more than three votes, even with Vice President JD Vance ready to break a tie. Trouble is, the rebels are multiplying.
Johnson, a MAGA stalwart, is leading the charge, vowing to tank the bill unless it shrinks significantly. “Right now we’re blowing it,” he warned on the All-In podcast, calling it the GOP’s “one big opportunity” to tackle the debt crisis. Sounds like someone’s ready to face a Trump Truth Social firestorm.
Johnson’s not alone -- Sen. Rand Paul is also waving the red flag. “It’s not conservative,” Paul told reporters, blasting the bill’s historic $4 trillion debt ceiling hike. He’ll only back it if that ceiling’s yanked out entirely.
Sens. Josh Hawley, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Jerry Moran are also balking, but their beef is with the Medicaid cuts. These aren’t your typical RINOs -- they’re just not keen on gutting healthcare for the poor while the debt soars. Principles over party, anyone?
The Congressional Budget Office isn’t mincing words, saying that the bill will balloon the national debt by $3.8 trillion. Interest payments on that debt already outstrip defense spending as a share of GDP. Keep this up, and we’ll be paying more to bondholders than to our troops.
Last week’s bond market dip sent a clear message: investors are spooked. Fears are mounting that the government might struggle to meet its debt obligations if this bill passes. Actions have consequences, and the market is sounding the alarm.
Johnson’s not just whining -- he’s got a plan. He’s pushing a three-step alternative: fund border security, extend current tax laws to avoid hikes, and tackle spending separately. “You don’t defeat the deep state by funding it at Biden’s levels,” he jabbed on the All-In podcast.
Other senators are hedging their bets. Rick Scott, Lindsey Graham, and Mike Lee want spending cuts but haven’t sworn to kill the bill. Graham, ever the skeptic, called the bill’s spending reductions “not real” to CNN’s Manu Raju.
“Don’t get high on our horse,” Graham added, warning against fake fiscal victories. He’s not wrong—slapping a “conservative” label on a debt-busting bill doesn’t make it true. The GOP is flirting with hypocrisy here.
Johnson’s ready to play hardball, even if it means defying Trump. “I’m willing to risk Trump’s wrath,” he declared on CNN’s State of the Union, vowing to leave the bill in limbo until spending is reined in. That’s the kind of spine conservatives crave.
Johnson didn’t stop there, invoking Memorial Day sacrifices to drive his point home. “I don’t think they served in sacrifice to leave our children completely mortgaged,” he said on CNN. It’s a gut punch to anyone waving the patriot flag while ignoring the debt.
Paul’s equally blunt about the debt ceiling hike. “We’ve never, ever voted to raise the debt ceiling this much,” he told reporters. Conservatives cheering Trump’s bill might want to check their math.
The Senate stands at a crossroads: back Trump’s flashy bill or hold the line for fiscal sanity. Johnson’s warning rings loud: “If the bill passes in its current form, Republicans would be really no better than Democrats.” Time to pick a side, GOP -- freedom or free lunch?
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s fiery X post from earlier this week has liberals clutching their pearls. On Thursday, she dropped a blunt "Suck it" alongside news that the ACLU ditched a lawsuit against her department, as the Daily Mail reports. The internet erupted, proving once again that Noem knows how to stir the pot.
The ACLU’s lawsuit, filed on behalf of ten detained migrants, crumbled when some plaintiffs were deported and others backed out. Noem’s department faced accusations of planning to ship these migrants to Guantánamo Bay without legal grounds. Her two-word victory lap on X was a classic jab at the progressive agenda.
Conservatives cheered Noem’s unapologetic style, with one MAGA fan tweeting, "Best response EVER!!!" Critics, predictably, whined about professionalism, with one tying her post to her past dog-shooting controversy. Actions have consequences, and Noem’s clearly done playing nice.
Noem, dubbed "ICE Barbie" for her frequent outfit switches, has been a lightning rod for criticism. Her photo ops, like sporting an ill-fitting bulletproof vest, draw snark from detractors such as Meghan McCain. Yet her base loves the flair, calling her a refreshing antidote to woke bureaucracy.
Back in January, Noem tweeted about joining ICE agents for a 4:43 a.m. New York City raid, a move critics said risked the mission. "Live this AM from NYC. I'm on it," she posted, showing her hands-on approach. Some call it reckless; others say it’s leadership.
The ACLU’s failed lawsuit centered on claims that Noem’s department violated federal law by eyeing Guantánamo for migrant transfers. Two plaintiffs, Venezuelan parents, were separated from their toddler, who was sent to foster care. Noem’s team justified it, alleging the parents were tied to the Tren de Aragua drug gang.
The Trump administration’s immigration crackdown has deported thousands, mostly from Latin America, since February. Over 4,000 have been sent to Venezuela alone, with Noem’s department targeting those they claim are undocumented or gang affiliated. It’s a policy that delivers results, even if it ruffles feathers.
Noem’s "Suck it" post wasn’t just a taunt; it signaled victory in a legal battle. "That's why Americans love you!" one supporter gushed online. The left’s meltdown only proves they can’t handle a strong conservative woman.
Guantánamo Bay is set to become a holding center for 30,000 migrants labeled the “worst criminal aliens,” per Noem’s department. “President Donald Trump has been very clear: Guantanamo Bay will hold the worst of the worst,” Noem declared. It’s a bold move that’s got progressives in a tizzy.
On Wednesday, Noem revived the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) office at ICE headquarters. Originally launched in 2017 under Trump, it was scrapped by Biden in 2021. Now, it’s back to support families harmed by crimes linked to unauthorized migrants.
Illegal border crossings have plummeted to historic lows under Trump’s policies, a win Noem’s team touts proudly. Yet critics like Megyn Kelly argue her photo ops overshadow the department’s struggles to deport millions, as Trump promised. Style over substance? Hardly—results speak louder.
Inside DHS, some grumble that Noem acts more like a spokeswoman than a leader. Her town hall entrance to “Hot Mama” raised eyebrows, but supporters say it’s just her owning the room. Confidence isn’t a crime, despite what the woke crowd thinks.
Noem’s changes at DHS, like voluntary staff exits and lie detector tests, aim to root out disloyalty. It’s a no-nonsense approach to a department plagued by leaks. The left calls it authoritarian; conservatives call it cleaning house.
Online, Noem’s fans revel in her defiance, with one supporter saying, “That’s not very ladylike...and I love it!” Critics countered, “Coming from the Secretary of the Homeland, what are you getting at?” The snowflakes always melt when Noem turns up the heat.
Noem’s tenure shows Trump’s immigration agenda in action: tough, unapologetic, and effective. While the ACLU retreats and critics cry foul, she’s delivering on promises to secure the border. Liberals can clutch their pearls all they want -- Kristi Noem’s just getting started.
California’s electric vehicle dreams just hit a brick wall. On Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted to dismantle the Golden State’s federal waiver, effectively killing its aggressive EV mandate, as the Washington Free Beacon reports. The decision delivers a sharp rebuke to climate activists pushing for a gas-free future.
The Senate’s 51-44 vote, backed by every voting Republican and one Democrat, Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, halts California’s plan to force automakers to sell a rising percentage of EVs starting in 2025, culminating in a 2035 gas car ban. Introduced by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia in April 2025, the resolution sailed through the House with a 246-164 vote, including 35 Democrats. President Donald Trump is poised to sign it into law, cementing a major campaign promise.
California’s EV mandate, passed in 2022, leaned on a 1970 Clean Air Act provision allowing the state to set stricter vehicle emissions rules than federal standards. The Biden administration granted the required waiver in December 2024, letting California and a dozen other states enforce strict EV sales quotas. But Congress has now slammed the brakes, reminding Sacramento that it doesn’t call the shots for the entire nation.
Capito didn’t mince words: “The impact of California’s waiver would have been felt across the country, harming multiple sectors of our economy.” She’s right -- mandating EVs in a market where only 8.1% of new car sales were battery electric in 2024 is a recipe for economic chaos. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation noted a mere 0.5% sales increase from 2023, proving consumers aren’t clamoring for EVs.
California’s law demanded that 35% of 2026 model-year vehicles in the state and 11 other states be electric. John Bozzella, head of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, called the targets “never achievable,” warning that automakers would need a “miracle” to comply. Forcing square-peg mandates into a round-hole market was always a progressive pipe dream.
Trump, campaigning against what he called the “crazed concept of ‘all Electric Cars,’” argued that it would devastate Michigan’s auto industry. He’s not wrong -- shuttering gas-powered car production threatens jobs and consumer choice. The Senate’s vote ensures Americans can still buy the vehicles they want, not what Sacramento dictates.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom predictably wailed that the resolution will “cede American car-industry dominance to China and clog the lungs of our children.” Nice try, but exaggerating health risks and waving the China bogeyman won’t change the math -- EVs aren’t ready to dominate. Newsom’s vision of a green utopia ignores the economic wreckage left in its wake.
Democrats and green energy groups also whined about procedural violations, claiming that Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Republicans played dirty. Sour grapes don’t change the outcome -- bipartisan support, including Slotkin’s vote, shows that even some Democrats see the mandate’s flaws. Actions have consequences, and voters are tired of elite overreach.
The House’s resounding 246-164 vote, with 35 Democrats crossing party lines, underscores the mandate’s unpopularity. Major energy, free-market, and consumer groups cheered the Senate’s decision, recognizing it protects jobs and affordability. Meanwhile, climate activists are left clutching their pearls, stunned that their agenda isn’t universally adored.
Bozzella nailed it: “There’s a significant gap between the marketplace and these EV sales requirements.” Automakers, already struggling with supply chains and inflation, faced an impossible task meeting California’s quotas. The resolution frees them to innovate without bureaucratic shackles.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute celebrated, with presidents Chet Thompson and Mike Sommers stating, “Congress has made clear that California regulators have no authority to dictate what cars Americans can buy.” Their joint statement highlights the resolution’s role in fulfilling Trump’s pledge to end EV mandates. It’s a win for common sense over ideological zeal.
California’s 2022 mandate was a classic case of progressive hubris, assuming regulators could force consumer behavior. The 2035 gas car ban was the cherry on top, a dystopian vision where choice goes to die. The Senate’s vote restores sanity, letting the market, not bureaucrats, decide the future of transportation.
The dozen states that adopted California’s rules now face reality: you can’t legislate innovation overnight. With only 8.1% of U.S. car sales being electric in 2024, forcing a 35% quota by 2026 was laughably detached. Consumers, not coastal elites, will shape the auto industry’s future.
Trump’s expected signature on the resolution will cap this saga, delivering a blow to the climate lobby’s overreach. It’s a reminder that elections matter, and voters rejected heavy-handed mandates. The gas pump isn’t going anywhere just yet.
For now, Americans can breathe easier, knowing their car-buying freedom is intact. California’s EV fantasy has been grounded, and the Senate’s vote proves even bipartisan lawmakers see through the green haze. Here’s to driving what we want, not what Newsom dreams.
A bombshell new book exposes the ways in which Joe Biden’s loyal spokesman was used as a pawn to mask the president’s faltering mental sharpness. Original Sin by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson unveils a White House strategy to silence questions about the then-commander in chief's health, as Fox News reports. It’s a tale of loyalty exploited and truth suppressed.
The book, penned by CNN’s Tapper and Thompson 0f Axios, claims former deputy press secretary Andrew Bates was a key defender of Biden’s mental acuity, despite rarely seeing the president himself. It alleges that Biden’s inner circle fed Bates information, leaving him to parrot their narrative without firsthand knowledge.
Bates, second only to press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in handling media, became the public face dismissing concerns about Biden’s age and health. He relied on senior staff for details about the president’s condition, a dependency the book says was exploited. The White House’s goal? Control the narrative at all costs.
“Some of Bates’s colleagues believed that Biden’s inner circle took advantage of his loyalty and told him to deny things they knew were true,” the authors write. That’s a polite way of saying Bates was set up to take the fall. Loyalty to Biden blinded him to the truth he was selling.
The book details a Biden campaign and White House “modus operandi” of attacking journalists who dared report on the president’s decline. Reporters faced shaming and pushback to discourage coverage of Biden’s age or mental slips. It’s the kind of media bullying that thrives in a woke echo chamber.
Weeks before a Wall Street Journal story on Biden’s struggles, a national news outlet reporter heard from aides about the president’s “serious and disturbing” moments, like forgetting names or seeming confused. The White House press office pounced, disputing the claims aggressively. Former deputy chief of staff Steve Ricchetti even called the reporter to deny the story off the record.
Ricchetti’s call wasn’t just a defense -- it was a warning. The book says the White House aimed to paint the reporter as a liar if she published, scaring her into abandoning the story. That’s not transparency; it is intimidation dressed up as press management.
Two weeks after a disastrous Biden debate performance, Bates took to X to praise the president’s competence. “Joe Biden does not have a doctorate in foreign affairs. He’s just that f---ing good,” he posted. The book calls this sycophantic, a tone-deaf echo of Biden’s inner circle’s delusions.
“[The remark] reflected the views of the Politburo, but among professional Democrats, it became an instant legend for its sycophancy,” the authors note. Bates’ blind devotion didn’t just hurt his credibility -- it fueled a false narrative. Actions have consequences, and this post has aged like milk.
Bates pushed back, calling the book’s narrative “distorted” and selective. “This gets important facts wrong,” a former Biden staffer echoed, defending Bates’ role as a senior spokesperson who traveled with Biden and handled major issues. But their protests sound like damage control for a sinking ship.
The staffer insisted that Bates met Biden in the Oval Office, on Air Force One, and across the country, painting him as a trusted insider. They also claimed he was respectful when colleagues dodged tough interviews. Yet the book’s core charge -- that Bates was fed a script -- remains unanswered.
The book’s release has ignited fierce debate, with some slamming the media and Biden’s team for allegedly burying the truth about his decline. Fox News Digital, for example, long reported on Biden’s cognitive struggles, pointing to his inner circle’s role in the cover-up. The silence from mainstream outlets only fuels suspicion.
Naomi Biden, the president’s granddaughter, dismissed the book as “silly” and “political fairy smut.” Her flippant response sidesteps the serious allegations of a coordinated effort to mislead the public. It’s the kind of deflection you’d expect from a family in denial.
A Biden spokesperson insisted the book doesn’t prove a cover-up or show that the president was ever failing in his duties. “Joe Biden was an effective president who led our country with empathy and skill,” they claimed. But empathy doesn’t erase the reality of a leader struggling behind closed doors.
CNN, Tapper’s network, faced backlash for promoting the book, with critics like Jon Stewart and ABC's The View piling on. The spokesperson’s claim that national security was never at risk feels like a weak dodge. If Biden’s team hid his decline, what else did they conceal?
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stumbled spectacularly during a congressional hearing, mangling the definition of Habeas Corpus like a rookie at a constitutional law pop quiz, as the Daily Mail reports.
Social media erupted, with critics pouncing on her error as evidence of a shaky grasp on basic rights. The gaffe, tied to heated immigration debates, underscores the Trump administration’s knack for stepping on legal rakes.
On Tuesday, Noem testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, where she faced Sen. Maggie Hassan’s pointed question about habeas corpus. The incident, alongside backlash over deportations to South Sudan, fueled a firestorm over constitutional protections. Progressives gleefully seized the moment to paint Noem as out of her depth.
Hassan asked, “Secretary Noem, what is Habeas Corpus?” Noem confidently claimed it allows presidents to deport people and suspend their rights -- a definition as accurate as calling a hammer a screwdriver. Hassan swiftly corrected her, but Noem doubled down, insisting presidents hold that power.
The concept of habeas corpus, a cornerstone of American liberty, ensures that no one, citizen or not, can be detained without legal justification. Noem’s blunder suggested a dangerous conflation with deportation authority, alarming those who value checks on government power. Her error wasn’t just academic; it waved a red flag over the administration’s immigration playbook.
Sen. Hassan emphasized that habeas corpus prevents the government from holding people indefinitely without a public reason, a principle separating free nations from tyrannies. “It’s the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea,” she said. Her jab landed hard, exposing Noem’s misstep as more than a verbal fumble.
Noem, undeterred, maintained that presidents can suspend habeas corpus, citing historical precedents. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin backed her, noting, “Presidents have suspended habeas corpus in practice -- Lincoln, Grant, FDR, and Bush -- all during moments of crisis.” But McLaughlin admitted Congress technically holds that authority, revealing Noem’s overreach.
Social media critics didn’t hold back, with one sniping, “Noem just confused habeas corpus with deportation powers.” Another quipped that her ignorance signaled “the dumbest of times.” Their sanctimonious outrage, while predictable, conveniently ignored the complexity of immigration enforcement in a crisis.
The hearing’s backdrop was the Trump administration’s deportation of migrants to South Sudan, a move Democrats decried as reckless. The group included serious criminals—five murderers and a pedophile -- yet only one was a South Sudanese citizen. Critics argued the administration flouted a court order restricting such third-country removals.
U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy ruled on Tuesday, that officials must retain custody of the migrants pending review of their deportations’ legality. Attorneys for the migrants, hailing from countries like Burma and Vietnam, claimed the administration ignored judicial limits. The ruling threw a wrench into the deportation machinery, delighting open-borders advocates.
Democrats hammered Noem and “border czar” Tom Homan, accusing them of trampling constitutional rights. Their lectures about habeas corpus rang hollow, given their silence on criminal migrants exploiting legal loopholes. Still, Noem’s fumble gave them ample ammunition to grandstand. Hassan pressed Noem on whether she supported habeas corpus’s core protection. “I support habeas corpus,” Noem replied, but added that presidents can decide when to suspend it. Her stance, while rooted in historical examples, ignored the constitutional reality that Congress, not the executive, holds the reins.
McLaughlin’s defense of Noem leaned on presidents like Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus but later sought congressional approval. The precedent exists, but Noem’s sloppy articulation muddied the waters. She handed critics a stick to beat the administration with, and they swung hard.
The South Sudan deportations, involving criminals from Cuba, Mexico, and beyond, highlighted the administration’s tough-on-crime stance. Yet Noem’s habeas corpus flub shifted focus from policy to her apparent ignorance. It’s a classic case of the left’s outrage machine turning a molehill into a mountain.
Social media’s pile-on framed Noem as a constitutional lightweight, with one critic sneering she “can’t define basic constitutional rights.” Their smugness reeks of elitism, but Noem’s error was a self-inflicted wound. She needs to brush up on Civics 101 before her next Capitol Hill showdown.
The incident underscores a broader truth: the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, while necessary, keeps tripping over legal and rhetorical landmines. Noem’s misstep, though embarrassing, doesn’t negate the urgency of securing borders against criminal elements. But next time, she’d better bring a dictionary -- or at least a cheat sheet.
