A Pentagon aide’s sharp tongue has landed him in hot water with Trump loyalists.
Ricky Buria, a top aide to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, has been slamming President Trump and Vice President JD Vance, causing a stir among the MAGA faithful, the New York Post reported.
Buria, a 43-year-old Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel, serves as Hegseth’s de facto chief of staff, a rare holdover from the Biden administration. He’s been a key player in the Pentagon since his days as a junior aide to former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Yet, his vocal criticism of Trump’s policies has sparked a fierce backlash.
In February 2025, Buria called Trump’s use of military aircraft for migrant repatriation and Guantanamo Bay deportations a “dumb waste of money.” He’s also trashed Vance’s foreign policy as “wackamamie crazy” and “isolationist.” Apparently, subtlety isn’t in his playbook.
Buria’s influence grew when he encouraged Hegseth to fire three top aides in April 2025, including non-interventionist Dan Caldwell. “He said, ‘These guys need to go,’” one source noted, revealing Buria’s ruthless streak. Such moves have painted him as a schemer, sidelining MAGA loyalists.
The White House, sensing trouble, blocked Buria’s permanent chief of staff appointment, citing his misalignment with Trump’s agenda. “All political appointees go through a vetting process, and anyone with Ricky’s past would not make it through step one,” a source quipped. Actions, it seems, have consequences.
Buria’s clashes extend beyond policy. On March 5, 2025, he demanded a seat on a helicopter during a border trip with Vance’s team but was denied due to limited space. His tantrum didn’t win him any friends in Trumpworld.
Buria’s disregard for protocol is glaring. He’s been spotted bringing Hegseth’s personal cellphone into a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility at least a dozen times, flouting security rules. “Ricky has both custody of and access to the secretary’s phone,” a source said, hinting at his unsettling control.
His ambitions don’t stop at the Pentagon. Buria, who donated $100 to a Democratic candidate in 2023, has openly discussed running for Florida governor as a Democrat. “He made it very clear that he wore a different political stripe,” a source revealed, exposing his true colors.
In April 2025, Buria submitted retirement paperwork from the Marine Corps, eyeing a political appointment. His cozy ties with Hegseth’s wife, Jennifer, whom he accompanied to their Tennessee home, have fueled suspicions. Loyalty, it appears, is a flexible concept for Buria.
Buria’s role in ousting aides like Caldwell, Darin Selnick, and Colin Carroll has drawn ire. He even urged Jennifer Hegseth to push her husband to fire them, a move one source called weaponizing “his closeness to the secretary and his wife.” This isn’t ambition—it’s sabotage.
In late February or early March 2025, Buria handed his cellphone to Jennifer Hegseth to prove his loyalty amid distrust. “No, Jen looked through his phone, and there were no Lloyd Austin messages,” a source recounted. The gesture reeks of desperation, not devotion.
Buria’s defenders call him “incredibly intelligent and hardworking,” but his critics aren’t buying it. “This is without question the worst in a string of bad judgment calls recently by Secretary Hegseth,” one source told The Post. Hardworking or not, Buria’s agenda smells of disloyalty.
Buria’s China hawk stance contrasts with his disdain for Trump’s border policies, which he called a waste of resources. “He hated and loathed the border mission,” a source said, emphasizing his obsession with China. Such priorities clash with the administration’s focus, stirring unease.
His public moves, like praising Biden’s Pentagon spokeswoman on LinkedIn and attending a Mark Milley portrait unveiling on January 12, 2025, scream defiance. Add his March 21, 2025, meeting with Elon Musk, and Buria’s networking game is undeniable. But to what end?
Five aides, including Caldwell and John Ullyot, left or were fired in April 2025, with some suspected of leaks. Ullyot’s April 20, 2025, Politico op-ed slammed Pentagon leadership, echoing wider concerns. Buria’s rise, it seems, is a symptom of deeper dysfunction.
President Donald Trump’s bold move to appoint Fox News star Jeanine Pirro as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia signals a return to strong, no-nonsense leadership in Washington.
On Thursday, Trump announced Pirro’s selection after withdrawing his earlier nominee, Ed Martin, due to Senate Republican pushback, and this decision underscores the president's commitment to placing trusted, high-profile figures in key roles to advance his America First agenda, as the Washington Times reports.
Trump’s choice of Pirro came swiftly after Senate Republicans blocked Martin’s path forward. Martin, a staunch defender of those involved in the Jan. 6, 2025, Capitol events, faced fierce opposition from moderate Republicans like Sen. Thom Tillis. Pirro’s appointment reflects Trump’s pivot to a candidate with broader appeal and a proven track record.
Pirro, widely known as “Judge Jeanine,” brings a wealth of experience from her time as a prosecutor and elected judge in Westchester County, New York. Her tough-on-crime stance and sharp legal mind have made her a household name among conservatives. Since joining Fox News in 2006, she has co-hosted “The Five” and produced legal content, amplifying her influence.
Martin’s nomination unraveled after Tillis publicly opposed him on May 6. Tillis criticized Martin’s dismissal of Justice Department cases tied to the Jan. 6 Capitol unrest, arguing that all involved deserved penalties. Without Tillis’s support, Martin’s confirmation stalled in the Judiciary Committee.
Martin, who served briefly as interim U.S. Attorney, sparked outrage by firing or demoting nearly two dozen lawyers prosecuting Jan. 6 cases. His actions and prior defense of rioters drew sharp criticism from Democrats, who also slammed his lack of prosecutorial experience. Senate Majority Leader John Thune signaled his belief that Martin’s nomination was doomed, prompting Trump’s withdrawal.
Trump announced Martin’s exit and Pirro’s appointment in a Truth Social post, calling her “Judge Jeanine.” He praised her as one of New York’s top district attorneys, stating she is “in a class by herself.” While Trump did not clarify if Pirro’s role is permanent, he noted Senate approval would be required for a lasting appointment.
The withdrawal of Martin’s nomination marked a rare concession to Senate pressures. Trump expressed disappointment, saying, “It was disappointing, I’ll be honest.” Martin’s interim tenure as U.S. attorney ends on May 20. If no new attorney is confirmed by then, the 24 judges of the U.S. District Court in Washington will appoint a temporary replacement. This deadline added urgency to Trump’s efforts to secure Pirro’s position or select another nominee.
Pirro’s appointment aligns with Trump’s pattern of elevating Fox News personalities to prominent roles. Alongside Pirro, Pete Hegseth was tapped for Defense secretary, and Sean Duffy for Transportation secretary. These selections highlight Trump’s trust in media allies who share his vision for restoring American strength.
Tillis played an undeniably pivotal role in derailing Martin’s nomination. He insisted that “every single person” who entered the Capitol illegally on Jan. 6 should face consequences, clashing with Martin’s views. Tillis’s stance led to a deadlock, as Sen. Chuck Grassley subsequently omitted Martin’s vote from the Judiciary Committee’s schedule.
Democrats piled on, accusing Martin of inflammatory rhetoric, including comparing former President Joseph R. Biden to Adolf Hitler. They also criticized his threats against political opponents, further eroding his Senate support. These attacks underscored the polarized climate surrounding Trump’s nominees.
Mike Davis, head of the Article III Project, lamented Martin’s withdrawal, calling him “a good friend and a good man.” Davis blasted Senate Republicans as “weak sisters” for bowing to political pressure. Martin, undeterred, posted an AI-generated image of himself as a pope on X, captioning it “Plot Twist.”
Pirro’s legal background and public profile make her a formidable candidate, though Senate confirmation remains uncertain. Her prosecutorial experience contrasts sharply with Martin’s, potentially easing concerns among moderate Republicans. Still, her Fox News prominence may draw scrutiny from Democrats wary of Trump’s media ties.
Trump’s focus on trade, including a major deal with the United Kingdom announced the same day, shows his broader agenda at play. He acknowledged the demands on his time, saying he can only “lift that little phone so many times a day.” Yet, his swift action on Pirro’s appointment demonstrates his resolve to shape the Justice Department.
As Pirro steps into this high-stakes role, conservatives hope she will bring clarity and strength to a department battered by partisan fights. Her tenure, whether interim or permanent, will test Trump’s ability to navigate Senate politics while advancing his vision. For now, “Judge Jeanine” stands as a bold choice in a turbulent political landscape.
Senator John Fetterman’s erratic behavior in a recent meeting has raised red flags about his mental health. The Pennsylvania Democrat, known for his casual style and populist rhetoric, has drawn scrutiny after a troubling outburst in his Washington office. This incident, coupled with concerns from his former chief of staff, paints a worrying picture of a senator struggling to balance personal challenges and public duties.
According to AP News, Fetterman, who survived a stroke in 2022, reportedly lost control during a meeting with teachers' union representatives. The episode occurred just before a New York Magazine article detailed concerns about his mental health from former staff. His actions have sparked debate about his fitness to serve, especially as he drifts from the Democratic Party’s progressive orthodoxy.
In the meeting, Fetterman shouted repeatedly, questioning why “everybody is mad” at him and slamming his hands on his desk. His behavior left union representatives rattled and reduced a staff member to tears. The staffer abruptly ended the meeting, ushering the shaken teachers into the hallway.
Two sources, speaking anonymously to The Associated Press, described the chaotic scene. Fetterman’s outburst included long, repetitive rants and expressions of paranoia, such as asking why “everyone hates” him. This behavior echoes concerns raised by his former chief of staff, Adam Jentleson, in a 2024 letter.
Jentleson’s letter to neuropsychiatrist Dr. David Williamson outlined Fetterman’s troubling trajectory. It claimed the senator had abandoned his recovery plan, stopped seeing doctors, and might not be taking prescribed medications. Jentleson also noted Fetterman’s reckless driving and tendency to isolate himself from colleagues.
Fetterman’s health struggles are well-documented. In 2022, he suffered a stroke during his Senate campaign, followed by a 2023 hospitalization for depression at Walter Reed. He also battles cardiomyopathy and an auditory processing disorder, which requires him to use real-time transcription devices.
Despite these challenges, Fetterman won his Senate seat in 2022, campaigning in hoodies and gym shorts. His unpolished style resonated with Pennsylvania’s working-class voters, but his tenure has been marked by controversy. He has clashed with fellow Democrats, particularly over his support for Israel and willingness to work with President Donald Trump.
Fetterman’s political evolution has confounded many. Once a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2016, he later backed Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024. His recent cooperation with Trump, including meetings and voting for some of Trump’s nominees, has alienated Pennsylvania Democrats.
Some Democrats, like Pennsylvania Democratic Party chairman Sharif Street, express concern for Fetterman’s well-being. “People are concerned about his health,” Street said. “They want to make sure he’s OK.”
Conservatives, however, have rallied behind Fetterman, praising his willingness to break from party lines. Comedian Bill Maher even suggested Fetterman run for president in 2028. This support underscores Fetterman’s appeal to those frustrated with elitist political norms.
Fetterman dismissed concerns about his health as overblown. “It’s a hit piece,” he told a reporter, calling the New York Magazine story a “one-source” attack. He insisted there’s “no news” and that his critics are exaggerating.
In a statement, Fetterman described the teachers' union meeting as a “spirited conversation” about frustration with Trump’s education cuts. “I will always support our teachers,” he said. He vowed to fight efforts to turn Pennsylvania’s public schools into voucher programs.
Yet, incidents like a 2025 video showing Fetterman arguing with a pilot over a seatbelt on a Pittsburgh flight fuel doubts. Jentleson’s letter warned that Fetterman had “dismantled” an early-warning system meant to monitor his health. This included pushing out those tasked with supporting his recovery.
Fetterman’s openness about his mental health struggles has earned him sympathy. “I was in a very dark place,” he told podcast host Joe Rogan in November 2024. His candor resonates with Americans who value authenticity over polished political facades.
Still, Fetterman’s behavior raises legitimate questions about his ability to serve. Pennsylvania voters, who elected him for his working-class grit, deserve a senator who can handle the job. As Fetterman navigates his challenges, his actions will determine whether he can regain trust or spiral further into controversy.
Joe Biden’s faltering voice betrayed frailty in his first post-presidency interview, aired Wednesday on BBC Radio 4’s Today program. The 82-year-old former president, speaking from Wilmington, Delaware, struggled to justify his delayed exit from the 2024 presidential race. His mumbled responses and long pauses raised fresh doubts about his mental sharpness.
According to Daily Mail, Biden announced the end of his reelection bid on July 21, 2024, after a disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump on June 27. In the interview, pre-recorded Monday, he claimed his administration’s successes made it hard to step away sooner.
Harris, left with just 106 days to build her presidential bid, lost to Trump in November 2024. Biden insisted, “I don’t think it would have mattered,” when asked if an earlier exit would have changed the outcome. His defiance ignored widespread Democratic frustration and polling that suggested he faced a crushing defeat.
Biden’s presidency, often clouded by concerns over his cognitive decline, faced renewed scrutiny in the interview. He whispered, coughed, and paused awkwardly, reinforcing doubts about his fitness for leadership. Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, called the performance a “disgrace” and evidence of Biden’s mental deterioration.
Cheung further lambasted Biden, stating, “He has clearly lost all mental faculties.” The former president’s choice of a foreign outlet like BBC for his first post-presidency broadcast interview sparked criticism among conservatives. Many saw it as a snub to American media and a sign of elitist detachment.
Biden framed the interview as a reflection on the 80th anniversary of World War II’s end in Europe. He expressed alarm over declining U.S. relations with European allies under Trump’s leadership. His comments revealed a lingering obsession with globalist alliances, which many Americans view as secondary to domestic priorities.
Biden took aim at Trump’s provocative statements about annexing Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. He also ridiculed Trump’s idea to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, exclaiming, “What president ever talks like that?” Such rhetoric, Biden argued, undermines American values of freedom and opportunity.
Yet Trump’s supporters see these ideas as bold assertions of national sovereignty, not reckless overreach. Biden’s criticism, delivered in a frail whisper, lacked the conviction to sway working-class voters who back Trump’s America-first agenda. His remarks felt like a tired defense of a fading globalist order.
Biden voiced “grave concern” over the potential collapse of post-World War II alliances. He warned that abandoning these partnerships could weaken America’s global standing. However, many Americans, weary of endless foreign entanglements, question the value of such alliances in today’s economy-driven world.
On Russia’s war in Ukraine, Biden called it “foolish” to believe Vladimir Putin would halt aggression if given territorial concessions. His stance reflects a commitment to prolonged foreign conflicts, which clashes with the priorities of Americans struggling with rising costs at home. Trump’s push for pragmatic deal-making resonates more with working families.
Biden admitted he intended to serve only one term when elected in 2020, aiming to pass the torch to a new generation. Yet he clung to power, citing the rapid success of his agenda. This self-congratulation rang hollow to critics who saw his presidency as a period of economic strain and cultural division.
Democrats widely blamed Biden’s late withdrawal for Harris’s defeat, believing an earlier exit could have given her a stronger chance. Biden countered, “We left at a time when we had a good candidate. She was fully funded.” His refusal to accept responsibility frustrated party loyalists and independents alike.
Biden claimed he could have defeated Trump in a 2024 rematch. This assertion defied polling and public sentiment, which pointed to a landslide loss. His detachment from reality underscored concerns about his judgment during his final months in office.
Biden’s interview performance, marked by incoherent moments, fueled accusations of elder abuse from Trump’s camp. Cheung remarked, “Sadly, this feels like abuse,” suggesting Biden’s handlers exploited his diminished capacity. The spectacle left many Americans questioning the dignity of his post-presidency.
Ultimately, Biden’s interview revealed a man out of touch with the nation’s pulse, clinging to a legacy few celebrate. His defense of a late exit and criticism of Trump’s vision failed to resonate with a country eager for strength and sovereignty. As Trump charts a new course, Biden’s whispers fade into irrelevance.
A pro-Trump legal group has launched a bold lawsuit against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, accusing the judiciary of overstepping its constitutional bounds. The America First Legal Foundation, founded by former White House aide Stephen Miller, claims the U.S. Judicial Conference, led by Roberts, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts are performing executive functions that demand oversight.
According to Fox News, the lawsuit, filed by the America First Legal Foundation, targets Roberts in his capacity as head of the Judicial Conference. It also names Robert J. Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as a defendant. The group argues that these judicial entities are engaging in regulatory actions that go beyond their core role of resolving cases. This legal challenge seeks to rein in what the group sees as judicial overreach, aiming to preserve the separation of powers.
The foundation contends that the Judicial Conference’s actions stray from the judiciary’s primary functions. It claims these duties constitute executive functions, which should be subject to oversight by accountable executive officers. This lawsuit, led by attorney Will Scolinos, seeks to ensure the courts stick to their constitutional lane.
The U.S. Judicial Conference serves as the national policymaking body for federal courts. Overseen by the Supreme Court’s chief justice, it makes recommendations to Congress twice a year as needed. The Administrative Office, guided by the Judicial Conference, handles tasks like budgeting and data organization for the courts.
In 2023, the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office responded to congressional requests. They took steps to investigate ethical allegations against Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. These actions, the lawsuit argues, show the judiciary stepping into roles better suited for the executive branch.
The America First Legal Foundation insists that the Judicial Conference’s records should be open to Freedom of Information Act requests. The group believes transparency is essential to prevent the judiciary from operating as an unchecked power. This demand aligns with their broader push to limit judicial overreach.
In 2023, the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office adopted an ethics code for Supreme Court justices. The America First Legal Foundation views this as another example of the judiciary taking on executive-like functions. They argue that creating such policies exceeds the courts’ authority to resolve disputes or provide administrative support.
“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,” the foundation stated. This quote reflects their belief that the judiciary is encroaching on executive territory. They see this as a violation of the separation of powers.
The lawsuit asserts that the Administrative Office, under the Judicial Conference’s supervision, should be classified as an executive agency. The group claims courts do not have the authority to create agencies that perform functions beyond resolving cases. This argument challenges the current structure of judicial administration.
“The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies,” the America First Legal Foundation declared. They argue that these entities must be accountable to executive officers to maintain constitutional balance. This stance underscores their commitment to curbing what they see as judicial overreach.
The foundation’s legal team, led by Will Scolinos, emphasizes the need to keep courts out of politics. “Preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics,” Scolinos said. This reflects their view that judicial independence should not extend to executive functions.
U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, appointed by former President Donald Trump, will preside over the case. His assignment adds a layer of intrigue, given the lawsuit’s pro-Trump alignment. The outcome could have significant implications for how the judiciary operates.
The America First Legal Foundation’s lawsuit is a direct challenge to the judiciary’s scope of power. They argue that courts should not perform functions that mimic executive agencies. This legal battle aims to redraw the lines between judicial and executive authority.
“Courts definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies,” the foundation stated. This quote encapsulates their core argument against the Judicial Conference’s current practices. They believe the judiciary must be reined in to protect constitutional principles.
This lawsuit represents a broader push to restore traditional American governance, rooted in a clear separation of powers. By targeting Chief Justice Roberts and the Judicial Conference, the America First Legal Foundation seeks to ensure the courts remain focused on their judicial duties. The case could reshape how federal courts interact with other branches of government.
A Queens town hall hosted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez turned into a spectacle when a far-left protester unleashed a tirade, accusing the congresswoman of ignoring what the agitator falsely labeled a "genocide" in Gaza.
As reported by NY Post, the outburst, rooted in anti-Israel rhetoric, was swiftly rejected by the crowd, exposing the disconnect between radical activism and the values of hardworking Americans.
The event, meant to engage voters in Ocasio-Cortez’s district, was derailed by a self-proclaimed nurse who stood up to berate the congresswoman.
Demanding answers on the war in Israel, the protester’s inflammatory claim of "genocide" drew immediate boos and hisses from attendees.
The nurse escalated her attack, calling Ocasio-Cortez a liar and even a war criminal—accusations dripping with the kind of globalist propaganda that alienates everyday Americans.
She claimed to have once supported Ocasio-Cortez but now felt betrayed, a sentiment that failed to resonate with the crowd. Security swiftly removed the protester as the audience’s jeers drowned out her unhinged rant, reaffirming their commitment to civil discourse and national pride.
Ocasio-Cortez struggled to regain control, urging the crowd to follow "ground rules" for discussion.
"I more than welcome people who disagree," she said, but insisted that outbursts rob others of their voice. Her call for order was a rare moment of clarity, though it highlighted her failure to manage the radical elements within her base.
The incident underscores the chaos unleashed by the far left’s obsession with divisive, anti-Israel narratives. Ocasio-Cortez, often a darling of progressive extremists, found herself targeted by the very purity tests she’s helped fuel.
This clash reveals the dangers of pandering to globalist ideologies that clash with America’s core values of sovereignty and stability.
While Ocasio-Cortez flounders in her own backyard, her national profile continues to grow. She recently campaigned with Sen. Bernie Sanders on their "Fighting Oligarchy" tour, rallying socialist supporters with ease. Her fundraising also remains formidable, pulling in $9.6 million from 266,000 donors, averaging $21 per contribution, as reported by Fox News. On X, she boasted, "I cannot convey enough how grateful I am to the millions of people supporting us," crediting their funds for her community-organizing efforts.
Ocasio-Cortez’s influence alarms those who cherish traditional American priorities. Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight speculated she could clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, a prospect that unsettles conservatives.
Vice President JD Vance, speaking to Fox News’ Bret Baier, called the idea of "President AOC" a "nightmare," quipping, "You’ve ruined my sleep for the evening." His words echo the concerns of millions who reject her radical agenda.
The Queens debacle exposes the fractured state of the progressive movement. When even Ocasio-Cortez isn’t "woke" enough for her base, it reveals the absurdity of the left’s endless demands.
Working-class Americans, focused on jobs, family, and national strength, have no patience for these theatrical disruptions. This incident is a stark reminder of why common-sense conservatism—rooted in faith, freedom, and patriotism—must guide the nation’s future.
