Washington, D.C.’s elite just got a reality check. Donald Trump Jr.’s new nightclub, Executive Branch, is set to open next month in Georgetown, promising a haven for MAGA loyalists while slamming the door on media and Bush-era Republicans, as the Daily Mail reports. This isn’t your grandfather’s country club -- it’s a bold, unapologetic middle finger to the establishment.
The Executive Branch, tucked in a subterranean space behind Georgetown Park, is a members-only club for the MAGA faithful. It requires a jaw-dropping $500,000 membership fee, with some reportedly eager to pay up to $1 million. Only those personally connected to the founders get a shot at joining.
The club’s co-founders include Trump Jr., crypto czar David Sacks, Zach and Alex Witkoff, Omeed Malik, and Chris Buskirk. “This is not just for any Saudi businessman,” a club spokesman told the New York Times, signaling a tight grip on who will be allowed in. Clearly, they’re not rolling out the red carpet for just anyone with a fat wallet.
Entry to the Executive Branch demands more than money -- it requires ideological purity. Prospective members face heavy vetting by the founders, ensuring only the most devoted Trump supporters make the cut. With fewer than 200 members expected, this is exclusivity dialed to eleven.
Sacks, a club co-founder, laid it bare on his podcast: “Republican clubs tend to be more Bush-era Republicans as opposed to Trump-era Republicans.” He’s not wrong -- traditional GOP haunts reek of outdated neoconservatism. Executive Branch aims to be “new, hipper, and Trump-aligned,” as Sacks put it, leaving the old guard in the dust.
The club’s launch party last month was a who’s-who of Trump’s inner circle. Attendees included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, alongside tech titans like AppLovin CEO Adam Foroughi. Even President Donald Trump himself might drop by, adding star power to the already glittering guest list.
Don’t expect to see CNN anchors or K Street lobbyists sipping cocktails here. “We don’t want members of the media or just a lot of lobbyists joining,” an insider told CNBC. The goal is a space where MAGA elites can speak freely without fear of leaks or spin.
The same insider emphasized privacy: “We want people to feel comfortable having conversations in private.” In a city where every word is weaponized, that’s a rare commodity. The Executive Branch is betting its members will pay top dollar for it.
Founding members include heavy hitters like the Winklevoss twins, top Trump fundraiser Jeff Miller, and venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya. This isn’t just a club -- it’s a power network for the MAGA movement’s elite. The Bush-era Republicans clutching their pearls are, predictably, not invited.
The Executive Branch’s location, hidden behind Georgetown Park’s parking garage, adds to its mystique. Accessible only by a discreet staircase, it’s practically a secret society for the Trump faithful. In woke-obsessed D.C., this is a deliberate pushback against the swamp’s status quo.
The Trump International Hotel, once a magnet for world leaders during Trump’s first term, faced endless ethics complaints from the left. Sold in 2022, it’s no longer the go-to spot for power players. The Executive Branch is poised to fill that void, but with a sharper ideological edge.
Unlike the hotel, which welcomed a broader swath of elites, this club is unapologetically selective. It’s not just about keeping out the media -- it’s about curating a space where Trump’s vision reigns supreme. The left will no doubt cry foul, but actions have consequences.
The club’s $500,000 price tag isn’t just about exclusivity -- it’s a statement. In a city overrun by progressive dogma, the Executive Branch is a fortress for those who reject the woke narrative. It’s a place where loyalty to Trump’s America First agenda trumps all else.
With figures like Dan Bongino and Mehmet Oz already tied to the club, it’s clear this isn’t just a social spot -- it’s a political machine. The guest list reads like a Trump administration reunion, minus the RINOs.
The message is clear: this is MAGA’s turf now. Executive Branch isn’t just a nightclub -- it’s a declaration that the old GOP is dead, and Trump’s vision is here to stay. For those locked out, the lesson is simple: adapt or be left behind.
James Comey’s cryptic Instagram post recently landed him in hot water. The former FBI director, no stranger to controversy, sparked outrage with a beachside seashell arrangement spelling “86 47,” widely interpreted as a veiled threat against President Trump, as the Daily Mail reports. Now, he’s doubling down with warnings to MAGA Republicans, proving actions have consequences.
Comey, fired by Trump in 2017, posted the seashell image, then deleted it after backlash ensued. During an MSNBC interview with Jen Psaki, he accused MAGA Republicans of recklessly attacking enemies and warned Democrats would seek legal accountability when they regain power. This escalation follows a federal investigation into his post, which referenced “86” as slang for “eliminate” and “47” for Trump’s presidency.
Comey’s feud with Trump began during the 2017 Russia investigation. He claimed that Trump demanded personal loyalty, a charge he documented in a memo. The Mueller-led probe found Russian interference in the 2016 election but no criminal ties to Trump’s campaign.
Comey’s Instagram post, which he says was suggested by his wife, Patrice, showed seashells arranged as “86 47.” She reportedly urged him to share the “cool” image, but online critics quickly decoded it as a call for Trump’s assassination. Comey, claiming ignorance, removed it after Patrice alerted him to the potential interpretations.
“I don’t want any part of violence,” Comey said. Yet his swift deletion suggests he grasped the post’s weight. For a former FBI chief, pleading naivety strains credulity.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem dispatched agents to question Comey. He was escorted from his Virginia home to the Secret Service’s Washington field office. The interview, described as routine, underscored the gravity of threats in a climate where Trump survived two assassination attempts last year.
On MSNBC, Comey lambasted MAGA Republicans for what he views as attempting to dismantle nonpartisan justice. “MAGA Republicans will ‘be deeply sorry’ if they continue to attack their enemies,” he warned. His words imply that a future Democrat-led administration might weaponize the law against conservatives.
Comey criticized Trump’s leadership for gutting the DOJ’s Office of Public Integrity. He admitted the Justice Department could be streamlined but called Trump’s approach destructive. Such hypocrisy from a man whose own post flirted with incitement is rich, indeed.
“This is destroying the place at a cost that’s gonna take years to rebuild,” Comey said of Trump’s DOJ reforms. Yet his actions -- posting a coded threat -- hardly model the integrity he claims to champion. Pot, meet kettle.
The Secret Service’s Anthony Guglielmi confirmed they “vigorously investigate” potential threats. Trump himself didn’t mince words: “He knew exactly what that meant.” The probe, backed by Trump’s former FBI Director Kash Patel, signals no leniency for Comey’s stunt.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard demanded Comey’s imprisonment. Her call reflects conservative outrage over his provocative post. With the FBI supporting the investigation, Comey’s claim of no wrongdoing rings hollow.
Comey endorsed Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024, aligning with progressive causes. His books, including A Higher Loyalty, have kept him in the spotlight since his firing. But this latest scandal suggests that he is more interested in headlines than principle.
“Part of the roar of Trump is to freak out his victims,” Comey told Psaki, urging resilience against threats. His advice might apply to himself, as he is now federal scrutiny. Turns out, cryptic posts and veiled warnings don’t scream “grandfatherly retreat," as he attempted to claim.
Comey insists the investigation will clear him. “I was… trying to withdraw a little bit,” he claimed, citing his role as an author and family patriarch. Yet his MSNBC appearance, clad in his “old uniform,” betrays a man itching for the fray.
Conservatives see Comey’s actions as peak elitism -- a former FBI head toying with dangerous rhetoric while preaching accountability. His seashell saga and MSNBC threats only deepen distrust in establishment figures. Actions, indeed, do have consequences.
Gov. Kelly Ayotte just slammed the door on sanctuary policies in New Hampshire. On Thursday, she signed a bill that forces local law enforcement to work with federal immigration authorities, as Just the News reports, ensuring that the Granite State doesn’t roll out the welcome mat for chaos. This move is a bold stand against the progressive playbook that has turned cities like Boston into magnets for trouble.
The new law, backed by Republicans, bans cities and towns from shielding unauthorized migrants by limiting cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Police must now detain suspects flagged by ICE for up to 48 hours, and local governments can ink 287(g) agreements to team up with federal agents. It’s a clear signal: New Hampshire prioritizes law and order over woke posturing.
At the signing ceremony, Ayotte didn’t mince words as she was surrounded by legislative leaders and law enforcement officials. “I said from the beginning that we won’t let our state go the way of Massachusetts and their billion-dollar illegal immigrant crisis,” she declared. Sorry, governor, but Massachusetts might need more than a catchy slogan to fix that mess.
Ayotte’s campaign slogan, “Don’t Mass Up NH,” was front and center, plastered on a sign at the event. It’s a jab at Boston’s sanctuary policies, which she argues have fueled a costly crisis across the state line. Turns out, actions have consequences, and New Hampshire is not keen on footing the bill for progressive experiments.
The law directly challenges local ordinances in places like Manchester, where restrictions on cooperating with ICE detainers -- civil or criminal -- are now null and void. Republicans in the legislature pushed hard for this, claiming sanctuary policies hamstring efforts to tackle crime and terrorism. They’re not wrong -- harboring fugitives rarely screams “public safety.”
Democrats, predictably, cried foul, arguing that the bill makes communities less safe. They claim that forcing police to work with ICE scares people from reporting crimes over deportation fears. Sounds like they’re more worried about feelings than felonies.
Democrats also griped that local cops shouldn’t be roped into federal immigration enforcement, especially with deportations ramping up. Their logic? The say that diverting police from local duties to chase ICE’s targets somehow protects neighborhoods. Good luck selling that to folks tired of crime spilling over from sanctuary havens.
The bill’s passage marks a sharp contrast with neighboring Massachusetts, where Democrat-led resistance to President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown is in full swing. New Hampshire is not playing that game. It’s refreshing to see a state choose clarity over capitulation.
Ayotte doubled down at the ceremony, stating, “Today, we’re delivering on our promise by banning sanctuary cities and supporting law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities.” That’s the kind of follow-through voters crave. Meanwhile, critics are left clutching pearls instead of solutions.
New Hampshire is already stepping up, with a recent agreement allowing state troopers to arrest and detain immigration suspects after federal training. This isn’t just talk -- it’s action, aligning state and federal efforts to keep communities secure. Sanctuary advocates might call it overreach; most call it common sense.
Republicans in the legislature framed the law as a bulwark against illegal immigration’s ripple effects. They argue sanctuary policies encourage border-hopping and tie law enforcement’s hands. It’s hard to argue when you see the chaos in cities that prioritize optics over order.
Democrats’ counterargument -- that cooperation with ICE chills community trust -- leans heavily on emotion, not evidence. If anything, refusing to enforce laws breeds distrust in the system itself. New Hampshire’s betting on accountability, not appeasement.
Ayotte sealed the deal with a final zinger: “New Hampshire will never be a sanctuary for criminals, and we will keep working every day to remain the safest state in the nation.” That’s a promise worth keeping. Unlike some neighbors, New Hampshire’s not afraid to draw a line in the sand.
The law’s impact will be felt immediately, as local governments scramble to comply or face legal pushback. Places like Manchester, once cozy with non-cooperation policies, now have to play by the state’s rules. It’s about time someone reminded them who’s in charge.
New Hampshire’s move is a wake-up call for states flirting with sanctuary status. While Democrats wail about compassion, Ayotte and her allies are focused on consequences -- keeping the state safe and sovereign. In a world of wishy-washy policies, that’s a breath of fresh air.
A business jet smashed into a San Diego military housing neighborhood, leaving a trail of destruction and death in its wake, as CNN reports.
Just before 4 a.m. on Thursday, a Cessna 550 Citation, typically used for corporate jaunts, crashed near Montgomery Executive Airport, killing multiple passengers and torching homes and cars. The National Transportation Safety Board and Federal Aviation Administration are digging into what caused the disaster. Foggy conditions and low visibility likely played a role, but don’t expect bureaucrats to admit if red tape or lax oversight contributed.
The jet, owned by an Alaskan company, took off from Teterboro Airport near New York City late Wednesday night. It made a pit stop in Wichita, Kansas, before barreling toward San Diego. No emergency was declared, and the pilot calmly reported being three miles from landing, blissfully unaware of the chaos to come.
The crash site, part of Naval Base San Diego’s sprawling military housing, felt like a war zone. A resident described a “loud boom” shaking their home, with car alarms blaring and jet fuel igniting the street. Progressives might call it “climate justice” when fossil fuels fight back, but for real people, it was pure terror.
“I can’t describe what this scene looked like,” said San Diego Police Chief Scott Wahl, painting a picture of jet fuel rivers and roaring flames. His horror is relatable, but let’s not pretend that government agencies, always quick to regulate our lives, couldn’t have tightened airport safety protocols. Actions, or lack thereof, have consequences.
First responders battled the inferno while residents heroically helped evacuate neighbors. One home was gutted, its roof collapsed onto a car below, and upwards of 10 homes were damaged. Military families, already sacrificing for the nation, now face the task of rebuilding their lives.
“You could barely see in front of you,” said San Diego Fire Assistant Chief Dan Eddy, blaming the fog as a possible contributing factor in the incident. Visibility was down to half a mile with low cloud ceilings, a recipe for disaster when paired with an unstaffed control tower. Maybe it’s time to rethink overnight airport operations instead of pushing diversity quotas.
Jet fuel spilled like a Hollywood explosion scene, torching every car in its path. Eddy noted the widespread destruction, saying, “it took out every single car” as fuel flowed down the street. The environmentalist crowd might lecture about oil, but they’re silent when it’s their policies grounding safety upgrades.
One person was hospitalized as a result of the crash, and two others were treated and released, a small mercy amid the carnage. All fatalities were on the plane, though the exact body count remains unclear. The Citation, built in 1985, could carry eight to ten people, so brace for grim updates.
Residents didn’t wait for bureaucrats to save the day; they knocked on doors alongside police to get neighbors out. This is the kind of gritty, no-nonsense community spirit the woke elite can’t comprehend. Naval Base San Diego’s Captain Robert Heely called the impacted families “proud partners,” but platitudes won’t fix their homes.
“Certainly, we have a lot of military families that are impacted,” Heely said, stating the obvious. Military communities are the backbone of places like San Diego, yet they’re often ignored until tragedy strikes. Maybe now politicians will notice, but don’t hold your breath.
San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria promised support, saying the city will back the military community “for as long as it takes.” Nice words, but taxpayers know that government promises often vanish faster than budget surpluses. Real recovery will come from neighbors, not City Hall.
The NTSB and FAA are on the case, but don’t expect quick answers. The pilot used the common traffic advisory frequency to announce intentions, standard for an unstaffed tower, yet something went catastrophically wrong. Regulatory loopholes and outdated systems deserve a hard look, not just the prevailing weather conditions.
The jet’s Alaskan owners will face scrutiny, as will the Citation’s maintenance history. A 40-year-old plane might be reliable, but age raises questions that the feds had better answer. Transparency, not bureaucratic cover-ups, is what victims’ families deserve.
This tragedy reminds us that safety isn’t guaranteed, no matter how routine a flight seems. Military families, already dealing with enough, now face a long road to back to normality. San Diego’s spirit will pull through, but it’s high time regulators stop flying blind.
Where’s the ring, AOC? Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) hasn’t flashed her engagement sparkler since November 2023, sparking whispers about her commitment to fiancé Riley Roberts, as the Washington Free Beacon reports. The disappearing act raises eyebrows, especially as Roberts sidesteps financial scrutiny that married spouses can’t dodge.
Ocasio-Cortez’s missing ring and Roberts’ cozy financial loophole sum up the saga. Since their 2022 engagement, the couple’s shared Queens apartment and her curious “spouse” references muddy the waters. It’s a tale of love, politics, and conveniently lax disclosure rules.
Back in April 2022, Roberts, a web developer, popped the question in Puerto Rico. Ocasio-Cortez proudly showed off a $3,057.04 “zero emission” recycled gold ring, dutifully reported as a gift. She told GQ magazine that Roberts had to nudge her to say yes, citing their mixed-race dynamic and power imbalance.
From May 2022 to November 2023, that ring was a fixture on AOC’s left hand. Getty and AP photos, social media snaps, and public outings all captured the bling. It was as reliable as her progressive talking points -- until it wasn’t.
Come December 2023, the ring vanished from major appearances. No glint during her primetime DNC speech, televised hearings, a Late Show spot, or her nationwide Bernie Sanders tour. Other rings adorn her hands, but the engagement band is conspicuously AWOL.
Roberts, meanwhile, enjoys a sweet deal as an unmarried partner. Unlike spouses, he’s not required to disclose assets, stock trades, or job details in AOC’s financial reports. Transparency? Not for this power couple.
In 2023, Ocasio-Cortez called Roberts her “spouse” in four House Ethics Committee filings for overseas travel. Her office later clarified to the Free Beacon that she’s “not legally married.” The House Ethics Committee, however, defines a spouse strictly as a legal husband or wife.
“Financial disclosure laws apply to members and their spouse,” said Kendra Arnold of the Foundation for Accountability. AOC’s loose use of “spouse” might confuse voters, but it keeps Roberts’ finances in the shadows. Clever move, or just sloppy paperwork?
The couple’s history traces back to Boston University, where they dated briefly. After a post-graduation split, they rekindled their romance when AOC was bartending in New York. They’ve lived together since her 2018 campaign, where Roberts pocketed $6,000 in consulting fees from a PAC.
Roberts keeps a low profile, popping up in a 2018 Netflix documentary, at the 2021 Met Gala, and on AOC’s 2020-2021 Instagram Lives. His LinkedIn page, touting digital marketing work for 60 startups, has been dormant since AOC took office in 2019. No social media, no comments -- Roberts is practically a ghost.
In March 2024, the couple was spotted leaving a Brooklyn movie theater, looking date-night cozy. No ring on AOC’s finger, though, despite their shared Queens address per November 2023 voter records. Cohabitation? Yes. Commitment? That’s murkier.
AOC’s office ignored inquiries, and Roberts didn’t return calls or texts. Their silence fuels speculation: Is the engagement off, or is this a strategic dodge? Either way, the optics aren’t great for a champion of transparency.
In January 2025, AOC pushed a bill to ban stock trading by Congress members and their spouses. Unmarried partners like Roberts? Exempt. Actions have consequences, and this loophole leaves Roberts free to trade while AOC polishes her reformer image.
The ring’s absence doesn’t necessarily prove a breakup, but it’s a red flag. AOC and Roberts still share a home and a life, per voter records and public sightings. Yet the missing ring and “spouse” misstep suggest a relationship status as flexible as their disclosure obligations.
For a politician who preaches accountability, AOC’s personal choices invite scrutiny. The ring may be gone, but the questions linger -- about her engagement, her ethics, and what Roberts gains from their undefined bond. In politics, clarity is a virtue; AOC delivers ambiguity instead.
A retired Navy admiral’s fall from grace has landed him in the dock, convicted of trading influence for a cushy job.
Robert Burke, once the Navy’s second-in-command, now holds the dubious honor of being the highest-ranking U.S. military officer ever convicted of a federal crime, as the New York Post reports. Turns out, even stars on your shoulder don’t shield you from justice.
Burke, 63, was found guilty Monday in a D.C. court of bribery, conspiracy, and hiding financial interests after a five-day trial. The case, whose outcome was announced by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, exposed how Burke leveraged his role as vice chief of naval operations to funnel a contract to a company promising him a golden parachute.
From August 2018 to July 2019, Company A, led by co-CEOs Yongchul “Charlie” Kim and Meghan Messenger, provided workforce training to a small Navy unit. Their contract was axed in late 2019, leaving them scrambling to regain Navy business. Enter Burke, whose influence they saw as a ticket back to the Pentagon’s payroll.
By July 2021, Kim and Messenger met Burke in Washington, D.C., to pitch rekindling their Navy ties. Over that meeting, the trio cooked up a bribery scheme: Burke would secure a lucrative contract for Company A, and in return, they’d hand him a $500,000-a-year job plus 100,000 stock options. Greed, it seems, makes strange bedfellows.
Kim estimated the contract could be worth “triple-digit millions,” a tantalizing prospect for all involved. Burke, still wielding significant clout, didn’t hesitate to act. The promise of personal gain clearly trumped his oath to serve.
In December 2021, Burke ordered his staff to award Company A a $355,000 contract for training Navy personnel in Italy and Spain. He even pitched the deal to a senior admiral, flexing his influence before retiring. Such brazen moves show how far some will go to cash in on their rank.
Despite Burke’s efforts, Company A failed to secure further contracts after his retirement. The scheme unraveled, leading to his indictment in May of the previous year. The Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and the FBI’s Washington Field Office teamed up to bring him down.
“When you abuse your position and betray the public trust to line your own pockets, it undermines the confidence in the government you represent,” said Pirro. Her words ring true, but they’re cold comfort when a four-star admiral treats public office like a personal ATM. Accountability, at least, is colorblind to rank.
“Our office, with our law enforcement partners, will root out corruption-be -- be it bribes or illegal contracts -- and hold accountable the perpetrators, no matter what title or rank they hold,” Pirro added. Her resolve is a reminder that no one is above the law, not even those who once steered the Navy’s helm. Yet, one wonders how many more Burkes lurk in the shadows of power.
Burke’s attorney, Timothy Parlatore, didn’t take the verdict lying down. “We’re disappointed with the verdict, but we are planning to appeal -- and I think that there’s a viable appeal here,” he said. His confidence is bold, but appealing a conviction this airtight might be more wishful thinking than legal strategy.
“The jury did not get to hear all of the evidence,” Parlatore claimed. That’s a convenient excuse when the evidence heard was damning enough to convict. Juries don’t convict four-star admirals lightly, and Burke’s actions spoke louder than any suppressed testimony.
Parlatore didn’t stop there, slamming the investigative agencies involved. “DCIS [and] NCIS are two investigative agencies that are largely stocked with imbeciles, with little training, no ethics, no leadership, no adult supervision, and we allow them to destroy people’s lives,” he said. Smearing the investigators might feel good, but it doesn’t erase the paper trail Burke left behind.
Burke now faces up to 30 years in prison, with sentencing set for August. For a man who once commanded fleets, the prospect of a cell is a steep fall. Actions, as they say, have consequences. Kim and Messenger, Burke’s alleged partners in crime, aren’t off the hook either. They’re slated for trial on bribery charges in August, where they’ll face their reckoning. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind fine.
Burke’s conviction sends a clear message: no rank is too high for accountability. The Navy and the nation deserve leaders who serve the public, not their wallets. Let this be a warning to those tempted by the siren song of corruption.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent just dropped a trade bombshell that’s got global markets on edge. On NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday, he warned trading partners to negotiate in good faith or face a tariff hammer from April’s “Liberation Day” rates, as The Hill reports. Turns out, playing hardball with President Donald Trump’s team has consequences.
Bessent’s ultimatum is part of Trump’s strategy to use tariffs as leverage in trade talks, with recent wins like a U.K. deal and a softened stance on China. The administration’s been juggling trade tensions, domestic price hike fears, and Wall Street jitters since April. It’s a high-stakes game, and Bessent is not bluffing.
Back on April 2, Trump slapped tariffs on foreign nations, with some hit at 10 percent and others facing much steeper rates. China got walloped with a 145 percent tariff, a move that sent shockwaves through global markets. The woke crowd cried “trade war,” but it was about leveling the playing field.
A week later, Wall Street’s whining and Republican pressure forced a 90-day pause on “reciprocal” tariffs. Trump kept a 10 percent tariff on most nations, sparing China’s massive 145 percent hit for the moment. Strategic? You bet.
Since then, Bessent’s been leading trade talks with global officials, grinding out deals while dodging progressive panic over “economic chaos.” The administration’s focus is clear: secure better terms for American workers and businesses. No apologies needed.
Early May brought a big win -- a trade deal with the U.K. boosting American exports by billions. It’s proof that Trump’s tariff threats aren’t just bluster; they deliver results. The left’s hand-wringing over “isolationism” looks dumber by the day.
Last week, the administration slashed China’s tariff from 145% to 30%, cooling trade war fears with Beijing. It’s a pragmatic move, showing flexibility while keeping the pressure on. Critics who screamed about “reckless escalation” must be eating their words.
Bessent’s Sunday warning was crystal clear: no good-faith talks, no mercy. “I think that it would be the April 2nd level,” he told Kristen Welker, signaling a return to those punishing rates. That’s not a threat -- it’s a promise.
He doubled down, noting some countries faced “substantially higher” tariffs than 10 percent on April 2. “If you don’t want to negotiate, then it will spring back,” Bessent said. Translation: get to the table or get crushed.
On May 15, Walmart griped that tariffs would force price hikes on some goods. Cry me a river -- last year, they raked in billions. Corporate greed needs a scapegoat, and tariffs are the easy target.
Trump fired back Saturday, slamming Walmart’s excuse-making. He pointed out their massive profits and urged them to absorb costs instead of gouging customers. That’s leadership, not whining.
Bessent’s comments on Meet the Press put trading partners on notice: play fair or pay up. “They are going to get a letter saying, ‘Here is the rate,’” he said about those dodging good-faith talks. The message is simple -- don’t test America’s resolve.
The administration’s tariff strategy is working, despite the media’s doom-and-gloom narrative. From the U.K. deal to China’s tariff cut, Trump’s team is reshaping global trade to favor America. The progressive obsession with “free trade” dogma just got a reality check.
Domestic critics like Walmart need to stop blaming tariffs for their pricing games. American consumers deserve better than corporate sob stories. Actions have consequences, and Bessent’s warning proves it.
As trade talks continue, Bessent and Trump are holding the line for American interests. Trading partners can either negotiate fairly or face the April 2 rates -- their choice. The era of America getting fleeced is over, and that’s a win worth celebrating.
Bryan Malinowski, a respected Arkansas airport executive, didn’t wake up on March 19, 2024, expecting to die at the hands of federal agents.
The executive director of Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport was gunned down in his own home during a pre-dawn ATF raid, sparking outrage and a lawsuit from his grieving widow, Maria “Maer” Malinowski, who is now taking on the feds, as the New York Post reports.
Maria filed a federal lawsuit in Little Rock, accusing the ATF of reckless and negligent actions that led to her husband’s death. The raid, executed with a warrant tied to alleged gun sales, ended in tragedy when Bryan, a lifelong gun collector, was fatally shot. This isn’t just a widow’s cry for justice—it’s a warning shot against overzealous federal overreach.
The ATF claims Bryan fired first, injuring an agent, which forced them to return fire. But Maria’s lawsuit tells a different story: agents stormed in without properly announcing themselves, leaving Bryan to believe he was defending his home from intruders. Sounds like the ATF forgot the Constitution applies to them, too.
The lawsuit pulls no punches, alleging the ATF violated Bryan and Maria’s constitutional rights. “The Constitution requires reasonableness,” the filing states, slamming agents for failing to knock and announce their presence. The ATF thought “surprise” was a better strategy than following the law.
Bryan, described as a gun enthusiast who traded at weekend shows, had no clue he was under investigation. The ATF’s warrant accused him of buying over 150 firearms between May 2021 and February 2024 and reselling some without a dealer’s license. Since when does exercising your Second Amendment rights justify a deadly ambush?
Maria’s legal team is demanding a jury trial and unspecified damages for the “nightmare” she’s endured for 14 months. “Today’s lawsuit seeks justice,” she said in a news release, her words dripping with the pain of loss. The ATF, predictably, hid behind a “no comment” on ongoing litigation, as if silence absolves them.
On that fateful March morning, ATF agents descended on the Malinowski home in Little Rock. The warrant they carried was meant to address alleged unlicensed gun sales, but what unfolded was far from routine. Bryan, startled and unaware of the agents’ identity, grabbed a firearm -- any red-blooded American might do the same.
The ATF’s version is that Bryan shot an agent, leaving them no choice but to fire back. Yet Maria’s lawsuit argues the agents’ failure to identify themselves turned a lawful search into a deadly misunderstanding. If you’re going to raid a man’s castle, at least ring the doorbell first.
Bryan didn’t survive the encounter, succumbing to his injuries days later. The loss of a man who led a major airport and lived for his passion for firearms sent shockwaves through Arkansas. Actions have consequences, and the ATF’s trigger-happy approach left a widow to pick up the pieces.
The fallout was swift, with Arkansas Republican lawmakers calling out the ATF for answers. Their criticism highlighted a growing distrust in federal agencies that seem to operate with impunity. When a local prosecutor later deemed the agent’s actions justified, it only fueled the fire of public skepticism.
Bryan’s lifelong hobby of collecting and trading guns was no secret to those who knew him. He wasn’t running a cartel; he was a guy at gun shows, doing what millions of Americans do. The ATF’s decision to treat him like a kingpin raises serious questions about their priorities. Maria’s lawsuit isn’t just about her husband -- it’s about holding the government accountable. The filing accuses 10 agents and task force officers of acting with reckless disregard for the law. If the ATF can barge into your home without warning, who’s safe?
In assigning the federal agency a duty to prevent such scenarios, the lawsuit declares, “The ATF failed to do so, resulting in an entirely predictable, needless and tragic outcome." That line cuts deep, exposing the human cost of bureaucratic arrogance. Maria’s not just suing for money -- she’s demanding the ATF face the music for their botched raid.
The case is now in federal court, where a jury will decide if the ATF’s actions were as “justified” as they claim. For Maria, it’s personal: “Today’s lawsuit seeks justice for the nightmare I’ve been living.” Good luck to the ATF explaining why they thought storming a man’s home at dawn was the only option.
This story isn’t over, and neither is the fight against federal overreach. Bryan Malinowski’s death is a stark reminder that the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment aren’t just words on paper -- they’re rights worth defending. Maria’s lawsuit might just be the spark that forces the ATF to rethink its playbook.
A reported 17 family members of Sinaloa Cartel leaders have crossed into the United States, raising eyebrows over an alleged deal with the Trump administration.
Mexico’s Security Secretary Omar García Harfuch confirmed the border crossing during a radio interview this week, as NBC News reports, and the move has sparked questions about what the U.S. government is offering as a deal in exchange.
Last week, these family members, tied to extradited cartel figure Ovidio Guzmán López, crossed from Tijuana into the U.S. Video evidence captured them with suitcases, greeted by U.S. agents at the border. Guzmán López, son of the notorious Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, faces multiple drug trafficking charges in the U.S.
The crossing followed negotiations between Guzmán López and U.S. authorities, according to García Harfuch. Rumors swirled that Guzmán López might plead guilty to avoid a trial. His lawyer had already hinted at talks with the Justice Department in January 2025.
García Harfuch suggested the family’s move was tied to a U.S. offer. “It is evident that his family is going to the U.S. because of a negotiation or an offer that the Department of Justice is giving him,” he said. The exact terms of this deal remain unclear. Notably, Mexican authorities were not pursuing these family members. This lack of action south of the border points to a U.S.-driven arrangement. The Trump administration has yet to share details with Mexican prosecutors, leaving many in the dark.
The Sinaloa Cartel, long a thorn in the side of law enforcement, is under intense U.S. scrutiny. Guzmán López, one of the brothers leading a cartel faction, was extradited in 2023. His family’s crossing adds a new layer to the ongoing saga.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Attorney General’s Office announced “narcoterrorism” charges against top cartel leaders. This marked a bold escalation, as the Trump administration has designated cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. The charges signal a no-holds-barred approach to dismantling these networks.
U.S. Attorney Adam Gordon, based in the Southern District of California, issued a stark warning to the Sinaloa Cartel. “You are no longer the hunters, you are the hunted,” Gordon declared. His words underscore the administration’s aggressive stance.
Gordon’s warning was direct and chilling. “You will be betrayed by your friends, you will be hounded by your enemies,” he said. He vowed that cartel leaders would face justice in U.S. courtrooms.
The family’s crossing has fueled speculation about the Trump administration’s strategy. By allowing cartel kin into the U.S., the government may be leveraging Guzmán López’s cooperation. Yet the lack of transparency raises concerns about accountability.
Mexican officials, sidelined in the process, have expressed frustration. García Harfuch’s confirmation was the first public acknowledgment of the crossing. The absence of U.S. communication with Mexico suggests a unilateral move.
The timing of the “narcoterrorism” charges adds complexity. Coming on the same day as García Harfuch’s interview, the charges may be part of a broader push. The Trump administration appears to be tightening the screws on the Sinaloa Cartel.
The sight of cartel family members crossing with U.S. agents in tow has stirred debate. For many Americans, it’s a troubling image amid ongoing border security concerns. The deal, while strategic, may not sit well with those demanding tougher immigration policies.
Guzmán López’s potential guilty plea could yield valuable intelligence. Disrupting the Sinaloa Cartel’s operations would be a win for law enforcement. But the optics of welcoming cartel relatives could undermine public trust.
As the Trump administration pursues its hardline stance, the nation watches closely. The fight against cartels is a priority for many working-class Americans battered by the drug crisis. How this deal plays out will test the government’s commitment to justice and sovereignty.
Chaos erupted at the U.S. Capitol as protesters clashed with police over proposed Medicaid cuts.
More than two dozen activists were arrested for disrupting a House Energy and Commerce Committee budget markup debating significant reductions to fund President Donald Trump’s tax package, as Deseret News reports, and the scene underscored deep divisions over America’s healthcare priorities.
Around 1 p.m., dozens of protesters gathered outside the committee’s hearing room. Wearing “Hands off Medicaid” T-shirts and blowing whistles, they drowned out opening statements. Their chants reflected anger at GOP plans to slash healthcare programs for working-class families.
The committee was tasked with finding $880 billion in spending cuts to support Trump’s $4.5 trillion tax cut extensions. Republicans exceeded this, securing over $900 billion in savings, largely from Medicaid. These cuts aim to restore economic strength but sparked fierce opposition from activists.
U.S. Capitol Police arrested 26 protesters for crowding, obstructing, and inconveniencing. Officers warned the group to stop interrupting or face arrest. Within minutes, police began clearing the hallways to restore order.
At issue is a proposal expected to save at least $815 billion by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. These savings come at the cost of an estimated 8.6 million people losing coverage over the next decade. The cuts prioritize fiscal responsibility but risk leaving vulnerable Americans without care according to critics.
The proposed changes include work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries aged 19 to 64. Able-bodied adults without dependents must work 80 hours a month or complete community service, with exceptions for pregnant women. States will enforce these rules, adding bureaucratic hurdles for the working poor.
Additional restrictions ban Medicaid funds for gender transition procedures for children under 18. Funds will also be withheld from individuals without verified citizenship or immigration status. These measures align with conservative values but face accusations of targeting vulnerable groups.
Less than an hour into the markup, Democratic Sens. Cory Booker, Brian Schatz, and Tina Smith entered the room. They delivered thousands of letters from constituents reliant on Medicaid. Booker called the cuts “outrageous,” amplifying the protesters’ concerns.
Booker highlighted constituents’ personal stories, saying they shared “intimate” details about relying on Medicaid to survive.
He argued that Republicans were callously threatening millions of Americans’ lifelines. His rhetoric aimed to shame GOP lawmakers but did little to sway them.
The budget plan avoided some of the GOP’s most extreme proposals after months of negotiations. Moderate Republicans pushed for compromises to maintain party unity. This pragmatism reflects the delicate balance of advancing Trump’s agenda.
The protests and arrests reveal a nation split over healthcare’s role in society. Republicans see the cuts as essential to fund tax relief and restore economic vitality. Critics argue they betray the working class and prioritize corporate interests.
The committee’s markup advanced despite the disruptions, signaling GOP resolve. The proposed changes now face further legislative hurdles. Their fate will shape healthcare access for millions of Americans.
For now, the Capitol’s hallways are quiet, but the fight over Medicaid is far from over. Protesters vow to keep pushing back against policies they see as heartless. The clash at the Capitol reflects a broader battle for America’s soul.
