Home Blog

Democrat Senator Openly Backs Trump’s Iran Proposal

Gage Skidmore Flickr

President Donald Trump said Monday that the United States and Israel have already destroyed Iran’s nuclear program and warned that Tehran would face renewed military action if it attempts to rebuild its weapons capabilities. His remarks came as new reports allege the Iranian regime is pursuing chemical and biological warheads for its ballistic missiles.

Speaking at Mar-a-Lago alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump delivered a blunt warning to Tehran over its nuclear and missile ambitions.

“Now I hear that Iran is trying to build up again, and if they are, we’re going to have to knock them down,” Trump said. “We’ll knock the hell out of them.” He added that Iran would be “much smarter” to pursue a deal.

Trump framed Iran’s defeat as central to restoring stability in the Middle East, crediting joint U.S.-Israeli military action with fundamentally shifting the regional balance of power.

“We just won a big war together,” he said. “If we didn’t beat Iran, you wouldn’t have had peace in the Middle East. We wiped it out.”

When asked whether he would support further Israeli military action if Iran continues advancing its missile or nuclear programs, Trump responded without hesitation.

“If they continue with the missiles — yes,” he said. “The nuclear — absolutely.”

Pressed on whether he would support efforts to overthrow Iran’s ruling regime, Trump declined, while pointing to the country’s internal turmoil and economic collapse.

“I’m not going to talk about overthrow of a regime,” he said. “But they have tremendous inflation. Their economy is busted.”

Trump also noted that widespread protests inside Iran are frequently met with deadly force by the government.

The president’s comments followed a report Sunday from Iran International alleging that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is accelerating work on unconventional missile payloads, including chemical and biological weapons. The report cited unnamed military and security sources.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) echoed Trump’s hardline stance in a Monday post on X, saying he would support military strikes to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

“Iran can’t ever develop a nuclear weapon,” Fetterman wrote.

“Fully supported the strike earlier this year. Fully support any future strikes to damage or destroy their nuclear ambitions,” added Fetterman, a vocal supporter of Israel.


House Democrat Puts Trump Chief Of Staff ‘On Notice’ Over Vanity Fair Article

3
By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54327362226/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159757968

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is escalating his rhetoric against the Trump White House, warning chief of staff Susie Wiles to preserve internal communications as he vows to launch investigations into what he claims is political “retribution” by President Donald Trump.

The threat follows months of controversy surrounding criminal referrals involving prominent Democrats, including Swalwell himself, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and New York Attorney General Letitia James—cases Democrats have repeatedly framed as evidence of a politicized justice system, despite a lack of formal charges to date.

In a video posted Monday to his social media accounts, Swalwell said he had formally put Trump officials “on notice,” citing remarks by Wiles in a recent Vanity Fair interview that he claims amount to an admission that Trump is willing to pursue perceived enemies when opportunities arise.

“I want you to hear from me first. I’m going on offense against Donald Trump, and I just put senior Trump officials on notice,” Swalwell said. “Donald Trump once again is trying to weaponize the Department of Justice to go after his enemies list. That’s me, Adam Schiff, Tish James, and (Federal Reserve Governor) Lisa Cook.”

Background: Referrals, Not Charges

The confrontation comes after Trump-appointed Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte referred Swalwell to the Justice Department earlier this year over alleged mortgage and tax irregularities. Swalwell dismissed the referral as politically motivated. Similar referrals or allegations have been made against Schiff and James, though James’ case was dismissed in early December.

Republicans have argued that referrals themselves are routine and that Democrats are attempting to preemptively discredit oversight efforts by framing them as retaliation—particularly given Democrats’ own extensive use of investigations, subpoenas, and prosecutions during Trump’s first term.

The Vanity Fair Interview That Sparked the Fallout

Swalwell’s latest escalation centers on comments made by Wiles—widely viewed as one of Trump’s most disciplined and media-averse operatives—in an unusually candid Vanity Fair interview that has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle.

When pressed by the magazine about whether prosecutions of Trump critics could appear vindictive, Wiles acknowledged the political optics were problematic.

“I mean, people could think it does look vindictive. I can’t tell you why you shouldn’t think that,” she said.

Wiles added that Trump is not consumed by revenge but does not shy away from confrontation when opportunities present themselves.

“I don’t think he wakes up thinking about retribution,” she said. “But when there’s an opportunity, he will go for it.”

On New York Attorney General Letitia James—who built her political profile around investigations and prosecutions of Trump—Wiles was more blunt.

“Well, that might be the one retribution.”

The remarks quickly circulated online and were seized upon by Democrats as proof that Trump’s critics are being targeted for political reasons, despite the absence of new indictments.

Swalwell Escalates With Threat of Investigations

Swalwell framed Wiles’ comments as an admission that undermines claims that the referrals are routine or apolitical. He said his office has already sent a letter to Wiles demanding the preservation of records.

“So we just sent a letter to Susie Wiles telling her, save your sh*t: your emails, your text messages, everything that records or documents Donald Trump going after his political enemies,” Swalwell said. “Save it because we’re coming for it because we want the truth.”

He vowed to pursue inquiries into Trump’s decision-making process and the actions of his administration.

Watch:

“What did Trump know? What did he order? What do others do on his behalf?” Swalwell asked. “We’re not going away. And the American people are always going to choose the truth over Trump.”

Marjorie Taylor Greene Explains Her Break With Trump — and Why She’s Leaving Congress

2
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), once among President Donald Trump’s most reliable allies on Capitol Hill, is now openly explaining why that alliance collapsed — and why she has chosen to retire from Congress.

In a wide-ranging New York Times profile published Monday, Greene told reporter Robert Draper that her break with Trump was rooted less in ideology than in conscience, faith, and what she described as a growing discomfort with the political culture she helped sustain during the height of the MAGA movement.

Greene said she now views her earlier years in Washington as marked by what she called a “toxic” environment — one she came to believe conflicted with her Christian faith.

“I was naïve,” Greene said, reflecting on her time as a Trump loyalist. “Our side has been trained by Donald Trump to never apologize and to never admit when you’re wrong. You just keep pummeling your enemies, no matter what. And as a Christian, I don’t believe in doing that.”

A Turning Point After Charlie Kirk’s Death

Greene pointed to the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk as a pivotal moment in her personal reckoning. Watching Kirk’s memorial service, she said she was deeply moved by the grace shown by Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk — particularly in contrast to remarks Trump made shortly thereafter.

At a public appearance, Trump said that unlike Kirk, he chooses to “hate” his political opponents.

“It just shows where his heart is,” Greene later texted Draper. “And that’s the difference, with her having a sincere Christian faith, and proves that he does not have any faith.”

Greene said the moment forced her to confront the confrontational persona she believes Trump normalized — and that she herself had embraced.

“After Charlie died,” she said, “I realized that I’m part of this toxic culture. I really started looking at my faith. I wanted to be more like Christ.”

Epstein Files and the Final Rupture

From Greene’s perspective, however, the decisive break with Trump came over her insistence on releasing investigative material related to Jeffrey Epstein.

“It was Epstein. Epstein was everything,” she told the Times.

Greene argued that the files symbolized a deeper problem she believes cuts across party lines: elite impunity.

“Rich, powerful elites doing horrible things and getting away with it,” she said. “And the women are the victims.”

Her push angered Trump and alienated fellow Republicans, Greene said, leading the president to publicly brand her a “traitor” — a label that, she claimed, had real-world consequences.

“Am I going to get murdered, or one of my kids, because he’s calling me a traitor?” Greene recalled asking herself after receiving a pipe bomb threat and an anonymous email targeting her son.

Retirement From Congress — Not From Her Beliefs

Shortly after these events, Greene announced she would not seek reelection, effectively ending her time in Congress. While critics have framed her departure as ideological abandonment, Greene insists otherwise.

“Everyone’s like, ‘She’s changed,’” she said. “I haven’t changed my views. But I’ve matured. I’ve developed depth.”

She described her decision to leave Washington as the result of hard lessons learned — not a rejection of conservative principles or America First priorities.

“I’ve learned Washington, and I’ve come to understand the brokenness of the place,” Greene said. “If none of us is learning lessons here and we can’t evolve and mature with our lessons, then what kind of people are we?”

MAHA Year One: How Trump & RFK Jr. Are Rebuilding American Health

0
By Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America - Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CC BY-SA 2.0,

For decades, Americans were told a story about their health that no longer matched reality. We were assured that food was safe, that regulators were vigilant, that medical advice was insulated from politics and profit, and that rising chronic disease was an unfortunate but unavoidable byproduct of modern life. Meanwhile, the health of the nation deteriorated in plain sight. Obesity climbed year after year. Childhood chronic disease became common rather than exceptional. Autism rates surged. Cancer diagnoses among children rose. By the time President Trump returned to office, 76.4% of Americans were living with at least one chronic disease. Eight out of 10 children could not qualify for military service. What should have been treated as a civilizational emergency was instead normalized, until that long-running failure of honesty and accountability culminated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when public health leaders abandoned transparency, misled the public, and, under Dr. Fauci’s direction, shattered trust in medical professionals and the institutions meant to serve them.

The collapse of trust that followed COVID did not occur in a vacuum. It was the culmination of years of regulatory capture, scientific arrogance, and a public health establishment that confused authority with truth. Americans were ordered, not persuaded. Dissent was pathologized. Data was selectively presented. Vaccine policy was enforced through mandate rather than transparency. Dr. Fauci became the symbol of an anti-science regime that claimed infallibility while revising its claims in real time. When institutions insist on obedience while refusing accountability, trust does not merely erode; it implodes.

It is against this backdrop that the Make America Healthy Again initiative must be understood. MAHA is not a branding exercise or a partisan slogan. It is a course correction. President Trump’s decision to place Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the helm of HHS was not an appeal to nostalgia or name recognition. It was an explicit rejection of the managerial consensus that presided over the chronic disease explosion. The mandate was simple and radical: identify root causes, dismantle regulatory capture, and tell the truth even when it disrupts powerful interests.

Skeptics ask whether one year can matter. The answer depends on what one expects a first year to do. MAHA was never going to reverse decades of metabolic, environmental, and institutional decay overnight. Its purpose was to reorient the system, establish credibility, and force long-delayed questions back into the open. By that standard, the first year has been historic.

Start with the scope of institutional change. President Trump signed an executive order establishing the MAHA Commission, chaired by Secretary Kennedy, with a singular focus on chronic disease. For the first time in generations, chronic illness was treated not as an actuarial inevitability but as a policy failure demanding investigation. This alone marked a break with orthodoxy. Under previous administrations, chronic disease spending rose to $1.3T annually while prevention remained an afterthought. When Kennedy notes that the federal government once spent essentially nothing on chronic disease, he is not making a rhetorical point. He is diagnosing a structural blind spot.

The results are already visible. Thirty-seven states have enacted legislation advancing MAHA-aligned reforms. Nearly 100 MAHA-related bills have passed nationwide. Eighteen states secured SNAP waivers to restrict taxpayer-funded junk food purchases that directly fuel obesity and diabetes. These are not symbolic victories. They are structural incentives aligned with public health rather than industry convenience.

Food policy has been the most visible arena of reform, and for good reason. The American diet did not become toxic by accident. It was engineered through regulatory loopholes that allowed synthetic additives to enter the food supply under the GRAS standard with minimal oversight. MAHA moved quickly to overhaul this system. Agreements now cover roughly 40% of the food industry, committing to remove petroleum-based synthetic dyes. The dairy industry has pledged to eliminate artificial dyes from ice cream by 2028. These changes matter because they reset norms. Once voluntary reform becomes expected, resistance collapses.

The same logic applies to infant health. Operation Stork Speed was launched to expand access to safe and nutritious infant formula while removing heavy metals that had no business entering baby food in the first place. For parents who watched institutions minimize legitimate safety concerns during COVID, this shift toward precaution and transparency has been decisive in rebuilding trust.

Critics often ask whether MAHA is anti-science. The premise is backward. MAHA is anti-dogma. It insists that science earns authority through openness, replication, and humility. This is why vaccine policy has been reframed around informed consent and gold standard trials rather than mandates. Honesty about uncertainty is not weakness. It is the precondition of credibility. Public trust returns when institutions stop pretending to be omniscient.

This emphasis on trust extends beyond food and vaccines. HHS issued guidance restoring biological truth, recognizing that there are two sexes, male and female. This was not culture war theater. Medicine depends on biological reality. When institutions deny observable facts for ideological reasons, patients notice. Restoring clarity restores confidence.

MAHA’s critics also underestimate the importance of state-level experimentation. Utah’s decision to ban added fluoride in public drinking water did not impose a national mandate. It reopened a conversation that had been closed by bureaucratic inertia. Communities are once again allowed to weigh risks and benefits rather than defer to outdated consensus.

Health care delivery itself has not been ignored. Prior authorization has long functioned as a hidden tax on patients and physicians, delaying care while enriching intermediaries. Secretary Kennedy and CMS Administrator Oz secured industry commitments to streamline this process across health plans. Less paperwork means faster treatment and lower burnout. These are the reforms patients feel immediately.

Drug pricing has followed the same philosophy. President Trump’s most favored nation order is being rapidly implemented to align U.S. prescription drug prices with those paid abroad. This is not price control masquerading as populism. It is a refusal to subsidize global markets at the expense of American patients. Lower prices are a public health intervention.

Physical health has returned to the cultural mainstream as well. The Pete and Bobby Challenge, launched by Secretary Kennedy alongside Defense Secretary Hegseth, did something that countless white papers failed to do. It made fitness visible again. A nation where most children cannot meet basic physical standards is not merely unhealthy. It is vulnerable.

The MAHA Commission’s release of the Make Our Children Healthy Again strategy, outlining more than 120 initiatives, signaled that childhood chronic disease is no longer being treated as a mystery or a taboo. New data linking rising thyroid and kidney cancers among children demands answers. Autism rates demand answers. MAHA has made clear that asking these questions is not forbidden. It is required.

Perhaps the most underestimated achievement of the first year is cultural rather than regulatory. Trust is returning because institutions are speaking plainly. The public understands that special interests once thrived behind closed doors. They know they were sold better cigarettes and sugar smacks with a health halo. What they demanded in 2024 was not perfection. It was honesty.

President Trump and Secretary Kennedy have delivered the first credible attempt in decades to dismantle the alliance between bureaucratic power and corporate profit that hollowed out public health. The appointments at NIH, FDA, and CMS reflect this shift. These are not partisan enforcers. They are reformers tasked with ending capture and restoring the mission.

No serious observer should claim that the work is finished. Chronic disease did not emerge in one year, and it will not be eliminated in one term. But trajectories matter. Incentives matter. Trust matters most of all. After years in which Americans were told to comply and not question, MAHA has reopened the social contract between the public and medicine.

Public health cannot function without consent. Consent requires trust. Trust requires truth. That is the chain MAHA is rebuilding. It is why the first year matters. Not because every problem has been solved, but because the system has finally been pointed in the right direction.

If you enjoy my work, please subscribe: https://x.com/amuse.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

Lincoln Project Co-Founder Files To Run For Manhattan Congressional Seat

0

George Conway, a prominent conservative attorney and longtime critic of President Donald Trump, filed paperwork Monday with the Federal Election Commission to explore a bid for Congress as a Democrat.

Conway, a co-founder of The Lincoln Project — a group of self-described Republicans formed to oppose Trump’s presidency — is considering a run in New York’s 12th Congressional District. The Manhattan-based seat is currently held by Rep. Jerry Nadler, who is retiring at the end of this term. The district is one of the safest Democratic seats in the country, meaning the decisive contest is expected to take place in a crowded Democratic primary rather than the general election.

The potential field is already large. Among the declared candidates are Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of former President John F. Kennedy; Cameron Kasky, a leading organizer with March for Our Lives; New York State Assembly Members Alex Bores and Micah Lasher; and New York City Council Member Erik Bottcher. (RELATED: Report: Caroline Kennedy Pleaded With Son Jack Schlossberg Not To Run For Congress)

Conway was married for 22 years to Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s former campaign manager and later White House senior counselor. The couple, who share four children, divorced in 2023. Though George Conway was at one point considered for roles in the Trump administration, he ultimately declined to serve and instead became one of the president’s most outspoken detractors.

Kellyanne Conway speaking with attendees at the 2018 Young Women’s Leadership Summit hosted by Turning Point USA at the Hyatt Regency DFW Hotel in Dallas, Texas. {Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons}

Kellyanne Conway detailed the strain on their marriage in her 2022 memoir, Here’s the Deal, calling her husband once a “Trump-loving, MAGA-cap-wearing” supporter who, she wrote, “slowly turned his back” on her and their children during her time in the White House. She recounted a July 4 weekend argument in 2019 during which George told her, “You have ruined yourself and you have embarrassed this family.”

“I’ve embarrassed this family?” she wrote in response. “You abandoned me for Twitter and she’s not even hot.”

Months after that incident, George Conway helped launch The Lincoln Project, which aimed to block Trump’s reelection. In August 2020, he announced he would take a leave of absence from the organization to spend more time with his family; Kellyanne Conway announced the same day that she would leave her White House position.

In early 2021, Conway publicly called for The Lincoln Project to shut down following allegations of serial sexual harassment against co-founder John Weaver, a longtime adviser to the late Sen. John McCain.

USA Strikes ‘Big Facility’ In Campaign Against Venezuela

President Donald Trump holds a Cabinet meeting, Wednesday, April 30, 2025, in the Cabinet Room. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

President Donald Trump suggested this week that U.S. forces may have carried out a direct strike on a major drug-related facility inside Venezuela, a development that—if confirmed—would represent a significant escalation in his administration’s campaign against narco-trafficking and the Maduro regime.

In an interview Friday with radio host John Catsimatidis on The Cats & Cosby Show, the president discussed ongoing U.S. military operations targeting suspected drug-smuggling vessels operating off the Venezuelan coast. During that conversation, Trump appeared to reference a successful strike on a fixed facility connected to those operations.

“They have a big plant or a big facility where the ships come from,” the president said. “Two nights ago, we knocked that out.”

While Trump did not publicly identify the location of the facility, U.S. officials later told The New York Times that the president was referring to a drug facility located inside Venezuela that had been destroyed. At this time, the president’s comments remain the only public indication such a strike occurred. Neither the Venezuelan government nor other Latin American governments have acknowledged or confirmed an attack of this kind.

If U.S. forces did strike a facility on Venezuelan soil, it would mark the first known land-based military action in Trump’s broader effort to disrupt drug trafficking networks tied to the regime of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro. That effort has intensified since September, when the administration began authorizing military strikes on vessels believed to be transporting narcotics in international waters near Venezuela.

According to public reporting, more than 100 people have been killed since those maritime strikes began. The administration has defended the operations as necessary to combat transnational criminal organizations that U.S. officials say operate with the protection—or direct involvement—of the Maduro government. The Trump administration has repeatedly labeled Venezuela a “narco-state,” accusing senior regime figures of facilitating cocaine trafficking into the United States.

In October, The New York Times reported that the president had “secretly authorized the C.I.A. to conduct covert action in Venezuela,” a claim Trump later confirmed publicly. The authorization reportedly expanded U.S. intelligence and operational capabilities aimed at undermining drug cartels and weakening Maduro’s grip on power.

Beyond military operations, the administration has steadily increased pressure on Caracas through economic and strategic measures. Trump ordered the shutdown of Venezuelan airspace, citing security concerns, and earlier this month the U.S. began seizing oil tankers near Venezuelan shores as part of what officials describe as an enforcement action against illicit oil shipments funding the regime. Supporters of the policy argue these moves are designed to cut off revenue streams used to prop up corruption and criminal networks.

The president has previously made clear that land-based options were under consideration.

“What’s the next step in this war on cartels, and are you considering options? Are you considering strikes on land?” an off-camera reporter asked Trump in the Oval Office in October.

“Well, I don’t want to tell you exactly, but we are certainly looking at land now because we’ve got the sea very well under control,” Trump replied.

That comment, combined with Trump’s remarks during Friday’s radio interview, has fueled speculation that the administration may already be acting on those plans.

Despite the president’s statements, military officials told The New York Times they had no information to share regarding the reported destruction of a “big facility.” Both the CIA and the White House declined to comment, a response consistent with the administration’s approach to sensitive national security operations.

Supporters of the president argue that Trump’s aggressive posture reflects a long-overdue willingness to confront drug cartels and hostile regimes head-on, rather than relying solely on diplomatic pressure. Critics, meanwhile, warn that direct military action inside Venezuela could escalate tensions in the region.

For now, the administration has offered no further details—but Trump’s remarks make clear that his campaign against drug trafficking and the Maduro regime is far from over.

CNN Contributor Says MTG ‘Went Off The Deep End’ After Break with Trump

3

CNN contributor and veteran Republican strategist Scott Jennings delivered a blunt assessment of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) during a rare appearance on ABC’s This Week, arguing that Greene’s recent attacks on President Donald Trump stem more from personal frustration than from any serious ideological break within the MAGA movement.

Jennings appeared on the program to promote his new book when anchor Jonathan Karl asked him about what Karl described as a “burgeoning split” inside MAGA-world — a narrative increasingly pushed by legacy media outlets eager to frame Republican politics as unstable heading into a pivotal election year.

“The, kind of, divide in MAGA,” Karl said. “Which is a relatively new phenomenon — I mean, there was always a little bit there, but …if I were to say what the most surprising story [of the year] was, I would say Marjorie Taylor Greene becomes not just a Trump critic, but a—”

Jennings interrupted with a jab that immediately cut through the premise.

“MTG becomes a lib!” Jennings said.

While clearly tongue-in-cheek, the comment underscored what many Republicans see as an overreaction to Greene’s recent criticisms of Trump and the party leadership. In recent months, Greene has publicly complained about what she characterizes as broken promises from Republican leadership, lack of follow-through on conservative priorities, and Trump’s decision not to endorse her for a potential statewide run in Georgia.

Jennings suggested that the dispute is less about policy and more about political disappointment.

“She got a little bent out of shape because the president wouldn’t support her for a statewide office in Georgia — which she was going to lose if she had gotten into it, by the way,” Jennings said. “And so she goes off the deep end.”

Greene’s criticism of Trump has surprised many grassroots conservatives, given her long history as one of his most vocal and reliable defenders in Congress. Her sharp turn has included public complaints about Republican leadership, warnings about “uniparty” influence, and suggestions that the party has failed to fully deliver on the America First agenda — rhetoric that has resonated with some activists but raised eyebrows among party strategists.

That unease only deepened following Greene’s unexpected announcement that she would resign from Congress, a move that stunned allies and critics alike. While Greene framed her departure as a rejection of what she called a broken institution, many Republicans interpreted it as a sign of frustration rather than a serious realignment within the conservative movement.

Jennings, for his part, rejected the idea that Greene’s break signals meaningful fractures within MAGA or the Republican base more broadly.

“Look, I don’t think these divisions and all this fraying are as big a deal as some people make it out to be,” Jennings said. “Trump is still extraordinarily popular among Republicans. He’s the strongest party boss in the modern era. And he can get his allies in Congress to do most anything he wants them to do — which is why I think in the coming year they really ought to spend some time trying to codify … his executive orders and some of the other initiatives that he’s had, really try to make it stick and really fight it out.”

Jennings argued that Republicans would be better served focusing on governing and locking in Trump-era policies rather than amplifying internal disagreements that the media is eager to exploit.

“Because I think a lot of the things he did would actually be pretty popular political debates to have,” he added.

Karoline Leavitt Shares She Is Expecting Baby Girl In May 2026

0

The White House announced joyful personal news this week as Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt shared that she and her husband, Nick, are expecting a baby girl. The couple’s second child is due in May 2026, joining big brother Niko, who was born in July 2024.

“My husband and I are thrilled to grow our family and can’t wait to watch our son become a big brother,” Leavitt told Fox News Digital. “My heart is overflowing with gratitude to God for the blessing of motherhood, which I truly believe is the closest thing to Heaven on Earth.”

Leavitt also expressed appreciation for the supportive culture inside President Trump’s White House. She thanked President Trump and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles for fostering what she described as a pro-family environment, noting that many West Wing colleagues are also raising young children while serving the country.

“Nearly all of my West Wing colleagues have babies and young children, so we all really support one another as we tackle raising our families while working for the greatest president ever,” Leavitt said. “2026 is going to be an amazing year for the President and our country, and personally, I am beyond excited to become a girl mom.”

A senior White House official confirmed that Leavitt will remain in her post as press secretary throughout her pregnancy.

A Historic and Groundbreaking Moment

Leavitt will make history as the first pregnant White House press secretary in U.S. history—another milestone in a career that has already broken barriers.

At just 36 years old, Karoline Leavitt is the youngest press secretary ever to serve in the role. A New Hampshire native, she rose quickly through Republican politics, becoming known for her sharp messaging, unflinching defense of conservative values, and ability to take on a hostile press corps with confidence and clarity.

Before assuming her role at the White House, Leavitt served as a Trump campaign national press secretary and previously worked in the first Trump administration as an assistant press secretary. She also ran for Congress in New Hampshire, earning national attention for her grassroots campaign and strong America First platform.

Leavitt is widely admired on the Right for unapologetically championing faith, family, and freedom, while excelling in one of the most demanding communications jobs in Washington. Her pregnancy—and the administration’s full support—stands in sharp contrast to the left’s hostility toward working mothers and traditional family values.

As Republicans continue to highlight the importance of strong families and a culture that supports life, Karoline Leavitt’s story is a powerful reminder that you can serve your country at the highest levels without sacrificing faith or family.

Congratulations to Karoline, Nick, and the growing Leavitt family.

‘Golden Fleet’: Trump Announces New Class Of Navy Battleships

2

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday announced plans for a new class of U.S. Navy warships, reviving the battleship concept roughly 85 years after it was eclipsed by the aircraft carrier as the world’s dominant naval platform.

The proposal is part of a broader shipbuilding initiative Trump has branded the “Golden Fleet.”

Trump made the announcement from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, flanked by senior national security officials, including War Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Navy Secretary John Phelan.

A New Naval Push

Under the proposal, the Navy would begin construction on two so-called “Trump-class” battleships, with the potential to expand the fleet to as many as 20 to 25 ships over time.

“These will be the largest battleships in the history of our country — the largest in the history of the world,” Trump said, arguing that the United States needs a stronger and more visible naval presence to deter adversaries.

Trump described the ships as larger, faster, and more powerful than any previous U.S. warship, though few technical details were released during the announcement.

What These Ships Would Likely Be

The idea of building new battleships — a vessel type largely phased out after World War II — immediately raised questions within defense circles.

Traditional battleships, such as the Iowa-class, were centered on heavy guns and thick armor. They fell out of favor as aircraft carriers, submarines, and missile-equipped surface combatants proved more effective in modern warfare.

Retired naval officers familiar with early discussions say the proposed vessels would likely resemble oversized surface combatants rather than classic battleships. Instead of large-caliber guns, they would predominantly feature advanced missile systems, air defense capabilities, and modern sensors.

The Hill continues:

The new vessels will mark an upgrade to the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. 

The first ship in the so-called Trump-class will be the USS Defiant, which will carry the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, according to Phelan. 

The Navy secretary said the Defiant will be the “largest, deadliest and most versatile and best looking warship anywhere on the world’s oceans.” 

As outlined by Navy officials, the Golden Fleet concept could also include up to 50 support and auxiliary ships to sustain the larger force.

Trump said one of the proposed new warships could be completed in about 2.5 years.

Cost and Capacity Concerns

Defense analysts caution that building a new class of large U.S. Navy warships would present significant industrial and budgetary challenges.

Preliminary estimates suggest the vessels could displace between 15,000 and 20,000 tons and cost billions of dollars per ship. Meeting those requirements would likely force U.S. shipyards to expand facilities and hire additional workers capable of handling construction at that scale.

Shipbuilding capacity is already under strain from ongoing submarine and aircraft carrier programs, raising concerns that adding another major initiative could lead to delays or cost overruns.

The U.S. Navy has not built a battleship since the 1940s and decommissioned its last battleship in 1992. Critics note that many of the missions once assigned to battleships are now fulfilled by other platforms without the need to construct massive surface combatants.

Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers and cruisers, for example, perform air defense, anti-submarine warfare, and land-attack missions using Tomahawk cruise missiles. These ships feature modern designs that proponents argue offer greater survivability than a large, highly visible battleship.

Aircraft carriers remain the Navy’s primary power-projection assets, capable of launching aircraft to strike targets hundreds of miles inland, a reach that far exceeds the range of naval guns — including railguns.

Analysts also point to advances in precision-guided missile technology, which allow a variety of platforms to deliver long-range firepower without the risks associated with deploying a single, large vessel.

Strategic Backdrop

The announcement comes as the U.S. military adjusts its global posture amid rising tensions with Venezuela and other regions, and as China continues to expand its navy at a rapid pace.

Critics argue that resources would be better spent on carrier strike groups, submarines, and dispersed missile platforms rather than reviving the battleship concept. Supporters counter that a larger and more formidable surface fleet could strengthen deterrence and signal U.S. resolve.

For now, key questions about design, cost, and strategy are still unresolved.

Fox News Host Defies Conservative Line On Trump’s Christmastime Move

8

Brian Kilmeade isn’t on board.

The Fox & Friends co-host recently broke with several conservative allies after blasting President Trump’s newly unveiled “Presidential Walk of Fame” plaques at the White House, warning the displays go too far — and could come back to haunt Republicans.

Installed along the White House Colonnade, the plaques feature blunt and often mocking descriptions of former presidents. While some on the right have praised the move as funny and overdue, Kilmeade says it crosses a line.

“I’m not for this at all,” he said.

What’s on the plaques

The displays take direct aim at multiple Trump predecessors:

  • Joe Biden: Replaced with an autopen image and labeled “by far, the worst President in American history.”
  • Barack Obama: Called “one of the most divisive political figures in American history.”
  • Bill Clinton: Noted mainly for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Trump.
  • George W. Bush: Also targeted with critical commentary.

The plaques first sparked debate on The Five, where Jessica Tarlov called them “repulsive behavior.”

Why Kilmeade objects

Kilmeade warned that today’s trolling could become tomorrow’s problem.

“They’re just going to mock President Trump or put something on his plaque,” he said, arguing the displays could fuel endless political payback as power shifts.

He was especially critical of the autopen image used for Biden.

“I am not for the autopen,” Kilmeade said, calling it juvenile and unfit for a historic setting.

“If you’re going to do it,” he added, “just put the profiles up there.”

History — and consequences

Kilmeade also noted that presidential reputations often change, pointing to Ulysses S. Grant as a leader once derided but later reassessed.

Even so, he made clear he opposes using the White House for political trolling.

“I don’t think it’s going to happen with Joe Biden,” he said, “but I am not for the trolling.”

Conservatives divided

Kilmeade’s stance puts him at odds with Fox colleagues Jesse Watters and Greg Gutfeld, who defended the plaques as entertaining and brushed off concerns about decorum or future blowback.

What do you think? Is this harmless trolling that is long overdue in response to the left’s taunts, or is it inappropriate for the president to display on the side of the White House? Share your thoughts in the comments below!