Home Blog

Karoline Leavitt Prepares For Second Child As White House Weighs Temporary Shift

Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons


White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt is expected to welcome her second child this week, adding a personal milestone to a tenure already defined by firsts. At 28, she is the youngest press secretary in U.S. history and the first known to serve in the role while pregnant.

Her upcoming leave raises practical questions for the administration, including how long she plans to step away and how the White House will manage one of its most visible daily responsibilities in her absence.

Unclear timeline for leave

A White House official said it’s not yet clear how much time Leavitt will take off after the birth. Like other federal employees, she is generally entitled to up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave. Whether she uses the full period remains an open question.

That uncertainty leaves the briefing schedule in a flexible position, with no firm timeline for her return to the podium.

No interim press secretary planned

Instead of naming a temporary replacement, the White House plans to rely on a rotating group of officials to handle press briefings. That group could include President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, an approach that would break from the more traditional model of a single, consistent spokesperson.

The decision signals a willingness to experiment, but it also introduces the possibility of mixed messaging. Different officials bring different styles, and consistency has long been a priority in managing daily communication with the press.

Family life in the public eye

Leavitt first announced her pregnancy in December, sharing that she and her husband, Nicholas Riccio, were expecting a daughter. Their first child, Niko, was born in July 2024 and has already appeared in the briefing room during special events.

In a social media post after Christmas, Leavitt said she was looking forward to becoming a “girl mom” and described the coming year as meaningful for her family. She also pointed to what she called a supportive, pro-family culture within the White House, crediting both President Trump and chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Staying active on the job

Leavitt continued her duties throughout the pregnancy, rarely stepping back from the demands of the role. That includes leading daily briefings and serving as a central voice for the administration during a busy stretch of domestic and international developments.

Her tenure has also brought changes to the structure of the briefing room. Most notably, she introduced a designated space for “new media,” giving podcasters, independent journalists, and digital creators a more visible presence.

She has often called on those voices early in briefings, a shift away from the traditional dominance of legacy outlets.

A test for a changing briefing room

Leavitt’s temporary absence could put that evolving setup to the test. With multiple officials rotating through the podium, the tone and priorities of briefings may shift from day to day.

That variability may not matter much during quieter periods. But in moments that require clear, unified messaging, it could become more noticeable.

Balancing public service and private life

For now, the focus remains on a personal milestone. Even in a role tied closely to national politics and constant scrutiny, family life continues alongside the job.

Leavitt’s situation underscores a familiar challenge in Washington: balancing the demands of public service with life outside the office. It’s not unique, but it’s rarely this visible.

Her return, whenever it comes, will likely bring the operation back to a more familiar rhythm. Until then, the White House is preparing to adjust on the fly.

READ NEXT: Major City Removes Leader Following Appalling Lawsuit

Trump Cites Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting To Push White House Ballroom: ‘Cannot Be Built Fast Enough’

Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Saturday night’s shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner highlights the urgent need for a new White House ballroom, declaring the project “cannot be built fast enough” as he renewed his push for the controversial proposal.

The remarks came after a gunman, later identified as Cole Thomas Allen, 31, of Torrance, California, attempted to breach the event at the Washington Hilton, where Trump and senior officials were present. The suspect was apprehended, and a federal officer was injured but survived, officials said.

Trump Links Incident to Security Concerns

Following the incident, Trump criticized the Hilton as insufficiently secure and argued that hosting such events off White House grounds creates vulnerabilities.

In a post and subsequent comments, Trump said the attack would not have happened if the event had been held in a secure facility at the White House.

“This event would never have happened… It cannot be built fast enough,” Trump said, referring to the proposed ballroom.

He emphasized that the planned venue would include enhanced security features such as bulletproof glass and protections against drones, all within the perimeter of the White House complex.

The Ballroom Project

Trump has been pushing for the construction of a large, high-security ballroom on White House grounds — a project estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars and, according to him, funded by private donors and major corporations.

The proposed facility would be designed to host large-scale events currently held offsite, including the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, and would be significantly larger than existing event spaces on the grounds.

Plans call for a 90,000-square-foot structure replacing the temporary tents often used on the South Lawn. The design includes a 22,000-square-foot banquet hall capable of seating up to 1,000 guests, along with enhanced security features such as bulletproof glass and a glass-enclosed bridge connecting it to the main residence.

Reported donors include major technology companies such as Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Google, as well as individuals like Jeff Yass.

Trump has also said the ballroom would sit above a larger underground complex being constructed by the military. That portion, expected to include medical and security facilities, would be funded through federal appropriations.

Legal and Political Hurdles

The project has faced legal challenges and scrutiny over whether proper approvals were obtained.

  • A federal judge previously halted parts of construction pending congressional authorization
  • Preservation groups have raised concerns about the impact on the White House complex
  • An appeals court has allowed some work to continue while the case proceeds

Despite those hurdles, Trump and his allies have framed the ballroom as a necessary modernization tied to national security.

Broader Reaction

The shooting has intensified debate around the project.

Some lawmakers — including critics of Trump — have acknowledged security concerns highlighted by the incident. Others argue the ballroom is unnecessary or improperly authorized, questioning both its scale and cost.

What Comes Next

The investigation into the shooting remains ongoing.

At the same time, the legal battle over the ballroom is expected to continue, with a key court hearing anticipated in the coming months.

Trump, however, appears unlikely to back down — positioning the project not just as a legacy item, but as a direct response to a preventable security failure.

READ NEXT: Acting AG Reveals Who Suspect Was Targeting At WH Dinner

Trump Shares Altered Photo Targeting Candace Owens, Escalating Feud

By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54581054338/, Public Domain,

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has intensified his ongoing feud with conservative commentator Candace Owens by sharing a doctored TIME magazine-style cover portraying her as “Vile Person of the Year,” along with fresh personal insults.

The image, posted on Trump’s social media platform, depicted Owens on a mocked-up TIME cover — a format often used for satire or political messaging — and labeled her with the inflammatory title. Trump also referred to Owens as “low IQ” in accompanying remarks.

As Mediaite reports:

“Candace Owens’ stock, which was never very high, has fallen a long way,” wrote Trump. “Her attack on the First Lady of France is despicable. I believe, in this case, without verification, she is an extremely Low IQ individual!”

Screenshot via @realDonaldTrump on Truth Social

The attached image was clearly meant to show Owens in an unflattering light, with raised exposure and a black-and-white filter. Along with the title “Vile Person of the Year,” other text on the cover reads, “Candace Owens lies, lies, lies,” “uses rich white men,” “0% fact check ratio on all credible fact checking sites,” and “protects sex offenders!”

On April 9, Trump posted on Truth Social:

I know why Tucker CarlsonMegyn Kelly, Candace Owens, and Alex Jones have all been fighting me for years, especially by the fact that they think it is wonderful for Iran, the Number One State Sponsor of Terror, to have a Nuclear Weapon — Because they have one thing in common, Low IQs. They’re stupid people, they know it, their families know it, and everyone else knows it, too!

Owens reacted on X with a cutting remark, writing, “It may be time to put Grandpa up in a home.”

The post drew swift attention across political and media circles, with reactions ranging from criticism of the rhetoric to concerns about political distractions as major issues dominate the lead-up to the midterm election.

READ NEXT: Ousted US Official Still Receiving Shocking Military Benefits

Report: Youngkin’s Trump White House Hopes Dim After Virginia Setback

1
President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

The political fallout from Virginia’s redistricting referendum is reaching beyond the state, cutting into Glenn Youngkin’s standing at a moment that matters for his future.

In recent weeks, the former governor had been floated as a possible pick for a Trump administration role, with secretary of labor among the positions mentioned. He was seen as a Republican who could point to a win in a blue-leaning state and bring a different profile into a national cabinet.

That window now looks narrower.

Timing Undercuts Momentum

The criticism from inside GOP circles is landing at a particularly inconvenient time for Youngkin.

According to Politico’s Dasha Burns, administration officials are blaming him for not doing enough to stop the redistricting measure, which passed by a slim margin and could shift up to four House seats toward Democrats. It’s the kind of loss that gets noticed in Washington, especially when control of the House is on the line.

And it’s not just about the outcome. It’s about perception.

A senior official, speaking anonymously, put it bluntly: “He doesn’t have enough friends here.” That comment points to a problem that goes beyond one referendum. It suggests Youngkin lacks the internal support that often decides who gets a seat at the table.

Burns continues:

Becca Glover, executive director of Youngkin’s Spirit of Virginia PAC, defended the former governor’s efforts, noting he raised and contributed nearly $500,000 to Virginians for Fair Maps and supported the Congressional Leadership Fund and Fair Maps’ fundraising efforts.

“The governor hit the campaign trail making many stops across the Commonwealth from Wise to Virginia Beach to Leesburg to motivate the grassroots to vote no,” Glover said. “He was proud to be part of a team including Speaker [Mike] Johnson and other former governors to get out the vote.”

Glover also pointed to the dozens of interviews Youngkin did and his efforts at retail campaigning.

“He continues to ask that the Supreme Court of Virginia to strike down this unconstitutional power grab,” Glover said.

A source briefed on White House discussions pushed back, saying Youngkin’s actions helped set the stage for the current difficulties facing him and his party in Virginia.

“Look, there’s plenty of blame to go around. But if Youngkin hadn’t left the special session open, Louise Lucas would never have had the chance to ram through those maps,” the person said, referring to the Democratic state senator who played a key role in advancing the redistricting effort. “So he has some responsibility for losing these seats.”

From Rising Star to Question Mark

Youngkin’s appeal to national Republicans has always been tied to his 2021 victory and his ability to win in a competitive state without fully leaning into Trump-style politics.

But that brand cuts both ways.

Inside a Trump-aligned orbit, relationships and loyalty still carry more weight than résumé lines. Another loss in Virginia, even one tied to a ballot measure, gives skeptics more reason to question how much influence Youngkin really has, both at home and in the broader party.

That matters when administration roles are being discussed behind closed doors.

Fewer Openings, More Competition

Even under the best conditions, cabinet-level positions are limited and highly competitive. Candidates need more than a strong narrative. They need advocates inside the administration willing to push their case.

Right now, the signals suggest Youngkin doesn’t have that backing.

The criticism tied to the referendum may not be decisive on its own. But combined with lingering doubts about his connections in Washington, it adds friction at the worst possible time.

READ NEXT: Indicted Democrat Who Resigned From Congress Plans Reelection Bid

Trump’s Signature To Be Added To US Currency

3
President Donald Trump gestures to the crowd after delivering remarks at the House GOP Member Retreat, Tuesday, January 6, 2026, at the Donald J. Trump- John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The Treasury Department announced Thursday that President Donald Trump’s signature will be added to future U.S. paper currency, a move that would mark a notable departure from longstanding norms governing American money.

If implemented, Trump would become the first sitting president whose name appears on U.S. currency, a development that is already drawing both historical comparisons and legal scrutiny. Traditionally, U.S. paper currency features the engraved portraits of deceased presidents and statesmen, along with the signature of the Treasury secretary and the treasurer of the United States—not the president.

The announcement comes alongside broader efforts tied to Trump’s image and legacy in U.S. coinage. The administration has supported the creation of two coins bearing Trump’s likeness: a proposed $1 coin and a special 24-karat commemorative gold coin. The latter recently received approval from the federal Commission of Fine Arts, which voted to move forward with a design based on a photograph of Trump taken in the White House.

Historically, depictions of living individuals on U.S. currency have been restricted. Federal law generally prohibits living persons, including presidents, from appearing on U.S. currency. The administration, however, has argued that the restriction applies differently to coins than to paper money, opening the door to legal interpretation and potential challenges. The only sitting president ever to appear on a U.S. coin was Calvin Coolidge, who was featured on a commemorative half dollar in 1926 marking the 150th anniversary of American independence.

Treasury officials framed the decision as part of a broader effort to commemorate the nation’s upcoming 250th anniversary, also known as the Semiquincentennial, which will take place in 2026. The milestone has prompted a range of proposals aimed at celebrating American history, including new currency designs and commemorative issues.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, we are on a path toward unprecedented economic growth, lasting dollar dominance, and fiscal strength and stability,” Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said in a statement.

“There is no more powerful way to recognize the historic achievements of our great country and President Donald J. Trump than U.S dollar bills bearing his name, and it is only appropriate that this historic currency be issued at the Semiquincentennial,” he added.

Supporters of the move argue that it reflects Trump’s economic agenda and its perceived impact on U.S. financial policy, while critics have raised concerns about breaking with precedent and politicizing national symbols like currency. Some Democrats and outside stakeholders have already voiced opposition, particularly regarding the commemorative gold coin, arguing that such decisions should adhere to established bipartisan norms and legal guidelines.

Beyond the political debate, the mechanics of redesigning U.S. currency are complex. Changes to paper money typically involve coordination between the Treasury Department, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the Federal Reserve, and can take years to implement due to security features, anti-counterfeiting measures, and logistical considerations.

The Treasury has not yet provided a timeline for when the updated currency bearing Trump’s signature would enter circulation, nor has it clarified whether the change would apply across all denominations.

READ NEXT: Senate Candidate Behind Bars After Florida Resort Incident

GOP Split Emerges Over Potential Maxwell Pardon In Epstein Investigation

A Divided Republican Conference

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee are facing an internal divide over a sensitive and politically risky question: whether Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted associate of Jeffrey Epstein, should be considered for a presidential pardon in exchange for cooperation with investigators.

The discussion has largely taken place behind closed doors, but it reflects a broader tension between uncovering new information and maintaining public confidence in the justice system.

Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) acknowledged the split, noting that some Republicans believe Maxwell could provide valuable testimony about Epstein’s network if offered clemency. Still, Comer made clear he is not among them.

  • He warned that a pardon “looks bad” politically and ethically
  • He emphasized Maxwell’s central role in the underlying crimes
  • He argued that granting leniency could undermine trust in the investigation

Comer summed up his position bluntly, describing Maxwell as one of the most culpable figures in the case.

Democrats Firmly Opposed

Democrats on the committee are unified in rejecting any potential deal.

Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) strongly criticized the idea, arguing that offering clemency to Maxwell would be offensive to victims and damaging to the integrity of the investigation.

Key concerns raised by Democrats include:

  • The impact on survivors of Epstein’s abuse
  • The credibility of any testimony obtained through a pardon
  • The risk of public perception shifting toward a “cover-up”

Garcia warned that even considering such an arrangement could erode confidence in the process and send the wrong signal about accountability.

Maxwell’s Leverage and Conditions

Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year sentence for her role in Epstein’s trafficking operation. So far, she has declined to cooperate with congressional investigators under existing conditions.

Her legal team, however, has signaled a willingness to engage if circumstances change.

According to her attorney:

  • Maxwell would be willing to testify “fully and honestly”
  • Any cooperation would be contingent on clemency
  • She is positioned as a key source of information about Epstein’s network

Her attorney has also claimed that Maxwell could shed light on the involvement, or lack thereof, of high-profile figures, including former presidents. Those assertions have not eased skepticism among lawmakers.

The Political and Legal Stakes

President Donald Trump has not ruled out the possibility of granting clemency, leaving the issue open and politically charged.

The debate highlights a difficult tradeoff:

  • Potential benefit: New details about Epstein’s network and associates
  • Potential cost: Perceived erosion of justice and accountability

For many lawmakers, the question is not just what Maxwell might reveal, but whether the price of that information is too high.

Why This Matters

At its core, the disagreement reflects a broader challenge facing investigators and policymakers:

  • How far should the government go to obtain critical information?
  • Can justice and transparency be balanced in a case with this level of public scrutiny?

There is no clear consensus, and the path forward remains uncertain.

What are your thoughts? Should a pardon be considered if it leads to new information about Epstein’s network? Share your perspective in the comments below.

READ NEXT: Case Against Leading Trump Opponent Abruptly Dropped

Leak Reveals Trump Planning ‘Mic-Drop’ Showdown With Media At WHCA Dinner

2

WASHINGTON — A leaked report indicates President Donald Trump is preparing a high-profile confrontation with the press at this weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, signaling a return to direct engagement after years of boycotting the event.

According to the report, Trump plans to deliver a sharply critical speech targeting media outlets he believes have treated his administration unfairly — particularly coverage of the ongoing Iran conflict — before making a quick exit from the event.

Planned ‘Mic-Drop’ Moment

Sources familiar with the plan say Trump intends to use the traditionally lighthearted dinner as a platform for a more combative message, aimed at what he has frequently described as hostile or biased coverage.

The strategy reportedly includes:

  • Direct criticism of specific outlets
  • A short, pointed address rather than a traditional speech
  • Leaving immediately afterward — before awards and entertainment begin

That approach would break with longstanding tradition, where presidents typically remain for the full program and participate in a comedic back-and-forth with the press.

Timing and Optics

The reported plan comes as tensions between the administration and the media remain elevated, particularly over coverage of military operations involving Iran.

Trump has long accused broad swaths of the press of unfair reporting, while journalists have defended their coverage as part of standard scrutiny of government actions.

His expected appearance would mark his first attendance at the annual dinner as president after previously skipping it during both terms.

Breaking With Tradition

The WHCA dinner has historically served as a symbolic — if sometimes tense — moment of interaction between the presidency and the press corps.

In recent years, the event has evolved:

  • Comedians, once a staple, have been replaced or scaled back
  • The tone has shifted away from direct political roasting
  • Attendance by presidents has become less consistent

This year’s program reportedly features a mentalist rather than a comedian, reflecting efforts to avoid controversy tied to past appearances.

Political Context

The planned speech also carries broader political implications.

A direct confrontation with the media — especially in a high-visibility setting — could energize supporters who view press coverage as adversarial, while further straining relations with journalists already at odds with the administration.

What Comes Next

It remains unclear whether Trump will follow through exactly as outlined in the leaked plan.

But if he does, the dinner could shift from a ceremonial event into a high-stakes political moment — one likely to reverberate beyond a single evening in Washington.

READ NEXT: Watch: Lefty Media Star Makes Disgusting Comments About Atrocities

Legal Battle Erupts After Judge Halts Virginia Redistricting Certification

2

Virginia’s attorney general is appealing a court order that halted a newly approved redistricting plan, setting off another legal clash with potential ripple effects far beyond the state.

Attorney General Jay Jones said he will challenge a circuit court judge’s decision to block the measure, even after voters narrowly approved it in a statewide referendum.

“As I said last night, Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the People’s vote,” Jones said. “We look forward to defending the outcome of last night’s election in court.”

Court steps in after close vote

The dispute centers on a temporary constitutional amendment that would allow Democrats to redraw Virginia’s congressional districts before the next census.

The measure passed with 51% support, compared with 48% opposed. Still, Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. moved to block it, raising concerns about how the question was presented to voters and when the vote was held.

Hurley had already tried to stop the referendum months earlier. In February, he issued an order preventing the April vote from going forward.

Twice, the Virginia Supreme Court allowed the process to continue anyway. The justices declined to weigh in fully, saying only that the process, not the outcome, could ultimately come under review.

“Issuing an injunction to keep Virginians from the polls is not the proper way to make this decision,” the court said at the time.

What the new map could do

If it stands, the plan could dramatically reshape Virginia’s congressional delegation.

Democrats currently hold a 6-5 edge. Under the proposed map, that margin could widen to as much as 10-1. The arrangement would remain in place until after the 2030 census, when an independent commission would again take over the process.

That potential shift is drawing attention from both parties nationwide.

National fallout and political warnings

Republicans say the move could trigger similar efforts in GOP-led states.

Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested South Carolina should consider a response.

“After the Virginia Democrats’ efforts to redistrict in order to increase Democrat seats in the House of Representatives, South Carolina should consider fighting fire with fire,” he said, urging state leaders to weigh their options.

Democrats, meanwhile, argue the plan is a reaction to earlier redistricting pushes in Republican-controlled states.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger said Virginia voters understood the stakes.

“When we found the results out, I was really excited but not surprised,” she said. “Because it’s been clear for a number of months that Virginians were really motivated to take this temporary responsive stance.”

She pushed back on criticism that the process lets politicians choose their voters, pointing to public access to the maps and contrasting Virginia with states where legislatures acted without voter input.

A broader fight over redistricting

The debate is part of a larger, escalating battle over congressional maps.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries cast the Virginia vote as a direct response to pressure from President Donald Trump, pointing to his push for mid-decade redistricting in Texas as the starting point.

“It was important for Democrats to push back aggressively,” Jeffries said, adding that the party would continue to respond in kind.

But not all Democrats are comfortable with that approach.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) warned that tit-for-tat redistricting could damage the political system.

“The wrong thing doesn’t make it the right thing,” he said. “If we continue to just attack the other side … our democracy is degraded.”

What comes next

For now, the legal fight returns to the courts, where the future of the voter-approved plan remains uncertain.

At stake is more than Virginia’s map. The outcome could shape how far states are willing to go in redrawing districts mid-decade and how aggressively parties respond to each other in the process

READ NEXT: Republican Colleagues Seek Answers After Congressman Goes Missing

DOJ Slams Alleged DC Pipe Bomber’s Bid To Claim Trump Pardon

Tyler Merbler, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

The Justice Department is forcefully pushing back against a striking legal claim from the man accused of planting pipe bombs in Washington, D.C., on the eve of Jan. 6 — that he was effectively pardoned by President Trump.

In a court filing Friday, prosecutors urged a federal judge to reject Brian Cole Jr.’s attempt to have his charges thrown out, calling his argument flatly incompatible with the “clear and unambiguous terms” of Trump’s sweeping Jan. 6 clemency order.

Cole, who was arrested in December 2025 after years of investigation, is accused of placing two pipe bombs outside the Republican and Democratic National Committee headquarters on Jan. 5, 2021 — just hours before rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol.

The devices never detonated, but the FBI has said they were functional and viable, raising the stakes of a case that remained unsolved for nearly five years.

Earlier this year, Cole’s lawyers made a bold move: They argued that his actions were “inextricably and demonstrably tethered” to the events of Jan. 6 — and therefore covered by Trump’s mass pardon of people tied to the attack.

They pointed to the broad language in Trump’s order, which applies to offenses “related to” events at or near the Capitol, and noted that Cole allegedly traveled to Washington for an election protest tied to the same political moment that fueled the riot.

But the Justice Department isn’t buying it.

“The defendant ignores that the proclamation expressly limited relief to individuals who had been ‘convicted of,’ or had a ‘pending indictment’ for, offenses related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6,” U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro wrote.

That distinction, prosecutors argue, is decisive.

When Trump’s pardon took effect on Jan. 20, 2025, Cole had not yet been charged — putting him outside the scope of the order entirely.

“The defendant belonged to neither category, and so the proclamation has no bearing on this case,” Pirro wrote.

Cole was indicted weeks later, in January 2026, on charges including interstate transportation of explosives and malicious attempt to use them.

Prosecutors also made clear that even a broader reading of the pardon wouldn’t help him.

“Even if the Court somehow found, notwithstanding its text, that the proclamation could apply to this case,” Pirro wrote, the Justice Department’s interpretation should still prevail as a “consistent, reasonable” reading by the agency tasked with enforcing it.

The clash sets up a high-stakes test of how far Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons can stretch — and whether conduct that happened before the riot, but is arguably connected to it, can fall under their umbrella.

For now, the Justice Department’s position is blunt: Not this case. Not this defendant.

READ NEXT: Congressman’s Sudden Death Upends Key Race

DeSantis Mentioned As Possible Trump Supreme Court Nominee

Ron DeSantis via Gage Skidmore Flickr

President Donald Trump has told confidants that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is angling for a role in the Trump administration, describing the governor as “begging” for consideration, according to a report from Axios.

Trump, speaking privately, claimed DeSantis specifically sought the position of attorney general. One person familiar with the conversation said Trump put it bluntly: “Ron was begging me to be AG.”

Private meeting sparks speculation

The remarks followed a private lunch between the two Republicans at Trump National Doral Golf Club in Miami roughly a week earlier. Multiple sources briefed on the meeting said the discussion went beyond casual politics and touched on DeSantis’ future after leaving the governor’s office.

DeSantis is term-limited and set to step down in January 2027, which makes his next move one of the more open questions in Republican politics.

Not everyone close to the conversation agrees with Trump’s characterization. One source described the exchange as broader and less defined.

“There was a conversation at that lunch,” the person said. “I don’t think AG is real. But he’s gonna be looking for work and Trump likes him.”

Competing accounts of DeSantis’ interests

Other accounts suggest DeSantis has different ambitions.

According to Axios, a source familiar with his thinking said the governor has little interest in serving as attorney general. Instead, two roles stand out: secretary of defense or a future seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“DeSantis is 100% not interested in the AG job,” the source said. “But he would be interested in two things: War secretary or Supreme Court, which would be his dream job.”

The same source pointed to DeSantis’ long-standing admiration for Justice Clarence Thomas, noting the two “almost have a father-son relationship.” DeSantis has frequently cited Thomas as a model for constitutional interpretation and has publicly defended him amid criticism from the left.

From rivals to allies

The behind-the-scenes discussions reflect a shift in the relationship between Trump and DeSantis.

The two were rivals during the 2024 Republican presidential primary, where tensions often played out in public. That dynamic changed after DeSantis exited the race and endorsed Trump. Since then, both camps have signaled a more cooperative approach.

DeSantis’ office pushed back on the idea that he is lobbying for a specific job, emphasizing instead that the governor “enjoys a great relationship with President Trump.”

Trump, for his part, has said publicly he would consider bringing DeSantis into his administration once the governor leaves office, though no formal offer has been made.

What comes next

Any path forward remains uncertain.

A Supreme Court appointment would depend on a vacancy, something no administration can guarantee. A Defense Department role would require changes in current leadership. And while DeSantis has not ruled out another presidential run, joining an administration could offer a different route to stay relevant on national policy.

For now, the conversations appear informal and fluid. But with DeSantis’ term winding down and Trump continuing to shape his political team, the question of where the Florida governor lands is unlikely to fade anytime soon.

READ NEXT: GOP Lawmakers And Dems Unite To Block Trump’s Key Policy