By David Wilson - https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidwilson1949/6056934707/in/photolist-5coszA-aeenEK-2CqzzK-8QZ5mo, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=98841262
Actor Robert De Niro said during a Monday interview that he believes President Donald Trump would “never leave” office voluntarily and argued that it would be up to the public to remove him.
Speaking on MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace’s podcast, The Best People, De Niro dismissed the suggestion that Trump’s term would simply end in three years.
“I wonder what it is about people’s inability to see beyond the next three — he’s gone in three years,” Wallace said.
“Well, he will never leave. We have to make him leave. You see, he jokes now about nationalizing the elections — he’s not joking. We’ve seen enough already. And everybody’s worried about it, but he means it,” De Niro replied.
When Wallace again asked whether he believed Trump would leave in three years, De Niro doubled down.
“He ain’t leaving. No, no way. Let’s not kid ourselves. He will not leave. It’s up to us to get rid of him,” the actor continued.
De Niro also suggested that Trump might not respect midterm election results and called for widespread public demonstrations.
“You start hearing it all over now,” the actor said. “It’s up to you. Damn right, it’s about the people. The people got — like Vietnam. You got to get out there and protest. The ‘No Kings’ coming. It’s got to be not 7, 8, 9 million. It’s got to be way, way more than that.”
Robert De Niro says Trump will “never leave” office, so people “have to get rid of him” on their own.
He then calls on people to obstruct Trump’s election integrity measures at the polls in the midterms.
De Niro has been one of Trump’s most outspoken celebrity critics for nearly a decade, frequently using award show appearances, interviews, and public events to denounce the president in blunt and often profane terms. He has previously endorsed Democratic candidates and supported legal efforts against Trump, framing his activism as a defense of democratic institutions.
In an earlier appearance on MSNBC in October, De Niro praised several Democratic leaders who have challenged Trump’s policies in court and in Congress.
“There’s something,” De Niro said. “I like Hakeem Jeffries. I like… Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, they’re all great, strong. I like what Letitia James is doing. She’s fighting back. She’s saying, ‘f— you!’”
After an audible reaction from host Jonathan Capehart, De Niro continued, “I’m sorry. This is where we are. It’s what she’s saying. ‘This is it. I will not be taken down by this person. I am not afraid of him.’ And God bless her for that. And that’s how other people have to be.”
What “Vietnam-Style” Protests Could Mean Today
De Niro’s reference to Vietnam evokes the mass anti-war demonstrations of the late 1960s and early 1970s, when millions of Americans participated in marches, campus protests, and large-scale rallies in Washington, D.C., and other major cities. Those protests included peaceful demonstrations, acts of civil disobedience, and, at times, clashes with law enforcement.
In today’s political climate, a “Vietnam-style” protest movement would likely unfold across multiple fronts: coordinated national marches, sustained demonstrations in major cities, social media-driven organizing, and pressure campaigns aimed at lawmakers. Modern protest movements often rely on digital mobilization, viral messaging, and coalition-building across activist groups.
At the same time, the U.S. Constitution sets fixed presidential term limits under the 22nd Amendment, and presidential elections are administered by the states under established federal and state laws. Any removal of a sitting president outside of an election would require constitutional processes, such as impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate.
De Niro’s comments reflect a broader concern among some Trump critics that he will not actually exit the White House following the conclusion of his second term.
President Trump has frequently teased liberal meltdowns by joking he plans to pursue a third term in office.
Shortly after returning to office, Trump again referred to another term at a rally in Las Vegas on Jan. 25.
“It will be the greatest honor of my life to serve, not once but twice — or three times or four times,” Mr. Trump quipped to applause from the crowd, before adding that “no, it will be to serve twice.”
Then on Jan. 27, President Trump joked to Republican lawmakers about a third term. Speaking before the House GOP conference in Florida, Mr. Trump touted the money he’d raised for another race that he said “I assume I can’t use for myself.”
“But I’m not 100% sure because, I don’t know,” the president continued, to laughter from House Republicans. “I think I’m not allowed to run again. I’m not sure. Am I allowed to run again?”
Team USA’s thrilling overtime win over Canada in the men’s Olympic hockey gold medal game on Sunday had Americans across the country on their feet — and FBI Director Kash Patel was no exception.
A 46-second clip posted to X by ProPublica reporter William Turton, who said it was sent to him by a source, shows Patel fully embracing the moment in the locker room after the victory. The FBI director is seen taking a hearty sip from a beer bottle, splashing some of it in celebration, pounding his chest and a nearby table, and jumping alongside players as a gold medal is draped around his neck.
Patel responded to the viral clip, confirming it was, in fact, him, and he had no regrets in celebrating the historic victory.
As the team belted out Toby Keith’s 2002 anthem “Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue,” Patel lifted his beer and joined in, celebrating like any red-blooded American hockey fan would after a historic win.
Unity, Sacrifice, Attitude- what it takes to be the best in the world. These men live and breathe it. Now Team USA are gold medal champions, legends standing on the shoulders of giants. Thank you for representing the greatest country on earth, in the greatest game ever created.… pic.twitter.com/hBG987pxM2
Team USA secured its first men’s Olympic hockey gold medal since the legendary “Miracle on Ice” team of 1980. The game was a nail-biter from start to finish. Goaltender Connor Hellebuyck delivered a masterclass performance, stopping 41 shots and keeping the game locked at 1-1 to force overtime.
One save in particular had fans shaking their heads in disbelief. In the second period, Hellebuyck somehow turned away a wide-open shot from Canada’s Devon Toews using only his stick, spinning quickly to block the puck and preserve the tie. Without that moment — and dozens more like it — the outcome could have been very different.
Jack Hughes ultimately sealed the deal in overtime, scoring the game-winning goal past Canada’s Jordan Binnington. Hughes reportedly lost two teeth during the battle but etched his name into Team USA history with the golden goal.
The performance earned Hellebuyck a new nickname on social media: “Secretary of Defense.” United States Secretary of War Pete Hegseth quickly endorsed the title. After watching the Americans defeat Canada, Hegseth — who previously held the “Secretary of Defense” title before the department reverted to its historic “Department of War” name last September — weighed in enthusiastically.
“Now we have a Secretary of War… and a Secretary of Defense!” Hegseth wrote over a post highlighting Hellebuyck’s incredible saves.
President Donald Trump has invited the gold medal-winning team to attend his State of the Union address this week, a fitting tribute to a team that delivered a moment of unity and pride on the world stage.
President Trump offers to have a military plane pick up the USA men’s hockey team to bring them to the State of the Union address Tuesday night! 🏒🇺🇸
In the end, it wasn’t about politics. It was about country, competition, and a comeback win over a longtime rival. And as Toby Keith’s lyrics echoed through the locker room, one thing was clear: Team USA — and plenty of Americans watching — felt proud to be flying the red, white, and blue.
Marine One lifts-off after returning President Donald J. Trump to Mar-a-Lago Friday, March 29, 2019, following his visit to the 143-mile Herbert Hoover Dike near Canal Point, Fla., that surrounds Lake Okeechobee. The visit was part of an infrastructure inspection of the dike, which is part of the Kissimmee-Okeechobee Everglades system, and reduces impacts of flooding for areas of south Florida. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian) [Photo Credit: The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]
PALM BEACH, Fla. — A 21-year-old man was shot and killed early Sunday after allegedly breaching the secure perimeter of President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, prompting a multi-agency federal investigation, the U.S. Secret Service confirmed.
The incident unfolded around 1:30 a.m. when the suspect made what officials described as an “unauthorized entry” onto the property.
According to the Secret Service, the individual was observed near the north gate carrying what appeared to be a shotgun and a fuel can. Agents, along with a deputy from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office (PBSO), responded immediately.
Sheriff Ric Bradshaw identified the suspect as Austin Tucker Martin, 21, of North Carolina.
Bradshaw said during a press conference that a deputy and two Secret Service agents assigned to the detail confronted the man after he entered what authorities described as the “inner perimeter” of the estate.
“They confronted a white male that was carrying a gas can and a shotgun. He was ordered to drop those two pieces of equipment that he had with him — at which time he put down the gas can, raised the shotgun to a shooting position,” Bradshaw told reporters. “At that point in time, the deputy and the two Secret Service agents fired their weapons and neutralized the threat.”
Bradshaw said the suspect did not respond verbally to commands from law enforcement officers to drop the items.
Martin was pronounced dead at the scene.
Officials confirmed that no Secret Service personnel or sheriff’s deputies were injured during the confrontation. No Secret Service protectees were present at Mar-a-Lago at the time of the incident, and Trump was not in Florida when the shooting occurred.
The FBI, Secret Service, and Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office are jointly investigating the shooting, including the suspect’s background, actions, potential motive, and the use of force.
FBI Miami Special Agent in Charge Brett Skiles said the bureau is assisting due to the location being under Secret Service protection.
The FBI’s evidence response team is processing the scene and collecting physical evidence. Skiles urged residents in the area to review surveillance footage from late Saturday night into early Sunday morning.
“If you see anything that looks suspicious or out of place, please contact us,” he said.
FBI Director Kash Patel said in a post on X that the agency “is dedicating all necessary resources in the investigation of this morning’s incident,” adding that the bureau “will continue working closely with @SecretService as well our state and federal partners and will provide updates as we are able.”
FBI is dedicating all necessary resources in the investigation of this morning’s incident at President Trump’s Mar-A-Lago – where an armed individual was shot and killed after unlawfully entering the perimeter. We will continue working closely with @SecretService as well our…
Sunday’s incident comes amid heightened security surrounding Trump following multiple high-profile threats and assassination attempts in recent years. Most notably, Trump survived an assassination attempt during a July 2024 campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where a gunman opened fire, injuring Trump and killing a rally attendee. That attack prompted sweeping reviews of Secret Service procedures and significantly intensified protective measures at Trump properties and public events.
Since then, federal authorities have reported disrupting additional threats against the former president, contributing to an already elevated security posture.
Mar-a-Lago, which serves as Trump’s private residence and a frequent venue for political and public events, operates under layered security protocols when under Secret Service protection. Officials have not yet indicated whether Sunday’s incident is connected to any broader threat.
The investigation remains active, and authorities say additional details will be released as they become available.
Air Force One and other presidential aircraft are expected to receive a new paint design featuring red, white, gold, and dark blue — colors long associated with President Trump’s preferred aesthetic — according to confirmation from NewsNation.
An Air Force spokesperson told NewsNation that both the luxury jet donated by Qatar and the new VC-25B Boeing aircraft currently under development will adopt the updated color scheme. The title “Air Force One” refers to any aircraft carrying the president.
In addition to the presidential aircraft, four smaller C-32 planes are also slated for repainting. These aircraft are designated as “Air Force Two” when the vice president is aboard and are frequently used by the first lady and Cabinet secretaries for official travel.
A Break from the Kennedy-Era Design
The current light blue and white design has been in place since the Kennedy administration in the early 1960s. The iconic look was created by famed industrial designer Raymond Loewy at the request of President John F. Kennedy and has remained largely unchanged for more than six decades.
The shift to a darker blue with bold red and gold accents marks the most significant visual update to the presidential fleet in generations.
According to NewsNation, the first C-32 aircraft has already been repainted and is expected to be delivered to the Air Force within the next few months.
Work Underway in Texas
CBS News first reported on the repainting efforts. Contractor L3Harris is overseeing upgrades to the Air Force Two planes at its facility in Greenville, Texas. The broader VC-25B program — the long-delayed replacement effort for the current 747-based Air Force One aircraft — remains under development through Boeing.
The new VC-25B jets are designed to replace the aging presidential aircraft that have been in service since 1990. The modernization program includes upgraded communications systems, enhanced security features, and defensive capabilities intended to ensure continuity of government under any circumstances.
A Longstanding Proposal
The idea of changing Air Force One’s paint scheme is not new. During his first term, President Trump proposed replacing the light blue design with a darker navy base and bold red striping. At the time, he described the existing color scheme as outdated and expressed interest in a look that he said better reflected American strength and tradition.
The updated red, white, and dark blue palette aligns more closely with the American flag and mirrors the aesthetic often seen in Trump-branded properties and campaign materials.
While the aircraft’s mission capabilities and security features remain the primary focus of the modernization effort, the visual redesign ensures that the presidential fleet will look noticeably different when the new planes enter service.
The repainting of the C-32 fleet is expected to be completed first, with the new VC-25B aircraft anticipated to enter service later this decade, pending continued testing and production milestones.
President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Monday, February 10, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House photo by Abe McNatt)
President Donald Trump strongly criticised the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that ruled he does not have the authority to levy sweeping tariffs under a specific emergency powers law, saying he will pursue “alternatives” to tariffs under the emergency law.
“Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected,” Trump said during a White House press briefing Friday afternoon. “We have alternatives. Great alternatives. Could be more money. We’ll take in more money, and we’ll be a lot stronger for it. We’re taking in hundreds of billions of dollars. We’ll continue to do so.”
The president also announced he is imposing a 10% “global tariff” following the court’s decision.
“Today I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged,” Trump said. “And we’re also initiating several section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.”
"Effective immediately, all National Security TARIFFS, Section 232 and existing Section 301 TARIFFS, remain in place, and in full force and effect. Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being… pic.twitter.com/B3bv5f5KW1
The Supreme Court blocked Trump’s tariffs levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in what amounts to a consequential test of the executive branch’s authority.
Trump called the ruling “deeply disappointing,” saying he was “ashamed” of certain members of the court.
“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” the president said. “In actuality, I was very modest in my ask of other countries and businesses because… I wanted to be very well-behaved.
“I didn’t want to do anything that would affect the decision of the court, because I understand the court. I understand how they are very easily swayed. I want to be a good boy. I have very effectively utilized tariffs over the past year to make America great again,” he said.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/191819781@N02/53626268079/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=147209317
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr confirmed Wednesday that the agency has opened enforcement proceedings involving ABC’s daytime talk show The View, citing concerns over whether the program qualifies for an exemption under federal “equal time” rules for political candidates.
Carr made the comments during an appearance on Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle, where he discussed recent scrutiny surrounding political interviews on broadcast television and the FCC’s role in ensuring fairness during election cycles.
“Disney has a program called The View,” Carr said. “And they’ve been asserting the position that The View is what is known as ‘bona fide news’ in the statute. If you are bona fide news, you don’t have to give candidates equal air time.”
“But Disney and The View have not established that that program is, in fact, bona fide news,” Carr added. “We’ve started enforcement proceedings, taking a look at that.”
Investigation Comes Amid Colbert Controversy
Carr’s remarks came after late-night host Stephen Colbert claimed CBS lawyers discouraged The Late Show from airing an interview with Texas State Rep. James Talarico, a Democrat running in the state’s U.S. Senate primary.
Colbert suggested the network was concerned about new FCC guidance regarding the equal-time rule, which requires broadcasters using public airwaves to provide equal opportunities to opposing political candidates.
“This was Democrat-on-Democrat violence,” Carr told Fox News host Laura Ingraham. He argued CBS did not block the interview outright, but instead warned that airing it could trigger equal-time requirements for other candidates.
“CBS was very clear that Colbert could run the interview that he wanted with that political candidate,” Carr said. “They just said, you may have to comply with equal time… But instead of doing that, they claimed that they were victims.”
CBS later issued a statement denying it barred the interview.
“The Late Show was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Rep. James Talarico,” the network said. “The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates… and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled.”
Carr Says FCC Will Hold Broadcasters Accountable
Carr framed the enforcement action as part of a broader effort to prevent what he described as legacy media influence over elections and public opinion.
“The equal-time rule at its core is about stopping legacy media from picking winners and losers in elections,” Carr said. “It’s so that the American people can decide.”
He added that the FCC intends to ensure broadcasters follow existing law.
“We’re going to enforce the law and hold broadcasters accountable,” Carr said. “The days that these legacy media broadcasters get to decide what we can say, what we can think, who we can vote for are over.”
Carr did not confirm reports suggesting the investigation into The View was triggered by the show’s own interview with Talarico earlier this year, but reiterated that the agency is reviewing whether the program legitimately qualifies as “bona fide news” under federal statute.
Carr also said the FCC would continue administering the equal-time rule in accordance with current law, particularly as political campaigns intensify ahead of upcoming elections.
“Perhaps Colbert and other establishment Democrats want to put the thumb on the scale… but we’re going to enforce the law,” he said.
The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a significant blow to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda, ruling that he cannot use a national emergency law to impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners without clearer authorization from Congress.
In a 6–3 decision, the justices struck down Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs, which included a 10% global import duty and higher “reciprocal” tariffs targeting certain nations. Trump has argued the policy was essential to protecting American industry and described it as “life or death” for the U.S. economy.
At the center of the case was Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute designed to give presidents broad authority to respond to “unusual and extraordinary threats” after declaring a national emergency.
In April, Trump declared the nation’s growing trade deficit a “national emergency,” and his administration cited that declaration as the legal foundation for imposing the tariffs.
Supporters of the policy argued the tariffs were necessary to counter unfair foreign trade practices and to defend American workers from decades of global economic imbalance. However, the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not provide the president with unilateral power to impose tariffs on such a broad scale.
While the law allows presidents to “regulate…importation” during emergencies, it does not explicitly mention tariffs — a key point raised repeatedly during oral arguments held in November.
Several justices, including some appointed by Trump, questioned whether Congress intended IEEPA to serve as a tool for taxation-like powers, traditionally reserved for lawmakers.
Administration lawyers argued that regulating imports through tariffs is effectively the same as other emergency economic actions such as sanctions or embargoes. But the Court appeared unconvinced that the statute provides sufficient guardrails for such a sweeping policy.
The Supreme Court took up the case after multiple lower courts blocked the tariffs.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled unanimously that Trump does not have “unbounded authority” under emergency law to impose tariffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld that decision, pressing the administration on why Trump relied on IEEPA rather than more specific tariff statutes passed by Congress.
Those laws typically include limits, timelines, and congressional oversight — restrictions the administration sought to bypass through emergency authority.
The Justice Department urged the Court to allow the tariffs to remain in place, warning that denying tariff authority under IEEPA could leave the United States vulnerable to foreign retaliation and without “effective defenses” in global trade disputes.
Trump has long maintained that persistent trade deficits represent a serious economic threat and that strong executive action is necessary when Congress fails to respond quickly.
The ruling represents not only a setback for Trump’s trade strategy but also a major decision defining the limits of presidential power in economic emergencies.
Thor Brødreskift / Nordiske Mediedager, CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Newly released Justice Department files have shed additional light on private communications between former Trump strategist Steve Bannon and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, raising fresh questions about the nature of their relationship during the final years of Epstein’s life.
The documents, which include text messages and emails from late 2017 through Epstein’s arrest in July 2019, show that Bannon — a key figure in the MAGA movement and former White House chief strategist — remained in contact with Epstein long after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution.
The files indicate that the two discussed politics, the growing pressure on the Trump administration after Democrats regained control of the House in 2018, and even the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump.
One of the most notable exchanges began on New Year’s Eve 2018. In the conversation, Bannon wrote that the “WH,” widely understood to mean the White House, had “zero plan to punch back” amid intensifying political attacks.
Epstein replied, referring to Trump: “He is really borderline. Not sure what he may do.”
Bannon responded: “I think it’s beyond borderline — 25 amendment,” referencing the constitutional process that allows a president to be removed if deemed unable to fulfill the duties of office.
In another message, Bannon added that “we really need an intervention” regarding Trump.
The disclosure has sparked backlash among conservatives, many of whom have long demanded greater transparency surrounding Epstein’s network of powerful associates and the government’s handling of his case.
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn wrote on X that if “Bannon AND Epstein were behind it, Bannon needs to be brought in for questioning.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., also criticized the relationship, writing that there was “no excuse for having such a friendly relationship with Epstein, post conviction, 2018-19. None.”
The release of these files comes as renewed scrutiny continues over Epstein’s ties to prominent figures across politics, business, and media — and as many Americans, particularly conservatives, have raised concerns that accountability has been unevenly applied depending on status and connections.
Epstein died in federal custody in 2019 under circumstances that remain the subject of ongoing public debate and unanswered questions.
BREAKING: Newly revealed Epstein-linked emails reportedly show Steve Bannon discussing a scheme to replace VP Pence with Mike Pompeo and remove Trump.
The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
President Donald Trump on Tuesday commemorated the fifth anniversary of the death of conservative radio icon Rush Limbaugh, honoring the longtime broadcaster as “a really great man” who left a lasting mark on American politics and media.
In a video message filmed at his desk in the Oval Office and later posted to Truth Social, Trump reflected on his personal friendship with Limbaugh and praised the late host’s patriotism and influence.
“Well, this is the fifth anniversary of the loss of a really great man, a great conservative, somebody that loved our country, loved his family,” Trump said. “He was a friend of mine, Rush Limbaugh.”
Limbaugh, who died in February 2021 at age 70 after a battle with advanced lung cancer, was widely regarded as one of the most influential figures in modern conservative media. For more than three decades, The Rush Limbaugh Show dominated talk radio, reaching millions of listeners daily and helping shape the ideological direction of the Republican Party.
Trump recalled that he had never personally met Limbaugh at the time the radio host endorsed his 2016 presidential campaign — an endorsement that many political observers viewed as a pivotal moment in the Republican primary.
“I’d never met Rush when I announced that I was running,” Trump said. “I’ll never forget, 2015 and I got a call all excited that Rush Limbaugh just endorsed you. I’d never met him. He liked my opening speech.”
Trump was referring to his June 2015 campaign launch, when he descended the escalator at Trump Tower and delivered remarks that focused heavily on border security, crime, and national sovereignty — themes that would become central pillars of his campaign and presidency.
“He liked when I got up in June and I said, ‘We got bad borders, we got bad crime, we got bad everything,’” Trump continued. “He liked it. I came down the escalator with now our first lady, and he thought it was great.”
The endorsement from Limbaugh, a trusted voice among grassroots conservative voters, helped solidify Trump’s credibility with parts of the Republican base at a time when many party leaders were skeptical of his candidacy. Throughout Trump’s presidency, Limbaugh remained a vocal defender of the administration’s policies, particularly on immigration, trade, and judicial appointments.
In 2020, during his State of the Union address, Trump awarded Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom — the nation’s highest civilian honor — shortly after the broadcaster publicly announced his cancer diagnosis. The emotional ceremony, conducted on the House floor, was met with sustained applause from Republican lawmakers and supporters.
FLASHBACK: President Trump awards Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom during his 2020 State of the Union address — one of the greatest moments of his first term.
Following his departure from office in January 2021, Trump made his first television appearance on the day of Limbaugh’s death, calling into Fox News to describe him as “irreplaceable.”
In Tuesday’s video, Trump echoed that sentiment, invoking fellow conservative commentator Sean Hannity’s oft-repeated phrase: “There will never be another Rush Limbaugh.”
“But it’s five years and we miss Rush,” Trump said. “To his family, his great wife and family, I just want to say we miss you all, we miss him, and they’ll never be anybody like him.”
Limbaugh’s impact on conservative media remains evident years after his passing. His pioneering model of nationally syndicated political talk radio reshaped the industry and paved the way for a generation of commentators across radio, television, and digital platforms. For many supporters, he served not only as a political analyst but as a daily companion and cultural touchstone during moments of national debate and partisan conflict.
As Trump’s message underscored, the connection between the two men reflected a broader political realignment that defined the past decade of Republican politics — one rooted in populist messaging, media influence, and direct appeals to voters outside traditional party structures.
Five years after his death, Limbaugh’s voice may be gone from the airwaves, but his imprint on American conservatism — and on Trump’s political rise — continues to be remembered by allies and supporters alike.h’s death, when he called into Fox News’ Outnumbered to praise the conservative juggernaut as “irreplaceable.”
Former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly is encouraging ESPN personality Stephen A. Smith to seriously consider a run for the White House in 2028, arguing that President Donald Trump’s political rise has created an opening for unconventional candidates.
“I think he should run, and I’m being serious now,” O’Reilly told NewsNation host Chris Cuomo during an appearance on Cuomo.
“[President Donald] Trump opened the door for you,” O’Reilly quipped, speaking directly to Smith. “You should send Trump a big bouquet of flowers. He opened the door for you.”
Smith, one of the most recognizable voices in sports media, has recently begun softening his previous stance against entering politics. While he once dismissed the idea outright, he now says he is at least willing to think about it.
“Once upon a time, it was emphatically no. That has quelled to some degree,” Smith said, though he emphasized he was not eager to be “interrupting my quality of life.”
O’Reilly acknowledged that Smith would face steep odds in a presidential race but suggested his candidacy could still have a meaningful impact on the national conversation.
“You can run, and you — but don’t have any expectation of winning,” O’Reilly said.
“See, you’re what you’re doing is you’re taking a furlough from your dopey sports show, and you’re saying, I’ll be back, because I’m not going to win,” O’Reilly continued. “But you’re injecting yourself into the debate, the national debate, and you’re exposing the charlatans, which would be an amazing historical achievement.”
Smith, known for his blunt, firebrand style, agreed that the idea of debating career politicians holds strong appeal.
He said he would “give anything to be on a debate stage” with aspiring candidates, warning that they would face intense scrutiny if he decided to jump in.
“If you ever put me on that debate stage with some of these politicians aspiring for high office, with the nonsense that they’ve engaged in, with the behavior they’ve exercised, with the tendencies that they’ve displayed, and the lack of consideration to the American people going up against me, good luck,” he added.
Smith also cast himself as someone motivated by concern for the country, suggesting that the broad appeal he has built in television could translate into political support.
He argued that Americans want leaders who prioritize the nation’s well-being over partisan gamesmanship.
Still, Smith made clear that he would not enter a race simply to make headlines. If he ever launched a campaign, he said, it would be with the intention of winning.
“I don’t play to lose … and if I decide to do it, I’m telling you I intend to win,” Smith said. “Make no mistake about it. I won’t do it unless I believe I have a legitimate shot to win it, the presidency.”
Smith has also pushed back against claims—often promoted by left-wing pundits—that racism would be a decisive barrier if he pursued the presidency.
In an extended interview with CBS News’ Robert Costa for CBS Sunday Morning, Smith dismissed the notion that racial prejudice would define a potential campaign.
“Do you worry about racism if you ran for president?” Costa asked.
“No. I know it exists. I know that you can’t escape it, but I do not believe it is as prevalent as some on the left would like us to believe,” Smith answered. “I do believe a vast majority of Americans judge you on the content of your character, rather than the color of your skin.”
He continued:
“I think a lot of people in America, especially in this day in age, now more so than ever before, it’s not about race. It’s about the fact they don’t give a damn about it, because they got their own problems.
That’s entirely different than believing they are superior to you and want to hold you back from ascending. That’s not what’s going on to the degree it was decades ago.”
Smith’s remarks reflect a view shared by many Americans: that everyday concerns such as inflation, border security, crime, and foreign policy matter far more to voters than the identity-focused narratives pushed by progressive activists.
If elected in 2028, Smith would become the second Black president, two decades after Barack Obama’s historic victory in 2008. But Smith has made clear that he does not see race as the defining issue of any potential campaign. Instead, he argues that leadership, competence, and a commitment to the American people are what voters ultimately care about most.
For now, Smith continues to hint—without fully committing—that a presidential run is no longer out of the question. And with figures like O’Reilly urging him forward, speculation about his political future is likely to keep growing.
