President Donald Trump is mourning the death of Village People co-founder and lead singer Victor Willis, whose iconic hit “Y.M.C.A.” became one of the defining songs of Trump’s campaign rallies and victory celebrations.
Willis, who co-wrote the 1978 disco classic and fronted the legendary group for decades, died Tuesday at the age of 74 following what his wife, Karen Huff-Willis, described as a “short, but aggressive illness.”
Trump honored the singer Wednesday in a heartfelt Truth Social post, reflecting on the special connection the two shared through one of the most recognizable campaign songs in modern political history.
“Victor Willis, the lead singer of the Village People, has passed away. He was a really good guy. Our favorite song, ‘Y.M.C.A.,’ has become, over the last few years, our ‘theme song,'” Trump wrote.
The president credited his campaign rallies with helping introduce the song to a new generation of Americans.
“It has brought so much happiness to millions of people. They loved the action, and we loved them and their great and uplifting song.”
Trump added that Willis’ legacy would live on every time the unmistakable opening notes of “Y.M.C.A.” are heard.
“We will think of Victor every time YMCA is played, like today, and all throughout this July Fourth Birthday week. My condolences to his wonderful family and group, Victor Willis will be sorely missed. God Bless Him!!!”
President Trump sent prayers to Victor Willis family
Few songs became more closely associated with Trump’s political movement than “Y.M.C.A.”
Whether closing out campaign rallies, celebrating election victories or walking off the stage after speeches, Trump frequently danced to the Village People anthem—complete with his now-famous fist-pump routine that became a viral internet meme and was copied by supporters around the country.
The tradition continued throughout the 2024 campaign and into Trump’s second inauguration festivities, where Village People themselves performed “Y.M.C.A.” during inaugural events in Washington.
Over time, the president’s signature dance became so recognizable that many supporters simply refer to it as the “Trump dance.”
Trump hit the YMCA dance on the National Mall and thousands of patriots erupted. 🇺🇸🔥 pic.twitter.com/KUss1pufB1
— Pastor Dave Scarlett (@dave_scarlettll) June 26, 2026
While Trump’s use of the song initially generated controversy, Willis eventually defended the president’s continued use of “Y.M.C.A.”
The singer said Trump had legally obtained the necessary political license to use the song and acknowledged that the president’s rallies dramatically boosted its popularity.
Willis noted that after Trump began regularly playing the song, “Y.M.C.A.” climbed back to No. 2 on Billboard’s Digital Songs chart, adding that the renewed exposure generated millions of dollars in additional royalties for the classic hit.
The Village People later accepted an invitation to perform during Trump’s 2025 inauguration festivities, saying they believed music should help bring Americans together regardless of politics.
From church choir to disco legend
Born in Dallas in 1951 and raised in San Francisco, Willis first discovered music singing in his father’s Baptist church before moving to New York to pursue acting and theater.
He joined the Negro Ensemble Company and appeared in several stage productions before teaming up with French producer Jacques Morali to create Village People.
As the group’s unmistakable lead vocalist and principal songwriter, Willis helped create enduring hits including “Y.M.C.A.,” “Macho Man,” “In the Navy,” and “Go West.” He later fought a lengthy legal battle to reclaim songwriting rights and eventually regained ownership of many of the group’s biggest hits.
The Supreme Court handed Republicans a significant First Amendment victory Tuesday, striking down decades-old federal limits on how much national political party committees can spend in coordination with their own candidates.
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court ruled that the restrictions violate the First Amendment, concluding that the government cannot limit coordinated political spending by parties and candidates simply because it involves money.
The case was brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), Vice President JD Vance — who joined the lawsuit while running for the Senate in Ohio in 2022 — and former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio). The Trump administration’s Federal Election Commission sided with the challengers, arguing the restrictions were unconstitutional.
“The First Amendment protects the right of political parties to engage in core political speech,” Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, finding that coordinated expenditures between parties and their own nominees deserve constitutional protection.
The ruling eliminates one of the last remaining federal restrictions governing how closely national party committees can financially coordinate with candidates during campaigns.
Long-Standing Limits Fall
Federal law previously allowed political parties to spend unlimited amounts independently to support candidates, but imposed caps on spending coordinated directly with campaigns.
That coordinated spending can include paying for campaign advertising, consultants, candidate travel, fundraising efforts, and other activities planned jointly with a campaign.
Those limits varied by race, reaching nearly $4 million in some Senate contests and roughly $127,000 for at-large House races.
Republicans argued those restrictions had become increasingly irrational after a series of Supreme Court rulings — most notably the landmark 2010 Citizens United decision — allowed unlimited independent spending by outside groups such as super PACs.
Their argument was straightforward: outside organizations could spend unlimited sums supporting candidates, but the political parties themselves faced constitutional restrictions when helping their own nominees.
Another Major Campaign Finance Shift
Tuesday’s decision continues the Supreme Court’s long trend of rolling back campaign finance regulations.
Over the past two decades, the court has repeatedly narrowed Congress’ ability to regulate political spending, including Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 and McCutcheon v. FEC in 2014, both of which expanded constitutional protections for political spending under the First Amendment.
Republicans argued the coordinated spending caps placed official party organizations at a disadvantage compared to super PACs and other outside groups that already face few spending restrictions.
Supporters of the challenge also contended that strengthening party committees could reduce the influence of outside organizations by allowing official party organizations to play a larger role in campaigns.
Democrats Warn of More Money in Politics
Democrats and campaign finance advocates opposed eliminating the restrictions, arguing they were one of the last safeguards preventing wealthy donors from using party committees to funnel additional money into federal campaigns.
They warned the decision could further increase the influence of large donors and weaken remaining campaign finance protections.
The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices dissented, continuing a long-running divide over whether campaign finance laws primarily protect elections from corruption or improperly restrict political speech.
A Victory Years in the Making
The case began after Vance’s successful 2022 Senate campaign, when he and Republican congressional campaign committees challenged the coordinated spending limits in federal court.
Lower courts initially upheld the restrictions based on a 2001 Supreme Court precedent. But with the court’s current conservative majority, Republicans successfully persuaded the justices to overturn that earlier ruling and strike down the limits altogether.
The decision is expected to reshape campaign strategy ahead of future federal elections by allowing national party committees to work far more closely — and spend far more heavily — alongside their candidates.
President Donald Trump blasted the Supreme Court after the justices refused to hear his appeal of the $5 million civil judgment in the E. Jean Carroll case, calling it another example of “weaponization” and vowing to keep fighting in court.
The high court declined without comment to review Trump’s challenge to the 2023 jury verdict, leaving intact the ruling that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming longtime advice columnist E. Jean Carroll. The justices did not note any dissents.
“Surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to ‘review’ a Fake Case brought against me by a woman I never met (Decades old celebrity photo line, standing with her husband, does not count!),” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
“I will continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me, including the ridiculous claim of Defamation, with all of my power and strength.”
The president argued the lawsuit was politically motivated, saying, “This Case is really against the United States of America, and all it stands for, and should never be allowed to happen to another President, or Candidate to be!”
Trump also renewed his criticism of New York’s Adult Survivors Act, the temporary law that opened a one-year window for decades-old sexual assault claims. He claimed the law was “tailormade” to target him and called the outcome an “Injustice.”
Monday’s decision effectively closes the door on Trump’s effort to overturn the original $5 million verdict, which stemmed from a civil trial in Manhattan in 2023. During that trial, jurors concluded Trump was liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the mid-1990s and for defaming her after she publicly accused him. Trump has consistently denied the allegations and has maintained that he never met Carroll.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case marks another legal setback for the president in his years-long battle with Carroll, but it is not the end of the broader litigation.
A separate case, in which a federal jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million after finding Trump repeatedly defamed her through public statements, remains on a separate appellate track. Trump’s legal team continues to challenge that judgment, arguing it should be overturned on multiple grounds.
Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, celebrated the ruling, saying the Supreme Court’s action “affirms once and for all” the jury’s verdict and Trump’s liability in the case.
For Trump, however, Monday’s order appears to have only intensified his determination.
“I will continue the fight,” the president wrote, signaling that his legal battle with Carroll is far from over—even as one of the highest-profile cases against him has now reached its end.
By The White House from Washington, DC - Mount Rushmore Fireworks Celebration, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=91969872
President Donald Trump will headline one of the nation’s biggest Independence Day celebrations this evening, traveling to Mount Rushmore for a patriotic event marking America’s 250th birthday.
South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden announced that Trump will attend the America250 fireworks celebration at the iconic national memorial on July 3, welcoming the president to what state officials are calling one of the centerpiece events of the nation’s semiquincentennial.
“It is my honor to welcome President Trump to the great state of South Dakota,” Rhoden said in a statement.
“Together, we will throw the biggest birthday party ever for our nation and celebrate America’s legacy of freedom, liberty, and justice for all.”
The event is expected to feature military tributes, patriotic music, historical reenactors, family activities and a large fireworks display over Mount Rushmore, culminating with remarks from Trump beneath the towering granite sculptures of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. Organizers say the celebration is intended to honor the nation’s founding while kicking off the Fourth of July weekend.
It also marks the return of fireworks to Mount Rushmore for the first time since 2020.
The display had been suspended for several years amid environmental concerns and permitting disputes, but South Dakota officials and the Department of the Interior reached an agreement earlier this year to revive the tradition as part of the nationwide America250 celebration. Attendance is limited through a public lottery that closed earlier this spring.
Trump has made preparations for America’s 250th anniversary a signature priority of his second administration, hosting the “Great American State Fair” in Washington this week while unveiling a broader series of patriotic events planned throughout the year.
Speaking during last week’s festivities, Trump said the anniversary is an opportunity to celebrate both the country’s past and its future.
“This anniversary is a time to be proud of our past, but it is also a time to lift our sights, expand our ambitions and raise our expectations of what America can be,” Trump said.
“We will leave our children nothing less than the richest inheritance, most advanced civilization and highest standard of living in human history. There’s never been anything like it… the best is yet to come.”
The Mount Rushmore visit also renews Trump’s long association with the monument.
He previously spoke beneath the memorial during a 2020 Independence Day celebration and has frequently praised Mount Rushmore as one of America’s greatest national landmarks. Over the years, allies and some lawmakers have even floated the idea of adding Trump’s likeness to the monument, though no official proposal has advanced beyond public discussion.
The Trump administration suffered a significant legal setback on Wednesday after a federal judge dismissed the Department of Justice’s lawsuit challenging “sanctuary” immigration policies in four New Jersey cities, ruling the federal government lacks standing to bring the case.
U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin threw out the DOJ’s lawsuit against Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Hoboken, concluding that even if the administration prevailed, New Jersey’s statewide immigration restrictions would remain in effect, meaning the court could not provide the relief the federal government was seeking. The case was dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that the DOJ could refile if it establishes standing.
The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in May 2025, arguing that the four cities’ policies unlawfully obstruct federal immigration enforcement and violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
The complaint described the municipal policies as “a frontal assault on the federal immigration laws and the federal authorities that administer them,” arguing they prevent willing local law enforcement agencies from assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
According to Politico, Padin said the administration’s argument ignored a critical legal reality.
“The Federal Government’s case has a fundamental flaw—it treats the Challenged Policies as though they operate in isolation. They do not,” Padin wrote.
The judge noted that New Jersey’s statewide Immigrant Trust Directive independently limits how state and local law enforcement cooperate with federal civil immigration authorities. Because that directive would remain in force regardless of what happened to the four cities’ individual policies, striking down the local ordinances would not remedy the federal government’s alleged injury.
The Immigrant Trust Directive, originally issued in 2018 under then-Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration, was codified into state law earlier this year by Gov. Mikie Sherrill. It sharply limits voluntary cooperation between local police and federal immigration authorities except where required by law. The directive has already survived multiple legal challenges, including lawsuits brought by Republican-led counties that were rejected by both the U.S. District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
The DOJ argued that portions of Newark’s, Jersey City’s, and Hoboken’s local policies went further than the statewide directive and therefore could be challenged independently. Padin disagreed, finding those differences either too minor or too speculative to justify continuing the case.
The ruling marks the latest courtroom setback for the Trump administration’s aggressive campaign against sanctuary jurisdictions. Earlier this week, another federal judge dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit challenging Los Angeles’ sanctuary city ordinance, dealing another blow to the administration’s effort to compel greater local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Neither President Donald Trump nor the White House has publicly commented on the ruling.
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America,
Tucker Carlson has spent years positioning himself as one of the most influential voices on the American Right.
Now he’s declaring his divorce from the Republican Party is official.
During a June 18 appearance on the Can’t Be Censored podcast, the former Fox News star said he can no longer support the GOP, accusing party leaders of putting foreign interests ahead of the American people.
“I would not support the Republican Party. There’s no chance I would support the Republican Party,” Carlson said. “I’m not going to support the Democratic Party — I’m not sure what I’m going to do.”
The bombshell declaration marks the latest escalation in Carlson’s increasingly public feud with President Donald Trump and the Republican establishment over U.S. policy toward Israel and Iran.
Carlson told podcast hosts Travis Dhanraj and Karman Wong that Republicans had crossed a line he could no longer ignore.
“How could I or any American voter support a political party that’s not loyal to the United States?” Carlson asked. “That puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens.”
The former cable-news king specifically pointed to America’s relationship with Israel, an issue that has become a major focus of Carlson’s commentary in recent months.
He argued that powerful pro-Israel interests have exerted undue influence over U.S. foreign policy and accused Republican leaders of betraying their own voters.
“What we know for certain is that the United States went to war with Iran because of pressure from the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu,” Carlson said.
The comments come after weeks of mounting tension between Carlson and Trump over the conflict involving Iran.
Once considered one of Trump’s most influential media allies, Carlson has repeatedly blasted any move toward deeper U.S. involvement in the Middle East and warned that another foreign war would betray the “America First” agenda that helped propel Trump back to the White House.
The split burst into public view during Carlson’s fiery interview with Sen. Ted Cruz, where the two clashed over Iran, Israel, and the possibility of regime change in Tehran. The exchange quickly went viral and exposed growing divisions within the MAGA movement over foreign policy.
Trump has rejected claims that he is taking orders from Netanyahu.
Earlier this year, the president insisted that he — not Israel’s prime minister — is directing U.S. policy.
“I call the shots,” Trump said. “I call all the shots.”
But Carlson appears unconvinced.
The conservative commentator said he spent decades defending Republicans, only to conclude that the party had abandoned the voters who put it in power.
“I’ve been a consistent defender of the Republican Party for my entire life,” Carlson said. “I’m out.”
Former Vice President Mike Pence is blasting President Donald Trump’s controversial Iran agreement, warning that the deal looks less like a victory and more like a dangerous concession to a regime that was already on its knees.
In a scathing Wall Street Journal op-ed, Pence praised Trump’s military campaign against Tehran but argued the administration is now squandering the leverage won on the battlefield.
“The president deserves tremendous credit for taking the fight directly to Tehran,” Pence wrote. “But the memorandum of understanding with Iran signed last week falls well short of what is required to end the Iranian threat.”
His verdict was blunt.
“It smacks of the kind of appeasement the president rightly rejected during our first term,” Pence said. “It isn’t the deal a defeated Iran should be getting. It isn’t even a deal — it’s a plan to make a plan.”
The remarkable rebuke puts Pence at the forefront of a growing conservative revolt against the Trump administration’s newly signed 14-point memorandum of understanding with Iran.
The agreement, signed last week, commits both sides to negotiate a final settlement within 60 days while immediately easing pressure on Tehran. The framework includes the gradual lifting of the U.S. naval blockade, waivers for Iranian oil exports, and access to frozen Iranian assets while broader negotiations continue.
Critics argue the concessions come before Iran has verifiably dismantled its nuclear infrastructure or ended support for terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East.
Pence warned the agreement effectively rewards the regime before securing meaningful concessions.
“Maximum pressure worked. America’s military strength worked. The blockade worked,” Pence wrote. “Iran came to the table because the regime’s existence teetered on a knife’s edge.”
The former vice president said the administration should use the next 60 days to force Tehran into accepting far tougher terms, including the permanent elimination of its nuclear ambitions and support for regional terror groups.
“This 60-day period should be used to secure what this agreement doesn’t yet provide: an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, an end to Iranian-backed terror, and an end to its half-century of warfare against the U.S. and Israel,” Pence wrote.
“If those reasonable goals cannot be achieved, Mr. Trump should let the armed forces finish the job.”
Pence has doubled down on those concerns in television appearances this week, calling the agreement “much bigger than a mistake” and warning that sanctions relief could become “a lifeline to the Iranian regime.” He argued that the deal preserves the status quo on Iran’s nuclear program rather than forcing its dismantlement.
He’s not alone.
Republican lawmakers including Lindsey Graham, John Thune and other GOP hawks have demanded greater transparency about the agreement’s terms, while conservative commentators have compared the framework to the Obama-era nuclear deal that Trump famously abandoned during his first administration.
Even some Democrats have questioned whether Tehran is receiving significant economic relief without providing ironclad guarantees on nuclear compliance.
Supporters of the agreement, led by Vice President JD Vance, argue critics are mischaracterizing the deal. Vance has described the memorandum as a preliminary framework designed to stop the fighting and create conditions for a broader settlement. The White House insists sanctions relief and other benefits ultimately depend on Iranian compliance.
But for Pence, the issue is simple: America already holds the stronger hand.
The question now is whether Trump intends to play it.
President Donald J. Trump is presented with a 10th Combat Aviation Brigade challenge coin following an air assault and gun rain demonstration at Fort Drum, New York, on August 13. The demonstration was part of President Trump's visit to the 10th Mountain Division (LI) to sign the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019, which increases the Army's authorized active-duty end strength by 4,000 enabling us to field critical capabilities in support of the National Defense Strategy. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Thomas Scaggs) 180813-A-TZ475-010
Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) is sounding the alarm over President Donald Trump’s decision to install Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence, warning the move could leave the United States more vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
During an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s The Briefing with Jen Psaki, Ossoff blasted the appointment as one of the most dangerous personnel decisions of Trump’s presidency.
“The installation of a thug and a hack like Pulte as the acting director of national intelligence is maybe the most chilling and the most dangerous nomination or appointment that this president has made,” Ossoff said.
Trump announced earlier this month that Pulte would take over as acting DNI beginning Friday following the departure of Tulsi Gabbard. The move immediately drew criticism from Democrats, who argue Pulte lacks any meaningful background in intelligence, national security, or military affairs.
Ossoff, who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused Trump of prioritizing political loyalty over national security.
“He is putting the national security of the country at risk,” Ossoff said. “His handling of this is putting the United States at risk and making a terrorist attack more likely because he is destabilizing America’s intelligence capabilities.”
The Georgia senator also warned that Pulte could weaponize the intelligence community against Trump’s political opponents.
“He’s putting someone in who is a political hack who will abuse his authorities in the intelligence community,” Ossoff added.
Pulte, a longtime Trump ally and donor, has already generated controversy during his tenure at the FHFA. He has publicly pushed for investigations into alleged mortgage fraud involving several prominent Trump critics, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA).
The controversy surrounding Pulte’s appointment comes amid broader turmoil over leadership at the nation’s top intelligence agency.
Trump has nominated former SEC Chairman Jay Clayton to serve as permanent director of national intelligence. However, the nomination hit a roadblock Wednesday after Trump instructed Clayton not to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee for a scheduled confirmation hearing.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump said Clayton’s nomination process would remain on hold until Congress passes legislation combining a voter ID measure with an extension of federal surveillance authorities used to monitor foreign nationals.
The decision frustrated some Republicans, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-AR), who called the delay “regrettable.”
“Mr. Clayton is a patriot and a highly qualified nominee, as the president has said repeatedly,” Cotton wrote on X. “While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future.”
By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/191819781@N02/53626268079/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=147209317
One of Donald Trump’s most outspoken celebrity critics just made an argument few saw coming.
During Thursday’s episode of The View, Whoopi Goldberg surprised her fellow hosts by urging the newly crowned NBA champion New York Knicks to accept President Donald Trump’s invitation to the White House — despite years of tensions between Trump and the league.
The debate erupted after reports that the Knicks, fresh off their first NBA title in more than 50 years, are expected to receive the traditional White House invitation extended to championship teams.
Most of Goldberg’s co-hosts argued the team should decline.
“There’s a reason why every single previous NBA champion crowned during the Trump administration refused to go,” co-host Sunny Hostin said, arguing that Trump has a history of politicizing White House appearances.
But Goldberg broke ranks.
“I want them to go,” she declared. “I want all those Black men to stand in our house and remind all of those people… that when you try to destroy one part of history, you’re destroying all of our histories.”
The audience erupted in applause as Goldberg continued.
“I want them to go. If only so the kids know that nobody — nobody — can keep you down if you are rising up.”
DERANGED: The View’s Whoopi Goldberg: “I want [the New York Knicks] to go [to the White House]. I want all those black men to stand in our house and remind all of those people, as we tried to remind the Vice President, that when you try to destroy one part of history, you’re… pic.twitter.com/EIoC3d1u6W
The comments were notable coming from Goldberg, who has repeatedly criticized Trump throughout both of his presidencies and frequently clashes with conservatives on political issues.
Her argument wasn’t an endorsement of Trump. Instead, Goldberg framed a White House visit as an opportunity for the players themselves to send a message by simply showing up as champions.
The debate comes as the Knicks weigh whether to participate in one of sports’ longest-standing traditions. Several championship teams across professional sports have skipped White House visits in recent years amid political controversies, and NBA teams in particular have had a rocky relationship with Trump dating back to his first term.
Hostin noted that Knicks players have already been asked about the possibility, with guard Jose Alvarado reportedly saying he would follow whatever decision the team ultimately makes.
Sarah Haines echoed Goldberg’s point, arguing that the visual contrast itself could be powerful.
“Why don’t you show up and show them what real men look like?” Haines said.
Whether the Knicks ultimately accept the invitation remains to be seen. But Goldberg’s unexpected defense of a Trump White House visit may end up being one of the more surprising political takes to emerge from The View this year.
A prominent Oklahoma pastor who built his national profile as a staunch Trump ally and conservative Christian activist has abruptly suspended his campaign for Congress after reports revealed intimate text exchanges with a former beauty queen connected to his campaign.
Jackson Lahmeyer, founder of the pro-Trump organization Pastors for Trump, announced he was ending his bid for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District following reports detailing flirtatious messages between him and former Miss Oklahoma USA Caitlin Simmons Key, who worked as a fundraiser for his campaign.
The controversy quickly exposed an uncomfortable contradiction for a candidate who has spent years promoting conservative family values while presenting himself as a moral voice within the MAGA movement.
Lahmeyer admitted he had “crossed a boundary line through text messaging” but denied having a physical affair. He said he and his wife had already addressed the matter through counseling and prayer.
“I decided to choose my wife over my ambition,” Lahmeyer told reporters after announcing his withdrawal.
The political consequences were swift.
President Donald Trump, who had previously endorsed Lahmeyer and praised him as a “MAGA Warrior,” publicly abandoned the pastor and shifted his support to Oklahoma state Rep. Mark Tedford.
While Trump thanked Lahmeyer for his loyalty and years of support, he made clear that Tedford would now carry the America First banner in the race.
Lahmeyer insists his decision to leave the race was made before Trump’s endorsement switch became public. Still, the timing underscored how quickly political fortunes can change when personal scandals collide with public campaigns.
For years, Lahmeyer cultivated close ties to the Trump movement. His Tulsa church hosted appearances from Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and he became a nationally recognized evangelical voice defending Trump’s agenda. He also promoted claims of widespread voter fraud following the 2020 election and worked to mobilize evangelical voters during Trump’s 2024 campaign.
Now, the pastor who built his reputation on faith, family values, and political activism finds himself stepping away from public office after failing to meet the standards he routinely championed.
His exit effectively clears the path for Tedford to become the Republican nominee in the race to replace outgoing Rep. Kevin Hern, who is running for the U.S. Senate.
This article originally appeared on Election Watch News. It is republished with permission. To receive more reporting and analysis from Election Watch News, subscribe by clicking here.
