Featured

Home Featured
Featured posts

ICE Tracking App Maker Sues Over Trump Administration Pressure

2
President Donald J. Trump participates in a roundtable discussion on immigration and border security at the U.S. Border Patrol Calexico Station Friday, April 5, 2019, in Calexico, Calif. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

The creator of ICEBlock—an iPhone app designed to alert users to the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers—has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming federal officials violated his free-speech rights by urging Apple to pull the app from its store.

Joshua Aaron, the developer behind the app, contends in his complaint that building, distributing, and promoting ICEBlock is “First Amendment-protected speech.” He alleges that Attorney General Pam Bondi and other administration officials engaged in a coordinated “pressure campaign” to force Apple to remove the app, calling the effort an unlawful act of censorship.

“We’re basically asking the court to set a precedent and affirm that ICEBlock is, in fact, First Amendment-protected speech and that I did nothing wrong by creating it,” Aaron told The Associated Press on Monday. “And to make sure that they can’t do this same thing again in the future.”

The lawsuit also asks a federal judge to bar any criminal prosecution of Aaron, citing what he describes as “unlawful threats” from Bondi, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE Acting Director Todd M. Lyons, and White House Border Czar Tom Homan—all of whom, according to Aaron, indicated they would investigate him for creating the app.

He told the AP that one of his motives for suing is “to basically have them stop threatening myself and my family.”

Why the App Was Removed

Apple removed ICEBlock and similar apps in October after Bondi publicly warned that the tools endangered federal immigration officers by allowing the public—including individuals seeking to evade law enforcement—to monitor ICE activity in real time.

Bondi defended the removal in a Fox News interview, arguing that Aaron’s app could compromise officer safety. “He’s giving a message to criminals where our federal officers are. And he cannot do that,” she said. “And we are looking at it, we are looking at him, and he better watch out, because that’s not protected speech.”

Broader Context: Trump’s Immigration-Enforcement Strategy

The dispute comes amid the Trump administration’s continued efforts to restore aggressive federal enforcement of immigration law—an agenda that has been a central pillar of the president’s policy platform. ICE has been directed to prioritize arrests of criminal offenders, expand cooperation with local law-enforcement agencies, and counter efforts by progressive “sanctuary” jurisdictions to obstruct federal operations.

Officials like Noem, Homan, and Bondi have repeatedly emphasized the dangers facing ICE officers on the ground. From hostile sanctuary-city policies to the rapid spread of mobile apps that help individuals avoid lawful apprehension, the administration argues that these challenges make it more difficult to enforce immigration laws and protect communities.

Jack Smith Launches New Law Firm With Trump Prosecution Veterans

    0
    Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Jack Smith — the former special counsel who led the federal prosecutions of President Donald Trump — is starting a private law firm in January 2026. And he’s bringing reinforcements: former federal prosecutors Tim Heaphy, Thomas Windom, and David Harbach.

    Heaphy previously worked at Willkie Farr & Gallagher and served as the lead investigator for the Jan. 6 committee. Windom and Harbach helped Smith run the Trump election interference and classified documents cases.

    The group says its new practice will focus on investigations and litigation for both public and private clients. They’re pitching “full-service representation” built on “integrity, commitment, and zealous advocacy.”

    With multiple veterans of the Trump-era investigations joining forces, Smith’s new firm is poised to become a magnet for clients facing federal probes or regulatory scrutiny. Their background running some of the most complex, high-profile cases in the country gives them instant appeal to companies and individuals navigating an enforcement landscape that’s grown more unpredictable. And with recent turmoil inside the Justice Department, from shifting legal strategies to rapid staff turnover, demand is rising for lawyers who know exactly how federal cases are assembled.

    The timing isn’t accidental. Earlier this year, the administration suspended security clearances for lawyers at a D.C. firm that offered pro bono help to Smith — a sign of escalating friction around anyone tied to the Trump prosecutions.

    Smith remains under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, which is probing whether his Trump-era prosecutions crossed the Hatch Act’s limits on political activity. But with his exit from government and the launch of a new private firm, he now has room to rebrand himself for civil and corporate work — a shift likely to attract clients facing pressure from the federal government.

    The firm will open its doors next month, but details on fees, initial clients, or specific specialties remain unknown.

    Smith also still faces political and legal hurdles, including a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee for a closed-door deposition on his handling of the Trump cases.

    Erika Kirk Erupts Over Candace Owens Conspiracy Theories

    0
    Image via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Erika Kirk, the CEO of Turning Point USA and widow of assassinated conservative activist Charlie Kirk, erupted on Wednesday over the conspiracy theories — many of them championed by former TPUSA activist Candace Owens — proliferating about her husband’s death.

    During a one-on-one with Fox News host Harris Faulkner in the closing minutes of Wednesday’s episode of Outnumbered, Faulkner ripped into those profiting off conspiracy theories.

    After Kirk implored the public to keep the site of her husband’s grave private for the sake of her family, Faulkner asked: “What are they—these conspiracy theorists—taking from you right now?”

    Kirk replied:

    Nothing. But I will tell you what they are doing. It reminds me so much of Chapter Six in the book of Nehemiah. He is building a wall, and the townspeople are at the base of that hill saying, “Nehemiah!” calling him all these names, saying all these things: “Come on down!” Every single time, he had the same message—four times in a row: “I cannot come down. I am busy building.” That is how I feel.

    I do not have time to address the noise. My silence does not mean that I am complacent. My silence does not mean that somehow Turning Point USA—and the handpicked staff who loved my husband and whom my husband loved—are somehow in on it. We are busy building.

    And you know what I thought? I thought these people are human. We are all grieving in our own way. They are trying to find the answer to something that happened that was so evil. They are trying so hard. And I get that. We’re doing the same. Anytime we hear a lead or anything at all, we send it to the authorities: Please dig into this. No rock will be left unturned. I want justice for my husband, for myself, for my family—more than anyone else out there.

    So for me, you want to keep telling me to come down while we’re building—I don’t have time for that. But here’s my breaking point: Come after me, call me names—I don’t care. Call me what you want, go down that rabbit hole—whatever. But when you go after my family, my Turning Point USA family, my Charlie Kirk Show family—when you go after the people that I love—and you’re making hundreds and thousands of dollars every single episode attacking the people that I love because you claim they’re somehow in on this? No.

    “You know, I have to say it: I’ve never seen you like this,” Faulkner observed.

    “No,” Kirk responded. “This is righteous anger because this is not okay. It’s not healthy. This is a mind virus. Yes, I believe in our judicial system. I do. We have a hell of a team working on this—excuse my French. But this is not okay.”

    “So you want to put these people back in the box where they’ve been creeping from?” Faulkner followed up.

    “I don’t care what box you’re in,” Kirk said. “But just know that your words are very powerful—and we are human. My team are not machines and they’re not robots. They are human. We have more death threats on our team and our side than I have ever seen. I have kidnapping threats. You name it—we have it.

    “And my poor team is exhausted. Every time they bring this back up, what are we supposed to do—relive that trauma all over again? They watched my husband get murdered. I have no idea how I would have reacted if I was there that day, and thank the good Lord that I did not have to see that happen. But my team—they’re rocked to the core. So why, every single day, do they have to be dragged through the mud, analyzed, hyperanalyzed?”

    She later concluded the segment by saying she has seen the “impact” the conspiracy theories have had on “the people that I love.”

    “And if people think that I was just going to wilt away—I’m not going to sit in a corner, cry, and be in the fetal position. This is a duty to my husband, and it’s an absolute honor, and I will never back down. And so my message to them is: stop. Stop!”

    Earlier this month, Charlie Kirk Show producer Blake Neff announced that Kirk’s friends will be holding an event to refute Owens’s incendiary claims. Owens has turned down an invitation to attend it in person.

    Owens has a reputation for spreading widely debunked conspiracy theories, including once staking her entire professional reputation on the claim that the First Lady of France, Brigitte Macron, is a man. Owens has also suggested that Israel was somehow connected to Charlie Kirk’s death.

    Kirk, who founded the pro-Trump student group Turning Point USA, was shot and killed at a Utah university in September, and his alleged assassin is currently awaiting trial on murder charges. Neff called Owens’s claims “either lies or they are innuendos thrown around with a total, reckless disregard for the truth,” and added, “I would say we have suffered more harassment from these people than we have from Antifa supporters who overtly celebrate Charlie’s murder.”

    He concluded by saying Turning Point will host a live stream to further debunk Owens’s conspiracies and invited her to participate.

    “We wanted to use this segment at the top of this hour to say something important, something very important. For the past two and a half months, there is a topic that has flooded our Freedom inbox. It has been nonstop on social media, but which we have almost totally avoided on this show. You probably already know what I’m talking about, which shows just how ubiquitous it has been,” Neff began.

    Read his full statement below:

    Ever since Charlie’s murder, Candace Owens has leveled a flood of allegations against people at Turning Point USA, people at Turning Point Action, and people who work for this show. She has made them against some of Charlie’s closest friends and against some of his most dedicated employees. She has suggested that Michael McCoy, Charlie’s chief of staff, knew Charlie would be murdered, was happy that he died, and stayed silent because he was told he would be the next Charlie.

    She has suggested Michael is not his real name. It is—I have seen his birth certificate myself. She has called it suspicious that Mikey’s wife, who works at Turning Point, helped plan the campus tour event where Charlie was murdered, which she didn’t, by the way. She doesn’t work on campus events.

    Candace has suggested the Utah Valley University event was unusual and its details suggested a quote “inside job.” She has claimed that foreign aircraft have followed Erica Kirk around the country and that Turning Point has lied about this happening. She has accused us of lying about Charlie wanting Erica to take over for him if he died. She has suggested Charlie’s security team intentionally denied him first aid after the shooting to ensure that he died. She has raised suspicions about the head of our technical team because he took an SD card out of a camera. She has spread absurd claims that Tyler Boyer, who we just had on the show, sexually abuses male interns. She has suggested that TPUSA Faith-affiliated pastors, like theologian Frank Turek, who we’ll have on in a moment, and Pastor Rob McCoy, are part of a military quote “infiltration” of Turning Point, either because they are veterans or because they have family members who are.

    Even if not everyone has been named specifically, though, Candace has effectively tarred everyone here with complicity in Charlie’s death by repeatedly saying he was, quote, “betrayed by,” quote, “everyone.” She has said Charlie’s murder, quote, “had to be approved by Charlie’s friends,” and then suggested those friends might have her murdered too for quote “knowing the truth.” She has made claims of financial impropriety and fraud at Turning Point, adding up into the millions of dollars, which again is not true. Charlie made sure the organization was audited by a third party every year. He personally reviewed and signed off on every expense report and literally every single bill paid by the organization down to a single United States dollar. We have never missed a 990 deadline.

    Candace has made other, stranger allegations involving French paratroopers in maroon shirts, Egyptian Air Force planes flying out of Provo, Utah, and potential underground assassins traveling through unseen tunnels. At one point in early November, she started wildly throwing suspicion on members of Utah Valley’s soccer team for wearing hoodies. I could go on. There is always something new coming up, and none of it ever pans out. Because from the start, there has been nothing there.

    The attacks and allegations from Candace are either lies or they are innuendos thrown around with a total, reckless disregard for the truth, so that Candace can manipulate and string along an audience of people who don’t realize they are being played. Instead of being able to grieve properly after one of the most heinous murders in American history, a murder many of us had to witness, my friends have had to endure harassment from people who have gotten whipped up by what Candace is saying. I would say we have suffered more harassment from these people than we have from Antifa supporters who overtly celebrate Charlie’s murder. And just like a lot of those Antifa members, many of these people take delight in how gross and unpleasant they can be. What our friends have had to endure is not funny and it’s not insignificant. It is evil. I have seen it.

    For months, we have received hundreds, thousands, I suspect, of emails and calls asking us to respond. People have wanted us to invite Candace on the show. But for a long time, our approach was to say nothing. We did that for several reasons. First, we thought that her prevarications were so absurd that nobody would believe them. We shouldn’t have to answer questions about secret tunnels or Egyptian Air Force planes. That sort of thing is just—it’s beneath contempt to respond to. Lastly, we didn’t respond because Charlie always viewed Candace as a friend, and we were holding out hope that she would return that friendship and stop what she was doing.

    But a week from now it’s going to be three months since Charlie’s murder. Candace has not changed her behavior. She has continued to spread falsehoods about Charlie’s friends, and she continues to concoct new ones about new people. She’s using these falsehoods to enrich herself while dividing the conservative movement at an absolutely critical time for this country. And far too often, we here have heard from ordinary people, people who loved Charlie and who Charlie loved so much in return. These people have expressed the worry that we are staying silent out of cowardice or as some sort of tacit admission that some of the attacks are true. Neither is the case. Our silence has never been, and it will never be, equal to complacency or approval.

    Still, we decided Charlie would not allow this to go on. Charlie was not a coward. Charlie was a fighter. Charlie would not allow someone to spread lies about the people closest to him with impunity. And he would feel ashamed if other people were stepping up to defend his friends while he never did so himself. Candace has mentioned several times that the ball is in our court.

    So here’s what is going to happen. In the near future, there will be a livestream here in Phoenix where we address in a clear and comprehensive way the claims and accusations, the false accusations that have been made against Charlie’s family, friends, and the people here at Turning Point. We plan to walk through everything carefully and thoroughly. If Candace is available, we would sincerely welcome her participation in that livestream at our studio here in Phoenix. At this point, we believe the ball is back in her court.

    Our motivation for doing this is not out of any obligation to Candace. It is about honoring Charlie. We feel a deep responsibility to protect his legacy, his work, and the truth. I feel that. I owe Charlie everything in my life. I feel it immensely. And that is why we feel compelled to speak clearly and openly now. We’ll have more on this in the near future.

    Trump Reportedly Promised ‘Sweeping Changes’ at CNN If Paramount Takes Over Warner Bros.

    0

    David Ellison is reportedly already talking about what he’d do to CNN—before he even owns the company.

    According to The Wall Street Journal, the Paramount Skydance CEO told Trump administration officials during a recent Washington visit that he’d make “sweeping changes” at CNN if he manages to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, the network’s parent. The subtext isn’t subtle: CNN is a longtime Trump target, and Trump has told confidants he wants new ownership and programming changes, the Journal reported.

    Ellison’s comments come amid a fast-moving takeover scramble involving Warner Bros. Discovery. After the company accepted an offer from Netflix, Ellison said Paramount would pursue a hostile bid directly to shareholders.

    “WBD shareholders deserve an opportunity to consider our superior all-cash offer for their shares in the entire company,” Ellison said in a statement announcing the move. He argued that the competing proposal would leave shareholders exposed to uncertainty around the company’s linear cable networks business and face a more difficult regulatory path.

    Ellison’s father, Oracle co-founder and Trump ally Larry Ellison, called President Donald Trump after the announcement that Warner Bros. had accepted the Netflix deal to argue that “the transaction would hurt competition,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

    “Trump has told people close to him that he wants new ownership of CNN as well as changes to CNN programming,” added the Journal story.

    Trump, for his part, has never been shy about where he thinks CNN belongs on the media food chain. Earlier this year, he dismissed the network as “scum” in remarks on the White House lawn.

    Report: Trump Allegedly Committed Same ‘Mortgage Fraud’ As Letitia James

      3
      The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

      A new ProPublica report argues that President Donald Trump once signed mortgage paperwork similar to the “dual primary residence” claims his administration has highlighted in a legal fight against New York Attorney General Letitia James—an accusation Democrats say is being used as political warfare, and Republicans say is a long-overdue crackdown on fraud and special treatment.

      According to ProPublica’s review of mortgage records, Trump obtained two mortgages in Palm Beach, Florida, weeks apart in the early 1990s, with each loan document stating the property would be his principal residence. ProPublica reports the two homes sat next to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and were later marketed as rentals—raising questions, at least in ProPublica’s telling, about whether the “principal residence” language reflected his intent at the time.

      A White House spokesperson disputed the insinuation of wrongdoing, telling ProPublica that the mortgages were from the same lender and that there was “no defraudation.”

      What ProPublica Says the Records Show

      ProPublica’s account centers on two adjacent properties on Woodbridge Road near Mar-a-Lago. The outlet reports that Trump signed one mortgage describing a “Bermuda style” house as his principal residence, then obtained a second mortgage for a neighboring property roughly seven weeks later, also attesting it would be his principal residence.

      ProPublica further claims that Trump “does not appear to have ever lived” in either home and that the properties were treated as investment rentals, citing contemporaneous reporting and an interview with a longtime real estate agent connected to the listings.

      Mortgage-law experts quoted by ProPublica reportedly described “dual primary” claims as often legal and rarely prosecuted, but noted that the controversy is sharpened by the administration’s own rhetoric and referrals around similar allegations against Trump critics.

      The Bigger Political Fight: How “Mortgage Fraud” Became a Weaponized Buzzword

      The reason this story has legs isn’t a 1990s paperwork dispute. It’s that “dual primary residence” has become a political cudgel—one the Trump administration’s allies say is about restoring integrity, and one opponents say is about punishing enemies.

      In 2025, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte has been one of the most visible voices pushing referrals when public figures appear to claim more than one primary residence on mortgage documents. In ProPublica’s earlier reporting on the broader “dual primary” push, the outlet described a pattern of public accusations and referrals aimed at prominent Trump antagonists, including Sen. Adam Schiff, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

      Pulte has argued that claiming two primary residences is “not appropriate” and should be referred for criminal investigation—language that has helped set the tone for the administration’s broader posture.

      What the James case was about

      James was charged federally in connection with a 2020 home purchase in Norfolk, Virginia. Prosecutors alleged she secured favorable loan terms by signing a “second home rider” and then renting the home out—conduct they argued was inconsistent with the loan terms. James denied wrongdoing and characterized the case as political retaliation.

      FactCheck.org, reviewing the indictment and public reporting at the time, noted that legal experts questioned why federal prosecutors would pursue a case they viewed as relatively minor compared with typical federal priorities—fueling claims that politics was driving the prosecution.

      Why the charges were dismissed

      In a major setback for prosecutors, a federal judge dismissed the earlier case on procedural grounds tied to the appointment of the U.S. attorney who presented the case. Prosecutors then returned to a grand jury seeking a new indictment—but the grand jury declined to indict, another rare and significant obstacle.

      The controversy included scrutiny of Lindsey Halligan—described as a Trump ally and former White House aide—who presented the case after being installed in the role amid political pressure, with the judge ruling the appointment mechanism improper.

      Supporters of the administration argue the broader point remains: elected officials should not receive favorable terms by misrepresenting occupancy intentions. Critics counter that the pattern of targets, the public pressure campaign, and the procedural problems reinforce fears of selective enforcement.

      Even ProPublica’s critics concede a practical reality: mortgages from the mid-1990s are unlikely to be actionable today. The political impact, however, is immediate: if the administration is setting a low bar for referrals based on paperwork language, the same standard—fairly or not—can be turned back on the president.

      Read the ProPublica story here.

      Democrat Senator Claims Uniformed Military Is Planning Coup Against Trump

      7
      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

      This week, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said that he believes the U.S. military could serve as a constraint on President Donald Trump’s administration, arguing that senior uniformed leaders remain primarily loyal to the Constitution rather than any individual political figure.

      Speaking during an appearance on “MS NOW” Wednesday morning, Warner previewed questions he said he plans to ask U.S. Navy Adm. Frank M. Bradley when Bradley testifies Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Warner serves as the committee’s vice chair.

      Warner said his questions will focus in part on concerns surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the administration’s recent military actions, including strikes in the Caribbean. Warner said he trusts Bradley, but raised doubts about Hegseth’s public statements.

      “Remember, this is an administration that has treated the uniformed military with unprecedented disrespect when they were all brought to get a pep rally in front of Hegseth and Trump,” Warner said. “This is an administration that’s fired uniform generals from the head of the NSA, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.”

      He added: “And I think in many ways, the uniformed military may help save us from this president and his lame people like Hegseth, because I think their commitment is to the Constitution and obviously not to Trump. And I expect Bradley to adhere to that.”

      Warner’s comments follow similar remarks from other Democrats who have suggested service members could resist unlawful directives. Earlier this year, six Democratic lawmakers urged members of the military to resist “illegal” orders.

      Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) made a related argument in an interview last month with Don Lemon, saying he has spoken with service members who view their oath as a safeguard.

      “What gives me hope, and I talk to service members all the time. They tell me that I don’t appreciate enough and the public doesn’t appreciate enough that while Congress is not a check on the president anymore, and the judiciary at the Supreme Court is hardly a check, military members have told me, ‘We can be a check,’” Swalwell said.

      He continued: “They’re essentially saying, ‘We’re not going to betray our oath to the Constitution because this guy tells us to.’ While it’s not codified that way — they’re not a branch of government on their own— their honor and integrity might just save us.”

      Former President Barack Obama also addressed the issue Monday, saying he has seen signs of “resistance” within the military to what he described as politicization, while adding he does not believe that politicization has fully taken hold.

      “I would not expect the politicization of the Justice Department or our military,” Obama said. “And I don’t think that’s happened. I think there’s been resistance, particularly in the military, to that, but the degree to which that has been encouraged, you know, that used to be something that I would lecture other countries not to do.”

      Trump Signs Law Delivering First Medal Of Honor Pension Increase In 25 Years

        0
        President Donald Trump participates in a welcome ceremony with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Al Saud at the Royal Court Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tuesday, May 13, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

        President Trump has signed the Medal of Honor Act, a bipartisan measure that delivers the first pension increase for Medal of Honor recipients in a quarter-century. The law lifts annual compensation from $16,880 to $67,500, a major boost aimed at honoring the 61 living Americans who earned the nation’s highest award for valor.

        A Rare Moment of Unanimous Support

        The bill, led by Rep. Troy Nehls and Sen. Ted Cruz, cleared the Senate unanimously last month. Lawmakers from both parties backed the increase, calling it a long-overdue adjustment for service members who put everything on the line in combat.

        What the New Law Does

        • Raises the annual Medal of Honor pension to $67,500
        • Quadruples current yearly compensation
        • Applies to all living recipients
        • Marks the first update to Medal of Honor pensions in 25 years

        Why It Matters

        Supporters say the upgrade brings the benefit in line with the significance of the medal itself. Medal of Honor recipients have long carried symbolic weight in American culture, yet their compensation has not kept pace with inflation or the modern cost of living.

        After the bill passed, Sen. Ted Cruz’s office put out a statement saying: “Medal of Honor recipients are often not retired from the U.S. military and often receive no compensation for the costs of their public engagements. Through these appearances, they share stories of heroism that inspire Americans, strengthen national pride, and support military recruiting and retention. Increasing their monthly pensions is essential to easing the financial burden on their families and ensuring they can continue representing the best of our nation’s values.”

        Looking Ahead

        With the new law in place, recipients will see the higher rate take effect immediately. For veterans groups, this represents a major win and a signal that Congress and the White House can still unite behind issues tied to military service and national honor.

        Superstar Elton John Shares What Would Make Trump One Of The ‘Greatest Presidents In History’

        2

        Elton John told Variety last week that if President Donald Trump helps deliver on the long-standing goal of ending AIDS, it would cement a historic legacy—an appeal that comes as scientific breakthroughs and policy debates converge around HIV prevention and global aid.

        Speaking Tuesday with Variety about the work of his namesake Elton John AIDS Foundation, the “Tiny Dancer” singer emphasized the value of bipartisan cooperation. He noted past support from Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and urged the Trump administration to keep pushing toward eradication.

        “The bipartisan thing makes common sense,” John said. “To see us come so far with the medical and scientific advances, and to think this is the only disease that can be completely cured in one’s lifetime. President Trump has maybe solved the peace problem. If he wants to go down as one of the greatest presidents in history… if he ended AIDS, that would really be a feather in his cap.”

        John’s remarks come as new medical advances have added momentum to HIV prevention. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in June a new, twice-yearly shot from Gilead Sciences, a U.S. private sector biopharmaceutical company, to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. In clinical trials, the shot was nearly 100% effective at preventing HIV transmission and performed better than prior prevention options.

        Trump has also previously stated a goal of eradicating the disease by 2030, announcing an initiative to end HIV during his first term in 2019.

        Even so, the politics of global health funding remain contentious. The Trump administration sought to cut funding from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in the president’s original rescissions package in July, though Senate Republicans later agreed to preserve PEPFAR funding.

        John said he is frustrated when governments scale back support—whether through budget decisions or legal restrictions—despite the availability of effective tools.

        “I just am enraged by it,” John told Variety. “It’s very frustrating when you’ve got the tools in your hand to end it, and then you find that countries won’t help.”

        In a comment to Fox News Digital, White House spokesman Kush Desai said the administration is continuing its efforts domestically and internationally.

        “Elton John can rest assured that the Trump administration is robustly tackling the HIV/AIDS epidemic both at home and abroad,” Desai said. “The State Department is working directly with foreign governments to implement a global health strategy to streamline America’s foreign assistance and modernize our approach to countering infectious diseases like HIV.”

        He added, “HHS, meanwhile, is advancing next-generation HIV prevention and treatment options, strengthening viral suppression nationwide via HRSA’s Ryan White program, supporting emergency preparedness, and expanding access to trusted HIV information.”

        John’s comments also reflect a long-running, sometimes surprising, cordiality toward Trump. He has spoken positively about the president before—including reacting to Trump’s “Little Rocket Man” nickname for North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, a reference to John’s music.

        “I laughed, I thought that was brilliant,” John said in 2024. “I just thought, ‘Good on you, Donald’… Donald’s always been a fan of mine, and he’s been to my concerts many, many times. So, I mean, I’ve always been friendly toward him, and I thank him for his support. When he did that, I just thought it was hilarious. It made me laugh.”

        CNN Inks Deal With Major Prediction Market Backed by Trump Jr.

        0
        CNN Headquarters via Wikimedia Commons

        CNN is reportedly entering a new partnership with prediction-market company Kalshi that would weave Kalshi’s real-time odds and forecasts into CNN’s on-air and digital coverage—an alliance that also has the effect of placing the network in a business relationship with Donald Trump Jr.

        Axios first reported the deal Tuesday, citing sources who said Kalshi will appear “across its television, digital, and social channels.” Under the arrangement, Kalshi’s prediction data would be featured on CNN programming as a live “real-time data ticker,” with additional segments built around prediction-market oriented content touching politics, news, culture, and weather. CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten is also expected to incorporate Kalshi’s numbers into his data-driven analysis, according to the report.

        The collaboration would represent Kalshi’s first major partnership with a national news organization—an important milestone for a company that has sought to position itself as a go-to source for fast-moving probability estimates about cultural and political events. In practice, prediction markets function like real-time sentiment gauges: prices (or implied probabilities) move up and down as participants buy and sell contracts tied to specific outcomes, translating collective bets into a snapshot of what the market thinks is most likely at a given moment. For a television newsroom, that kind of constantly updating “odds board” can be a compelling visual—especially during election cycles and major breaking-news moments—because it packages uncertainty into an easy-to-read number.

        But the most politically sensitive dimension of the reported partnership is who else is tied to Kalshi.

        As Media Matters’ Matthew Gertz noted, Donald Trump Jr. announced in January 2025 that he had joined Kalshi as a “strategic advisor.” Trump Jr. framed the company as a disruptive force in the U.S. market for event-based trading, touting Kalshi’s legal fights and its efforts to build mainstream legitimacy. “I’m excited to be part of what they’re building,” he said at the time, casting Kalshi as a pioneering player in an industry that has long operated in a gray area in the United States.

        That makes CNN’s reported move notable for more than its graphics package. If Kalshi data becomes a recurring on-air feature—particularly in political coverage—CNN would be elevating a product linked to a prominent partisan figure: the son of a president and a central surrogate in Republican politics. Even if Trump Jr. has no day-to-day role in editorial decisions at CNN, his publicly announced advisory position creates an unavoidable headline: a major news network integrating a data feed from a company whose strategic advisor is one of the most recognizable names in national GOP politics.

        The questions are as much about perception as they are about logistics. Prediction-market numbers can be useful as one input among many—alongside polling, modeling, and reporting—but they can also be misunderstood by audiences as “what will happen” rather than “what traders think might happen,” especially when those percentages are presented like sports odds. And with Trump Jr. connected to the company supplying the data, critics are likely to scrutinize when and how CNN uses the ticker, whether the network discloses the advisory relationship on-air, and how often the data appears in politically charged segments.

        For Kalshi, the upside is obvious: a prominent distribution channel that could normalize prediction markets and introduce the brand to a much larger audience. For CNN, the draw is fresh, visually dynamic data—something that fits modern broadcast pacing and could complement its analytics-heavy style, particularly in elections and major news events. But the addition of Donald Trump Jr. to the equation ensures the partnership won’t be viewed as just another data collaboration.

        Trump Says Americans May Soon Pay ‘No Income Tax’

        1

        President Donald Trump on Tuesday floated the idea that Americans could see their federal income taxes drastically reduced—or potentially eliminated—if tariff revenue continues to rise, calling the amounts collected under his administration “so great… so enormous” that the government may be able to abandon the current system.

        Speaking to reporters in a post–cabinet meeting press gaggle, Trump said, “at some point in the not too distant future you won’t even have income tax to pay,” arguing that tariff-driven revenue could eventually replace money now raised through taxes on wages and personal income.

        “Whether you get rid of it or just keep it around for fun or have it really low, much lower than it is now, but you won’t be paying income tax,” Trump added.

        If pursued, the proposal would amount to one of the biggest shifts in the U.S. tax structure in generations. The federal income tax is a central funding source for Washington, while tariffs—taxes on imported goods—have historically played a smaller role in modern federal budgeting. Trump, however, has repeatedly praised an older era of American finance, when the federal government relied more heavily on customs duties and other consumption-style taxes.

        “It’s time for the United States to return to the system that made us richer and more powerful than ever before,” the president said in January. “Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich foreign nations, we should be tariffing and taxing foreign nations to enrich our citizens.”

        Trump has previously previewed narrower versions of the same concept. Earlier in his second administration, he floated eliminating income tax for individuals earning under $150,000, again describing tariffs as the replacement revenue stream. That idea—like full repeal—would still require major legislative action and raise large questions about how the federal government would maintain funding levels for defense, Social Security and Medicare administration, interest payments on the national debt, and other functions now supported by income-tax receipts.

        The president has also framed the idea as a common-sense bargain rather than a technical redesign of federal finance. Asked by podcaster Joe Rogan whether he was serious about eliminating personal income taxes, then-candidate Trump replied, “Yeah, sure, why not?” and suggested tariffs could fund government operations “instead of wage taxes.”

        Even if the White House embraces the concept, the path to implementation is steep. Eliminating or dramatically shrinking the income tax would require rewriting large sections of the tax code—changes that must pass Congress and withstand scrutiny from budget scorekeepers and lawmakers concerned about deficits, household costs, and the economic consequences of sharply expanding tariffs. Those hurdles could be especially high amid tight margins in the House, where leadership often struggles to keep large coalitions together on complex fiscal votes.

        Trump’s views on taxation have also shifted over time. During his brief exploration of a 1999 presidential run under the Reform Party banner, Trump considered a one-time “net worth” tax for people with wealth over $10 million—an approach that contrasts with his current push to shift more of the federal tax burden toward imports.

        While outright abolition of the income tax has traditionally been a fringe policy idea, Trump’s increasingly explicit endorsement has pushed it closer to mainstream political debate—especially as tariffs become a larger and more central feature of his economic message.