Featured

Home Featured
Featured posts

Hegseth Confirms Leader Behind Trump Assassination Effort Has Been ‘Hunted Down and Killed’

By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Pete Hegseth, CC BY-SA 2.0

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the Iranian leader behind multiple assassination attempts against President Donald Trump was killed during U.S. strikes on Iran over the weekend as part of Operation Epic Fury.

“The leader of the unit that attempted to assassinate Trump has been hunted down and killed,” Hegseth said during a press conference Wednesday morning.

“Iran tried to kill President Trump and President Trump got the last laugh,” Hegseth continued. “Now, this is not a ‘mission accomplished’ situation. This is simply a reality check.”

U.S. officials confirmed earlier this week that strikes against Iran, which began Saturday, killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several senior figures in the regime’s leadership.

The military campaign comes amid escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran following repeated threats from Iran against Trump after the 2020 U.S. strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani.

In 2024, Iran-linked actors attempted to arrange an assassination plot targeting Trump. The U.S. government has also previously warned of other Iranian efforts to target the former president.

In 2022, an Iranian video depicted an assassination attempt on Trump while he played golf.

Trump referenced those threats during a phone call with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl earlier this week following reports of Khamenei’s death.

“I got him before he got me,” Trump said.

“They tried twice,” Trump continued, referring to Iran’s previous attempts on his life. “Well, I got him first.”

During Wednesday’s press conference, Hegseth said the combined power of U.S. and Israeli intelligence and military forces is rapidly weakening Iran’s ability to respond.

“America is winning decisively, devastatingly and without mercy,” Hegseth said.

He also emphasized that the current military campaign was never intended to be evenly matched.

“This was never meant to be a fair fight and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be,” he said.

Iran has launched retaliatory attacks in response to the strikes. A drone strike in Kuwait earlier this week killed at least six Americans, according to U.S. officials. Hegseth vowed those casualties would be avenged.

He said:

“As President Trump said, more and larger waves are coming. We are just getting started. We are accelerating, not decelerating. Iran’s capabilities are evaporating by the hour, while American strength grows fiercer, smarter and utterly dominant. More bombers and more fighters are arriving just today. And now, with complete control of the skies, we will be using 500-pound, 1,000-pound and 2,000 pound GPS and laser-guided precision gravity bombs, of which we have a nearly unlimited stockpile. We used more exquisite standoff munitions at the start, but no longer need to. Our stockpiles of those, as well as patriots, remains extremely strong.”

Hegseth added that the United States has the capacity to sustain the conflict if necessary.

He warned the U.S. can “sustain this fight easily for as along as we need to.”

The defense secretary compared Iran’s situation to a football team that had prepared only the opening portion of a game.

“I liken Iran’s predicament to a football team who scripted the first 20 plays of a game,” he said. “The team knew what plays to run because their first few drives were scripted. But now that the game has started and the blitz is on, they don’t know what plays call, let alone how to get in the huddle and call those plays.”

Hegseth concluded by saying the strikes represent Trump getting the “last laugh” against Iran.

Dem Senator Left ‘Baffled’ By Lack of Support for Trump’s Iran Strikes and Death of ‘Evil’ Leaders

Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) is expressing disbelief at fellow Democrats who have criticized President Donald Trump’s military strikes against Iran, calling the action a decisive moment for regional peace and security.

Fetterman questioned members of his own party who voiced opposition to the strikes, arguing that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon has long been a bipartisan priority.

“Every single member of the Senate has agreed that we can never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb, and clearly they [Iran] were actually intending to do that. So, are you really committed to that?” Fetterman asked Monday on Hannity.

U.S. and Israeli forces launched coordinated strikes on Iranian military and government targets on Feb. 28, deploying air, sea and missile power in what officials described as a sweeping operation. The mission, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, struck more than 1,000 military, intelligence and government sites across Iran within its first 24 hours, according to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of senior regime officials were eliminated in the strikes.

Fetterman said he was “baffled” that more people were not celebrating the death of what he described as “one of the most evil men ever” and the crippling of the Iranian regime.

“It’s a good thing for the region, it’s a good thing for Israel, it’s good for America, and so, for me, that’s why I stand with the country over perhaps what the base may demand,” Fetterman said.

Watch:

He also defended the legality and strategic rationale behind the operation, pushing back on critics who questioned whether the president overstepped his authority.

“Imagine if people just listened to the conventional wisdom, that they could have possibly have acquired a bomb if we weren’t bombed back in June. So, yes, there is a threat. It’s not imminent that it could happen right now. But it’s one that I think is entirely appropriate to deal with it,” Fetterman told CNN host Dana Bash. “And that’s why I support it. So, again, people keep— describe that it was a legal war. Now read the War Powers Act. And, now, that has not been violated at this point what happened yesterday.”

The War Powers Act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing U.S. military forces. The Trump administration notified the “Gang of Eight” — the bipartisan group of top congressional leaders and intelligence committee chairs — before the strikes but did not seek formal authorization.

Fetterman noted that Trump had previously attempted diplomacy before resorting to military action.

“Well, what is true is that President Trump tried to negotiate that and tried to find a firm kinds [sic] of agreements, absolutely. And they refused to those basic, basic kinds of things: remind everybody, you are never allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. And, clearly, they was [sic]. And I absolutely supported what happened last June,” Fetterman continued.

Fetterman is one of the few Democrats who backed Operation Midnight Hammer, the June 2025 U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities ordered by President Trump. While most of the Democratic caucus condemned that action, Fetterman later voted as the lone Democratic senator against a war powers resolution seeking to curb the president’s authority following the operation.

MTG Accuses Trump Of Implementing ‘Manufactured Crisis’ To Cancel Midterm Elections

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said Sunday that she could envision President Donald Trump declaring a “national emergency” tied to Iran or another crisis, responding to speculation that such a move could affect the upcoming midterm elections.

The comments came after conservative podcaster Shannon Joy posted on X, “Trump doesn’t seem to care about the midterms. Who wants to bet he’ll declare a ‘national emergency’ because of Iran (or some other manufactured crisis) and try to cancel the elections in November?”

Greene replied, “Yeah, I could see it. INSANE.”

Her response follows a recent public break with the president over U.S. military action against Iran. Greene has sharply criticized the strikes in multiple social media posts, arguing they run counter to the “America First” platform that helped elect Trump.

“The Trump admin actually asked in a poll how many casualties voters were willing to accept in a war with Iran???” Greene wrote Saturday on X. “How about ZERO you bunch of sick f*cking liars. We voted for America First and ZERO wars.”

In another post, she added: “This is NOT freeing the Iranian people!!! This is murdering their children!!! WTF are you insane people doing??? AMERICA DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS!!!”

The exchange comes amid debate within Republican circles about the administration’s decision to strike Iran. Critics have questioned the timing, noting that Trump said in June that prior U.S. strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

In an interview Sunday with Fox News’ Jacqui Heinrich, Trump defended the latest action, saying that without U.S. and Israeli missile strikes, Iran “would have had a nuclear weapon within two weeks.”

However, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) offered a more measured assessment during an appearance on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.”

“I don’t have present-day intelligence on what progress they had made toward rebuilding nuclear weapons since we bombed their facilities,” Cruz said. “I have no indication that they were anywhere close to getting nuclear weapons, because our bombing was devastating… That’s one of the reasons I urged President Trump, ‘Now is the time’” to strike.

The midterm elections, scheduled for November, are expected to be closely contested, with some political analysts projecting potential Republican losses in key districts. Greene’s comments reflect broader concerns among some conservatives about U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts and their potential domestic political implications.

A January report from Roll Call cited a prior Oval Office meeting in which Trump discussed elections during wartime. According to the report, during an Aug. 18 meeting, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke about the conditions required to restart elections in Ukraine.

“So you say, during the war, you can’t have elections,” Trump mused, according to the report. “So you mean if we happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections. I wonder what the fake news would say to that.”

Susie Wiles’ Lawyer Denies Approving FBI Recording

1
White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles delivers remarks during the Memorial Service for Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, Sunday, September 21, 2025.(Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

An attorney representing White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles in 2023 is disputing claims that he agreed to allow the FBI to record a phone call with his client without her knowledge, according to a report from Axios.

“If I ever pulled a stunt like that I wouldn’t – and shouldn’t – have a license to practice law,” the unidentified attorney told Axios. “I’m as shocked as Susie.”

The denial comes amid renewed scrutiny over the FBI’s investigative tactics during Special Counsel Jack Smith’s probes into President Donald Trump ahead of the 2024 election.

Wiles, who managed Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign and now serves as White House chief of staff, was reportedly stunned to learn that the FBI subpoenaed her phone records in 2022 and 2023 as part of those investigations. According to Axios, she told associates, “I am in shock.”

Reuters first reported the subpoenas, which were issued during Smith’s investigations into Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election results and his handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

According to Fox News, the records obtained through subpoena included toll data — such as phone numbers and the dates and times of calls — but did not include the content of conversations.

The controversy escalated after two FBI officials reportedly claimed that agents recorded a 2023 phone call between Wiles and her attorney. The officials alleged that the attorney was aware the call was being recorded and gave consent, though Wiles herself was not informed.

However, the attorney has “categorically” denied consenting to any recording, Axios reporter Marc Caputo wrote on X. Wiles reportedly believes her lawyer and suspects that Biden-era FBI officials may have misrepresented what occurred.

Separately, Fox News Digital reported that at least 10 FBI employees were fired Wednesday in connection with the matter.

The developments have drawn strong reactions from Trump allies and conservative commentators.

Trump 2024 co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita wrote on X that he knows the attorney and believes him, calling the situation “a violation of basic constitutional rights every American has” and urging accountability.

OutKick founder Clay Travis also weighed in, writing, “So the lawyer Biden’s FBI eavesdropped on during a call with Susie Wiles said he had no idea it happened. This is a huge story. Biden’s FBI spied on Trump’s campaign manager in the 2024 campaign.”

In a separate statement obtained by Fox News Digital, Patel — whose phone records were also reportedly subpoenaed — criticized prior FBI leadership.

“It is outrageous and deeply alarming that the previous FBI leadership secretly subpoenaed my own phone records — along with those of now White House chief of staff Susie Wiles — using flimsy pretexts and burying the entire process in prohibited case files designed to evade all oversight,” Patel said.

Report: Federal Judge Clears Path For Trump’s $400M White House Ballroom

0

A federal judge on Thursday denied a legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s proposed White House ballroom project, clearing the way for construction to move forward on the estimated $400 million expansion.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon rejected an injunction sought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which had asked the court to halt demolition work tied to the project. The organization sued the Trump administration in December, arguing that officials failed to complete required federal reviews and did not obtain congressional approval before proceeding with plans that include demolishing portions of the East Wing.

In his ruling, Leon said the preservation group was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims. He wrote that the plaintiffs relied on a “ragtag group of theories” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution.

Leon determined that the challenge fell short in part because “the White House office in question is not an agency” under the APA, limiting the court’s ability to review the actions at issue. He also wrote that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient legal grounds to challenge the president’s statutory authority to complete the project using private funds without explicit congressional approval.

The decision marks a significant legal victory for the administration and allows work on the 90,000-square-foot ballroom to continue. According to Trump, the facility is intended to host large-scale events such as state dinners, official receptions, and potentially inauguration-related gatherings — functions that often require temporary structures on the White House grounds due to space limitations.

Trump celebrated the ruling on Truth Social, emphasizing that the project would not rely on taxpayer funding.

“Great news for America, and our wonderful White House! The Judge on the case of what will be the most beautiful Ballroom anywhere in the World, has just thrown out, and completely erased, the effort to stop its construction,” Trump wrote. “As everyone knows, not one dollar of Taxpayer money is being spent, but rather, all money necessary to build this magnificent building is being put up by Patriot Donors and Contributors.”

He added that construction is “ahead of schedule and under budget.”

The administration has said the ballroom will be funded entirely through private donations, a structure supporters argue avoids additional strain on federal budgets. Critics, however, have raised concerns about precedent, transparency, and the potential long-term impact on the historic White House complex.

The White House has undergone numerous expansions and renovations throughout its history. The West Wing was added in 1902 under President Theodore Roosevelt, and the East Wing was constructed in stages beginning during World War II. Major structural renovations were also undertaken during the Truman administration after engineers determined the building was at risk of collapse.

Legal disputes over executive authority and historic preservation are not uncommon when changes to federally owned landmarks are proposed. The National Trust argued that federal preservation laws and administrative procedures required more extensive review before demolition could proceed. The court’s ruling suggests that, at least at this preliminary stage, those arguments did not meet the threshold necessary to stop the project.

Further legal action remains possible, though the denial of the injunction allows construction to continue while the case proceeds.

If completed as planned, the ballroom would represent one of the most significant additions to the White House complex in decades, reshaping how large official events are hosted at the executive residence.

Leading Dem Frontrunner Reveals The One Republican ‘Scarier’ Than Trump

4
Casa Rosada (Argentina Presidency of the Nation), CC BY 2.5 AR via Wikimedia Commons

In a recent interview with MSNBC’s Inside with Jen Psaki, Newsom described Vance as “dangerous,” arguing that the former Ohio senator poses a more calculated political threat than the president himself.

“Vance, for whatever reason, scares me, almost more than Trump,” the Democratic governor said. “Talk about a guy who put a mask on and his face grew into it.”

Newsom accused both Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio of abandoning earlier criticisms of Trump after joining his administration. But he singled out the vice president as uniquely concerning.

“JD is a unique fraud and phony, and he’s a little more dangerous,” Newsom said.

A Warning Shot Toward 2028

The remarks amount to more than a passing critique. They reflect the early contours of what could become a defining political rivalry ahead of the 2028 presidential election.

Newsom is widely viewed as a leading Democratic contender should he enter the race. The two-term California governor has built a national profile as one of the party’s most visible counterweights to Trump-era Republicanism, frequently clashing with GOP governors and positioning California as a policy and cultural foil to red-state leadership.

At the same time, Vance has emerged as a potential heir to Trump’s political movement. As vice president, he has solidified his standing with the Republican base while cultivating relationships with conservative intellectuals and populist activists. Many analysts see him as a plausible frontrunner in a post-Trump GOP primary, particularly if he successfully fuses Trump-style populism with a more disciplined, ideologically coherent message.

Newsom’s comments suggest Democrats are already thinking beyond Trump himself and preparing for what they view as a more strategic successor.

Concerns About a Third Term and Election Security

During the interview, recorded a day after Trump’s State of the Union address, Newsom also expressed alarm over Trump’s public musings about seeking a third term — an idea that would face significant constitutional barriers.

The governor issued what he called a “code red” about the state of American democracy and election security, warning Democrats not to lose focus amid the daily churn of political controversy.

“My fear is we get so easily distracted and they’re so effective on the other side,” Newsom said. “We must continue to be mindful, laser-focused on what’s in front of us every single day until the job is done.”

His framing underscores a broader Democratic argument that the stakes of the next election cycle extend beyond standard partisan disagreements.

Newsom’s Evolving Political Strategy

Newsom’s sharpened rhetoric toward Vance also comes at a moment when the California governor has been experimenting with his own messaging style — at times attempting to adopt elements of Trump’s direct, combative approach.

In recent months, Newsom has leaned more heavily into punchy social media posts, culture-war skirmishes, and headline-grabbing soundbites aimed at energizing Democratic voters. He has sparred publicly with Republican governors, amplified confrontations over education and immigration policy, and positioned himself as a national foil to conservative leadership.

Some of those efforts, however, have drawn criticism from both Republicans and members of his own party. Detractors argue that mimicking Trump’s confrontational style risks undercutting Newsom’s attempts to present himself as a stabilizing alternative. In several instances, attempts at sharp-edged messaging have backfired, generating backlash for the California Governor.

A Glimpse of the Next Political Chapter

By identifying Vance — rather than Trump — as the Republican who most concerns him, Newsom may be signaling where he believes the long-term battle lies.

Trump remains the dominant force in Republican politics, but Vance represents a new generation of conservative leadership that blends populist rhetoric with ideological ambition. For Democrats preparing for 2028, the prospect of facing a candidate who inherits Trump’s base while refining its message could be a formidable test.

For now, both men are focused on their current roles — Newsom governing the nation’s largest state and Vance serving as vice president. But as early positioning for the next presidential cycle accelerates, Newsom’s warning suggests he sees the Republican field not as a one-man show, but as a movement with staying power.

And in that movement, he appears to believe JD Vance may be the most consequential figure of all.

Tucker Carlson’s Show Once Acted as ‘Effectively a Senior Adviser’ to Trump

0
Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

At one point during Donald Trump’s presidency, Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program functioned as more than just a primetime show. According to a former Fox News producer quoted in Jason Zengerle’s new book, Hated By All the Right People: Tucker Carlson and the Unraveling of the Conservative Mind, the program was “effectively a senior adviser” to the president.

Zengerle reports that Carlson’s influence extended deep into the Trump White House. Alyssa Farah Griffin — now a co-host of The View who served in the Trump administration from 2017 to 2020 — said the show was considered required viewing for administration officials.

According to the book, Jared Kushner once rebuked her after she admitted missing part of an episode. “You can’t work in this White House and not watch Tucker Carlson,” Kushner told her.

The Daily Mail highlighted those revelations this week, along with another detail from Zengerle’s account: Trump was reportedly frustrated when he could not reach Carlson directly.

“Tucker was the hot girl that didn’t want to f*ck him,” a former White House official said in the book.

The same official added that Carlson’s reluctance to be easily accessible “intrigued” Trump and made him more “alluring,” as The Daily Mail described it.

Carlson’s prominence at the time was reflected in his ratings. Tucker Carlson Tonight set a cable news record in October 2020, averaging 5.36 million viewers. The program routinely drew more than 4 million viewers per month before Carlson’s departure from Fox News in April 2023.

Fox News experienced a ratings decline immediately following Carlson’s exit, but the network later regained its footing and maintained its position as the top-rated cable news channel. Mediaite reported Wednesday that Fox News averaged 34% more primetime viewers in February than CNN and MSNBC combined, crediting much of that performance to Carlson’s replacement, Jesse Watters.

The relationship between Trump and Carlson appears to have evolved since Trump returned to the White House last year. Carlson has been seen visiting the White House several times. However, tensions may remain. According to Free Press reporter Eli Lake, Trump “has privately urged the popular podcast host to end his battle with prominent pro-Israel MAGA influencers,” believing the dispute could harm Republican prospects in the 2026 midterm elections.

Bill O’Reilly Announces First Cable News Gig Since 2017 Fox News Exit

0

Bill O’Reilly is returning to the cable anchor chair next week, stepping in for NewsNation host Chris Cuomo — and he’s promising viewers a familiar format that made him a household name.

During a Wednesday night appearance on Cuomo, O’Reilly announced that he will host the full 8 p.m. ET hour on March 4 while Cuomo travels to Israel. But this won’t be a typical guest-host arrangement.

“I’m bringing back The O’Reilly Factor,” O’Reilly declared, pointing directly into the camera. “OK? I’m bringing it back, a week from tonight. You can’t miss this. Wait until you see the cast that we’ve assembled.”

Taking a playful jab at Cuomo, O’Reilly added, “You’re going to be jealous.”

Cuomo fired back with a joke of his own, calling it “the ‘Everybody Hates Chris’ show,” before thanking O’Reilly for “subbing in.”

A Familiar Voice for Conservative Viewers

For millions of Americans, The O’Reilly Factor defined prime-time cable news for more than a decade and a half. From 2001 until 2017, the show was the highest-rated program in cable news for 16 consecutive years, becoming a staple for viewers seeking a direct, unapologetic conservative perspective.

O’Reilly built his reputation on his “no spin” approach — challenging political correctness, confronting establishment narratives, and giving voice to working- and middle-class Americans who often felt ignored by mainstream media outlets.

Since departing Fox News in 2017, O’Reilly has continued to command a large following through his No Spin News podcast and digital platform, as well as frequent television appearances. His books regularly top bestseller lists, and he remains one of the most recognizable figures in conservative media.

Sparring Over Transparency and Government Power

During Wednesday’s appearance, O’Reilly and Cuomo debated President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address and the Justice Department’s handling of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.

O’Reilly argued that the government has broad authority to classify sensitive material, warning against what he described as “trial by mob” in politically charged investigations. He maintained that releasing certain information without careful review could undermine due process and inflame public opinion before facts are fully established — a position that resonates with many conservatives who have grown skeptical of selective leaks and politically motivated prosecutions.

A Return to Form

While O’Reilly’s departure from Fox News in 2017 followed reports that the network had paid settlements to women who accused him of sexual harassment — allegations he has consistently denied — his influence in conservative media has endured.

For supporters, his brief return to the anchor desk represents something larger: a revival of a format that once dominated cable news and a reminder of an era when conservative voices reshaped the media landscape.

Whether for one night or more, O’Reilly’s promise to revive The O’Reilly Factor is likely to draw significant attention from longtime viewers eager to see the veteran broadcaster back in action.

March 4 at 8 p.m. ET may offer a glimpse of whether the “Factor” still has the firepower that made it a ratings powerhouse for 16 years.

Report: Trump Company Seeks To Trademark His Name On Airports

0
Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

As Florida legislators weigh a proposal to rename Palm Beach International Airport after President Donald J. Trump, a related trademark filing by a company associated with the Trump Organization is drawing national attention — and predictable political reactions.

Public records show that DTTM Operations, an entity tied to the Trump Organization, filed trademark applications on Feb. 13 for “President Donald J. Trump International Airport” and “Donald J. Trump International Airport.”

A spokesperson for the Trump Organization said the filings are purely defensive and not intended to generate revenue.

“To be clear, the President and his family will not receive any royalty, licensing fee, or financial consideration whatsoever from the proposed airport renaming,” spokesperson Kimberly Banza said in a statement. She explained that the trademark applications are meant to prevent “bad actors from infringing upon or misusing the name.”

The proposal to rename the airport comes as Florida’s GOP-controlled legislature considers honoring Trump, whose Mar-a-Lago residence is located in Palm Beach. Supporters see the move as a fitting recognition of a former and current president with deep ties to the region and a significant political legacy.

Critics, however, have seized on the trademark filings to raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette of the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight argued that the situation highlights broader questions about presidential business holdings.

Trademark attorney Josh Gerben, who first reported on the filings, described the move as unusual, noting that while airports have been named after past presidents, a sitting president’s private company seeking trademark protection in advance appears to be unprecedented.

Gerben suggested that the filings raise technical legal questions about whether a publicly owned airport would need permission to use the name if it were trademarked — though no such arrangement has been proposed.

The broader political backdrop is hard to ignore. President Trump has long been a polarizing figure, and even routine legal filings tied to his name tend to generate outsized scrutiny. Supporters argue that trademark protection is standard practice for high-profile public figures and brands, particularly given Trump’s long history as a global business leader.

The White House has not indicated that the president is personally involved in the legislative effort. Trump has also denied reports that he is seeking to have other major transportation hubs, such as Washington’s Dulles Airport or New York’s Penn Station, renamed in his honor.

For now, the proposal remains in the hands of Florida lawmakers. Whether the renaming effort moves forward — and whether the trademark filings ultimately matter — will depend on decisions made at the state level.

House GOP Moves To Censure Congressman After Interrupting Trump Speech – Again

Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

A new effort is underway among House Republicans to censure Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) after he was removed from President Donald Trump’s primetime address for the second consecutive year.

Green was ejected from Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday night just minutes after the president entered the House chamber. As Trump approached the podium, Green stood holding a sign that read, in all capital letters, “Black people are not apes.” He remained standing with the sign visible as the president began speaking, prompting intervention by the Sergeant at Arms.

Rep. Mike Rulli (R-Ohio) told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that he is seeking support for a formal censure resolution against Green.

“His shenanigans at the State of the Union were uncalled for,” Rulli said. “We can’t really put up with that kind of conduct in Congress. Something had to be done.”

Rulli added, “I’m looking for as many co-sponsors from our conference as possible. And I’m reaching across the aisle for anyone over there that was embarrassed by their own guy.”

According to the text of Rulli’s resolution, first obtained by Fox News Digital, Green’s actions constituted a “breach of conduct.” The resolution further notes that it “was the second time in less than a year that the Representative from Texas had to be removed from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms due to unpatriotic disruptions that violated numerous House rules related to decorum.”

This is not the first time Green has faced formal rebuke from the House. In March 2025, the House of Representatives voted to censure him after he disrupted a previous presidential address by waving his cane and shouting over Trump as the president attempted to deliver his remarks. Ten Democrats joined Republicans in passing that resolution.

Green has long been one of Trump’s most vocal critics in Congress. During Trump’s first term, Green repeatedly introduced articles of impeachment against the president, beginning as early as 2017. His efforts, which cited allegations ranging from obstruction of justice to rhetoric he characterized as discriminatory or inflammatory, were unsuccessful and did not advance out of the House. While Democrats later pursued separate impeachment proceedings that led to two Senate trials, Green’s early impeachment resolutions did not gain sufficient support within his own party to move forward.

Following his removal Tuesday night, Green defended his actions.

“I refuse to tolerate this level of hate that the president is in fact putting into policy. We must take a stand against this level of invidious discrimination,” Green told reporters.

“I wanted him to know, and I wanted them to see it and hear it. Up close. But judging from the expression on his face, he got the message. He saw it,” Green said.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) stopped short of committing to a vote on Rulli’s latest censure resolution but indicated he would allow members to decide.

“Al Green was removed pretty quickly. I don’t know if censure is going to be appropriate. I’ll let our colleagues decide that,” Johnson said. “The point of a censure, is to bring someone to the House floor and bring shame upon them for their actions. I think they showed the American people shame already.”