A former staffer from President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — affectionately known by insiders as “Big Balls” — was the target of a violent attempted carjacking early Sunday morning in the heart of the nation’s capital.
Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old software engineer and one of the standout young voices behind Trump’s government-cutting initiative, was ambushed around 3 a.m. in the Logan Circle neighborhood — a once-proud district now plagued by rising crime and emboldened youth gangs.
According to police, a pack of teens approached Coristine and his girlfriend near their vehicle. The thugs made threats about stealing the car before Coristine — in true America First fashion — pushed his girlfriend to safety and prepared to defend himself.
The mob attacked him until law enforcement officers, thankfully patrolling nearby, intervened. The suspects scattered, but two 15-year-old males were later apprehended and charged with unarmed carjacking.
This disturbing incident is yet another example of what happens when Democrat-run cities allow lawlessness to fester
A few days ago, a gang of about a dozen young men tried to assault a woman in her car at night in DC.
A @Doge team member saw what was happening, ran to defend her and was severely beaten to the point of concussion, but he saved her.
Trump on Tuesday called for the District of Columbia to change its laws to allow for teenagers 14 and older to be prosecuted as adults and face lengthy prison sentences.
He shared on Truth Social a graphic image of the bloodied former DOGE employee, but did not name Coristine, and included a lengthy message attacking violent crime in Washington. Trump blamed the city’s crime on local “youths,” who he said were not fearful of consequences.
“They are not afraid of Law Enforcement because they know nothing ever happens to them, but it’s going to happen now!” the president wrote. “The Law in D.C. must be changed to prosecute these ‘minors’ as adults, and lock them up for a long time, starting at age 14. The most recent victim was beaten mercilessly by local thugs.”
“Washington, D.C., must be safe, clean, and beautiful for all Americans and, importantly, for the World to see,” Trump added. “If D.C. doesn’t get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they’re not going to get away with it anymore.”
Michael Cohen is asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit he faces from former President Trump.
The former Trump “fixer” says that Trump’s $500 million lawsuit against him is “retaliation” for his part in being a witness in Manhattan prosecutors’ criminal case against the former president.
“This suit combines the worst of Mr. Trump’s vindictive impulses. The Complaint, frivolous and scattershot, is an abusive act of pure retaliation and witness intimidation, albeit a ham-fisted one. It must be dismissed as a matter of law,” Cohen’s attorneys wrote in a court filing, according to The Hill.
“Former President Donald J. Trump has described his favorite Bible verse as ‘an eye for an eye,’ which fairly captures his long history of exacting brutal retaliation — both broadly against perceived political, professional, and personal enemies, and specifically against Defendant Michael D. Cohen. Some of this retaliatory conduct has been petty and mean-spirited; some of it is patently unlawful and includes witness tampering, obstruction, and civil rights violations. Mr. Trump often abuses the court system to this end,” Cohen’s attorneys wrote.
In the new dismissal motion, Cohen’s attorneys contended Trump’s suit must be tossed because many of Trump’s claims were brought too late, while others weren’t specific enough or did not show Trump suffered any harm.
Trump’s filed a lawsuit against Cohen last month in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The suit alleges Cohen breached a confidentiality agreement and his attorney-client relationship with the former president, among other claims. The former president’s suit takes aim at Cohen’s book, podcast, and various media appearances, claiming he maliciously worked to acquire attention and wealth at Trump’s expense.
Trump’s lawsuit against Cohen came shortly after he was indicted in New York on 34 felony charges concerning allegations he orchestrated a plan with Cohen and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker to help squash politically damaging stories before they became public knowledge.
President Donald Trump’s latest appearance on The Ingraham Angle turned out to be anything but routine. In a Monday night interview filmed in the Oval Office, Fox News host Laura Ingraham pressed the president repeatedly—on housing, the economy, foreign policy, and the MAGA movement itself—leading to one of Trump’s most combative televised exchanges in recent memory.
Before the interview even aired, a preview clip posted to Ingraham’s Facebook page hinted at the unusual tone. Filming amid Trump’s famously gold-adorned surroundings, she teased, “So these aren’t from Home Depot?” The moment didn’t make it to air, but it set the stage for what followed: a testy back-and-forth between two of the most influential voices in conservative politics.
Trump on Housing and the Economy
Ingraham began by raising concerns about housing affordability and the average age of first-time homebuyers now hitting 40. Trump interrupted, “We inherited that, you have to understand,” but Ingraham shot back, “Let me get to the question, though.”
She challenged Trump on his proposal for a 50-year mortgage—a concept some in the MAGA base criticized as prolonging debt. “Is that really a good idea?” she asked.
“It’s not even a big deal,” Trump said. “I mean, you go from 40 to 50 years.” Ingraham corrected him: “30 to 50 years.” Trump deflected, blaming “Joe Biden and his lousy Fed person, Jerome Powell,” before asserting, “If we had a normal person, the Fed would have really low interest rates.”
Ingraham pressed further: “Why are people saying they are anxious about the economy?” Trump dismissed the premise. “I don’t know that they are saying [that]. I think polls are fake. We have the greatest economy we ever had.”
Her question came as Republicans are still reeling from setbacks in the New Jersey and Virginia elections. “Do you think voters have the wrong perception?” Ingraham asked. Trump responded, “More than anything else, it’s a con job by the Democrats. Costs are way down.”
The $10,000 Bonus Controversy
Ingraham also questioned Trump’s Truth Social post offering a $10,000 bonus to air traffic controllers working through the government shutdown. “There are a lot of delays now, sir,” she noted.
Trump replied, “I’m not happy when I saw people refusing to do unpaid work during the shutdown. Look, life is not so easy for anybody. Our country has never done better. We should not have had people leaving their jobs. What I basically said—the ones that stayed, there were a lot of them—I’m sending them a $10,000 bonus.”
When Ingraham pressed, “Where is that money coming from?” Trump quipped, “I don’t know. I will get it from some place. I always get the money from some place, regardless. It doesn’t matter.”
Sparring Over China and Foreign Students
The discussion turned global when Ingraham cited a CNN report on China expanding its missile facilities. “China are not our friends, sir,” she said.
“They don’t want to mess around with us,” Trump countered. When Ingraham noted China’s theft of U.S. intellectual property, Trump asked, “Do you think the French are better?” Ingraham said yes. Trump shot back, “I’m not so sure.”
The tension deepened when Ingraham raised the issue of foreign students. “A lot of MAGA folks are not thrilled about this idea of hundreds of thousands of foreign students in the United States,” she said. “Why, sir, is that a pro-MAGA position?”
Trump defended the policy: “Without foreign students, you would have half the colleges in the United States go out of business.”
“So what?” Ingraham said bluntly. Trump replied, “I think that’s a big deal.”
The MAGA Movement—and Media Dynamics
Ingraham repeatedly framed questions around the “MAGA folks” critical of Trump’s ideas. Trump pushed back: “MAGA was my idea. It was nobody else’s idea. I know better than anybody else MAGA wants to see our country thrive.”
That line captured Trump’s increasingly defensive posture—not just toward Democrats, but toward members of the conservative media who now challenge him more openly. While The Ingraham Angle once provided friendly ground, Monday’s interview underscored the shifting balance between Trump and right-leaning outlets seeking to assert independence ahead of the 2024 election.
Observers note that Trump’s prickly demeanor may reflect deeper frustrations: inflationary pressures remain despite his attacks on Biden’s policies; conservative pundits are fracturing over strategy; and Trump’s own polling among independent voters has shown volatility. Within this context, even mild criticism from longtime allies can provoke his ire.
A Tense Exchange Symbolizing a Larger Rift
The Oval Office encounter stood in stark contrast to Ingraham’s earlier visit in March, when Trump jovially showed off his “Coke button” and griped about paving over the Rose Garden. This time, there were no laughs—just sharp exchanges between two seasoned figures who have long shaped Republican discourse.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made clear Sunday on ABC News’s This Week that he does not see Vice President JD Vance as someone he would support in a hypothetical 2028 presidential bid, underscoring deep philosophical differences over trade and the future direction of the GOP.
When asked whether he views Vance — widely viewed within GOP circles as a leading contender to carry the Republican banner after President Donald Trump — as the so-called heir apparent, Paul was direct about the limits of their alignment.
“I think there needs to be representatives in the Republican Party who still believe international trade is good, who still believe in free market capitalism, who still believe in low taxes,” Paul said, emphasizing his long-standing libertarian philosophy.
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Pressed on whether that description fits Vance, Paul answered, “No.”
Paul lamented what he sees as a shift in GOP economic thinking — away from traditional free-market conservatism toward protectionist policies that embrace tariffs.
“It used to separate conservatives and liberals that conservatives thought it was a spending problem — we didn’t want less revenue, we wanted less spending,” he said. “But now all these pro-tariff protectionists, they love taxes. And so they tax, tax, tax, and then they brag about all the revenue coming in. That has never been a conservative position.”
Paul said he intends to continue championing a free-market, low-tax wing of the party and will let time — and voters — determine where GOP leadership settles.
Context: Trump, Vance, and a Fractured GOP
Vance’s position as a prominent Trump loyalist — often touted by MAGA-aligned activists as the next leader of the movement — stands in contrast to Paul’s more classical libertarian outlook. Trump and Vance have worked closely throughout the administration, and Trump himself has suggested both Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio would make strong contenders in 2028, even as speculation swirls about Trump’s own future political plans.
Paul and Vance’s disagreements aren’t limited to trade. Earlier in 2025, Paul publicly criticized Vance’s support for a controversial U.S. military strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug-smuggling vessel — going so far as to call the actions Vance defended “despicable and thoughtless” for celebrating lethal force without due process. This public spar highlights deeper philosophical divides between the libertarian wing of the party and its more interventionist or nationalist elements.
Those tensions reflect a broader conversation within the GOP about its core principles — from foreign policy to economic strategy — as the party prepares for post-Trump leadership.
Erika Kirk Endorses Vance for 2028
Adding to the political backdrop, Erika Kirk — the widow of conservative activist and Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk and the organization’s CEO — officially endorsed Vice President Vance for president in 2028 during the group’s annual AmericaFest conference in Phoenix.
Kirk, speaking to thousands of activists, pledged Turning Point’s powerful grassroots support and framed Vance as a continuation of her husband’s conservative legacy:
“We are going to get my husband’s friend JD Vance elected for 48 in the most resounding way possible.”
Her endorsement — and Turning Point’s mobilization capacity on campuses and with younger conservatives — could be a significant boost in the early stages of a national campaign, even though Vance has not yet announced a formal campaign bid
Eric Trump, the son of President Donald J. Trump, left the door open for a future political career after speaking at the Bitcoin Asia conference in Hong Kong, signaling that the Trump family’s influence on American politics and business is far from over.
In an interview with Nikkei Asia, the 41-year-old Trump Organization executive said he would “never” rule out running for office. “I’m not saying no, but I’m also not saying yes,” he remarked. His comments came shortly after his wife, Lara Trump—now serving as co-chair of the Republican National Committee—announced she would pass on a Senate bid in North Carolina, opting instead to strengthen the GOP nationally.
A New Generation of Trumps in Politics?
Though neither Eric nor his brother Donald Trump Jr. has previously expressed personal ambition for elected office, both played an active role in their father’s successful 2024 campaign. The Trump sons were fixtures on the campaign trail, rallying conservative voters, motivating grassroots supporters, and building relationships with Republican donors across the country.
Eric Trump has emphasized that any decision about entering politics would center on family values and ensuring a better America for his children. “Would I want my kids to live the same experience over the last decade that I’ve lived? You know, if the answer was yes, I think the political path would be an easy one,” he told the Financial Times earlier this summer. “And by the way, I think other members of our family could do it too.”
Building American Prosperity Abroad
While speculation about his political future grows, Eric Trump has remained focused on expanding the Trump Organization’s international reach. For much of the past year, he has traveled extensively to promote World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s new cryptocurrency project. The venture officially launched this week, backed by strong enthusiasm from international investors as well as confidence from many within the Trump administration that it represents an innovative step for American financial leadership.
Supporters see the company as a testament to the Trump family’s commitment to bold, market-driven solutions that put the U.S. at the center of the global economy. At a time when Democrats continue to impose heavy regulations on small businesses and emerging industries, the Trump family’s private-sector leadership signals to many conservatives that innovation and entrepreneurial spirit remain cornerstones of American success.
Addressing Concerns, Defending Integrity
Some lawmakers have raised concerns about the Trump family’s ongoing business activities while President Trump is in office. Eric, however, has strongly rejected any suggestion of impropriety.
“I had nothing to do with the government. I’ve been in the private sector my entire life,” he told Nikkei Asia. He emphasized that his professional work and the administration’s leadership have remained separate, pointing out that his family has always operated with integrity, even under constant media scrutiny.
The Trump Legacy Continues
Eric Trump’s willingness to consider a future in politics underscores the enduring impact of the Trump brand within the Republican Party. With Donald J. Trump serving once again in the Oval Office, Lara Trump helping lead the RNC, and both sons energizing conservative audiences across the nation, the Trump family remains a political force like no other in American history.
For many Republicans, Eric Trump’s comments serve as a reminder that the MAGA movement is not just about one presidency—it’s a generational vision of strong leadership, economic opportunity, and putting America first.
Even Democrats say it’s time for Biden to address the crisis at the border.
Texas Democrat Henry Cuellar strongly criticized the Biden administration’s lack of action at the border, especially as Title 42 is set to expire soon.
During an interview with CNN anchor Kaitlin Collins, Rep. Cuellar was asked what the effect of rescinding Title 42
The congressman responded bluntly, stating, “Communities are going to be overwhelmed, not only El Paso. We’ve seen that in the past with the Rio Grande Valley, we’ve seen it in Eagle Pass and Del Rio. They’re going to be overwhelmed. There are just not enough shelters and border processing centers to handle the large numbers of people.”
Cuellar insisted on treating migrants with compassion but was adamant that we “have to secure the border.” He said, “We can do two things at the same time. We can provide a compassionate way of treating the immigrants that are trying to come in. But at the same time we have to secure the border.”
He added, “Because the only thing the border control is doing is processing a lot of them to come into the U.S. and then returning some of them under Title 42. If Title 42 goes away, this is going to open up a large number of people coming to border communities.”
Cuellar urged the president to listen to people who understand the concerns of the local communities rather than just “immigration activists.” He said, “Look, it’s okay to listen to immigration activists. It’s okay to do that. That’s one perspective. But who is listening to the men and women in green and blue and more importantly, who is listening to our border communities?”
He continued, “I don’t know why they keep avoiding the border and saying there’s other things more important than visiting the border. If there’s a crisis, show up. Just show up!”
The lawmaker added, “Just showing up at the border would send a strong signal to the communities that he’s there, he cares about the border communities. Just show up. It doesn’t take much to just show up at the border.”
The report detailed the ancestry of America’s leaders as of the 117th Congress. The report found that five living presidents, two Supreme Court justices, 11 governors and 100 members of Congress had ancestors who owned slaves.
Presidents Biden, Carter, George W. Bush, Clinton and Obama all have ancestors who enslaved Black people in their family trees, according to the report, with Obama’s link coming from his White mother’s side.
However, Donald Trump’s family did not immigrate to the United States until after slavery was abolished.
At the Supreme Court, only Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch had slaveholding ancestors. Meanwhile, another recent report from the Washington Post found that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had ancestors who were enslaved, while her husband, Patrick Jackson, has ancestors who were slaveholders.
In Congress, Reuters found at least 100 lawmakers who could trace their family trees to slaveholders, including 28 senators and 72 representatives.
Prominent names included Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill.
Washington D.C., USA - January 22, 2015; A Pro-Life woman clashes with a group of Pro-Choice demonstrators at the U.S. Supreme Court.
President Donald Trump has signaled that he plans to pardon pro-life activists who were convicted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act during the Biden administration, according to a report from The Daily Wire. The move is expected to provide immediate relief to individuals who have faced significant prison sentences for their involvement in anti-abortion protests.
Enacted in 1994, the FACE Act is a federal law designed to protect access to reproductive health services, including abortions. It prohibits the use of force, threats or physical obstruction to interfere with individuals seeking or providing such services.
Violations of the FACE Act carry severe penalties, ranging from fines to imprisonment, depending on the circumstances and whether the offender has a prior record. While the law’s primary intent is to safeguard access to clinics, it has also been applied to prosecute pro-life activists accused of obstructing clinic entrances or engaging in threatening behavior.
Controversial Applications and High-Profile Cases
Over the years, the FACE Act has sparked significant controversy, with critics arguing that it disproportionately targets pro-life advocates. They claim the law infringes on First Amendment rights, penalizing peaceful protests rooted in religious or ideological beliefs.
– Advertisement –
One high-profile example involved Mark Houck, a Catholic pro-life advocate charged under the FACE Act in 2022. Houck’s case stemmed from an altercation with a Planned Parenthood volunteer, which he passionately argued was an act of self-defense. A jury later acquitted him, but the case became a rallying point for pro-life groups, who argued it exemplified federal overreach and selective enforcement.
Critics of the FACE Act also highlight what they perceive as inconsistent enforcement. While the law has been rigorously applied to defend the pro-choice movement, pro-life advocates claim that incidents involving vandalism or harassment at pregnancy resource centers and churches are often overlooked.
Who Is Being Pardoned?
If the pardons move forward, several pro-life activists currently in prison will see immediate relief. Among those expected to be pardoned are:
-Lauren Handy: 57 months
-John Hinshaw: 21 months
– Advertisement –
-Jonathan Darnell: 34 months
-Herb Geraghty: 27 months
-Jean Marshall: 24 months
-Joan Bell: 27 months
– Advertisement –
-Paulette Harlow: 24 months
-Bevelyn Williams: 41 months
-Heather Idoni: 24 months
-Calvin Zastro: 6 months
These individuals were convicted for participating in demonstrations at abortion clinics in Tennessee, Washington, D.C. and New York, which prosecutors argued constituted violations of the FACE Act:
The D.C. protest involved a group of pro-life protesters singing songs, praying, locking arms in front of the facility’s staff entrance, and attaching themselves with ropes and chains to block doors inside the infamous Surgi-Clinic in October 2020, a late term abortion facility. In Tennessee, a group of pro-life Christians gathered in a hall outside the Carafem Health Center in Mt. Juliet where they sang hymns, prayed, and urged women not to get abortion in March 2021.
Many of the defendants have already been imprisoned for over a year with many more months yet to serve.
“I would love to be home with my family,” 59-year-old Heather Idoni said in September. “I would love to hold my new grandson.”
Idoni was sentenced to two years in prison over the D.C. protest and was given another eight months to serve concurrently from the Nashville protest.
Broader Implications
Trump’s decision to pardon these activists underscores a sharp divide in how federal laws like the FACE Act are interpreted and enforced. For pro-life advocates, the move represents a correction to what they view as unjust and politically motivated prosecutions. For others, it raises questions about the balance between protecting access to health care and safeguarding free speech rights.
On Thursday, President Donald Trump announced he will posthumously award Charlie Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Kirk, a prominent conservative activist, was shot during an event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday. Trump later that day announced his death.
“Charlie was a giant of his generation, a champion of liberty and an inspiration to millions and millions of people,” Trump said on Thursday.
“We miss him greatly, yet I have no doubt that Charlie’s voice and courage put into the hearts of countless people, especially young people, will live on,” the president continued.
Trump made the announcement during a ceremony at the Pentagon to commemorate the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks.
The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the highest civilian award in the U.S. Trump said that the day of that ceremony would be announced soon, adding he thought it would surely draw a big crowd.
President Trump shares a message on the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
“I ask all Americans to commit themselves to the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived & died. The values of free speech, citizenship, the rule of law & the patriotic devotion & love of God.” pic.twitter.com/3fBSgs4Zxa
The FBI said on Thursday it has recovered what is believed to be the weapon used by the shooter, and officials said the suspect is believed to be a college-aged individual.
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.
