Featured

Home Featured
Featured posts

CNN Reporter Stunned By Turnout At Trumpโ€™s Rally In The Bronx

    9

    Democrats don’t like the look of this…

    CNN reporter Kristen Holmes was on the ground at former President Donald Trumpโ€™sย rally in the Bronxย on Thursday and couldn’t help but say she was stunned by the turnout in the deep blue community.

     During the rally, Trump was joined on stage at one point by rappers โ€œSheff Gโ€ and โ€œSleepy Hallow,โ€ who both endorsed him, and some Bronx residents expressed their surprise that a presidential candidate would hold a rally in their neighborhood.

    While describing the rally to CNN host Anderson Cooper, Holmes said Trump had attracted โ€œa bigger crowd than I think Democrats would like to see, particularly given this is one of the bluest counties in the entire country.โ€

    Holmes added that Trumpโ€™s event in the Bronx didnโ€™t just pull in people from miles away who travel to the former presidentโ€™s campaign rallies.

    โ€œOne of the things that was interesting to me is that the Trump campaign said that they were going to micro-target to get people from the community to come to this rally. I wasnโ€™t sure what to expect, Iโ€™ve gone to a lot of these rallies across the country, and there are often people who travel hundreds of miles to see Donald Trump and theyโ€™re not necessarily part of the community. However, one of the things that I found was that there were a lot of people here that were actually from the Bronx,โ€ Holmes reported.

    See a photo of the turnout below:

    Melania Trump Shuts Down Rumors About ‘Real’ Reason Behind Presidentโ€™s Feud With Harvard

      0
      PaWikiCom, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

      A spokesperson for first lady Melania Trump shut down a “completely false” theory that her husband, the president, is warring with Harvard University because her son, Barron, was supposedly not accepted to the school.

      The Palm Beach Post first reported that first lady spokesperson Nicholas Clemens said, “Barron did not apply to Harvard, and any assertion that he, or that anyone on his behalf, applied is completely false.”

      This comes amid online rumors that President Donald Trump is targeting Harvard with federal funding cuts because Barron, who just finished his freshman year at New York University, was supposedly rejected by the school.

      The Trump administration is asking all federal agencies to find ways to terminate all federal contracts with Harvard amid an ongoing standoff over foreign studentsโ€™ records at the Ivy League school. Harvard has already sued in federal court seeking the restoration of about $3.2 billion in federal grant funding frozen by the administration since last month. 

      In a Truth Social post on Monday, Trump accused Harvard of being “very antisemitic” and said he was considering giving the schoolโ€™s federal funding to trade schools “all across our land.”

      “What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!” he wrote.

      In a letter Thursday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem informed Harvard’s leadership that the university had lost its “privilege” of enrolling foreign students as a result of the institution’s “refusal to comply with multiple requests to provide the Department of Homeland Security with pertinent information while perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ policies.” 

      Trump said this week that Harvard is being “very slow” to turn over information on foreign students. 

      “We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country,” Trump wrote.

      “Harvard is very slow in the presentation of these documents, and probably for good reason!” he wrote. “The best thing Harvard has going for it is that they have shopped around and found the absolute best Judge (for them!) – But have no fear, the Government will, in the end, WIN!” 

      Cuban Regime Finally Loses a Longtime Fugitive: Joanne โ€œAssataโ€ Shakur Dies in Havana

      3

      Havana, Cuba โ€” On September 25, 2025, Cubaโ€™s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that Joanne Deborah Byron โ€” better known by her aliases Joanne Chesimard and Assata Shakur โ€” died in Havana at the age of 78 due to health complications and the rigors of old age.

      This news brings to a close a decades-long saga in which a convicted murderer escaped justice, was shielded by a hostile foreign regime, and became a symbol for radical causes.


      A Fugitiveโ€™s Origin: From Violent Crime to Escape to Cuba

      In 1977, Chesimard was convicted on multiple serious charges including first-degree murder, armed robbery, and other felonies after a 1973 shootout on the New Jersey Turnpike that left State Trooper Werner Foerster dead.

      She escaped prison in 1979, spent years underground, and resurfaced in 1984 under asylum in Cuba โ€” a regime that refused U.S. extradition requests.

      For decades, the United States and New Jersey authorities pushed Cuba to hand her over. She carried the dubious distinction of being the first woman ever placed on the FBIโ€™s Most Wanted Terrorists list, with a $1 million reward for her capture.


      A Death Without Accountability

      Her passing in Havana presents a bitter irony: after decades of immunity facilitated by a foreign government, she dies free โ€” far from the prison cell where she was supposed to serve life in the U.S.

      New Jersey officials immediately expressed outrage. They reiterated that justice was never fully served for Trooper Foersterโ€™s family.

      Cubaโ€™s complicity in harboring Chesimard has long been roundly condemned by American leaders. Senator Marco Rubio recently denounced Havana for providing โ€œa safe haven for terrorists and criminals, including fugitives from the United States.โ€

      What She Represented โ€” and What the U.S. Must Learn

      For defenders of law and order, her story is a cautionary tale of diplomatic failure and ideological double standards.

      • Rule of Law Must Be Absolute: A convicted cop killer escaping and living with impunity is a stain on the integrity of the justice system.
      • Foreign Regimes Should Not Shield Criminals: Cubaโ€™s refusal to extradite Chesimard fashioned her into a political symbol, rather than merely a criminal. That sets a dangerous precedent.
      • Consistency in Foreign Policy Matters: If the U.S. does not forcefully demand accountability from regimes that shelter fugitives, it weakens its moral and strategic footing.

      Now that she has died abroad, the question of bringing her remains home may arise. But more importantly, the memory of Trooper Foerster โ€” his sacrifice and service โ€” must remain central. And the mission remains: to hold foreign governments accountable when they interfere with American justice.

      Machado Defends Giving Trump Nobel Prize

      0
      By Kevin Payravi - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=179718533

      Venezuelan opposition leader Marรญa Corina Machado defended her decision to present President Trump with her Nobel Peace Prize medal during a recent visit to the White House, calling it a gesture of gratitude from the Venezuelan people for U.S. support in their fight for freedom.

      โ€œI already said what I meant and what it means to the Venezuelan people to present President Trump with our gratitude for what he has done,โ€ Machado told independent reporter Nicholas Ballasy on Capitol Hill.

      Machado urges anti-communist unity in the Americas

      Machado was in Washington this week meeting with lawmakers and rallying support for democratic movements across the region. Speaking to reporters, she called for the Western Hemisphere to be โ€œfree from communism,โ€ arguing that once Venezuela is liberated, the broader effort will continue.

      After Venezuela is free, she said, โ€œwe will keep working and we will have a free Cuba and a free Nicaragua.โ€

      โ€œThis is a historic moment and we wouldnโ€™t be here if it wasnโ€™t for yes, the commitment, resilience, generosity and courage of the Venezuelan people, but also because we have counted with the support, vision and courage of incredible leaders such as the president of United States, Donald Trump, and members of this honorable Congress,โ€ Machado told reporters.

      A symbolic handoff: โ€œBolรญvarโ€ to the โ€œheir of Washingtonโ€

      Machado presented the award roughly two weeks after U.S. military forces captured Venezuelan strongman Nicolรกs Maduro and transported him to New York to face criminal chargesโ€”an operation that stunned observers across the region and energized Venezuelans demanding democratic change.

      Machado later explained that she told President Trump about a historic symbol of shared liberation between the U.S. and Latin America: a medal featuring President George Washington that Revolutionary War Gen. Marquis de Lafayette gave to Venezuelan revolutionary hero Simรณn Bolรญvar.

      โ€œTwo hundred years in history, the people of Bolivar are giving back to the heir of Washington a medal, in this case the medal of the Nobel Peace Prize as a recognition for his unique commitment with our freedom,โ€ Machado said.

      President Trump later shared photos from the Oval Office showing him holding the framed prize, with Machado standing beside him.

      Nobel Committee pushes back, critics pile on

      Not everyone praised the moment. The Norwegian Nobel Committee emphasized that while a physical medal can change hands, the Nobel honor itself does not.

      โ€œRegardless of what may happen to the medal, the diploma, or the prize money, it is and remains the original laureate who is recorded in history as the recipient of the prize,โ€ the committee stated. โ€œEven if the medal or diploma later comes into someone elseโ€™s possession, this does not alter who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.โ€

      Norwegian Labour Party politician Raymond Johansen criticized Trump for accepting the medal, calling it โ€œincredibly embarrassing and damaging.โ€ And Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) also took a shot at the president, saying Trump looked โ€œkind of silly.โ€

      Trump and the Nobel: longstanding controversy

      Trump has been openly vocal in the past about being passed over for the Nobel Peace Prize, especially after major foreign-policy efforts. He campaigned for it last October, before Machado ultimately won.

      The president also linked the Nobel snub to his thinking about Greenland, according to a text exchange with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stรธre.

      โ€œDear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America,โ€ Trump wrote Stรธre.

      Trump later softened his remarks while speaking Wednesday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and subsequently announced a โ€œframeworkโ€ for a deal involving the Danish territory.

      Former ABC News Anchor Suggests Replacement For Ousted National Security Official

      0
      By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54325633746/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159707159

      Former ABC News journalist Mark Halperin suggested a replacement for President Trump’s National Security Council after Thursday’s shakeup.

      Halperin said Trumpย special envoyย Steve Witkoffย was Waltzโ€™s likely replacement.

      Trump administration National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and other staffers are out at the National Security Council, sources confirmed to Fox News.

      Watch:

      Fox News confirmed Waltz and his deputy Alex Wong were purged Thursday. 

      Waltz, who previously served as a Florida congressman, has come under fire from Democrats and critics since March, when the Atlantic magazine’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg published a firsthand account of getting added to a Signal group chat with top national security leaders, including Waltz, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, while they discussed strikes against Yemen terrorists. 

      Waltz took responsibility for the inclusion of a journalist in the group chat in April, telling Fox News’ Laura Ingraham: “I take full responsibility. I built the group. โ€ฆ It’s embarrassing. We’re going to get to the bottom of it.”

      Alex Wong served as Waltz’s principal deputy national security advisor, who was detailed in the Signal chat leak earlier this year as the staffer charged with “pulling together a tiger team” in Waltz’s initial message sent to the Signal group chat in March, the Atlantic reported at the time. 

      White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital earlier Monday when asked about reports claiming Waltz and other would be shown the door: “We are not going to respond to reporting from anonymous sources.”

      President Donald Trump held a meeting with members of his Cabinet Wednesday, following his 100th day back in office on Tuesday, with Waltz attending the meeting. 

      Ex-White House Lawyer Says Supreme Court Could Rule Unanimously In Trump Case

        3
        Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

        Former White House lawyerย Ty Cobbย predicted the U.S. Supreme Court will rule โ€œ9-0โ€ in favor of former President Trump in a potential appeal of the Colorado Supreme Courtโ€™s ruling.

        On Tuesday, The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to remove Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot. (RELATED: Colorado Supreme Court Rules On Trump Ballot Ban)

        Steven Cheung,ย a spokesperson for Trumpโ€™s campaign, has already vowed the Trump campaign will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority and includes three justices nominated by the former President.ย 

        โ€œThe Supreme Court though will not hesitate to move quickly on this; they know what the stakes are. They know what their responsibility is,โ€ Cobb continued. โ€œAnd they can delay some of these Colorado dates to the extent that they feel theyโ€™re obligated to or have to.โ€

        โ€œI think this case will be handled quickly. I think it could be 9-0 in the Supreme Court for Trump,โ€ Cobb said in an interview on CNN, adding later, โ€œI do believe it could be 9-0, because I think the law is clear.โ€

        โ€œThe real key issue in this case is โ€” is Trump an officer in the United States in the context in which that term is used in the Article 3 of the 14th Amendment,โ€ Cobb said. โ€œAnd in 2010, Chief Justice [John] Roberts explained in free enterprise that people donโ€™t vote for officers of the United States.โ€

        Cobb further argued the ruling โ€œvindicatesโ€ Trumpโ€™s โ€œinsistence that this is a political conspiracy to interfere with the election and that โ€ฆ heโ€™s the target and people shouldnโ€™t tolerate that in America.โ€

        Coloradoโ€™s Supreme Court put its ruling on hold until Jan. 4 to allow Trump to first seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court.ย 

        Amanda Head: No Treats Just Biden Tricks – Candy Prices Explode

          0

          Inflation has slowly but surely crept into nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives- especially the holidays. While Americans have likely already begun to shudder at the thought of heightened costs for major holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas now even Halloween is being spoiled by the Biden administration. Candy prices for tick-or-treaters have jumped thanks to Biden and some kids could be left feeling the sting tonight.

          Watch what Amanda has to say below:

          Bret Baier Suggests Trump Is The ‘Holdup’ In Potential Fox News Presidential Debate

          9
          The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

          Fox News anchor Bret Baier suggested this week that former President Donald Trump may be the “holdup” preventing a potential Fox News debate between him and Vice President Kamala Harris. During an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, Baier expressed his belief that the Harris campaign would likely agree to a debate on Fox News.

          “I actually believe โ€“ this is me talking โ€“ that the Harris campaign would do a Fox debate,” Baier said, adding that Trump seems hesitant to move forward with the idea.

          Others feel differently, as The Daily Caller reports:

          CNNโ€™s Chris Wallaceย saidย on Sept. 13 that there is no chance that Harris will debate Trump on Fox News.

          โ€œI would say that there is an absolutely 0%, whatโ€™s lower than 0, chance that she would agree to debate on Fox,โ€ Wallace said. โ€œLet me tell you a quick story. Back in 2019 when she was running, the president of Fox News and I, who was seen as being pretty even handed, went to meet with a bunch of the Democrats to try and get them to do town halls or do an interview. [Democratic Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren met with us, [independent Vermont Sen.] Bernie Sanders met with us, the only Democrat who refused to meet with us off-the-record just to consider the possibility of going on Fox was Kamala Harris. There is a 0% chance that she will agree to an interview on Fox.โ€

          Harris accepted an Oct. 23 debate with CNN, but Trump said it is โ€œtoo lateโ€ because of how close it would be to the November election.

          โ€œAs President Trump has said, only losers request a rematch. Kamala Harris lost the debate, and she knows it,โ€ Karoline Leavitt, Trump campaign national press secretary, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

          Following the Sept. 10 debate on ABC News, Trump has declared there will be no further debates. Meanwhile, Harris has agreed to a CNN debate on Oct. 23. A prior Fox News debate proposal, which Trump had agreed to, never materialized.

          READ NEXT: Speaker Johnson Lays SHOCK Allegations At Zelenskyโ€™s Feet, Demands Immediate Action To Restore Relations

          Inside DOGE: Elon Musk’s Bold Move To Rewiring Federal Thinking

          Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]

          In the history of American bureaucracy, few ideas have carried the sting of satire and the force of reform as powerfully as Steve Davisโ€™s $1 credit card limit. It is a solution so blunt, so absurd on its face, that only a government so accustomed to inertia could have missed it for decades. And yet, here it is, at the center of a sprawling audit by theย Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, that has, in just seven weeks, eliminated or disabled 470,000 federal charge cards across thirty agencies. The origin of this initiative reveals more than cleverness or thrift. It reflects a new attitude, one that insists the machinery of government need not be calcified. The federal workforce, long derided as passive and obstructionist, is now being challenged to solve problems, not explain why they cannot be solved. This, more than any tally of dollars saved, may be DOGEโ€™s greatest achievement.

          Whenย Elon Muskย assumed control of DOGE under President Trumpโ€™s second administration, he brought with him an instinct for disruption. But disruption, as many reformers have learned, is often easier said than done. Take federal credit cards. There were, as of early 2025, roughly 4.6 million active accounts across the federal government, while the civilian workforce comprised fewer than 3 million employees. Even the most charitable reading suggests gross redundancy. More cynical observers see potential for abuse. DOGE asked the obvious question: why so many cards? The initial impulse was to cancel them outright. But as is often the case in government, legality is not aligned with simplicity.

          Enter Steve Davis. Known for his austere management style and history with Musk-led enterprises, Davis encountered legal counsel who informed him that mass cancellation would breach existing contracts, violate administrative rules, and risk judicial entanglement. Most would stop there. But Davis, adhering to Muskโ€™s ethos of first-principles thinking, chose another route. If the cards could not be canceled, could they be rendered functionally useless? Yes. Set their limits to $1.

          This workaround achieved in days what years of audits and Inspector General warnings had not. The cards remained technically active, sidestepping the legal landmines of cancellation, but were practically neutered. The act was swift, surgical, and reversible. It allowed agencies to petition for exemptions in cases of genuine operational need, but forced every cardholder and department head to justify the existence of each card. Waste thrives in opacity. The $1 cap turned on the lights.

          Naturally, the immediate reaction inside many agencies was panic. At the National Park Service, staff could not process trash removal contracts. At the FDA, scientific research paused as laboratories found themselves unable to order reagents. At the Department of Defense, travel for civilian personnel ground to a halt. Critics likened it to a shutdown, albeit without furloughs. Others, more charitable, described it as a stress test. And indeed, that is precisely what it was: a large-scale audit conducted not by paper trails and desk reviews, but by rendering all purchases impossible and observing who protested, why, and with what justification.

          This approach reflects a deeper philosophical question. What is government for? Is it a perpetuator of routine, or a servant of necessity? The DOGE initiative, in its credit card audit, insisted that nothing in government spending ought to be assumed sacred or automatic. Every purchase, every expense, must be rooted in mission-critical need. And for that to happen, a culture shift must occur, not merely in policy, but in mindset. The federal worker must no longer be an apologist for the status quo, but an agent of reform.

          Remarkably, this message has found traction. Inside the agencies affected by the freeze, DOGE has reported a surge in what one official described as โ€œconstructive dissent.โ€ Civil servants who once reflexively recited reasons for inaction are now offering alternative mechanisms, revised workflows, and digital solutions. One employee at the Department of Agriculture proposed consolidating regional office supply chains after realizing that over a dozen separate cardholders were purchasing duplicative items within the same week. A NOAA field team discovered it could pool resources for bulk procurement, saving money and reducing redundancy. These are not acts of whistleblowing or radical restructuring. They are small, localized acts of efficiency, and they matter.

          Critics argue that these are marginal gains and that the real drivers of federal bloat lie elsewhere: entitlement spending, defense procurement, or healthcare subsidies. And they are not wrong. But they miss the point. DOGEโ€™s $1 limit was not about accounting minutiae, it was about psychology. In a system where inertia reigns, a symbolic shock is often the necessary prelude to substantive reform. The act of asking why, why this card, why this purchase, why this employee, forces a reappraisal that scales. Culture, not just cost, was the target.

          There is a danger here, of course. Symbolism can become performance, and austerity can become vanity. If agencies are deprived of necessary tools for the sake of headlines, then reform becomes sabotage. This is why the $1 policy included an appeals process, a mechanism for restoring functionality where needed. In a philosophical sense, this is the principle of proportionality applied to public finance: restrictions should be commensurate with the likelihood of abuse, and reversible upon demonstration of legitimate need.

          DOGEโ€™s broader audit, still underway, has now expanded to cover nearly thirty agencies. It is not simply cutting cards. It is classifying them, comparing issuance practices, flagging statistical anomalies, and building a federal dashboard of real-time usage. This is not glamorous work. There are no ribbon-cuttings, no legacy-defining achievements. But it is the marrow of good governance. As Aristotle noted, excellence is not an act, but a habit. The DOGE team has adopted a habit of scrutiny. And that habit, when instilled in the civil service, is a kind of virtue.

          Here we arrive at the most profound implication. What if the federal workforce is not inherently wasteful or cynical, but simply trapped in a system that rewards compliance over creativity? What if, when given both the mandate and the moral permission to think, civil servants become problem solvers? The $1 limit policy is, in this light, less a budgetary tool than a pedagogical one. It teaches. It asks employees to imagine how their department might function if every dollar mattered, and to act accordingly.

          In a bureaucratic culture where the phrase โ€œwe canโ€™t do thatโ€ serves as both shield and apology, DOGE has introduced a new mantra: try. Try to find the workaround. Try to reimagine procurement. Try to do more with less. This shift may not register on a spreadsheet. It may not win an election. But it rehumanizes the federal workforce. It treats them not as drones executing policy, but as intelligent actors capable of judgment, reform, and even invention.

          The future of DOGE will no doubt face resistance. Unions, entrenched bureaucrats, and political opponents will argue it oversteps or misunderstands the delicate machinery of governance. Some of that criticism will be valid. But what cannot be denied is that DOGE has already achieved something rare: it has made federal workers think differently. It has shown that even the most byzantine of systems contains levers for changeโ€”if one is willing to pull them.

          The $1 card limit is not a policy; it is a parable. It tells us that in the face of complexity, simplicity is a virtue. That in the face of inertia, audacity has a place. And that in the face of sprawling bureaucracies, sometimes the best way to fix the machine is to unplug it and see who calls to complain. That is when the real work begins.

          Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in todayโ€™s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

          READ NEXT: Federal Judge Blocks Hugely Popular Trump-Backed Reform

          Trump Celebrates โ€˜Major WINโ€™ in Lawsuit Against Pulitzer Prize Boardย 

            0

            He’s a winner…

            Presidentย Donald Trumpย took a victory lap, celebrating what he called a โ€œmajor WINโ€ in hisย lawsuitย against the Pulitzer Prize Board over its 2018 award toย The New York Timesย andย The Washington Postย for their coverage of the Russia probe.

            The president declared the boardโ€™s defense was โ€œviciously rejectedโ€ by a Florida appellate court, which denied its motion to pause proceedings until Trump leaves office.

            Trump took to Truth Social to praise the decision and slam the reporting as โ€œfakeโ€ and โ€œmaliciousโ€:

            BREAKING! In a major WIN in our powerful lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board regarding the illegal and defamatory โ€œAwardโ€ of their once highly respected โ€œPrize,โ€ to fake, malicious stories on the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, by the Failing New York Times and the Washington Compost, the Florida Appellate Court viciously rejected the Defendantsโ€™ corrupt attempt to halt the case. They won a Pulitzer Prize for totally incorrect reporting about the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax. Now they admit it was a SCAM, never happened, and their reporting was totally wrong, in fact, the exact opposite of the TRUTH. Theyโ€™ll have to give back their โ€œAward.โ€ They were awarded for false reporting, and we canโ€™t let that happen in the United States of America. We are holding the Fake News Media responsible for their LIES to the American People, so we can, together, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

            At the heart of the case is the boardโ€™s public defense of its Pulitzer-winning coverage. Trump sued for defamation in 2022, arguing that the boardโ€™s statements supporting the reporting โ€“ despite the Mueller probe finding no evidence of collusion โ€“ amounted to โ€œmaliciousโ€ and โ€œfalseโ€ claims.

            Floridaโ€™s Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled against the boardโ€™s attempt to delay the suit on constitutional grounds. Judgesย dismissed argumentsย that continuing the case would unconstitutionally interfere with a sitting presidentโ€™s official duties, a line of attack the court called โ€œmisplaced.โ€

            โ€œSuch privileges are afforded to the President alone, not to his litigation adversaries,โ€ the opinion reads, adding that only the person entitled to immunity may assert it, and that Trump had made no such attempt.

            The board had argued that allowing the case to proceed would violate due process, particularly since Trump himself has previously invoked presidential privilege to pause lawsuits against him.

            The decision clears the way for the case to continue, allowing Trump to maintain pressure on the Pulitzer Board.