Former President Donald Trump harshly criticized Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Fox News after Jesse Watters interviewed Kennedy on Wednesday evening.
“So bad that FoxNews [sic] puts RFK Jr., considered the dumbest member of the Kennedy Clan, on their fairly conservative platform so much. Competitive networks don’t want anything to do with him. He’s a Radical Left Lunatic whose crazy Climate Change views make the Democrat’s Green New Scam look Conservative. He’s polling badly, 8% at best, but says he does well against Crooked Joe and me, one on one. WRONG, he gets trounced!” Trump posted on Truth Social.
“Junior said I’m the ‘best debater’ in generations, and I want to debate him, and Crooked, but first he’s got to get his bad poll numbers up – a lot! He would be ‘easy pickins,’” Trump boasted.
“With all of that said, he probably hurts Sleepy Crooked Joe more than ‘US!’”
So bad that FoxNews puts RFK Jr., considered the dumbest member of the Kennedy Clan, on their fairly conservative platform so much. Competitive networks don’t want anything to do with him. He’s a Radical Left Lunatic whose crazy Climate Change views make the Democrat’s Green New…
— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) May 2, 2024
A recent survey from Emerson College suggests that Kennedy’s presence has benefited Trump’s campaign and harmed Biden’s, eroding the latter’s support in several crucial swing states.
Nevertheless, Trump and his supporters have increased their criticism of Kennedy’s campaign, indicating concerns on both sides about his impact.
Trump posted repeatedly about Kennedy on Truth Social following his appearance on “Real Time With Bill Maher” on HBO.
The former president accused Kennedy of being a “plant” to help Biden win reelection and claimed that voting for him would be a “WASTED PROTEST VOTE,” which could “swing either way.”
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.
By The White House from Washington, DC - President Trump and The First Lady Participate in an Abraham Accords Signing Ceremony, Public Domain,
President Donald Trump announced the United States will soon drop sanctions against Syria.
During lengthy remarks on Tuesday, Trump laid out his vision for the Middle East, sharing a major announcement: He intends to drop sanctions against Syria.
“I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness,” Trump said in a speech in Saudi Arabia, his first stop on the first international tour of his second term in office.
“In Syria, which has seen so much misery and death, there is a new government that we must all hope will succeed in stabilizing the country and keeping peace,” he said. “So I say good luck, Syria.”
The nation was cut off from the global financial system under ousted President Bashar al-Assad’s government, imposed during 14 years of civil war.
Trump called the sanctions “brutal and crippling” but “important” at the time.
Trump said both Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Turkish President Recep Erdoğan had encouraged him to lift the sanctions.
“Oh, what I do for the crown prince,” Trump quipped.
U.S. sanctions had slapped financial penalties on any foreign individual or company that provided material support to the Syrian government and prohibited anyone in the U.S. from dealing in any Syrian entity, including oil and gas, and Syrian banks were effectively cut off from global financial systems.
Trump also revealed he has invited Saudi Arabia to join his historic Abraham Accords.
“It has been an amazing thing, the Abraham Accords,” Trump said at a Saudi Arabia investment conference. “And it’s my fervent hope, wish, and even my dream that Saudi Arabia, a place I have so much respect for … will soon be joining the Abraham Accords. I think it will be a tremendous tribute to your country.”
Trump negotiated the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, at the end of his first term in office. Now, he is hoping to see Saudi Arabia join it as well.
During lengthy remarks, Trump laid out his vision for the Middle East. Minutes later, he made a second major announcement: He intends to drop sanctions against Syria.
Canadian Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is projected to lose the parliamentary seat he has held for more than 20 years in a stunning defeat to Liberal candidate Bruce Fanjoy.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), a state-owned outlet, projected the loss on Tuesday morning following Monday’s federal election.
However, Elections Canada’s decision to pause the counting of special ballots means it remains unclear whether the Liberals, led by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, will walk away with a minority or majority mandate.
Fanjoy, who is projected to take Poilievre’s seat in Parliament, worked in business and marketing and lives in a carbon-neutral house in Manotick, a suburb of Ottawa, according to CBC.
“We have to look out for ourselves, and we have to take care of each other. Let’s get to work,” Fanjoy wrote in a post on X.
To all the people of Carleton, as your new Member of Parliament, I’ll work to bring us together. We are all Canadian. We have to look out for ourselves, and we have to take care of each other. Let’s get to work.
In his victory speech, Carney appeared to criticize the U.S. for President Donald Trump’s tariff policies, which he called a “betrayal.”
“We are over the shock of the American betrayal, but we should never forget the lessons,” Carney said in his victory speech. “America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country. These are not idle threats. President Trump is trying to break us so America can own us. That will never … ever happen.”
In late 2024, just before Trudeau’s resignation, Poilievre was up 25 points over the unpopular then-prime minister, according to Politico. However, Trump’s tariffs and comments about making Canada the 51st state took over the Great White North’s election cycle, likely fueling Carney and the Liberals’ victory.
President Trump has repeated remarks referencing Canada potentially becoming the 51st state.
“What I’d like to see — Canada become our 51st state,” Trump said in February in the Oval Office when asked what concessions Canada could offer to stave off tariffs.
Despite Canada being one of the United States’ top trade partners Trump asserted the U.S. did not need Canada’s lumber or automobile production.
The president suggested it’s unlikely the U.S. will annex Canada, partly because neither side would be willing to put up with the economic pain that would be required for that to happen.
“We don’t need them. As a state, it’s different. As a state it’s much different. And there are no tariffs,” Trump said. “So I’d love to see that. Some people say that would be a longshot. If people wanted to play the game right, it would be 100 percent certain that they’d become a state. But a lot of people don’t like to play the game. Because they don’t have a threshold of pain.”
A group of Evanston, Illinois, residents are suing their city government over a $20 million scheme to give away $25,000 each to Black residents as “reparations” for wrongs experienced by past generations.
The nonprofit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced it “filed a class action lawsuit against Evanston, Illinois, on behalf of six individuals over the city’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program which makes $25,000 payments to black residents and descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969.” (RELATED: San Francisco Debates $5 Million Per Person Reparations Proposal)
The New York Times photo archive, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“The Evanston, Illinois’ ‘reparations’ program is nothing more than a ploy to redistribute tax dollars to individuals based on race,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This scheme unconstitutionally discriminates against anyone who does not identify as Black or African American. This class action, civil rights lawsuit will be a historic defense of our color-blind Constitution.”
“Through a series of resolutions, the Evanston City Council created a program to provide $25,000 cash payments to residents who lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969 and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren,” JW reports, after filing a class action, civil rights lawsuit which challenges “on Equal Protection grounds Defendant City of Evanston’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a program that makes $25,000 payments to residents and direct descendants of residents of the city five-plus decades if not more than a century ago. Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the Defendant’s use of race to be unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing to use race as a requirement for receiving payment under the program and request that the Court award them and all class members damages in the amount of $25,000 each.”
Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
JW argues that “the program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because:”
Remedying societal discrimination is not a compelling governmental interest. Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 505 (1989); see also Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 307 ((1978) (opinion of Powell, J.) (describing “societal discrimination” as “an amorphous concept of injury that may be ageless in its reach into the past.”) Remedying discrimination from 55 to 105 years ago or remedying discrimination experienced at any time by an individual’s parents, grandparents, or great grandparents has not been recognized as a compelling governmental interest…
Defendant also has not and cannot demonstrate that its use of a race as an eligibility requirement is narrowly tailored. Among other shortcomings, Defendant’s use of race as a proxy for experiencing discrimination between 1919 and 1969 does not limit eligibility to persons who actually experienced discrimination during that relevant time period and therefore is overinclusive. Defendant also failed to consider race-neutral alternatives, such as requiring prospective recipients show that they or their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents actually experienced housing discrimination during the relevant time period because of an Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure, as Defendant requires for the third group of prospective recipients. Nor did Defendant take into account race-neutral anti-discrimination remedies before adopting its race-based eligibility requirement.
According to JW, the program works as follows:
The first group of persons eligible for the $25,000 payments are current Evanston residents who identify as Black or African American and were at least 18 years of age between 1919 and 1969. Evanston refers to this group as “ancestors.”
The second group are individuals who identify as Black or African American who are at least 18 years of age and have at least one parent, grandparent, or great grandparent who identifies (or identified) as Black or African American, lived in Evanston for any period between 1919 and 1969, and was at least 18 at the time. Evanston refers to this group as “direct descendants.” A “direct descendant” is not required to be a current resident of Evanston to receive the payment.
“At no point in the application process are persons in the first and second groups required to present evidence that they or their ancestors experienced housing discrimination or otherwise suffered harm because of an unlawful Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure or some other unlawful act or series of acts by Evanston between 1919 and 1969,” Judicial Watch states in the laws.” “In effect, Evanston is using race as a proxy for having experienced discrimination during this time period.” (RELATED: Squad Member Introduces Proposal For $14 Trillion In Reparations)
Judicial Watch states in the lawsuit that “the six plaintiffs satisfy all eligibility requirements for participating in the program as ‘direct descendants’ other that the race requirement (the actual number of individuals who are potential class members is in the tens of thousands).”
Christine Svenson of Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufman, LLC is assisting Judicial Watch in the lawsuit.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News.
Elton John performs at the opening ceremony of the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center, Friday, June 28, 2024, in New York City.
(Official White House Photo by Erin Scott)
Singer Elton John reacted during a recent interview to Donald Trump nicknaming Kim Jong Un “little rocket man” in reference to one of his hit songs.
During an interview with Variety at the Toronto Film Festival, the British music icon thought Trump’s nickname for the North Korean dictator was “hilarious” and “brilliant” adding that it made him laugh.
In 2017, Trump insulted Kim following a recent blitz of high-profile weapons tests. Trump claimed that if North Korea continued to threaten the U.S. then he would rain “fire and fury” down on the country.
The former president ended his threats towards Kim by labeling him as “Little Rocket Man.” John as a popular song released in 1972 called “Rocket Man” as well as a biographical 2019 film about his life under the same name.
“I laughed, I thought that was brilliant,” John told Variety. “I just thought, ‘Good on you, Donald.’ … Donald’s always been a fan of mine, and he’s been to my concerts many, many times.”
John also revealed that he “always been friendly toward” Trump because the former president has “always been a fan.”
The singer added, “So, I mean, I’ve always been friendly toward him, and I thank him for his support. When he did that, I just thought it was hilarious. It made me laugh.”
Elton John on his reaction to Donald Trump calling Kim Jong Un “Little Rocket Man”: “I laughed, I thought that was brilliant… I’ve always been friendly toward him, and I thank him for his support. When he did that, I just thought it was hilarious.” https://t.co/QXV9VqAtuTpic.twitter.com/MNhsNzFwlR
White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre holds a press briefing on Friday, July 30, 2021, in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Erin Scott)
A number of Biden-era officials were stunned that former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre revealed she has decided to abandon the Democrat Party despite serving under two administrations.
KJP’s revelation has been met with immense criticism from party insiders, including ex-Biden policy advisor Tim Wu who called the former press secretary “kinda dumb.”
In a blistering post that has now been deleted on X on Thursday, Wu wrote: “From WH policy staff perspective, the real problem with Karine Jean-Pierre was that she was kinda dumb. No interest in understanding harder topics. Just gave random incoherent answers on policy.”
Jean-Pierre, who served as former President Joe Biden’s press secretary for more than two years, revealed this week she is leaving the Democratic Party and releasing a memoir titled Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines. The book promises a scathing assessment of Biden’s final years in office, detailing what she calls “the betrayal by the Democratic Party” that led to his aborted re-election bid. (RELATED:Ex-Biden Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre Announces Switch To Independent)
Jean-Pierre’s pivot, according to Axios, drew immediate backlash from those she previously worked with.
“One of the most ineffectual and unprepared people I’ve ever worked with,” one former colleague told the outlet. “She had meltdowns after any interview that asked about a topic not sent over by producers.”
One ex-official put it bluntly in conversation with Axios: “Today Karine lost the only constituency that ever supported her – party line Democrats.”
One White House reporter sarcastically called the project “amazing,” and suggested Jean-Pierre’s book won’t carry much weight.
“Did she find the manuscript somewhere in that fat binder she toted around? If I were a historian writing about the Biden White House, I wouldn’t ignore what Karine has to say, but it’s not an account in which much weight will be invested — just like her briefings,” the White House reporter told Fox News Digital.
A second White House reporter said they wouldn’t have even realized Jean-Pierre was in the news if Fox News Digital didn’t ask about it.
“She left the Democratic Party? I honestly didn’t see that story and probably wouldn’t have even noticed. I turned off my KJP Google Alert on Inauguration Day,” the reporter reacted, before joking, “Has anyone circled back with Jen Psaki?”
A third White House reporter was “shocked” that Jean-Pierre had left the Democratic Party.
“I have to pick my jaw up from the floor. It is unbelievable that she, of all people, would choose this path,” the reporter told Fox News Digital.
“Just take a look at her entire career and identity,” they said. “You can’t change who you are just because you check a different box on a registration form. It’s also disappointing to see that she would turn her back on her party just because it’s hit a really rough patch… it speaks to character.”
The Trump administration is planning some big changes.
President Donald Trump will reportedly announce during a trip to Saudi Arabia that the United States will refer to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf.
Two unnamed U.S. officials reportedly informed the AP on Tuesday that Trump was planning to officially rename the gulf as tensions with Iran continue to escalate.
While it has been predominantly referred to as the Persian Gulf since the 16th century, Gulf Arab states – including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – have sought to remove Persia from the name and commonly refer to it as the Arabian Gulf.
In the United States, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency uses “Persian Gulf” as the “conventional” name for the gulf, but also lists “Arabian Gulf” and “Persian-Arabian Gulf” as variants.
According to the report, “The U.S. military for years has unilaterally referred to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf in statements and images it releases.”
President Trump controversially renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America following his inauguration in January.
By Executive Office of the President of the United States – https://x.com/POTUS/status/1888706337699238047/photo/1, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159501092
Last month, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt warned Iran there would be “all hell to pay” if they refused to agree to Trump’s demands over the country’s nuclear program.
In March, Trump also warned Iran they would “suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire,” if they continued to back the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
On Tuesday, President Trump hinted that he would soon make a “very big” announcement ahead of his planned trip to the Middle East.
“We’re going to have a very, very big announcement to make, like as big as it gets,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, where was is meeting with Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney. “And I won’t tell you on what … and it’s very positive.”
“It is really, really positive. And that announcement will be made either Thursday or Friday or Monday before we leave,” Trump added. “But it’ll be one of the most important announcements that have been made in many years about a certain subject, very important subject. So you’ll all be here.”
After that, the president asked Carney if he’d like to say a few words.
“I’m on the edge of my seat,” Carney said, drawing laughter from the press before thanking Trump for his “hospitality” and “leadership.”
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, an appointee of President Trump, directed the White House to resume allowing the AP into the Oval Office, Air Force One and other limited spaces when they’re made available to other press pool members.
He also granted the AP’s request for access to events open to all credentialed White House reporters, though he listed several caveats.
“This injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones’ questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views,” McFadden wrote.
“No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints,” he wrote. “The Constitution requires no less.”
Scores of news organizations use the AP Stylebook for guidance on spelling, grammar and how to refer to certain people and places, to help ensure such references are widely understood in the U.S. and globally.
Charles Tobin, a lawyer for the AP, said during a hearing last month that the news organization was in the “penalty box” for crossing Trump, which he called “abject retaliation.”
“The White House hasn’t hidden that,” Tobin said. “They’ve doubled down.”
Scores of news organizations use the AP Stylebook for guidance on spelling, grammar and how to refer to certain people and places, to help ensure such references are widely understood in the U.S. and globally.
Charles Tobin, a lawyer for the AP, said during a hearing last month that the news organization was in the “penalty box” for crossing Trump, which he called “abject retaliation.”
“The White House hasn’t hidden that,” Tobin said. “They’ve doubled down.”
AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said the decision affirms the fundamental right to “speak freely without government retaliation.”
“This is a freedom guaranteed for all Americans in the U.S. Constitution,” she said. “We look forward to continuing to provide factual, nonpartisan and independent coverage of the White House for billions of people around the world.”
P0120021CK-1111: President Joe Biden delivers his inaugural address Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2021, during the 59th Presidential Inauguration at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)
One down…
Over the weekend, a popular Democrat governor widely believed to be a top 2028 presidential contender officially took his name out of the running.
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) on Sunday said he is “not running for president” in ’28 — knocking out one of the top contenders to lead the Democratic ticket, three years before the election.
Moore, while appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, was asked by host Kristen Welker if he plans on serving a full term if he wins reelection as governor next year. He told Welker he does plan on serving the full four-year term — leading her to clarify that means he is removing himself from the ’28 field.
“Do you rule out a run for president, governor?” Welker asked him.
“Yeah, I’m not running for president,” Moore responded.
She responded: “You rule it out?”
Moore then told her “Yes, I’m not running for president.”
At that point, Welker asked him once again to clarify his intentions, asking if he “completely” ruled it out.
Here is what Moore said:
“I’m so excited about what we’re doing. That we’ve gone from 43rd in the country in unemployment to now one of the lowest unemployment rates. We’ve had amongst the fastest drops in violent crime anywhere in the United States of America. Our population is growing. Maryland is moving, and so I’m really excited about going back in front of the people of my state and asking for another term.”
Watch:
🚨 NEW: Wes Moore just ruled out a run for President in 2028 as the Democrat field gets smaller pic.twitter.com/3hDQLFBZHp
Last month, Kalshi betting market put Moore at 6% odds to be the party’s nominee — which came in fourth behind California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) at 20%, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) at 15%, and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (D) at 10%. The president site Polymarket also had Moore as a top five contender.
In 2024, the Maryland Governor faced controversy after falsely claiming to be a Bronze Star recipient on a 2006 White House fellowship application.
Moore, who was 27 years old when he applied for the White House position, blamed his Army superiors for the inclusion of the falsehood on the application and said he never corrected the mistake because he was eager to “begin the next phase” of his life, in a statement released after the New York Times reported on the embellishment.
“These are the facts,” the Maryland governor wrote in his lengthy statement. “While serving overseas with the Army, I was encouraged to fill out an application for the White House Fellowship by my deputy brigade commander. In fact, he helped me edit it before I sent it in. At the time, he had recommended me for the Bronze Star. He told me to include the Bronze Star award on my application after confirming with two other senior-level officers that they had also signed off on the commendation.”
Moore noted that his deputy brigade commander “felt comfortable with instructing me to include the award” on the application because he was under the impression that the medal for heroic or meritorious service had already been “approved by his senior leadership.”
“In the military, there is an understanding that if a senior officer tells you that an action is approved, you can trust that as a fact. That is why it was part of the application, plain and simple,” the governor explained.
“Towards the end of my deployment, I was disappointed to learn that I hadn’t received the Bronze Star. But I was ready to begin the next phase of my life,” Moore continued.
Moore deployed to Afghanistan as a lieutenant with the 82nd Airborne Division in 2005, according to his official governor’s biography.
Moore was ultimately awarded the Bronze Star in December 2024 for his deployment to Afghanistan.
By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54325633746/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159707159
The Taliban on Sunday responded to President Trump’s push to regain control of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, saying the U.S. should adopt “a policy of realism and rationality” while rejecting the move.
“It has been consistently communicated to the United States in all bilateral negotiations that, for the Islamic Emirate, Afghanistan’s independence and territorial integrity are of the utmost importance,” Taliban deputy spokesperson Hamdullah Fitrat said in an official statement posted on the social platform X.
Statement of the Islamic Emirate Regarding the Recent Declarations by the President of the United States September 21, 2025 In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
In accordance with Islamic principles and grounded in its balanced, economy-oriented…
Fitrat pointed to U.S. commitments under the Doha agreement — which Trump aides negotiated in his first term to end the U.S. presence in Afghanistan — not to “use or threaten force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Afghanistan, nor interfere in its internal affairs.”
Trump in recent days has suggested the U.S. wants to wrest back control of Bagram Air Base.
“If Afghanistan doesn’t give Bagram Airbase back to those that built it, the United States of America, BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN!!!,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Saturday.
During a joint press conference in Great Britain with that country’s prime minister, Trump said the U.S. was “trying to get it back” because the Taliban needed things from the United States.
He also highlighted the base’s proximity to China.
“We gave it to them for nothing,” Trump said, repeating a campaign message on the Biden-era unconditional withdrawal from Afghanistan, during a joint news conference with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
“We’re trying to get it back, by the way. OK, that could be a little breaking news. We’re trying to get it back because they need things from us.
“We want that base back. But one of the reasons we want the base is, as you know, it’s an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons.
“So a lot of things are happening.”
Watch:
TRUMP: "We were going to leave Afghanistan, but we were going to leave it with strength and dignity, and we were going to keep Bagram, the big airbase that one of the biggest air bases in the world. We gave it to them for nothing. We're trying to get it back, by the way. Okay,… pic.twitter.com/9nNOYE4RlF
Bagram was once the largest U.S. base in Afghanistan during the U.S. war in that country, the longest conflict in American history. It was abandoned in 2021 when the Biden administration withdrew U.S. forces from Afghanistan.
