As buzz continues to build around Trump’s looming 2024 announcement some Republicans are already trying to burst his bubble.
Despite the obvious excitement surrounding Trump’s long-awaited presidential campaign announcement the Republican is already facing hurdles on the path to 2024.
Trump, who is already facing various legal challenges, will be effectively cut off from the Republican National Committee if he declares his candidacy committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel told The Hill.
Last year, the RNC admitted it was paying for legal fees “that relate to politically motivated legal proceedings waged against President Trump” and in recent months the committee has funded Trump’s defense against probes launched by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. (D) and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D).
“We cannot pay legal bills for any candidate that’s announced. So these are bills that came from the Letitia James lawsuit that started while he was president,” McDaniel said. “It was voted on by our executive committee for our former president, that this was a politically motivated investigation and that’s what it’s been.”
“But we cannot do in kind contributions to any candidate right now. He’s the former president being attacked from every which way with lawsuits, and he’s certainly raised more under the RNC than we’ve spent on these bills,” she added.
Advisers in Trump’s inner circle have indicated the announcement could come as soon as November 14th but some conservatives say it shouldn’t come as any shock.
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) said on Sunday that Trump’s upcoming announcement doesn’t surprise him, according to The Hill.
“Like, why should anybody be surprised,” Christie said, adding, “When something happens that you anticipated happening, it doesn’t make any difference.”
“He’s going to run. Everyone always knew he was going to run. He can’t miss the attention any more than he does, and he’s going to run,” the former governor added. “Now we’ll see what happens.”
However, reports began to swirl on Monday that Trump couls make his annoucenment during tonight’s rally in Ohio. Axios reporter Jonathan Swan was the first to report that Trump could move up the announcement date.
“Based calls/texts all morning, Trump/Vance rally in Ohio will be v closely watched by Rs. Speculation has reached a point of absurdity at this point but many Rs of varying degrees of closeness to Trump are anticipating accelerated announcement based on his recent private comments,” Swan tweeted.
Based calls/texts all morning, Trump/Vance rally in Ohio will be v closely watched by Rs. Speculation has reached a point of absurdity at this point but many Rs of varying degrees of closeness to Trump are anticipating accelerated announcement based on his recent private comments
A source close to the matter told The Washington Examiner that ultimately the decsion is up to Trump and nobody knows exactly when he will share the news.
“There’s a lot of back-and-forth right now, no one really knows if it’s going to happen tonight or if it’s going to happen in a week or so. Trump himself is the one who wants to do it ASAP. No one knows right now whether it’s happening tonight or not,” the source explained.
CNN is doing anything it can to survive its ratings slump…
CNN chief executive Mark Thompson reportedly suggested moving anchor Jim Acosta’s morning show to midnight as part of a planned shakeup within the network
Former CNN senior media reporter Oliver Darcy reported in his Statusnewsletter on Thursday that Acosta “received a peculiar telephone call from CNN chief Mark Thompson” the night before.
“Thompson, I’m told, delivered the veteran journalist a sudden and strange proposal: Move your show to midnight and anchor it until 2am ET,” reported Darcy, who claimed Acosta was caught “off guard” by the proposal as “he had no reason to believe that his current show would be on the chopping block.”
Acosta was reportedly told that the lineup change “had nothing to do with his ratings or the editorial style of his show,” but would be necessary logistically to accommodate a new morning schedule.
According to Darcy, Thompson “even pitched the graveyard shift as if it were something of a promotion for Acosta.”
Darcy questioned the purpose of the change, noting that Acosta had some of the stronger ratings at CNN, and that a 12 a.m. time slot “occupied by virtually zero other hosts in the cable news business” would “effectively exile Acosta to the Siberia of television news.”
One unnamed source told Darcy that the move may be part of an effort to appeal to President-elect Donald Trump.
“They want to get rid of Acosta to throw a bone to Trump,” the source claimed. “Midnight is not a serious offer when his ratings are among the best on the network.”
Throughout Trump’s first term in the White House, Acosta was consistently combative with Trump officials quickly earning the Commander-In-Cheif’s ire.
CNN has been experiencing a significant decline in viewership, particularly in the key 25-to-54-year-old demographic prized by advertisers. In 2024, the network averaged 92,000 total day viewers in this age group, marking a 1% drop from the previous year’s low. Primetime viewership in the same demographic saw a more substantial decline, with a 52% decrease to an average of 77,000 viewers. Overall primetime viewership also shrank by 45%, averaging 405,000 viewers.
During a recent interview with German journalist Paul Ronzheimer, Tucker Carlson—former Fox News host and one of the boldest voices in conservative media—firmly denied reports that he apologized to President Donald J. Trump over criticism regarding U.S. policy toward Iran.
What Trump Said
Back on June 18, President Trump, during a candid moment in the Oval Office, reflected on Carlson’s prior criticisms about the administration’s military support for Israel and its proposed response to Iranian aggression. Trump remarked:
“Tucker is a nice guy. He called and apologized the other day because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong, and I appreciated that.”
Tucker: I Didn’t Apologize—But I Still Back Trump
When asked directly by Ronzheimer whether he did in fact apologize, Carlson didn’t beat around the bush:
“Okay, no.”
Carlson went on to clarify:
“I really like Trump. I campaigned for Trump. I agree with Trump on the issues. I’d be happy to apologize—I’m an apologizer by nature—but I didn’t say anything that would warrant one in this case.”
In typical Tucker fashion, he emphasized that disagreement among allies is not betrayal. He reaffirmed his longstanding support for President Trump, noting he has always stood by the policies that put America First.
“I didn’t attack Trump. I disagreed with him, and I said how. That’s not the same thing as an attack, and it’s certainly not something I’d need to apologize for.”
The Bottom Line: No Rift Here
Despite what the media may want people to believe, there’s no feud brewing here. Carlson remains a powerful voice in the conservative movement and a staunch ally of President Trump. They may not agree 100% of the time—but they share a vision: strong borders, real national security, and putting American citizens first.
During a recent interview, the 81-year-old lawmaker called on the former President’s family to immediately stage an intervention
Office of Public Affairs from Washington DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“He knows he’s wacky,” Pelosi told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. “He knows he’s an imposter.”
“But I do wish there would be an intervention from his family, assuming they love him beyond the resources … that they would intervene,” she said, adding that she also hoped that the “Republican Party would have an intervention.”
On Thursday, Trump visited Capitol Hill and took part in a series of meetings with Republicans on several issues, including abortion and his legal challenges. According to several GOP senators, the former president will attempt to focus on the economy ahead of the November election.
“They have become a cult to a thug,” she said about the visit. “And that is really a tragedy.”
During her MSNBC interview, Pelosi called the former president “a master of projection.”
“Everything he says about somebody else, whether it’s a judge in the courtroom, a witness, a juror, a member of Congress, a woman, an opponent in an election — everything he says is a projection of his own shortcomings,” she said.
Pelosi previously aired her Trump intervention proposal, in February also called for an intervention due to Trump’s mental health.
NEW: 83-year-old Nancy Pelosi says *Trump* (not Biden) needs an intervention about his "mental health."
Pelosi, who is not mentally sharp herself, went on to ramble about Trump and Putin theories, ignoring Putin's strong support of Biden.
By Ralph Alswang, White House photographer - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-epstein-maxwell/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=143417695
Just hours after the White House publicly accused congressional Democrats of selectively leaking emails related to Jeffrey Epstein on Wednesday, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee released tens of thousands of additional pages of documents. These include email exchanges between Epstein and prominent journalists.
A significant portion of the new material shows correspondence between Epstein and writer-turned-biographer Michael Wolff. Wolff reached out to Epstein multiple times, discussing not only Epstein’s public image but how to leverage criticism of Donald Trump for strategic benefit.
In February 2016, Wolff wrote to Epstein:
“NYT called me about you and Trump,” “Also, Hillary campaign digging deeply. Again, you should consider preempting.”
A month later they discussed plans ahead of the release of Filthy Rich — a true-crime book by James Patterson about Epstein, who was Patterson’s neighbor in Palm Beach. Wolff suggested to Epstein:
“Becoming an anti-Trump voice gives you a certain political cover which you decidedly don’t have now.” And he added: “Patterson can be counted on to produce a bestseller, and while he isn’t regarded as a serious writer, he’ll surely be unloading a lot of tabloid copy … Because this will be tied to the election, the Trump-Clinton angle will amp up the attention 10-fold, in fact, possibly, a hundred fold. Possibly more than anything you’ve encountered before.”
When Epstein asked Wolff what he should say publicly about his relationship with Trump, Wolff’s advice was pointed:
“If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency,” “You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.”
In further correspondence, Wolff requested introductions for Epstein to two figures close to Trump: business leader and inaugural-committee chair Tom Barrack and former federal prosecutor Kathy Ruemmler. He told Epstein he sought “an off-the-record perspective on White House procedures,” while researching his book about Trump’s first 100 days in office. He also asked whether former President Bill Clinton would confirm he had never been to Epstein’s private U.S. Virgin Islands island, Little St. John — a place Clinton has publicly denied visiting. Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell has also denied seeing Clinton there.
The documents show that Epstein and Wolff planned to meet as recently as May 2019 — months before Epstein died in a federal jail cell while awaiting trial.
Some of the newly released material included a short video of a dog and what appear to be chew toys modeled after Trump and the 2016 presidential rival Hillary Clinton. Others appear to be slides from an adviser working to generate positive search-engine results for Epstein following his 2008 conviction for child-sex crimes.
Earlier, Democrats had released documents that included an especially cryptic email from Epstein to Maxwell — one that mentions Trump by name, and refers to an unnamed victim of Epstein’s trafficking network. The email read:
“I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is Trump,” Epstein wrote on April 2, 2011. “[VICTIM] spent hours at my house with him…he has never once been mentioned. Police chief. etc. I’m 75% there.”
Officials later identified the “unnamed victim” as well-known Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide earlier this year. Giuffre repeatedly stated that Trump was not involved in wrongdoing and “couldn’t have been friendlier” to her in their limited interactions. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, responded:
“The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club decades ago for being a creep to his female employees, including Giuffre.”
In his own post on Truth Social, Trump weighed in:
“The Democrats cost our Country $1.5 Trillion Dollars with their recent antics of viciously closing our Country, while at the same time putting many at risk — and they should pay a fair price,” he wrote. “There should be no deflections to Epstein or anything else, and any Republicans involved should be focused only on opening up our Country, and fixing the massive damage caused by the Democrats!”
As a reminder: Epstein secured a highly-controversial so-called “sweetheart” deal in 2008 for child-sex crimes. He was arrested again in 2019 on more serious trafficking charges — but died before the case went to trial. Maxwell was convicted of grooming and procuring girls and young women for Epstein; she is appealing and continues to assert her innocence.
Key Takeaways for a Republican Audience
The timing of the document releases and allegations of selective leaking by Democrats raises questions about political motive and media stratagem.
The correspondence shows efforts to frame Epstein’s narrative around Trump — part of a broader attempt to tie the story to the 2016 presidential election and cast Trump in a negative light.
Trump’s defenders argue the documents reinforce his long-standing disassociation from Epstein, as well as serve to remind voters of Democrats’ role in political maneuvering, rather than holding criminals accountable.
For Republicans focused on institutional integrity and media accountability, the episode reinforces concerns about selective exposure of documents, agenda-driven leaks, and manipulation of public perception.
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.
Mary Trump‘s aversion to her famous uncle is well-known, but it’s not every day she compares him to one of America’s most infamous serial killers.
On national television.
Reflecting on the Stormy Daniels hush money case, Trump’s niece joined MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell to mock the lack of Trump supporters demonstrating outside the courthouse and the absence of the former president’s family inside the courtroom.
Several reporters also noticed their lack of attendance in the courtroom, asking the presumptive Republican nominee where Melania is.
Appearing on Monday’s edition of “The Last Word,” Mary and Larry mocked the presidential front-runner, saying that even Jeffrey Dahmer‘s parents attended his trial.
“This is something that I’ve never seen,” O’Donnell claimed. “Not actually made manifest in the courtroom, before Donald Trump‘s in that courtroom alone. Jeffrey Dahmer’s parents were there every single day. It is. It is very hard, to, to find a courtroom where the criminal defendant doesn’t have a relative sitting there in the front row.”
The younger Trump replied: “Yeah, well, I got a couple of things about that. First of all, it’s another example of how, he, he perverts systems or expectations. For anybody else, that would just be damning. Right. Just the way he talks about dogs would be damning.”
“How many times have we heard that his bizarre behavior, that, that he engages in bizarre behaviors or just doesn’t conform in a way that, that a, a reasonably well-adjusted human being would?”
“But like everything else about him, it just kind of gets baked in,” she continued. “Right.”
“But it is. Let’s, it’s worth, pausing, about how under. Unfair on. Unreal. Bizarre. Strange. Unacceptable. Weird. Whatever adjective you want to use, it is that he is there alone in terms of friends and family,” her assessment continued.
“I think it is worth pointing out… One. I don’t think he cares. I don’t think it matters to him. That is not where he gets his energy. That is not what gives him solace to the extent that anything does,” Trump opined. “He’s more upset about the fact that there aren’t more people outside protesting on his behalf. Right.”
“But it also points to, the bizarre thing about my family that every transaction in this family is a transactional one,” the estranged niece continued. “I’m sorry. Every relationship, I should say, is a transactional one. His kids have decided, for whatever reason, that it’s not worth their time for them to be in that courtroom because they’re not going to get anything out of it. That’s, that’s the way this family rolls.”
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News
A former senior NATO commander is drawing headlines after claiming President Donald Trump poses a greater threat to the Western alliance than Russian President Vladimir Putin—a charge the White House has forcefully rejected and that many U.S. conservatives say ignores key facts about NATO’s recent history.
In an interview with The Independent, General Sir Richard Shirreff, NATO’s former deputy supreme allied commander for Europe, criticized Trump’s blunt rhetoric toward U.S. allies, particularly comments about Greenland and European defense commitments.
“We have to take him literally,” Shirreff told the newspaper. “We have to assume with Trump, as with Putin, that the worst case will happen. Trump is the greater threat [to NATO] if you want to make the comparison. It’s Trump who gets the prize.”
Shirreff’s remarks come despite Trump’s repeated insistence that he would not use force to take Greenland, a territory controlled by NATO member Denmark. Trump has framed the issue primarily in terms of U.S. national security and Arctic defense, arguing that America bears disproportionate responsibility for protecting the region.
During his first term—and again since returning to office—Trump has consistently pressed NATO allies to meet their long-standing commitment to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense, a goal many European countries ignored for decades. Supporters argue that Trump’s tough approach helped reverse years of complacency and forced allies to take their own security more seriously.
Shirreff nevertheless went further, claiming Trump had “destroyed the international order” during the first year of his second term and was undermining NATO itself.
“The lead nation of the alliance has threatened the territorial integrity of another member,” Shirreff said. “How do you move on and rebuild trust? Nobody will trust Trump again.”
Many Republicans counter that this view overlooks Trump’s record of strengthening NATO militarily rather than rhetorically. U.S. defense spending rose during Trump’s presidency, and several NATO countries increased their own military budgets after sustained pressure from Washington—something previous administrations had failed to achieve.
Shirreff acknowledged that Russia remains an “existential threat” to Europe, but argued that Vladimir Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine initially unified NATO, while Trump has allegedly “decoupled America from European security” and left the alliance “below the waterline.”
“Clearly, Putin threatened it massively but Trump has attacked the one alliance which grants our security,” Shirreff said, adding that the rules-based global system was now “a dead duck.”
The White House sharply disputed that assessment. In a statement to The Independent, officials dismissed Shirreff’s comments and said Trump “has done more for NATO than anyone,” pointing to U.S. military contributions and increased allied defense spending under his leadership.
On Greenland, the White House added: “The United States is the only NATO partner who can protect Greenland, and the President is advancing NATO interests in doing so.”
Former President Donald Trump is right: There’s no reason he should sign a GOP loyalty oath in order to participate in the candidates’ debates.
Such oaths, which the Republican National Committee employed in the 2016 presidential primary – only to see the last remaining candidates, including Trump, abandon it – aren’t just signs of a party’s weakness; they are also profoundly silly and even un-American.
Yes, we swear plenty of legally enforceable oaths – in court cases, for example, or declarations on tax forms and other legal documents. But oaths binding candidates to support someone who they’ve campaigned against, throwing elbows, mud and other rhetorical barbs at them for months to convince voters the guy was a bum?
I’ll defer to what Sen. Ted Cruzsaid of such an oath back in the 2016 presidential primary:
Cruz has dodged the question of whether the pledge still holds by insisting he will be the nominee. Though on Friday, in an apparent reference to Trump, Cruz said, “I don’t make a habit out of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my family.”
We all know that Cruz eventually did support Trump’s candidacy and became one of his biggest defenders in the Senate (which was amusing).
But the oath? Nah. The 2016 primary should have been instructive to party leaders that such commitments are transactional at best and unenforceable in fact. Which brings us to the state parties.
They have been long-time players in loyalty oaths, often attempting to bind voters to the party’s eventual nominees. While such pledges are even sillier and utterly unenforceable, that hasn’t stopped new ones from cropping up this year. Consider the case of Florida‘s pledge:
Christian Ziegler, the chairman of the Florida GOP, said in an email that the loyalty pledge is an effort to “ensure maximum unity” headed into the 2024 general election.
“The days of outlier party grifters – such as Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – using Republican Party resources to secure a title and then weaponize that title against our own team must end,” Ziegler said, referring to two former House members, who are among Trump’s most vocal GOP critics.
“Contested primaries are part of the process,” he said, “but we must always remember that the Democrats are the true threat to the America we love and we must be unified to defeat every single one of them.”
The true threat to America is noxious oaths that bind us to men rather than pledges or oaths that bind individuals to uphold the law or tell the truth.
You know, like the only oath that should ever matter for a presidential candidate: the one the Constitution requires:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Every other partisan oath is legally dubious, intellectually suspect and, in the end, not worth the paper it’s printed on.
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.
A retired four-star admiral who once served as the Navy’s second-highest ranking officer, was convicted of bribery and other conspiracy charges on Monday. The conviction marks the most senior member of the U.S. military ever convicted of committing a federal crime while on active duty.
Following a five-day trial, retired four-star Adm. Robert Burke, 62, was found guilty on Monday of a scheme to direct lucrative contracts to the training company Next Jump in exchange for a $500,000-a-year job after leaving the Navy, according to a news release from the Department of Justice.
Burke is facing up to 30 years in prison for his role in the scheme to direct contracts potentially worth millions of dollars to a New York City-based company that offered training programs to the Navy.
Burke, who served aboard attack and ballistic missile submarines, rose through the ranks to eventually become chief of naval personnel in 2016 followed by vice chief of naval operations in June 2019. He then took command of U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa and Allied Joint Forces Command in June 2020 before retiring in summer 2022.
Yongchul “Charlie” Kim and Meghan Messenger, co-CEOs of Next Jump, allegedly participated in the scheme to get a government contract in exchange for offering Burke a position with the company.
Kim and Messenger were each charged with bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery, according to the case’s unsealed indictment. They face trial in August, which is when Burke will be sentenced.
Kim and Messenger, via their company Next Jump, provided a workforce training pilot program to a small component of the Navy from August 2018 through July 2019. However, the deal appeared to go downhill and the Navy terminated a contract with the company in late 2019 and directed it not to contact Burke.
But in summer 2021, Messenger and Kim met with Burke in Washington, D.C., to reestablish their company’s business relationship with the Navy. While at the meeting, the two “agreed that Burke would use his position as a Navy Admiral to steer a contract” to their firm — as well as influence other Navy officers to award another contract to the company — in exchange for his future employment there, according to the Justice Department.
Burke in December 2021 then ordered his staff to award a $355,000 contract to Next Jump to train personnel under Burke’s command in Italy and Spain, which the company performed in January 2022.
In October 2022, Burke began working at Next Jump with an annual salary of $500,000 and a grant of $100,000 in stock options.
Burke was accused of making several false and misleading statements to the Navy to conceal the scheme, such as implying that his discussions to join Next Jump began months after the contract was awarded.
“When you abuse your position and betray the public trust to line your own pockets, it undermines the confidence in the government you represent,” U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro wrote in a post on X following the conviction.
When you abuse your position and betray the public trust to line your own pockets, it undermines the confidence in the government you represent. Our office, with our law enforcement partners, will root out corruption – be it bribes or illegal contracts – and hold accountable the… https://t.co/Qp3iJC0hI5
