Rep. Lauren Boebert appeared to be making peace with President Donald Trump this week after finding herself in his crosshairs over her support for ousted Rep. Thomas Massie.
Just days after Trump publicly threatened to yank his endorsement and potentially back a primary challenger against her, Boebert was back on social media loudly reaffirming her loyalty.
“Trump is my President! Jesus is Lord!” she posted Tuesday night.
Tonight I celebrated my son’s graduation!
My friend & Co-Chair gave his all in Kentucky!
Trump is my President!
Jesus is Lord!
I look forward to a lifetime filled with joy, purpose, and gratitude. May God continue to bless America and the freedoms that make this nation the… pic.twitter.com/QqMHMLv8aV
Boebert’s declaration came only hours after Massie — one of Trump’s most outspoken Republican critics in Congress — was defeated in Kentucky’s high-profile GOP primary by Trump-backed challenger Ed Gallrein.
For many Republicans watching the race, the message was hard to miss: crossing Trump can carry a political price.
The blowup started after Boebert traveled to Kentucky to campaign for Massie, a libertarian-leaning conservative who has repeatedly broken with Trump and Republican leadership on spending battles, surveillance issues, foreign policy fights, and the push to release files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case.
Trump did not take kindly to seeing one of his longtime congressional allies standing shoulder-to-shoulder with one of his most frequent internal critics.
“Anybody who can be that dumb deserves a good Primary fight!” Trump wrote over the weekend, before raising the possibility of pulling his own support for Boebert if the “right person” entered the race against her.
For a politician long viewed as one of Trump’s fiercest defenders on Capitol Hill, it was a rare public dressing-down.
Boebert initially tried to shrug off the clash.
“Yes, I saw the President’s post. No, I’m not mad or offended,” she wrote after Trump’s comments. “I knew the risks when I agreed to stand by my friend Thomas Massie.”
But after Massie’s defeat, Boebert’s latest message sounded less like defiance and more like a quick political reset.
The dust-up highlights a reality becoming increasingly clear inside today’s GOP: policy disagreements may come and go, but Trump’s influence over Republican primaries remains a force few lawmakers seem eager to test.
Massie’s defeat already is being viewed by many inside Republican circles as another reminder that even longtime conservatives with strong grassroots support can face serious trouble when Trump decides to make a race personal.
Rep. Ilhan Omar may again face scrutiny from the Justice Department after Vice President JD Vance said Tuesday that federal authorities are examining allegations tied to the Minnesota Democrat’s immigration history.
Speaking during a White House press briefing while filling in for Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Vance was asked by Daily Caller White House correspondent Reagan Reese whether Omar could ultimately face an indictment.
“I don’t want to prejudge an investigation,” Vance said. “You read the things about Ilhan Omar, and about who she married, and whether she didn’t marry this person or that person. It certainly seems like something fishy is there. But everyone is entitled to equal justice under the laws.”
Vance added that the administration intends to review the matter and pursue legal action only if investigators determine a crime occurred.
“We’re going to investigate it, we’re going to take a look at it. If we think there’s a crime, we’re going to prosecute that crime, and that’s something that the Department of Justice is looking at right now,” he said.
The comments revive longstanding controversy surrounding Omar and allegations that she participated in an immigration-related scheme involving a former marriage. Omar has repeatedly denied those claims, and no public evidence has proven them.
According to reports cited by Fox News and The New York Times, the Justice Department under former President Joe Biden opened an investigation into Omar in 2024 that examined campaign expenditures, personal finances and alleged contacts with a non-U.S. citizen. However, individuals familiar with internal discussions reportedly said investigators did not uncover evidence warranting additional action, and the probe eventually stalled.
Vance had previously raised the issue publicly. During a March podcast appearance with conservative commentator Benny Johnson, he claimed he had discussed potential legal action involving Omar with White House immigration adviser Stephen Miller. (RELATED: Vance Says Administration Reviewing Action Against Rep. Ilhan Omar)
“We think Ilhan Omar definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States of America,” Vance said at the time.
Omar, who was born in Somalia, came to the United States with her family after they were granted asylum in 1995 and became a naturalized citizen in 2000.
The allegations center on Omar’s past relationships and claims from critics that she legally married a man named Ahmed Elmi in 2009 as part of an immigration arrangement. Omar has denied allegations that Elmi was her brother and has repeatedly dismissed the accusations as false and politically motivated.
In December, Omar pushed back against renewed criticism on social media, calling the allegations “bigoted lies” and accusing former President Donald Trump of repeatedly targeting her.
“He needs serious help,” Omar wrote at the time. “Since he has no economic policies to tout, he’s resorting to regurgitating bigoted lies instead.”
Vance reiterated Tuesday that investigators would ultimately follow the evidence.
“If we think that there’s a crime, we’re going to prosecute that crime,” he said.
This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. Republished with permission.
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
President Trump’s newly created “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is already triggering backlash on Capitol Hill, including from some Republicans, as critics question whether the unprecedented program could become a vehicle for rewarding political allies under the banner of correcting alleged government abuses.
The Department of Justice announced Monday that it would establish a $1.776 billion compensation fund designed to provide relief for individuals who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the federal government under the Biden administration.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the fund is intended to create a formal process for people who believe they were victims of government “weaponization” or “lawfare.”
“The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” Blanche said in a DOJ statement. “As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”
According to the DOJ, the fund will be authorized to issue both formal apologies and financial compensation to approved claimants. The department stated that there is “no partisan requirement” to file claims, and any unspent funds will eventually return to the federal government.
The five-member commission overseeing the fund will be appointed by the DOJ, with one member selected in consultation with congressional leadership. President Trump will also retain the authority to remove members and appoint replacements through the attorney general.
Exactly who qualifies for compensation remains unclear.
The administration has not outlined specific eligibility standards, nor has it identified who may ultimately benefit from the program. Questions have also surfaced regarding whether individuals charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot — including those later pardoned or whose sentences were commuted by Trump — could receive compensation.
Asked Monday whether Jan. 6 defendants could potentially benefit, Trump deferred to the commission.
“I didn’t do this deal,” Trump told reporters. “It was told to me yesterday.”
The new program emerged from a settlement involving Trump’s now-withdrawn $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. Trump sued the agency after a contractor leaked portions of his tax records to media outlets.
As part of the agreement, Trump, his family members and the Trump Organization reportedly will receive no direct monetary damages and instead accepted a formal apology while withdrawing multiple legal claims, including administrative complaints tied to the Mar-a-Lago investigation and allegations surrounding the Russia investigation.
The DOJ defended the structure of the fund by pointing to the Obama-era Keepseagle v. Vilsack settlement, “where the Obama administration created a $760 million fund to redress various claims alleging racism against the federal government over a period of decades.”
But critics argue the comparison does not hold up.
Joseph Sellers, an attorney involved in the Keepseagle case, told CNN the situations are fundamentally different.
“That really is the critical issue,” Sellers said. “You have to serve the same community whose interests were at stake in the litigation that was brought.”
The administration’s rollout has also generated rare public resistance from Republicans.
According to Mediaite, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) criticized the proposal on Tuesday.
“Yeah, not a big fan,” Thune told reporters. “I’m not sure exactly how they intend to use it. … But yeah, I don’t see a purpose for it.”
Mediaite also reported that Sen. John Kennedy (R- La.) expressed skepticism while saying he remained open to the concept.
“I need to know where the money is going to come from. I need to know who would qualify. I need to know the definition of weaponization. I need to know who’s been weaponized against?” Kennedy said Monday.
Democrats have gone considerably further in their criticism.
A group of 93 House Democrats filed an amicus brief seeking to block the settlement, arguing that it violates constitutional requirements and improperly redirects taxpayer money.
Separately, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) condemned the fund as “a racket” intended to channel taxpayer dollars toward Trump allies.
The issue also surfaced during a Senate Appropriations hearing Tuesday, where Sen. Chris Coons (D-Ct.) pressed Blanche over the unusual nature of the settlement arrangement.
Coons noted that no previous president had sued his own administration and then settled the case while serving in office.
Blanche pushed back on suggestions that Trump directed the process and rejected comparisons between the underlying litigation and the Keepseagle case, arguing that only the commission structure itself was similar.
Still, when Coons asked whether Trump campaign donors could ultimately receive payments from the fund, Blanche declined to provide assurances.
“I am not committing to anything beyond the settlement agreement itself,” Blanche said. “They are not excluded from seeking compensation if they are recognized.”
With the fund’s eligibility standards still undefined and its commission not yet assembled, many of the biggest questions surrounding who receives compensation — and whether political allies of the president could benefit — remain unanswered.
Liberal commentator and podcast host Briahna Joy Gray says she knows “many” people on the political left who would rather support Tucker Carlson for president than progressive star Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — a striking claim as early maneuvering around the 2028 presidential race begins to intensify.
Gray made the remarks during a recent episode of her Bad Faith podcast while discussing divisions inside the broader progressive movement and dissatisfaction among some left-wing voters.
“It’s crazy, I know many people on the left who would happily vote for Tucker Carlson before AOC,” Gray said.
Gray added that she finds herself frustrated by that reality because she said she would not encourage people to support either figure.
“I am frustrated by that dynamic because I don’t want Tucker Carlson to be president,” she said. “I also can’t see myself damaging my own credibility by telling someone to vote for AOC. These options hurt us all.”
Gray argued that Carlson has made numerous controversial comments over the years, including past remarks on immigration and cultural assimilation, but suggested some voters may find him newly appealing following what she described as a political “rebirth.”
Carlson’s public image has shifted significantly in recent years.
Once one of the most influential voices in conservative media during his run at Fox News, Carlson later departed the network and increasingly broke with major figures in the Republican establishment, including President Donald Trump.
More recently, Carlson has criticized Trump over foreign policy and U.S. involvement overseas.
“You have not done a good job running this country. You don’t even care to try,” Carlson said last month while criticizing Trump’s priorities. “You’d rather run the world or the empire.”
Why do neocons consistently act against the interests of the United States? It’s more than neglect. It’s hate. Marjorie Taylor Greene saw it firsthand. pic.twitter.com/HGJlRfJ3bo
Carlson has also become increasingly critical of Israel and U.S. involvement in Middle East conflicts, arguing that American foreign policy has become disconnected from domestic concerns.
His break from Trump has produced mixed reactions among conservatives. Some former supporters praised his willingness to challenge Republican orthodoxy, while others viewed his criticisms as creating distance between himself and Trump’s political movement. (RELATED: Trump Cuts Tucker Carlson Loose From Political Movement)
Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez appears to be moving in the opposite direction politically.
The New York Democrat has become one of the most recognizable figures in the Democrat Party and is widely viewed as an early potential contender in the 2028 presidential race. She has built a massive social media following, a powerful small-dollar fundraising network and strong support among progressive activists.
Recent surveys have also suggested Ocasio-Cortez could enter a future Democrat primary with meaningful advantages. An AtlasIntel poll released recently placed her at the top of a hypothetical Democratic field with 26% support.
But despite that standing, some divisions on the left have become increasingly visible.
Critics on both the center and the populist left have questioned Ocasio-Cortez’s evolution from anti-establishment insurgent to a more integrated figure within Democratic leadership circles. Gray pointed to a recent social media dispute involving former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene as an example.
Greene criticized Ocasio-Cortez after she declined to support an amendment Greene introduced involving Israel funding. Gray argued voters were justified in questioning Ocasio-Cortez’s priorities.
The comments also arrive as Democrats are quietly beginning to sort out what the post-Biden and post-Sanders era could look like.
While 2028 remains years away, names already circulating include Ocasio-Cortez, California Rep. Ro Khanna, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and others who could emerge as national contenders.
For now, there is no indication Carlson intends to run for office, and his name has not regularly appeared among likely presidential candidates but there’s still plenty of time for him to make a surprising move.
Watch the full podcast:
Liberal commentator and podcast host Briahna Joy Gray says she knows “many” people on the political left who would rather support Tucker Carlson for president than progressive star Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — a striking claim as early maneuvering around the 2028 presidential race begins to intensify.
Gray made the remarks during a recent episode of her Bad Faith podcast while discussing divisions inside the broader progressive movement and dissatisfaction among some left-wing voters.
“It’s crazy, I know many people on the left who would happily vote for Tucker Carlson before AOC,” Gray said.
Gray added that she finds herself frustrated by that reality because she said she would not encourage people to support either figure.
“I am frustrated by that dynamic because I don’t want Tucker Carlson to be president,” she said. “I also can’t see myself damaging my own credibility by telling someone to vote for AOC. These options hurt us all.”
Gray argued that Carlson has made numerous controversial comments over the years, including past remarks on immigration and cultural assimilation, but suggested some voters may find him newly appealing following what she described as a political “rebirth.”
Carlson’s public image has shifted significantly in recent years.
Once one of the most influential voices in conservative media during his run at Fox News, Carlson later departed the network and increasingly broke with major figures in the Republican establishment, including President Donald Trump.
More recently, Carlson has criticized Trump over foreign policy and U.S. involvement overseas.
“You have not done a good job running this country. You don’t even care to try,” Carlson said last month while criticizing Trump’s priorities. “You’d rather run the world or the empire.”
Why do neocons consistently act against the interests of the United States? It’s more than neglect. It’s hate. Marjorie Taylor Greene saw it firsthand. pic.twitter.com/HGJlRfJ3bo
Carlson has also become increasingly critical of Israel and U.S. involvement in Middle East conflicts, arguing that American foreign policy has become disconnected from domestic concerns.
His break from Trump has produced mixed reactions among conservatives. Some former supporters praised his willingness to challenge Republican orthodoxy, while others viewed his criticisms as creating distance between himself and Trump’s political movement. (RELATED: Trump Cuts Tucker Carlson Loose From Political Movement)
Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez appears to be moving in the opposite direction politically.
The New York Democrat has become one of the most recognizable figures in the Democrat Party and is widely viewed as an early potential contender in the 2028 presidential race. She has built a massive social media following, a powerful small-dollar fundraising network and strong support among progressive activists.
Recent surveys have also suggested Ocasio-Cortez could enter a future Democrat primary with meaningful advantages. An AtlasIntel poll released recently placed her at the top of a hypothetical Democratic field with 26% support.
But despite that standing, some divisions on the left have become increasingly visible.
Critics on both the center and the populist left have questioned Ocasio-Cortez’s evolution from anti-establishment insurgent to a more integrated figure within Democratic leadership circles. Gray pointed to a recent social media dispute involving former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene as an example.
Greene criticized Ocasio-Cortez after she declined to support an amendment Greene introduced involving Israel funding. Gray argued voters were justified in questioning Ocasio-Cortez’s priorities.
The comments also arrive as Democrats are quietly beginning to sort out what the post-Biden and post-Sanders era could look like.
While 2028 remains years away, names already circulating include Ocasio-Cortez, California Rep. Ro Khanna, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and others who could emerge as national contenders.
For now, there is no indication Carlson intends to run for office, and his name has not regularly appeared among likely presidential candidates but there’s still plenty of time for him to make a surprising move.
President Trump scored another legal win this week after a federal appeals court agreed to let him hold off on paying writer E. Jean Carroll’s massive $83.3 million defamation judgment while he takes his fight to the Supreme Court.
The ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gives Trump breathing room as he continues a broader legal counteroffensive that has seen him notch several major courtroom victories over the past year — including Supreme Court wins on presidential immunity and multiple delays in politically charged cases brought against him during the 2024 campaign.
The court’s order allows Trump to pause payment of the judgment for now, though judges required him to increase his bond by roughly $7.5 million to cover mounting interest if his appeal ultimately fails.
Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, tried to frame the ruling as a victory for her client.
“We are pleased that the Second Circuit conditioned the stay on President Trump posting a bond of nearly $100 million,” Kaplan said after the decision.
But the practical effect is clear: Trump will not have to pay Carroll anytime soon as the nation’s highest court weighs whether to step into the explosive case.
The president is asking the Supreme Court to overturn both civil verdicts won by Carroll, who accused Trump of sexually assaulting her inside a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s — allegations he has repeatedly and forcefully denied.
Two separate Manhattan juries sided with Carroll in civil proceedings.
The first jury awarded her $5 million after finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation tied to comments he made in 2022.
The second jury later slammed Trump with the eye-popping $83.3 million judgment after concluding he further defamed Carroll by publicly rejecting her claims while campaigning for president.
Trump’s legal team has argued the second case should never have moved forward because the statements in question were made while he was serving as president, raising serious constitutional questions involving presidential immunity and executive authority.
His lawyers have also argued the federal government should substitute itself as the defendant under the Westfall Act, potentially shielding Trump personally from liability.
So far, lower courts have rejected those arguments — but Trump has increasingly found success when cases reach the Supreme Court.
Last year, the high court handed Trump a landmark immunity victory that sharply limited prosecutors’ ability to pursue criminal charges tied to official presidential actions. That ruling upended multiple cases brought against him and was widely viewed as one of the most significant constitutional decisions involving presidential power in decades.
Trump has also benefited from repeated delays in several Democrat-backed prosecutions and investigations that critics argued were timed to damage him politically during the 2024 election cycle.
Now, the Carroll cases are shaping up to become the next major legal showdown.
The Supreme Court has already spent months considering whether to hear Trump’s appeal involving the first Carroll verdict. The justices were initially expected to discuss the matter privately in February, but consideration has been delayed multiple times without explanation.
Trump’s forthcoming appeal of the second verdict will now add even more pressure on the high court to weigh in.
For now, however, the appeals court ruling marks another temporary but significant courtroom victory for the president as he continues battling a long list of legal challenges while preparing for the remainder of his second term.
Chinese officials repeatedly clashed with members of the American delegation on Thursday during President Donald Trump’s high-profile visit to China, creating several chaotic scenes involving the United States Secret Service, White House staffers, and members of the U.S. press corps.
One tense confrontation unfolded when a Secret Service agent accompanying the White House press pool was blocked from entering a secured area by Chinese security officials because he was carrying a firearm — standard procedure for agents tasked with protecting American officials overseas.
WOW: Fox News’ Peter Doocy: “It’s worth pointing out there have been some heated and physical clashes between the Secret Service and the Chinese police at basically the back doors of these events.”
“Including one very physical standoff where a Secret Service officer was being… pic.twitter.com/v0xE2BcWMG
According to reports, Chinese authorities demanded the agent surrender his weapon before entering the area near President Trump’s motorcade. The agent refused, triggering a heated standoff that delayed the White House press pool for roughly 30 minutes as journalists attempted to follow the president’s movements through Beijing.
Video from the scene showed frustrated American reporters arguing with Chinese officials as access remained restricted.
“We have to go!” one reporter shouted during the delay.
“U.S. press, we are going!” another yelled as journalists eventually pushed past security personnel to catch up with the presidential convoy.
At one point, a person caught on the live feed described the unfolding confusion as a “sh*t show.”
US Secret Service and press are detained by Chinese agents in tense standoff. pic.twitter.com/ld7aCqEabG
As the group moved toward the motorcade, additional Chinese officials reportedly rushed toward the American press contingent in an effort to stop them, though the journalists ultimately reached the convoy.
The confrontation added to a growing sense of disorder surrounding portions of Trump’s visit to China, despite the carefully choreographed public optics displayed by Beijing earlier in the trip.
In a separate incident Thursday, a female White House aide was reportedly knocked to the ground and trampled by Chinese reporters scrambling to enter a meeting room ahead of bilateral talks between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The aide suffered bruising but was not seriously injured.
The clashes contrasted sharply with the lavish welcome Chinese officials staged for Trump upon his arrival Wednesday night. Beijing rolled out an elaborate reception for the American president as Trump began a closely watched diplomatic visit centered on trade negotiations, military tensions in the Indo-Pacific, and the broader U.S.-China power struggle.
Trump spent much of Thursday meeting with Xi and senior Chinese officials before attending a formal banquet at the Great Hall of the People.
“It was a fantastic day,” Trump said during remarks at the banquet. “And in particular, I want to thank President Xi, my friend, for this magnificent welcome.”
“We had extremely positive and productive conversations and meetings today with the Chinese delegation earlier,” Trump added.
BREAKING: President Trump gives a toast to President Xi and invites him to the White House for an official visit in September:
"Thank you again, President Xi, for this beautiful welcome… It is my honor to extend an invitation to you and Madam Peng to visit us at the White… pic.twitter.com/ygH2GuT0B3
The security confrontations, however, underscored the deep mistrust and competing protocols that continue to define relations between Washington and Beijing.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is pushing back forcefully on viral claims that the CIA conducted a “raid” on its office, calling the reporting false and urging clarification amid a swirl of online speculation.
“This is false,” Olivia Coleman, a spokesperson for Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, wrote on the social platform X. “The CIA did not raid the DNI’s office.”
The statement was a direct response to a now-deleted post from Fox News host Jesse Watters, who had amplified claims tied to comments from Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.).
Luna had alleged that materials connected to the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy and the CIA’s MK-ULTRA program were removed from the National Reconnaissance Office in Virginia. She linked the matter to broader concerns about historical intelligence records and declassification efforts.
According to its public records, the NRO periodically reviews collections tied to historically significant programs for potential declassification and public release, a routine process that can include older intelligence archives.
“The reason why this is troubling … there was an executive order that the president directed the full declassification of JFK, but then also to the MK-ULTRA files. Famously the CIA said that all documents were released and other documents had been destroyed,” Luna said during an appearance on NewsNation’s “Katie Pavlich Tonight.”
“So, these are allegedly those documents that apparently never existed,” she added.
Luna also said she personally contacted CIA Director John Ratcliffe regarding the matter. In a follow-up post, she pushed back on interpretations of her comments and denied claims that she alleged a raid on Gabbard’s office.
“I am noticing a few large accounts stating falsely that I claimed there was a raid on Tulsi Gabbard’s office by the CIA. This is completely false …” Luna wrote on X. “There is no clip or statement that exists. Why is there an orchestrated push for this narrative”
“When Congress is notified of conflicting narratives from different agencies, i.e., the CIA and ODNI, it is our job to follow through to ensure documents are preserved and not destroyed,” she continued. “This is not an issue with Ratcliffe or Gabbard.”
I am noticing a few large accounts stating falsely that I claimed there was a raid on Tulsi Gabbard’s office by the CIA. This is completely false. There is no clip or statement that exists. Why is there an orchestrated push for this narrative? Not one account can post a clip of… pic.twitter.com/jBM3fMhFmS
She added, “For people to act like the CIA doesn’t have a history of destroying documents is BIZARO-WORLD. Watch the clip for yourself. I am talking about what the whistleblower is saying under oath.”
Luna, who chairs the House Oversight Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets, has announced plans to hold a hearing on MK-ULTRA records later this month.
The CIA program MK-ULTRA, launched in 1953, focused on behavioral modification research and has long been associated with controversy and conspiracy theories. According to University of Louisville archival records, the program has remained a recurring subject in public debate over intelligence agency transparency.
President Donald Trump gestures to the crowd after delivering remarks at the House GOP Member Retreat, Tuesday, January 6, 2026, at the Donald J. Trump- John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
President Donald Trump is weighing an ambitious new wave of clemency that could see as many as 250 pardons issued either on his own birthday — Flag Day, June 14 — or as part of the nation’s July 4 celebration marking America’s 250th birthday, according to a new report from the Wall Street Journal.
The proposal, still in what administration officials describe as “preliminary discussions,” would dramatically expand Trump’s already aggressive use of presidential pardon powers during his second term and further cement clemency as one of the defining features of his presidency.
According to the report, White House officials are debating whether the pardons should coincide with Trump’s birthday celebration on June 14 — which also falls on Flag Day — or whether they should instead be tied directly to the nation’s semiquincentennial festivities on the Fourth of July.
Some aides inside the White House are reportedly uneasy about the timing, warning that another major round of pardons ahead of the midterm elections could create political headaches for Republicans. Still, administration officials stressed that no final decision has been made and that Trump remains the ultimate authority on clemency matters.
The possible move would fit neatly into Trump’s broader effort to put his personal stamp on America’s 250th birthday celebration. Since returning to office, Trump has championed a series of patriotic projects tied to the anniversary, including plans for a “National Garden of American Heroes” featuring 250 statues of iconic Americans such as George Washington, Ronald Reagan, and Jackie Robinson. He has also promoted “Patriot Games” athletic competitions for high school students and ordered renovations around national monuments in Washington.
Historically, rulers and political leaders often used “jubilee” celebrations to grant mercy or forgiveness, a tradition Trump allies have increasingly referenced as justification for a broader use of presidential clemency powers.
One of the administration officials helping oversee the current pardon operation is Trump-appointed pardon attorney Ed Martin, who earlier this year argued that pardons are an “essential” part of justice and pointed to historical examples of kings and popes granting mass clemency during anniversary celebrations.
Trump’s second term has already featured some of the most controversial and sweeping pardons in modern presidential history.
Most notably, Trump issued a broad pardon for many supporters charged in connection with the January 6 Capitol riot, a move that sparked outrage from Democrats and some Republicans alike. Critics accused Trump of rewarding political allies, while supporters argued he was correcting what they viewed as politically motivated prosecutions.
Trump has also pardoned several high-profile figures tied to the cryptocurrency world and corporate fraud cases. Those granted clemency include former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao and Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, whose case became a rallying point for libertarian activists and parts of the crypto community.
In another controversial case, Trump pardoned former Nikola executive Trevor Milton after Milton was convicted of defrauding investors.
The administration’s willingness to entertain high-profile pardon requests has also fueled a surge in clemency applications nationwide. The Journal reported that more than 16,000 pardon requests were filed last year — the highest number recorded since at least 1937.
Among those publicly seeking relief from Trump is disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, though Trump has publicly mocked the idea of pardoning him.
There has also been speculation surrounding imprisoned Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell after her legal team floated the possibility of cooperation in exchange for clemency. So far, however, there is no indication Trump is considering such a move. Earlier releases tied to the Epstein investigation showed Trump praising Florida investigators for pursuing Jeffrey Epstein and describing Maxwell as “evil.”
The looming possibility of another massive clemency push also revives comparisons to former President Joe Biden, who faced bipartisan criticism after commuting the sentences of nearly 2,500 federal inmates during the final stretch of his presidency. Biden’s pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, and his commutation of dozens of federal death row inmates generated particularly fierce backlash.
Trump allies argue that Biden normalized expansive uses of executive clemency, opening the door for Trump to exercise the same authority even more aggressively during his second term.
For now, administration officials say discussions remain fluid. But if Trump ultimately moves forward, the pardons would likely become one of the most politically explosive moments of the country’s 250th anniversary celebration — while simultaneously reinforcing Trump’s longstanding view that the presidency’s pardon power should be used far more aggressively than previous administrations were willing to do.
By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54346096651/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=160407812
White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller — long viewed as one of the chief architects of President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration agenda — is reportedly losing influence inside the administration as other top officials gain the president’s ear.
According to a new report from The Atlantic journalists Michael Scherer and Nick Miroff, Trump has privately expressed concern that Miller’s aggressive instincts sometimes go too far, marking a notable shift for one of the president’s most loyal and powerful longtime advisers.
The report claims Trump “has also told others in recent weeks that he understands Miller sometimes goes too far.” The alleged change reportedly became more noticeable following unrest in Minneapolis and the death of protester Alex Pretti.
Trump reportedly “recognized immediately after the second killing in Minneapolis, of the protester Alex Pretti, that the policy needed to shift.” Miller, however, took a far more confrontational tone, referring to Pretti as a “domestic terrorist” in the aftermath of the incident.
For years, Miller has been one of the most influential figures in Trump’s orbit. The former Senate aide rose to prominence during Trump’s first campaign in 2016 and quickly became the driving force behind many of the administration’s toughest immigration policies, including travel bans, refugee restrictions, and mass deportation proposals.
Unlike many Trump officials who cycled in and out of the administration, Miller built a uniquely durable relationship with the president. His fiery populist rhetoric and uncompromising stance on immigration made him a hero to many MAGA voters, while critics accused him of pushing excessively punitive policies.
But according to The Atlantic, recent months have revealed growing divisions within the administration over how aggressively to pursue Trump’s immigration crackdown.
The report states that Trump backed away from several Miller-backed initiatives after consulting with border czar Tom Homan and other officials. One major example involved a proposal to slash seasonal worker visas by 50%, a move that reportedly alarmed business interests and other administration figures.
“The new secretary is listening to Tom Homan and Rodney Scott before he is ever listening to Stephen Miller,” one senior administration official told Scherer and Miroff.
Another former official summed up Miller’s changing position bluntly: “The president knows who he is, period.”
The Atlantic also reported that while there have been no known clashes between Homan and Miller, the two men have promoted very different strategies for carrying out Trump’s mass-deportation agenda.
Miller has reportedly pushed for maximizing deportation numbers as quickly as possible, while Homan has favored a more targeted approach focused on illegal immigrants with criminal records.
“There have been no accounts of clashes or tension between Homan and Miller, and the former has even praised the latter as ‘one of the most brilliant people I’ve met in my entire life,’” the report noted.
Still, Homan’s influence appears to be growing.
According to the report, the Department of Homeland Security has quietly reversed several changes Miller pushed earlier in Trump’s second term. One key example involved accelerated training for new ICE recruits.
Miller had reportedly advocated for shortening ICE academy training to roughly eight weeks in an effort to rapidly expand deportation operations. Veteran officers reportedly warned that the abbreviated training created serious concerns, especially as dropout rates surged among recruits.
“In recent weeks, ICE reverted to a four-and-a-half-month training program similar to its former academy course,” the report stated, citing three officials familiar with the matter.
Despite the apparent shift, insiders told The Atlantic that Miller remains deeply embedded in Trump’s inner circle and is not expected to leave the administration anytime soon.
“White House insiders said that Miller remains a top adviser to the president, that he has a singular relationship to Trump built over the past decade, and that his job is not in jeopardy,” Scherer and Miroff reported.
The claims stand in stark contrast to earlier reporting that portrayed Miller as perhaps the single most influential policy figure in Trump’s second administration.
A bombshell report published by The New York Times in March suggested Miller had effectively become the driving force behind major Justice Department priorities.
“It was clear from the start that Mr. Miller, who is not a lawyer, would exercise control inside the department, current and former Trump aides said,” the Times reported at the time.
Whether Miller’s reported decline in influence proves temporary or permanent remains unclear. But the emerging picture suggests that even some of Trump’s most trusted allies are now competing for influence as the administration navigates mounting political and public pressure over immigration enforcement and domestic unrest.
President Donald Trump participates in a welcome ceremony with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Al Saud at the Royal Court Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tuesday, May 13, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
President Donald Trump will have his annual medical checkup at a hospital near Washington on May 26, the White House said Monday night.
The oldest person ever inaugurated as President, Trump, turns 80 in June. Trump traveled to China for a summit with that country’s leader, Xi Jinping this week.
Read the full statement from the White House:
President Donald J. Trump will visit Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on May 26 for his annual dental and medical evaluations, and to visit with the men and women of the military. This will include the President’s routine annual dental and medical assessments as part of his regular preventive health care. The President will also spend time with service members and staff at Walter Reed in recognition of their service, professionalism, and dedication to the nation. Additional details regarding the President’s schedule will be released at a later date.
In March, the White House doctor said the president was taking a prescription “preventative skin treatment” to treat irritation on his neck.
Last July, the White House said Trump had been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, a common condition tied to swelling in the legs, but that doctors had otherwise found the president to be in “excellent health.”
