Featured

Home Featured Page 2
Featured posts

Trump Files $5B Defamation Lawsuit Against BBC

2
Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

President Donald Trump has filed a $5 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC over its deceptive editing of a speech delivered by Trump on Jan. 6, 2021.

The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Miami. In the 46-page filing, Trump’s team argues the edit gave the “mistaken impression” he called for violence on that day.

“This instance of doctoring–in the form of distortion of meaning and splicing of entirely unrelated word sequences–is part of the BBC’s longstanding pattern of manipulating President Trump’s speeches and presenting content in a misleading manner in order to defame him, including fabricating calls for violence that he never made,” the lawsuit states.

“The BBC, faced with overwhelming and justifiable outrage on both sides of the Atlantic, has publicly admitted its staggering breach of journalistic ethics, and apologized, but has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses,” it continues.

The footage used in the broadcaster’s Panorama documentary spliced together two separate clips, creating the impression Trump told supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

The two clips are separated by 55 minutes in Trump’s original speech, and the documentary also left out Trump’s explicit calls for supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.”

Speaking in Washington DC, the president accused the broadcaster of “putting terrible words in my mouth that I didn’t say” and claimed the BBC “may have used AI” in its investigative Panorama show. He later added: “They actually have me speaking with words that I never said, and they got caught… Let’s call [it] fake news.”

In a statement to The New York Times, Trump’s legal team said: “The formerly respected and now disgraced BBC defamed President Trump by intentionally, maliciously and deceptively doctoring his speech in a brazen attempt to interfere in the 2024 presidential election.”

The fallout has already triggered resignations at the top of the BBC, including director general Tim Davie and BBC News CEO Deborah Turness.

The BBC later issued an apology to Trump for his portrayal in the documentary:

“[W]e accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action,” the statement said.

“The BBC would like to apologize to President Trump for that error of judgement. This programme was not scheduled to be re-broadcast and will not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms,” it added.

Trump’s latest lawsuit follows a string of high-profile legal battles against U.S.-based media outlets, including The New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

Biden Struggles To Raise Funds For Presidential Library

    3
    Joe Biden via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    More than a year after its launch, former President Joe Biden’s presidential library foundation has raised a modest sum, inviting questions about whether the project can move forward as a standalone institution.

    According to a report by The New York Times, public filings and donor interviews reveal that the Joseph R. Biden Jr. Presidential Library Foundation expects to raise just $11.3 million by the end of 2027. The foundation received no new donations in 2024, and its initial funding came largely from $4 million leftover from Biden’s 2021 inauguration.

    As of late 2025, Biden has not held any major fundraising events for the library. The first donor reception was scheduled for Monday, Dec. 15, in Washington, D.C.’s Georgetown neighborhood. The foundation has not disclosed how much it raised in 2025, saying only that Biden has begun fundraising more actively.

    The projected fundraising total places Biden far behind other recent presidents. The Obama Foundation has raised more than $1.5 billion for the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago, which is scheduled to open in 2026. Although the project has faced cost overruns and criticism from local residents, more than $850 million has already been committed to construction. Financial filings have nonetheless raised concerns about the center’s limited endowment and the potential for future taxpayer liability due to rising operating costs.

    President Donald Trump is also pursuing a far more ambitious library effort. Trump plans to build his presidential library in Miami and is hoping to raise nearly $1 billion. His project has already secured land and funding from private donations and legal settlements and received formal approval from the Florida Cabinet in September 2025, though a lawsuit presents potential issues. The library is being promoted as a major civic attraction.

    Biden’s fundraising challenges appear to be compounded by donor fatigue and dissatisfaction within Democratic fundraising circles. Several prominent donors have expressed reluctance to contribute. Longtime Democratic bundler John Morgan told The New York Times, “He’ll be lucky to have a bookmobile,” citing frustration with how Biden’s staff treated donors. Other contributors said they are prioritizing efforts to defeat Trump or were disillusioned with Biden’s presidency.

    According to Axios, Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, further alienated some Democrats, with several donors reportedly threatening to withhold support for the library effort.

    The Biden library foundation is chaired by Rufus Gifford, a Democratic fundraiser and former U.S. chief of protocol. Its executive directors include two of Biden’s closest aides, Annie Tomasini and Anthony Bernal. Over the summer, the foundation hired CCS Fundraising to evaluate its financial prospects. In September, Joe and Jill Biden sent letters to prospective donors inviting them to participate in 45-minute interviews to assess their willingness to give.

    Given the fundraising shortfall, some donors have suggested merging the future library with existing Biden-related institutions at the University of Delaware. The university has raised at least $22 million, including $20 million from the state of Delaware, to build “Biden Hall.” A merger could allow the library project to share resources and reduce costs, though both the university and the foundation declined to comment on whether such a consolidation is under consideration.

    At present, the Biden presidential library exists only as an entity listed on the National Archives website and as a corporate organization incorporated in December 2024. No specific site has been selected, though locations in Wilmington, Delaware, have been discussed. The foundation’s stated fundraising goal of $200 million remains far out of reach.

    Senate Democrats Introduce Bill to Block Trump From Putting Face on Dollar Coin

    2
    President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

    Democratic Senators Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.) introduced legislation Tuesday aimed at preventing President Trump—or any sitting or living former president—from appearing on U.S. currency. Their proposal, titled the Change Corruption Act, comes as the U.S. Treasury considers issuing a commemorative $1 coin featuring Trump’s image in recognition of America’s 250th anniversary.

    The bill, cosponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), states plainly: “No United States currency may feature the likeness of a living or sitting President.” The lawmakers argue that the measure reflects historical practice, noting that U.S. currency has traditionally featured only deceased presidents and statesmen.

    A Preemptive Strike on a Potential Semiquincentennial Honor

    The U.S. Mint is reportedly close to announcing whether it will release a limited-run Trump coin as part of the nation’s celebration of the 250th birthday of the United States in 2026. Commemorative coins—distinct from circulating coins—are historically used to honor major anniversaries, public achievements, and historic figures. Past presidents, including Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, have been featured posthumously on such special-issue coins.

    A draft image circulating within the Treasury Department shows Trump’s profile above the word “Liberty,” a standard placement for American coinage.

    Democrats Frame the Coin as a Threat to Democratic Norms

    In unusually heated language for a discussion about commemorative currency, Merkley compared Trump’s potential appearance on a coin to the behavior of authoritarian regimes:

    “President Trump’s self-celebrating maneuvers are authoritarian actions worthy of dictators like North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, not the United States of America,” Merkley said in a statement.

    He argued Congress must take action to limit the executive branch’s influence over commemorative designs:

    “We must reject his efforts to dismantle our ‘We, The People’ republic and replace it with a strongman state by demanding strong accountability to prevent further abuse of taxpayer dollars.”

    Cortez Masto echoed Merkley’s claims, asserting that any depiction of a living president on U.S. coinage would resemble an outdated monarchical tradition:

    “While monarchs put their faces on coins, America has never had and never will have a king.”

    She added:

    “Our legislation would codify this country’s long-standing tradition of not putting living presidents on American coins. Congress must pass it without delay.”

    ICE Tracking App Maker Sues Over Trump Administration Pressure

    4
    President Donald J. Trump participates in a roundtable discussion on immigration and border security at the U.S. Border Patrol Calexico Station Friday, April 5, 2019, in Calexico, Calif. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

    The creator of ICEBlock—an iPhone app designed to alert users to the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers—has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming federal officials violated his free-speech rights by urging Apple to pull the app from its store.

    Joshua Aaron, the developer behind the app, contends in his complaint that building, distributing, and promoting ICEBlock is “First Amendment-protected speech.” He alleges that Attorney General Pam Bondi and other administration officials engaged in a coordinated “pressure campaign” to force Apple to remove the app, calling the effort an unlawful act of censorship.

    “We’re basically asking the court to set a precedent and affirm that ICEBlock is, in fact, First Amendment-protected speech and that I did nothing wrong by creating it,” Aaron told The Associated Press on Monday. “And to make sure that they can’t do this same thing again in the future.”

    The lawsuit also asks a federal judge to bar any criminal prosecution of Aaron, citing what he describes as “unlawful threats” from Bondi, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE Acting Director Todd M. Lyons, and White House Border Czar Tom Homan—all of whom, according to Aaron, indicated they would investigate him for creating the app.

    He told the AP that one of his motives for suing is “to basically have them stop threatening myself and my family.”

    Why the App Was Removed

    Apple removed ICEBlock and similar apps in October after Bondi publicly warned that the tools endangered federal immigration officers by allowing the public—including individuals seeking to evade law enforcement—to monitor ICE activity in real time.

    Bondi defended the removal in a Fox News interview, arguing that Aaron’s app could compromise officer safety. “He’s giving a message to criminals where our federal officers are. And he cannot do that,” she said. “And we are looking at it, we are looking at him, and he better watch out, because that’s not protected speech.”

    Broader Context: Trump’s Immigration-Enforcement Strategy

    The dispute comes amid the Trump administration’s continued efforts to restore aggressive federal enforcement of immigration law—an agenda that has been a central pillar of the president’s policy platform. ICE has been directed to prioritize arrests of criminal offenders, expand cooperation with local law-enforcement agencies, and counter efforts by progressive “sanctuary” jurisdictions to obstruct federal operations.

    Officials like Noem, Homan, and Bondi have repeatedly emphasized the dangers facing ICE officers on the ground. From hostile sanctuary-city policies to the rapid spread of mobile apps that help individuals avoid lawful apprehension, the administration argues that these challenges make it more difficult to enforce immigration laws and protect communities.

    Jack Smith Launches New Law Firm With Trump Prosecution Veterans

      0
      Gage Skidmore Flickr

      Jack Smith — the former special counsel who led the federal prosecutions of President Donald Trump — is starting a private law firm in January 2026. And he’s bringing reinforcements: former federal prosecutors Tim Heaphy, Thomas Windom, and David Harbach.

      Heaphy previously worked at Willkie Farr & Gallagher and served as the lead investigator for the Jan. 6 committee. Windom and Harbach helped Smith run the Trump election interference and classified documents cases.

      The group says its new practice will focus on investigations and litigation for both public and private clients. They’re pitching “full-service representation” built on “integrity, commitment, and zealous advocacy.”

      With multiple veterans of the Trump-era investigations joining forces, Smith’s new firm is poised to become a magnet for clients facing federal probes or regulatory scrutiny. Their background running some of the most complex, high-profile cases in the country gives them instant appeal to companies and individuals navigating an enforcement landscape that’s grown more unpredictable. And with recent turmoil inside the Justice Department, from shifting legal strategies to rapid staff turnover, demand is rising for lawyers who know exactly how federal cases are assembled.

      The timing isn’t accidental. Earlier this year, the administration suspended security clearances for lawyers at a D.C. firm that offered pro bono help to Smith — a sign of escalating friction around anyone tied to the Trump prosecutions.

      Smith remains under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, which is probing whether his Trump-era prosecutions crossed the Hatch Act’s limits on political activity. But with his exit from government and the launch of a new private firm, he now has room to rebrand himself for civil and corporate work — a shift likely to attract clients facing pressure from the federal government.

      The firm will open its doors next month, but details on fees, initial clients, or specific specialties remain unknown.

      Smith also still faces political and legal hurdles, including a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee for a closed-door deposition on his handling of the Trump cases.

      Erika Kirk Erupts Over Candace Owens Conspiracy Theories

      0
      Image via Gage Skidmore Flickr

      Erika Kirk, the CEO of Turning Point USA and widow of assassinated conservative activist Charlie Kirk, erupted on Wednesday over the conspiracy theories — many of them championed by former TPUSA activist Candace Owens — proliferating about her husband’s death.

      During a one-on-one with Fox News host Harris Faulkner in the closing minutes of Wednesday’s episode of Outnumbered, Faulkner ripped into those profiting off conspiracy theories.

      After Kirk implored the public to keep the site of her husband’s grave private for the sake of her family, Faulkner asked: “What are they—these conspiracy theorists—taking from you right now?”

      Kirk replied:

      Nothing. But I will tell you what they are doing. It reminds me so much of Chapter Six in the book of Nehemiah. He is building a wall, and the townspeople are at the base of that hill saying, “Nehemiah!” calling him all these names, saying all these things: “Come on down!” Every single time, he had the same message—four times in a row: “I cannot come down. I am busy building.” That is how I feel.

      I do not have time to address the noise. My silence does not mean that I am complacent. My silence does not mean that somehow Turning Point USA—and the handpicked staff who loved my husband and whom my husband loved—are somehow in on it. We are busy building.

      And you know what I thought? I thought these people are human. We are all grieving in our own way. They are trying to find the answer to something that happened that was so evil. They are trying so hard. And I get that. We’re doing the same. Anytime we hear a lead or anything at all, we send it to the authorities: Please dig into this. No rock will be left unturned. I want justice for my husband, for myself, for my family—more than anyone else out there.

      So for me, you want to keep telling me to come down while we’re building—I don’t have time for that. But here’s my breaking point: Come after me, call me names—I don’t care. Call me what you want, go down that rabbit hole—whatever. But when you go after my family, my Turning Point USA family, my Charlie Kirk Show family—when you go after the people that I love—and you’re making hundreds and thousands of dollars every single episode attacking the people that I love because you claim they’re somehow in on this? No.

      “You know, I have to say it: I’ve never seen you like this,” Faulkner observed.

      “No,” Kirk responded. “This is righteous anger because this is not okay. It’s not healthy. This is a mind virus. Yes, I believe in our judicial system. I do. We have a hell of a team working on this—excuse my French. But this is not okay.”

      “So you want to put these people back in the box where they’ve been creeping from?” Faulkner followed up.

      “I don’t care what box you’re in,” Kirk said. “But just know that your words are very powerful—and we are human. My team are not machines and they’re not robots. They are human. We have more death threats on our team and our side than I have ever seen. I have kidnapping threats. You name it—we have it.

      “And my poor team is exhausted. Every time they bring this back up, what are we supposed to do—relive that trauma all over again? They watched my husband get murdered. I have no idea how I would have reacted if I was there that day, and thank the good Lord that I did not have to see that happen. But my team—they’re rocked to the core. So why, every single day, do they have to be dragged through the mud, analyzed, hyperanalyzed?”

      She later concluded the segment by saying she has seen the “impact” the conspiracy theories have had on “the people that I love.”

      “And if people think that I was just going to wilt away—I’m not going to sit in a corner, cry, and be in the fetal position. This is a duty to my husband, and it’s an absolute honor, and I will never back down. And so my message to them is: stop. Stop!”

      Earlier this month, Charlie Kirk Show producer Blake Neff announced that Kirk’s friends will be holding an event to refute Owens’s incendiary claims. Owens has turned down an invitation to attend it in person.

      Owens has a reputation for spreading widely debunked conspiracy theories, including once staking her entire professional reputation on the claim that the First Lady of France, Brigitte Macron, is a man. Owens has also suggested that Israel was somehow connected to Charlie Kirk’s death.

      Kirk, who founded the pro-Trump student group Turning Point USA, was shot and killed at a Utah university in September, and his alleged assassin is currently awaiting trial on murder charges. Neff called Owens’s claims “either lies or they are innuendos thrown around with a total, reckless disregard for the truth,” and added, “I would say we have suffered more harassment from these people than we have from Antifa supporters who overtly celebrate Charlie’s murder.”

      He concluded by saying Turning Point will host a live stream to further debunk Owens’s conspiracies and invited her to participate.

      “We wanted to use this segment at the top of this hour to say something important, something very important. For the past two and a half months, there is a topic that has flooded our Freedom inbox. It has been nonstop on social media, but which we have almost totally avoided on this show. You probably already know what I’m talking about, which shows just how ubiquitous it has been,” Neff began.

      Read his full statement below:

      Ever since Charlie’s murder, Candace Owens has leveled a flood of allegations against people at Turning Point USA, people at Turning Point Action, and people who work for this show. She has made them against some of Charlie’s closest friends and against some of his most dedicated employees. She has suggested that Michael McCoy, Charlie’s chief of staff, knew Charlie would be murdered, was happy that he died, and stayed silent because he was told he would be the next Charlie.

      She has suggested Michael is not his real name. It is—I have seen his birth certificate myself. She has called it suspicious that Mikey’s wife, who works at Turning Point, helped plan the campus tour event where Charlie was murdered, which she didn’t, by the way. She doesn’t work on campus events.

      Candace has suggested the Utah Valley University event was unusual and its details suggested a quote “inside job.” She has claimed that foreign aircraft have followed Erica Kirk around the country and that Turning Point has lied about this happening. She has accused us of lying about Charlie wanting Erica to take over for him if he died. She has suggested Charlie’s security team intentionally denied him first aid after the shooting to ensure that he died. She has raised suspicions about the head of our technical team because he took an SD card out of a camera. She has spread absurd claims that Tyler Boyer, who we just had on the show, sexually abuses male interns. She has suggested that TPUSA Faith-affiliated pastors, like theologian Frank Turek, who we’ll have on in a moment, and Pastor Rob McCoy, are part of a military quote “infiltration” of Turning Point, either because they are veterans or because they have family members who are.

      Even if not everyone has been named specifically, though, Candace has effectively tarred everyone here with complicity in Charlie’s death by repeatedly saying he was, quote, “betrayed by,” quote, “everyone.” She has said Charlie’s murder, quote, “had to be approved by Charlie’s friends,” and then suggested those friends might have her murdered too for quote “knowing the truth.” She has made claims of financial impropriety and fraud at Turning Point, adding up into the millions of dollars, which again is not true. Charlie made sure the organization was audited by a third party every year. He personally reviewed and signed off on every expense report and literally every single bill paid by the organization down to a single United States dollar. We have never missed a 990 deadline.

      Candace has made other, stranger allegations involving French paratroopers in maroon shirts, Egyptian Air Force planes flying out of Provo, Utah, and potential underground assassins traveling through unseen tunnels. At one point in early November, she started wildly throwing suspicion on members of Utah Valley’s soccer team for wearing hoodies. I could go on. There is always something new coming up, and none of it ever pans out. Because from the start, there has been nothing there.

      The attacks and allegations from Candace are either lies or they are innuendos thrown around with a total, reckless disregard for the truth, so that Candace can manipulate and string along an audience of people who don’t realize they are being played. Instead of being able to grieve properly after one of the most heinous murders in American history, a murder many of us had to witness, my friends have had to endure harassment from people who have gotten whipped up by what Candace is saying. I would say we have suffered more harassment from these people than we have from Antifa supporters who overtly celebrate Charlie’s murder. And just like a lot of those Antifa members, many of these people take delight in how gross and unpleasant they can be. What our friends have had to endure is not funny and it’s not insignificant. It is evil. I have seen it.

      For months, we have received hundreds, thousands, I suspect, of emails and calls asking us to respond. People have wanted us to invite Candace on the show. But for a long time, our approach was to say nothing. We did that for several reasons. First, we thought that her prevarications were so absurd that nobody would believe them. We shouldn’t have to answer questions about secret tunnels or Egyptian Air Force planes. That sort of thing is just—it’s beneath contempt to respond to. Lastly, we didn’t respond because Charlie always viewed Candace as a friend, and we were holding out hope that she would return that friendship and stop what she was doing.

      But a week from now it’s going to be three months since Charlie’s murder. Candace has not changed her behavior. She has continued to spread falsehoods about Charlie’s friends, and she continues to concoct new ones about new people. She’s using these falsehoods to enrich herself while dividing the conservative movement at an absolutely critical time for this country. And far too often, we here have heard from ordinary people, people who loved Charlie and who Charlie loved so much in return. These people have expressed the worry that we are staying silent out of cowardice or as some sort of tacit admission that some of the attacks are true. Neither is the case. Our silence has never been, and it will never be, equal to complacency or approval.

      Still, we decided Charlie would not allow this to go on. Charlie was not a coward. Charlie was a fighter. Charlie would not allow someone to spread lies about the people closest to him with impunity. And he would feel ashamed if other people were stepping up to defend his friends while he never did so himself. Candace has mentioned several times that the ball is in our court.

      So here’s what is going to happen. In the near future, there will be a livestream here in Phoenix where we address in a clear and comprehensive way the claims and accusations, the false accusations that have been made against Charlie’s family, friends, and the people here at Turning Point. We plan to walk through everything carefully and thoroughly. If Candace is available, we would sincerely welcome her participation in that livestream at our studio here in Phoenix. At this point, we believe the ball is back in her court.

      Our motivation for doing this is not out of any obligation to Candace. It is about honoring Charlie. We feel a deep responsibility to protect his legacy, his work, and the truth. I feel that. I owe Charlie everything in my life. I feel it immensely. And that is why we feel compelled to speak clearly and openly now. We’ll have more on this in the near future.

      Trump Reportedly Promised ‘Sweeping Changes’ at CNN If Paramount Takes Over Warner Bros.

      0

      David Ellison is reportedly already talking about what he’d do to CNN—before he even owns the company.

      According to The Wall Street Journal, the Paramount Skydance CEO told Trump administration officials during a recent Washington visit that he’d make “sweeping changes” at CNN if he manages to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, the network’s parent. The subtext isn’t subtle: CNN is a longtime Trump target, and Trump has told confidants he wants new ownership and programming changes, the Journal reported.

      Ellison’s comments come amid a fast-moving takeover scramble involving Warner Bros. Discovery. After the company accepted an offer from Netflix, Ellison said Paramount would pursue a hostile bid directly to shareholders.

      “WBD shareholders deserve an opportunity to consider our superior all-cash offer for their shares in the entire company,” Ellison said in a statement announcing the move. He argued that the competing proposal would leave shareholders exposed to uncertainty around the company’s linear cable networks business and face a more difficult regulatory path.

      Ellison’s father, Oracle co-founder and Trump ally Larry Ellison, called President Donald Trump after the announcement that Warner Bros. had accepted the Netflix deal to argue that “the transaction would hurt competition,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

      “Trump has told people close to him that he wants new ownership of CNN as well as changes to CNN programming,” added the Journal story.

      Trump, for his part, has never been shy about where he thinks CNN belongs on the media food chain. Earlier this year, he dismissed the network as “scum” in remarks on the White House lawn.

      Report: Trump Allegedly Committed Same ‘Mortgage Fraud’ As Letitia James

        3
        The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

        A new ProPublica report argues that President Donald Trump once signed mortgage paperwork similar to the “dual primary residence” claims his administration has highlighted in a legal fight against New York Attorney General Letitia James—an accusation Democrats say is being used as political warfare, and Republicans say is a long-overdue crackdown on fraud and special treatment.

        According to ProPublica’s review of mortgage records, Trump obtained two mortgages in Palm Beach, Florida, weeks apart in the early 1990s, with each loan document stating the property would be his principal residence. ProPublica reports the two homes sat next to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and were later marketed as rentals—raising questions, at least in ProPublica’s telling, about whether the “principal residence” language reflected his intent at the time.

        A White House spokesperson disputed the insinuation of wrongdoing, telling ProPublica that the mortgages were from the same lender and that there was “no defraudation.”

        What ProPublica Says the Records Show

        ProPublica’s account centers on two adjacent properties on Woodbridge Road near Mar-a-Lago. The outlet reports that Trump signed one mortgage describing a “Bermuda style” house as his principal residence, then obtained a second mortgage for a neighboring property roughly seven weeks later, also attesting it would be his principal residence.

        ProPublica further claims that Trump “does not appear to have ever lived” in either home and that the properties were treated as investment rentals, citing contemporaneous reporting and an interview with a longtime real estate agent connected to the listings.

        Mortgage-law experts quoted by ProPublica reportedly described “dual primary” claims as often legal and rarely prosecuted, but noted that the controversy is sharpened by the administration’s own rhetoric and referrals around similar allegations against Trump critics.

        The Bigger Political Fight: How “Mortgage Fraud” Became a Weaponized Buzzword

        The reason this story has legs isn’t a 1990s paperwork dispute. It’s that “dual primary residence” has become a political cudgel—one the Trump administration’s allies say is about restoring integrity, and one opponents say is about punishing enemies.

        In 2025, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte has been one of the most visible voices pushing referrals when public figures appear to claim more than one primary residence on mortgage documents. In ProPublica’s earlier reporting on the broader “dual primary” push, the outlet described a pattern of public accusations and referrals aimed at prominent Trump antagonists, including Sen. Adam Schiff, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

        Pulte has argued that claiming two primary residences is “not appropriate” and should be referred for criminal investigation—language that has helped set the tone for the administration’s broader posture.

        What the James case was about

        James was charged federally in connection with a 2020 home purchase in Norfolk, Virginia. Prosecutors alleged she secured favorable loan terms by signing a “second home rider” and then renting the home out—conduct they argued was inconsistent with the loan terms. James denied wrongdoing and characterized the case as political retaliation.

        FactCheck.org, reviewing the indictment and public reporting at the time, noted that legal experts questioned why federal prosecutors would pursue a case they viewed as relatively minor compared with typical federal priorities—fueling claims that politics was driving the prosecution.

        Why the charges were dismissed

        In a major setback for prosecutors, a federal judge dismissed the earlier case on procedural grounds tied to the appointment of the U.S. attorney who presented the case. Prosecutors then returned to a grand jury seeking a new indictment—but the grand jury declined to indict, another rare and significant obstacle.

        The controversy included scrutiny of Lindsey Halligan—described as a Trump ally and former White House aide—who presented the case after being installed in the role amid political pressure, with the judge ruling the appointment mechanism improper.

        Supporters of the administration argue the broader point remains: elected officials should not receive favorable terms by misrepresenting occupancy intentions. Critics counter that the pattern of targets, the public pressure campaign, and the procedural problems reinforce fears of selective enforcement.

        Even ProPublica’s critics concede a practical reality: mortgages from the mid-1990s are unlikely to be actionable today. The political impact, however, is immediate: if the administration is setting a low bar for referrals based on paperwork language, the same standard—fairly or not—can be turned back on the president.

        Read the ProPublica story here.

        Democrat Senator Claims Uniformed Military Is Planning Coup Against Trump

        14
        President Donald J. Trump is presented with a 10th Combat Aviation Brigade challenge coin following an air assault and gun rain demonstration at Fort Drum, New York, on August 13. The demonstration was part of President Trump's visit to the 10th Mountain Division (LI) to sign the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019, which increases the Army's authorized active-duty end strength by 4,000 enabling us to field critical capabilities in support of the National Defense Strategy. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Thomas Scaggs) 180813-A-TZ475-010

        This week, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said that he believes the U.S. military could serve as a constraint on President Donald Trump’s administration, arguing that senior uniformed leaders remain primarily loyal to the Constitution rather than any individual political figure.

        Speaking during an appearance on “MS NOW” Wednesday morning, Warner previewed questions he said he plans to ask U.S. Navy Adm. Frank M. Bradley when Bradley testifies Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Warner serves as the committee’s vice chair.

        Warner said his questions will focus in part on concerns surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the administration’s recent military actions, including strikes in the Caribbean. Warner said he trusts Bradley, but raised doubts about Hegseth’s public statements.

        “Remember, this is an administration that has treated the uniformed military with unprecedented disrespect when they were all brought to get a pep rally in front of Hegseth and Trump,” Warner said. “This is an administration that’s fired uniform generals from the head of the NSA, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.”

        He added: “And I think in many ways, the uniformed military may help save us from this president and his lame people like Hegseth, because I think their commitment is to the Constitution and obviously not to Trump. And I expect Bradley to adhere to that.”

        Warner’s comments follow similar remarks from other Democrats who have suggested service members could resist unlawful directives. Earlier this year, six Democratic lawmakers urged members of the military to resist “illegal” orders.

        Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) made a related argument in an interview last month with Don Lemon, saying he has spoken with service members who view their oath as a safeguard.

        “What gives me hope, and I talk to service members all the time. They tell me that I don’t appreciate enough and the public doesn’t appreciate enough that while Congress is not a check on the president anymore, and the judiciary at the Supreme Court is hardly a check, military members have told me, ‘We can be a check,’” Swalwell said.

        He continued: “They’re essentially saying, ‘We’re not going to betray our oath to the Constitution because this guy tells us to.’ While it’s not codified that way — they’re not a branch of government on their own— their honor and integrity might just save us.”

        Former President Barack Obama also addressed the issue Monday, saying he has seen signs of “resistance” within the military to what he described as politicization, while adding he does not believe that politicization has fully taken hold.

        “I would not expect the politicization of the Justice Department or our military,” Obama said. “And I don’t think that’s happened. I think there’s been resistance, particularly in the military, to that, but the degree to which that has been encouraged, you know, that used to be something that I would lecture other countries not to do.”

        Trump Signs Law Delivering First Medal Of Honor Pension Increase In 25 Years

          0
          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 Trump has signed the Medal of Honor Act, a bipartisan measure that delivers the first pension increase for Medal of Honor recipients in a quarter-century. The law lifts annual compensation from $16,880 to $67,500, a major boost aimed at honoring the 61 living Americans who earned the nation’s highest award for valor.

          A Rare Moment of Unanimous Support

          The bill, led by Rep. Troy Nehls and Sen. Ted Cruz, cleared the Senate unanimously last month. Lawmakers from both parties backed the increase, calling it a long-overdue adjustment for service members who put everything on the line in combat.

          What the New Law Does

          • Raises the annual Medal of Honor pension to $67,500
          • Quadruples current yearly compensation
          • Applies to all living recipients
          • Marks the first update to Medal of Honor pensions in 25 years

          Why It Matters

          Supporters say the upgrade brings the benefit in line with the significance of the medal itself. Medal of Honor recipients have long carried symbolic weight in American culture, yet their compensation has not kept pace with inflation or the modern cost of living.

          After the bill passed, Sen. Ted Cruz’s office put out a statement saying: “Medal of Honor recipients are often not retired from the U.S. military and often receive no compensation for the costs of their public engagements. Through these appearances, they share stories of heroism that inspire Americans, strengthen national pride, and support military recruiting and retention. Increasing their monthly pensions is essential to easing the financial burden on their families and ensuring they can continue representing the best of our nation’s values.”

          Looking Ahead

          With the new law in place, recipients will see the higher rate take effect immediately. For veterans groups, this represents a major win and a signal that Congress and the White House can still unite behind issues tied to military service and national honor.