Government

Home Government

Trump Cites Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting To Push White House Ballroom: ‘Cannot Be Built Fast Enough’

Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Saturday night’s shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner highlights the urgent need for a new White House ballroom, declaring the project “cannot be built fast enough” as he renewed his push for the controversial proposal.

The remarks came after a gunman, later identified as Cole Thomas Allen, 31, of Torrance, California, attempted to breach the event at the Washington Hilton, where Trump and senior officials were present. The suspect was apprehended, and a federal officer was injured but survived, officials said.

Trump Links Incident to Security Concerns

Following the incident, Trump criticized the Hilton as insufficiently secure and argued that hosting such events off White House grounds creates vulnerabilities.

In a post and subsequent comments, Trump said the attack would not have happened if the event had been held in a secure facility at the White House.

“This event would never have happened… It cannot be built fast enough,” Trump said, referring to the proposed ballroom.

He emphasized that the planned venue would include enhanced security features such as bulletproof glass and protections against drones, all within the perimeter of the White House complex.

The Ballroom Project

Trump has been pushing for the construction of a large, high-security ballroom on White House grounds — a project estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars and, according to him, funded by private donors and major corporations.

The proposed facility would be designed to host large-scale events currently held offsite, including the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, and would be significantly larger than existing event spaces on the grounds.

Plans call for a 90,000-square-foot structure replacing the temporary tents often used on the South Lawn. The design includes a 22,000-square-foot banquet hall capable of seating up to 1,000 guests, along with enhanced security features such as bulletproof glass and a glass-enclosed bridge connecting it to the main residence.

Reported donors include major technology companies such as Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Google, as well as individuals like Jeff Yass.

Trump has also said the ballroom would sit above a larger underground complex being constructed by the military. That portion, expected to include medical and security facilities, would be funded through federal appropriations.

Legal and Political Hurdles

The project has faced legal challenges and scrutiny over whether proper approvals were obtained.

  • A federal judge previously halted parts of construction pending congressional authorization
  • Preservation groups have raised concerns about the impact on the White House complex
  • An appeals court has allowed some work to continue while the case proceeds

Despite those hurdles, Trump and his allies have framed the ballroom as a necessary modernization tied to national security.

Broader Reaction

The shooting has intensified debate around the project.

Some lawmakers — including critics of Trump — have acknowledged security concerns highlighted by the incident. Others argue the ballroom is unnecessary or improperly authorized, questioning both its scale and cost.

What Comes Next

The investigation into the shooting remains ongoing.

At the same time, the legal battle over the ballroom is expected to continue, with a key court hearing anticipated in the coming months.

Trump, however, appears unlikely to back down — positioning the project not just as a legacy item, but as a direct response to a preventable security failure.

READ NEXT: Acting AG Reveals Who Suspect Was Targeting At WH Dinner

Report: Youngkin’s Trump White House Hopes Dim After Virginia Setback

1
President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

The political fallout from Virginia’s redistricting referendum is reaching beyond the state, cutting into Glenn Youngkin’s standing at a moment that matters for his future.

In recent weeks, the former governor had been floated as a possible pick for a Trump administration role, with secretary of labor among the positions mentioned. He was seen as a Republican who could point to a win in a blue-leaning state and bring a different profile into a national cabinet.

That window now looks narrower.

Timing Undercuts Momentum

The criticism from inside GOP circles is landing at a particularly inconvenient time for Youngkin.

According to Politico’s Dasha Burns, administration officials are blaming him for not doing enough to stop the redistricting measure, which passed by a slim margin and could shift up to four House seats toward Democrats. It’s the kind of loss that gets noticed in Washington, especially when control of the House is on the line.

And it’s not just about the outcome. It’s about perception.

A senior official, speaking anonymously, put it bluntly: “He doesn’t have enough friends here.” That comment points to a problem that goes beyond one referendum. It suggests Youngkin lacks the internal support that often decides who gets a seat at the table.

Burns continues:

Becca Glover, executive director of Youngkin’s Spirit of Virginia PAC, defended the former governor’s efforts, noting he raised and contributed nearly $500,000 to Virginians for Fair Maps and supported the Congressional Leadership Fund and Fair Maps’ fundraising efforts.

“The governor hit the campaign trail making many stops across the Commonwealth from Wise to Virginia Beach to Leesburg to motivate the grassroots to vote no,” Glover said. “He was proud to be part of a team including Speaker [Mike] Johnson and other former governors to get out the vote.”

Glover also pointed to the dozens of interviews Youngkin did and his efforts at retail campaigning.

“He continues to ask that the Supreme Court of Virginia to strike down this unconstitutional power grab,” Glover said.

A source briefed on White House discussions pushed back, saying Youngkin’s actions helped set the stage for the current difficulties facing him and his party in Virginia.

“Look, there’s plenty of blame to go around. But if Youngkin hadn’t left the special session open, Louise Lucas would never have had the chance to ram through those maps,” the person said, referring to the Democratic state senator who played a key role in advancing the redistricting effort. “So he has some responsibility for losing these seats.”

From Rising Star to Question Mark

Youngkin’s appeal to national Republicans has always been tied to his 2021 victory and his ability to win in a competitive state without fully leaning into Trump-style politics.

But that brand cuts both ways.

Inside a Trump-aligned orbit, relationships and loyalty still carry more weight than résumé lines. Another loss in Virginia, even one tied to a ballot measure, gives skeptics more reason to question how much influence Youngkin really has, both at home and in the broader party.

That matters when administration roles are being discussed behind closed doors.

Fewer Openings, More Competition

Even under the best conditions, cabinet-level positions are limited and highly competitive. Candidates need more than a strong narrative. They need advocates inside the administration willing to push their case.

Right now, the signals suggest Youngkin doesn’t have that backing.

The criticism tied to the referendum may not be decisive on its own. But combined with lingering doubts about his connections in Washington, it adds friction at the worst possible time.

READ NEXT: Indicted Democrat Who Resigned From Congress Plans Reelection Bid

Legal Battle Erupts After Judge Halts Virginia Redistricting Certification

3

Virginia’s attorney general is appealing a court order that halted a newly approved redistricting plan, setting off another legal clash with potential ripple effects far beyond the state.

Attorney General Jay Jones said he will challenge a circuit court judge’s decision to block the measure, even after voters narrowly approved it in a statewide referendum.

“As I said last night, Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the People’s vote,” Jones said. “We look forward to defending the outcome of last night’s election in court.”

Court steps in after close vote

The dispute centers on a temporary constitutional amendment that would allow Democrats to redraw Virginia’s congressional districts before the next census.

The measure passed with 51% support, compared with 48% opposed. Still, Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. moved to block it, raising concerns about how the question was presented to voters and when the vote was held.

Hurley had already tried to stop the referendum months earlier. In February, he issued an order preventing the April vote from going forward.

Twice, the Virginia Supreme Court allowed the process to continue anyway. The justices declined to weigh in fully, saying only that the process, not the outcome, could ultimately come under review.

“Issuing an injunction to keep Virginians from the polls is not the proper way to make this decision,” the court said at the time.

What the new map could do

If it stands, the plan could dramatically reshape Virginia’s congressional delegation.

Democrats currently hold a 6-5 edge. Under the proposed map, that margin could widen to as much as 10-1. The arrangement would remain in place until after the 2030 census, when an independent commission would again take over the process.

That potential shift is drawing attention from both parties nationwide.

National fallout and political warnings

Republicans say the move could trigger similar efforts in GOP-led states.

Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested South Carolina should consider a response.

“After the Virginia Democrats’ efforts to redistrict in order to increase Democrat seats in the House of Representatives, South Carolina should consider fighting fire with fire,” he said, urging state leaders to weigh their options.

Democrats, meanwhile, argue the plan is a reaction to earlier redistricting pushes in Republican-controlled states.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger said Virginia voters understood the stakes.

“When we found the results out, I was really excited but not surprised,” she said. “Because it’s been clear for a number of months that Virginians were really motivated to take this temporary responsive stance.”

She pushed back on criticism that the process lets politicians choose their voters, pointing to public access to the maps and contrasting Virginia with states where legislatures acted without voter input.

A broader fight over redistricting

The debate is part of a larger, escalating battle over congressional maps.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries cast the Virginia vote as a direct response to pressure from President Donald Trump, pointing to his push for mid-decade redistricting in Texas as the starting point.

“It was important for Democrats to push back aggressively,” Jeffries said, adding that the party would continue to respond in kind.

But not all Democrats are comfortable with that approach.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) warned that tit-for-tat redistricting could damage the political system.

“The wrong thing doesn’t make it the right thing,” he said. “If we continue to just attack the other side … our democracy is degraded.”

What comes next

For now, the legal fight returns to the courts, where the future of the voter-approved plan remains uncertain.

At stake is more than Virginia’s map. The outcome could shape how far states are willing to go in redrawing districts mid-decade and how aggressively parties respond to each other in the process

READ NEXT: Republican Colleagues Seek Answers After Congressman Goes Missing

DeSantis Mentioned As Possible Trump Supreme Court Nominee

Ron DeSantis via Gage Skidmore Flickr

President Donald Trump has told confidants that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is angling for a role in the Trump administration, describing the governor as “begging” for consideration, according to a report from Axios.

Trump, speaking privately, claimed DeSantis specifically sought the position of attorney general. One person familiar with the conversation said Trump put it bluntly: “Ron was begging me to be AG.”

Private meeting sparks speculation

The remarks followed a private lunch between the two Republicans at Trump National Doral Golf Club in Miami roughly a week earlier. Multiple sources briefed on the meeting said the discussion went beyond casual politics and touched on DeSantis’ future after leaving the governor’s office.

DeSantis is term-limited and set to step down in January 2027, which makes his next move one of the more open questions in Republican politics.

Not everyone close to the conversation agrees with Trump’s characterization. One source described the exchange as broader and less defined.

“There was a conversation at that lunch,” the person said. “I don’t think AG is real. But he’s gonna be looking for work and Trump likes him.”

Competing accounts of DeSantis’ interests

Other accounts suggest DeSantis has different ambitions.

According to Axios, a source familiar with his thinking said the governor has little interest in serving as attorney general. Instead, two roles stand out: secretary of defense or a future seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“DeSantis is 100% not interested in the AG job,” the source said. “But he would be interested in two things: War secretary or Supreme Court, which would be his dream job.”

The same source pointed to DeSantis’ long-standing admiration for Justice Clarence Thomas, noting the two “almost have a father-son relationship.” DeSantis has frequently cited Thomas as a model for constitutional interpretation and has publicly defended him amid criticism from the left.

From rivals to allies

The behind-the-scenes discussions reflect a shift in the relationship between Trump and DeSantis.

The two were rivals during the 2024 Republican presidential primary, where tensions often played out in public. That dynamic changed after DeSantis exited the race and endorsed Trump. Since then, both camps have signaled a more cooperative approach.

DeSantis’ office pushed back on the idea that he is lobbying for a specific job, emphasizing instead that the governor “enjoys a great relationship with President Trump.”

Trump, for his part, has said publicly he would consider bringing DeSantis into his administration once the governor leaves office, though no formal offer has been made.

What comes next

Any path forward remains uncertain.

A Supreme Court appointment would depend on a vacancy, something no administration can guarantee. A Defense Department role would require changes in current leadership. And while DeSantis has not ruled out another presidential run, joining an administration could offer a different route to stay relevant on national policy.

For now, the conversations appear informal and fluid. But with DeSantis’ term winding down and Trump continuing to shape his political team, the question of where the Florida governor lands is unlikely to fade anytime soon.

READ NEXT: GOP Lawmakers And Dems Unite To Block Trump’s Key Policy

Hunter Biden Admits His ‘Bias’ Towards Pardons, Says Founders ‘Didn’t Imagine Trump’

President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)

Hunter Biden is openly acknowledging what critics have argued for months: when it comes to his father’s sweeping pardon, he is anything but objective.

“I’m completely biased as it relates to what my dad did for me. I fully understand how uniquely situated I am in being privileged enough to have received a pardon from my father,” Hunter said in an interview published by liberal outlet MediasTouch.

The admission revives scrutiny over former President Joe Biden’s dramatic reversal on the issue. After repeatedly insisting he would not grant clemency to his son, Biden ultimately issued a sweeping pardon—undercutting Democrats’ long-standing “no one is above the law” message as Hunter faced serious federal charges.

Despite conceding his own bias, Hunter declined to weigh in on potential reforms to the presidential pardon system. Instead, he pivoted to attacking former President Donald Trump’s use of the same authority, pointing to the more than 1,000 individuals pardoned in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol protest.

Hunter Biden was granted an unusually broad pardon covering any offense he “has committed or may have committed” between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 1, 2024—a scope that drew bipartisan criticism.

“I was filled with gratitude,” he said of his father’s decision.

The legal backdrop is significant. In September 2024, Hunter pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges tied to a scheme that evaded more than $1.4 million in taxes. Months earlier, he was convicted in Delaware for lying about his drug use on a federal firearm purchase form.

Still, Hunter sought to shift the focus toward Trump and his family, saying, “I don’t think that the founders ever imagined Donald Trump. I don’t think they ever imagined the Trump family.”

He also attempted to contrast pardon totals: “I don’t think people understand is that, in the first year, I think—I don’t know the exact number—I think my dad gave 80 or so pardons over a four-year period of time. I think that that’s about the number.”

He added, “Donald Trump has given over 1,500 pardons in the first year alone. But I’m obviously—I’m not the one to be, I don’t think, fairly or unbiasedly talking about the presidential pardon vote.”

Trump, notably, did not pardon any of his children during his presidency, though he did grant clemency in 2020 to Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law.

The White House defended Trump’s record, with spokeswoman Abigail Jackson saying he has used his authority to pardon individuals who were victims of what she described as a “weaponized justice system.”

Jackson also criticized Biden’s final actions in office, arguing that “the only pardons anyone should be critical of are from President Autopen,” citing clemency for violent offenders and “proactive pardons he ‘signed’ for his family members like Hunter on his way out the door.”

In addition to Hunter, Biden issued pardons to several relatives, including his brother James, sister-in-law Sara, sister Valerie, and brother Francis—moves he framed as necessary protection against political retaliation.

READ NEXT: Congresswoman Resigns In Stunning Last-Minute Exit

FBI Director Kash Patel Sues The Atlantic For $250M

Image via gage Skidmore Flickr

WASHINGTON — FBI Director Kash Patel has filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic and one of its reporters, accusing the publication of running what he describes as a “malicious” and false report about his conduct in office.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Washington, D.C., centers on a weekend article that alleged Patel engaged in excessive drinking, erratic behavior, and unexplained absences while leading the FBI.

Patel has denied the allegations, calling them “categorically false” and claiming the article relied heavily on anonymous sources with political bias.

In the complaint, Patel’s legal team argues that The Atlantic knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth — a standard known as “actual malice,” which public figures must prove in defamation cases.

His attorneys also say the outlet was warned prior to publication that the claims were untrue but proceeded anyway.

The Atlantic report cited multiple unnamed sources who claimed Patel’s alleged behavior raised concerns inside the FBI and Justice Department.

Among the allegations:

  • Frequent intoxication
  • Missed or rescheduled meetings
  • Periods of being unreachable during critical moments

The magazine’s article, titled “The FBI Director Is MIA,” cited more than two dozen anonymous sources who described a series of troubling incidents.

According to the report, Patel is alleged to have engaged in “conspicuous inebriation” at high-profile clubs in Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas. Officials cited in the article also claimed Patel, 46, has had “unexplained absences” and has frequently delayed or rescheduled meetings and briefings following what were described as “alcohol-fueled nights.”

In one instance, the report states Patel was so unresponsive behind locked doors that his security detail requested “breaching equipment” — typically used by SWAT teams — to gain entry and check on his condition.

The article also described an episode in which Patel reportedly believed he had been fired after being unable to log into his FBI computer system, later discovering the issue was due to a technical error.

Fox News continues:

The lawsuit states The Atlantic, and its staff writer, Sarah Fitzpatrick, must be held “accountable for a sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece published on April 17, 2026.”

It continued, “Defendants are of course free to criticize the leadership of the FBI, but they crossed the legal line by publishing an article replete with false and obviously fabricated allegations designed to destroy Director Patel’s reputation and drive him from office.”

Fitzpatrick reported, among other claims, that Patel has been difficult to wake up by his security team on multiple occasions because he was seemingly intoxicated.

Patel vowed over the weekend to sue The Atlantic for the story. He told Fox News Digital, “The Atlantic’s story is a lie. They were given the truth before they published, and they chose to print falsehoods anyway. I took this job to protect the American people and this FBI has delivered the most prolific reduction in crime in US history. Fake news won’t report it, and their toxicity will never erode nor stop our mission.”

The Atlantic and Fitzpatrick have defended the article, saying it was based on extensive reporting and multiple sources.

READ NEXT: Fox News Stars Pound Vulnerable Republican Over Bombshell ‘Undocumented’ Vote

Greene Questions Details Of Trump Assassination Attempt

Marjorie Taylor Greene -Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, via Wikimedia Commons

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has raised questions about the circumstances surrounding the 2024 assassination attempt against President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, adding to growing debate within fringe circles over the incident.

Greene suggested in comments and social media posts that aspects of the shooting remain unclear, pointing to what she described as unanswered questions about how the attack unfolded and how security failures occurred.

Her remarks come despite official investigations concluding that the incident involved a lone gunman who opened fire at a campaign rally, grazing Trump’s ear before being killed by law enforcement.

As Mediaite reports:

Authorities identified 20-year-old Thomas Crooks as the sole shooter in the incident that injured Trump and two others. 50-year-old rally-goer Corey Comperatore, who was seated behind Trump, was killed, and Crooks was killed by authorities.

Since then, some MAGA stalwarts have joined other critics in calling for detailed information on the investigation into the shooting.

Greene retweeted a lengthy post by Trisha Hope, a self-described “J6 Activist,” in which she questioned the shooting and the legitimacy of the famous photo of a bloodied Trump with his fist in the air yelling, “Fight, fight, fight!”

Greene called Hope’s post an “Extremely important post worth the read and consideration.”

While Greene has amplified claims circulating online that question whether the full details of the incident have been disclosed, no evidence has been presented to support those theories.

Her remarks reflect a broader pattern among some political figures and commentators, including Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, who have expressed skepticism about the investigation’s findings.

Authorities have described the Butler shooting as a targeted assassination attempt carried out by a single attacker. The incident resulted in Trump being injured and at least one rally attendee killed, prompting a large-scale federal investigation involving the FBI and other agencies.

Subsequent congressional hearings also examined security lapses that allowed the shooter to access the rally site, with bipartisan calls for greater transparency and accountability from the Secret Service.

There is no indication from federal authorities that the official conclusions of the investigation are being reconsidered.

However, the renewed attention on the Butler incident suggests it will remain a subject of political debate as the 2026 election cycle continues.

READ NEXT: House Dems Make Shameless Move Against Key Trump Official

Acting ICE Director Resigns

Indian Affairs Committee Hearings to examine Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act successes and opportunities at the Department of the Interior and the Indian Health Service, in Washington, DC on September 17, 2025. (Official U.S. Senate photo by Ryan Donnell)

Todd Lyons, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is stepping down after a turbulent tenure defined by record deportations, internal tensions, and mounting political pressure.

Lyons submitted his resignation Thursday to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, saying he plans to remain in the role through May to help with the transition. His departure comes as Mullin takes over the department following Kristi Noem’s exit.

“Thanks to his leadership, American communities are safer,” Mullin said in a statement. “We wish him luck on his next opportunity in the private sector.”

No official reason was given for Lyons’ resignation, capping a 20-year career at the agency he joined in 2007. He was appointed to lead ICE in March of last year, replacing Caleb Vitello, and quickly became a central figure in President Donald Trump’s aggressive deportation push.

During his tenure, ICE carried out roughly 584,000 removals, a record pace that drew praise from allies and scrutiny from critics. Lyons also faced backlash over high-profile controversies, including the fatal shooting of Renee Good during Operation Metro Surge. At a January congressional hearing, Lyons declined to apologize to Good’s family.

A month later, he said two ICE officers involved in a separate January shooting of a Venezuelan immigrant had made “untruthful statements” under oath. Both officers were placed under investigation by the Justice Department.

Behind the scenes, Lyons navigated reported divisions within the Department of Homeland Security. He was closely aligned with Border Czar Tom Homan on deportation strategy, while other officials, including Noem and former Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino, took different approaches. The split fueled ongoing reports of internal friction.

Homan defended Lyons’ record on Thursday, telling NBC that under his leadership, “ICE achieved a record number of removals in the first year of this Administration, despite unprecedented challenges.”

“I commend him for a distinguished law enforcement career and the countless contributions he has made to protect our country and advance its interests,” Homan added.

Lyons also faced intense pressure from the White House, where Trump and deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller pushed for daily deportation targets in the thousands.

“Todd is a phenomenal patriot and dedicated leader who has been at the center of President Trump’s historic efforts to secure our homeland and reverse the Democrats’ sinister border invasion,” Miller said.

The strain appeared to take a toll. Lyons was hospitalized at least twice in recent months, and current and former officials described him as “visibly upset and struggling” under the weight of the administration’s demands.

His tenure also drew legal challenges. In January, a federal judge ordered Lyons to appear in court to explain why ICE repeatedly failed to carry out court-ordered bond hearings for detained immigrants.

Now, as Lyons prepares to step down, ICE faces another leadership transition at a time when immigration enforcement remains one of the administration’s most politically charged priorities.

Gabbard Sends Criminal Referrals To DOJ For 2 Officials Linked To Trump Impeachment

1
Tulsi Gabbard via Gage Skidmore Flickr

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has referred two former U.S. officials to the Justice Department for potential criminal investigation, escalating efforts to revisit the events that led to President Donald Trump’s first impeachment.

A spokesperson for Gabbard confirmed that the referrals target a whistleblower and former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, both of whom played central roles in the 2019 inquiry. The spokesperson did not specify what crimes were alleged, and any decision to pursue charges rests with federal prosecutors.

The move follows Gabbard’s release of newly declassified testimony and documents that she argues show a “coordinated effort” within the intelligence community to “manufacture a conspiracy” used to justify Trump’s impeachment.

Atkinson’s actions were instrumental in advancing a whistleblower complaint that raised concerns about Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In that call, Trump asked Zelenskyy to investigate then–former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

The whistleblower wrote at the time: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”

Gabbard has sharply disputed the legitimacy of that complaint and Atkinson’s handling of it. Her office said Atkinson relied on “secondhand information” and “politicized, manufactured narratives,” and “did not follow standard IG procedures.”

“In his own words, IC IG Atkinson recognizes that his conclusions were based on a ‘preliminary investigation,’” her office said, quoting testimony in which he acknowledged he had not determined whether the alleged actions “actually took place.”

Under federal law, however, an inspector general’s role at that stage is limited to assessing whether a whistleblower complaint appears credible, not to fully investigate or verify the claims.

In a post on X, Gabbard accused “deep state actors” of constructing “a false narrative that Congress used to usurp the will of the American people and impeach duly-elected President @realDonaldTrump in 2019.”

Atkinson, who was fired by Trump in 2020, previously defended his conduct, saying he had “faithfully discharged” his duties and served “without regard to partisan favor or political fear.”

Democrats quickly condemned the referrals and the broader effort to revisit the impeachment.

Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the whistleblower “demonstrated courage and principle” in exposing Trump’s “efforts to extort Ukraine and falsely smear his opponent.”

“This apparent criminal referral will amount to nothing because no misconduct occurred,” Himes said. “But what it will do is chill future whistleblowers from coming forward… I suspect that is precisely the point.”

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, dismissed the declassified materials as “a nothingburger” and “another sad attempt… to get in Donald Trump’s good graces.”

Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives in December 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress tied to the Ukraine matter. He was acquitted by the Senate in early 2020 in a largely party-line vote and has consistently denied wrongdoing, calling his conversation with Zelenskyy “perfect.”

The latest referrals come as part of a broader push by Gabbard and other officials to reexamine controversies from Trump’s first term, including intelligence assessments of Russian election interference. While some figures connected to those investigations have been subpoenaed in ongoing probes, no charges have been filed.

At the same time, the effort unfolds against a backdrop of renewed political and legal scrutiny surrounding Trump. While prior impeachment proceedings ended in acquittal and are widely viewed as politically unlikely to result in removal from office, they continue to shape partisan divisions in Washington. Any new impeachment-related efforts would face long odds in Congress, particularly given the high threshold required for conviction in the Senate.

Still, the renewed focus on the 2019 impeachment underscores how the political battles of Trump’s presidency continue to reverberate, with competing narratives over the Ukraine episode remaining central to broader debates about executive power, accountability, and the role of intelligence agencies in U.S. politics.

House Dems Introduce Multiple Impeachment Articles Against Hegseth

2
By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Pete Hegseth, CC BY-SA 2.0

House Democrats are taking another shot at Secretary of War Pete Hegseth—this time with five new articles of impeachment tied to the Iran war, even as past efforts have gone nowhere.

Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) is leading the charge, accusing Hegseth of war crimes, abuse of power, and mishandling the Pentagon. The resolution, backed by eight other Democrats, is the latest in a growing pile of impeachment attempts targeting the Trump administration.

Ansari, who announced her plan last week, blasted Hegseth as “complicit” in what she called President Donald Trump’s “devastating, illegal war” in Iran.

The articles accuse Hegseth of overseeing an “unauthorized war against Iran,” endangering U.S. troops, targeting civilians, and violating the laws of armed conflict. Other charges claim he mishandled sensitive information and blocked Congress from getting answers about military operations.

One flashpoint: Hegseth’s use of the Signal app on a personal phone to discuss a pending strike in Yemen—an episode that raised eyebrows after a journalist was accidentally added to the chat. A Pentagon watchdog said the incident put troops at risk and broke department policy, though the Department insists it amounted to a “total exoneration.”

The resolution also accuses Hegseth of hiding details about operations in Iran and Venezuela and abusing his power to go after political opponents.

But like earlier efforts, this one is almost certain to stall. Republicans control the House, and previous impeachment attempts against Hegseth have fizzled out.

In December, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) filed similar articles accusing Hegseth of war crimes tied to U.S. strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats—an effort that never gained traction.

Even so, Democrats are escalating.

The Trump administration isn’t backing down. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson blasted the move as political theater.

“Secretary Hegseth will continue to protect the homeland and project peace through strength,” Wilson said. “This is just another charade in an attempt to distract the American people from the major successes we have had here at the Department of War.”

Bottom line: another impeachment push, another uphill battle—but the drumbeat against Hegseth is getting louder as the Iran conflict fuels fresh political fights in Washington.