Government

Home Government

House Passes Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ By One Vote

2
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

House Republicans succeeded in pushing through President Donald Trump’s sprawling fiscal package on Thursday, which passed by the narrowest of possible margins – one vote.

The 215–214 vote followed a turbulent 48 hours that saw late-night committee sessions, procedural skirmishes, and lobbying by House Speaker Mike Johnson to get Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” over the line.

In the end, just two Republicans — Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Warren Davidson (Ohio) — opposed the legislation. House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.) voted “present.”

Republicans on the House floor erupted in cheers and applause when Johnson slammed the gavel just before 7 a.m. to close the successful vote.

The bill — titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” adopting Trump’s slogan for the measure — extends the tax cuts enacted by the president in 2017; boosts funding for border, deportation, and national defense priorities; imposes reforms, like beefed-up work requirements, on Medicaid that are projected to result in millions of low-income individuals losing health insurance; rolls back green energy tax incentives; and increases the debt limit by $4 trillion, among many other provisions.

It also does away with taxes on tips and overtime — two of Trump’s campaign promises — among other provisions.

Its passage marks a massive victory for Johnson, who successfully cajoled scores of Republican holdouts — from hardline conservatives to vulnerable moderates — to support the bill before his self-imposed Memorial Day deadline, muscling it through his razor-thin majority.

“This is a big day,” Johnson said at a press conference surrounded by GOP leadership after the vote. “We said on the House floor, it’s finally morning in America again.”

“Today the House has passed generational, truly nation-shaping legislation to reduce spending and permanently lower taxes for families and job creators, secure the border, unleash American energy dominance, restore peace through strength and make government work more efficiently and effectively for all Americans,” he added.

Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Rejected By GOP-Led House Committee

Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    Fiscal fractures within the GOP torpedo Trump-backed budget…

    President Trump’s 2025 budget proposal — branded the “Big Beautiful Bill” — was dealt a devastating blow on Friday when the House Budget Committee voted it down in a 16–21 decision. All Democrats opposed it, but the decisive factor was a group of Republicans who broke ranks, citing concerns about federal debt and spending.


    The Proposal: Sweeping Trump Agenda, Big Price Tag

    The bill laid out a sweeping fiscal roadmap aligned with Trump’s priorities for a transformative second term: deep tax cuts, uncompromising immigration enforcement, increased defense spending, and accelerated domestic energy production. But its projected $2.5 trillion increase to the federal deficit over the next decade drew fire — even from within the GOP.

    Just days before the vote, a nonpartisan budget analysis warned that the proposal would exacerbate the national debt, which already exceeds $36 trillion. As Fox News reports, that forecast gave fiscal conservatives new ammunition to push back ahead of today’s committee meeting:

    The committee met on Friday to mark up and debate the bill, a massive piece of legislation that’s a product of 11 different House committees’ individual efforts to craft policy under their jurisdictions. The result is a wide-ranging bill that advances Trump’s priorities on the border, immigration, taxes, energy, defense and raising the debt limit.

    Emotions ran high in the hallway outside the House Budget Committee’s meeting room from the outset, however, giving the media little indication of how events would transpire.

    Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, who had been at home with his wife and newborn baby, surprised reporters when he arrived at the Cannon House Office Building after he was initially expected to miss the committee meeting.

    His appearance gave House GOP leaders some added wiggle room, allowing the committee to lose two Republican votes and still pass the bill, rather than just one.

    Office of Speaker Mike Johnson, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    In the end, five Republican committee members voted against the bill:

    • Chip Roy (Texas)
    • Andrew Clyde (Georgia)
    • Lloyd Smucker (Pennsylvania)
    • Josh Brecheen (Oklahoma)
    • Ralph Norman (South Carolina)

    Smucker, who initially supported the measure, reversed his position and voted “no” at the last minute — adding insult to injury for supporters of the president’s agenda.

    The vote underscores a growing tension within the Republican Party: Are Trump’s populist, big-ticket proposals increasingly at odds with traditional conservative budget hawks who prioritize fiscal restraint? Only time will tell.

    Democrat Backs Down On Forcing Trump Impeachment Vote

    3

    It’s over…

    A Democrat Congressman is shutting down his longshot attempt to impeach President Donald Trump.

    Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI), who had been facing bipartisan opposition and likely would have seen his resolution tabled, announced on X that he would not be forcing a vote on Wednesday after speaking with his colleagues.

    “Instead, I will add to my articles of impeachment and continue to rally the support of both Democrats and Republicans to defend the Constitution with me,” Thanedar said.

    Thanedar asserted that Trump’s controversial plan to accept a roughly $400 million luxury aircraft known as the “Flying Palace” from Qatar was among the new impeachable offenses that Trump has committed.

    He added: “This is not about any one person or party; it is about defending America, our Constitution, and Rule of Law. I will continue to pursue all avenues to put this President on notice and hold him accountable for his many impeachable crimes.”

    The House had been expected to vote on his resolution within the hour.

    Last month, Thanedar filed an impeachment resolution accusing Trump of committing various “high crimes and misdemeanors” over alleged constitutional violations related to taxpayer funds, deportations, tariffs, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), retaliation against the press, and more.

    Thanedar gave notice on Tuesday that he would invoke privilege, a move that would push House GOP leadership to act on his impeachment resolution within two legislative days.

    However, Axios reported that Democrats privately criticized Thanedar as being a “dumbs***” and “utterly selfish” for pressing ahead with impeachment. The outlet also disclosed how Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) received applause from colleagues during a meeting after he cast the impeachment effort as “idiotic” and “horrible.”

    Taxpayers May Be Forced To Cover Legal Fees For NY AG Letitia James Amid Fraud Probe

    2
    Alec Perkins from Hoboken, USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    New York taxpayers could soon find themselves footing the legal bill for Attorney General Letitia James as she prepares to defend herself against a federal investigation into alleged mortgage and real estate fraud. Buried in New York’s newly approved operations budget is language that opens a $10 million fund to reimburse state officials — including James — for “reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses” tied to investigations launched by the federal government after January 1, 2025.

    Though the budget provision does not mention James by name, sources familiar with the matter confirmed to The New York Post that the fund was included with her case in mind. The fund could also apply to other state officials targeted by a Trump administration-led Department of Justice as it reopens investigations into political and institutional corruption.

    The controversy stems from a criminal referral issued last month by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), whose director, William Pulte, accused James of falsifying mortgage documents and misrepresenting her residency status. According to the referral sent to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, James claimed a Virginia home — allegedly purchased on behalf of her niece — as her primary residence, a move that could constitute mortgage fraud.

    James, who gained national prominence for her high-profile civil fraud case against Donald Trump, has come under scrutiny for what critics now call a double standard. Once the face of the “no one is above the law” mantra, she now finds herself leaning on state funds and a private legal defense to fight the allegations. A spokesperson for her office called the probe “political retribution” and vowed to fight what they characterized as a “revenge tour” orchestrated by Trump.

    But Republicans are not buying the victim narrative.

    “This is what corruption looks like in plain sight: political insiders rigging the system to protect their own, while hardworking families get shortchanged,” said New York GOP Chair Ed Cox. “Tish James used her office to wage partisan lawfare against her political opponents, and now New Yorkers are footing the bill for the consequences.”

    Critics also slammed what they describe as a legal “bailout” hidden in plain sight. The language in the budget states that any state employee facing a federal investigation related to their duties may seek reimbursement — a clause that could be used broadly and, according to opponents, easily abused.

    The legal support fund is likely to inflame already tense debates over partisanship, misuse of public resources, and institutional trust. With New York’s top law enforcement officer now potentially under federal investigation, questions will continue to mount over the ethical boundaries between public office and political warfare — and who ends up paying the price.

    Congress Votes To Make Trump Gulf Of America Name Change Permanent

    0
    By Executive Office of the President of the United States - https://x.com/POTUS/status/1888706337699238047/photo/1, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159501092

    The House of Representatives voted to make President Donald Trump’s name change for the Gulf of America permanent on Friday morning. 

    The legislation was led by staunch Trump ally, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).

    “This is such an important thing to do for the American people. The American people deserve pride in their country, and they deserve pride in the waters that we own, that we protect with our military and our Coast Guard and all of the businesses that prosper along these waters,” Greene said during debate on the bill.

    Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, panned the legislation as a waste of time.

    “Republicans think this juvenile legislation is the best use of this House’s time. This is the only work we’re doing today, folks,” Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said in his rebuttal to Greene.

    Earlier this week, Fox News Digital was told that several GOP lawmakers privately expressed frustration at what they saw as a largely symbolic bill taking up their time instead of more meaningful legislation to move Trump’s agenda along.

    “I’ve heard criticisms from all corners of the conference. Conservatives to pragmatic ones,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told Fox News Digital on Tuesday. “It seems sophomoric. The United States is bigger and better than this.”

    One conservative GOP lawmaker vented to Fox News Digital, “125 other [executive orders], this is the one we pick.”

    Greene hit back at the detractors, however, in response to Fox News Digital’s report.

    “Some of my Republican colleagues don’t want to vote for my Gulf of America Act, which is one of President Trump’s favorite executive orders. They say they would rather vote on ‘more serious EOs.’ Boys are you ready to vote to criminalize sex changes on kids?? Because I have that bill on that EO too,” she wrote on X.

    Inside DOGE: Elon Musk’s Bold Move To Rewiring Federal Thinking

    Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]

    In the history of American bureaucracy, few ideas have carried the sting of satire and the force of reform as powerfully as Steve Davis’s $1 credit card limit. It is a solution so blunt, so absurd on its face, that only a government so accustomed to inertia could have missed it for decades. And yet, here it is, at the center of a sprawling audit by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, that has, in just seven weeks, eliminated or disabled 470,000 federal charge cards across thirty agencies. The origin of this initiative reveals more than cleverness or thrift. It reflects a new attitude, one that insists the machinery of government need not be calcified. The federal workforce, long derided as passive and obstructionist, is now being challenged to solve problems, not explain why they cannot be solved. This, more than any tally of dollars saved, may be DOGE’s greatest achievement.

    When Elon Musk assumed control of DOGE under President Trump’s second administration, he brought with him an instinct for disruption. But disruption, as many reformers have learned, is often easier said than done. Take federal credit cards. There were, as of early 2025, roughly 4.6 million active accounts across the federal government, while the civilian workforce comprised fewer than 3 million employees. Even the most charitable reading suggests gross redundancy. More cynical observers see potential for abuse. DOGE asked the obvious question: why so many cards? The initial impulse was to cancel them outright. But as is often the case in government, legality is not aligned with simplicity.

    Enter Steve Davis. Known for his austere management style and history with Musk-led enterprises, Davis encountered legal counsel who informed him that mass cancellation would breach existing contracts, violate administrative rules, and risk judicial entanglement. Most would stop there. But Davis, adhering to Musk’s ethos of first-principles thinking, chose another route. If the cards could not be canceled, could they be rendered functionally useless? Yes. Set their limits to $1.

    This workaround achieved in days what years of audits and Inspector General warnings had not. The cards remained technically active, sidestepping the legal landmines of cancellation, but were practically neutered. The act was swift, surgical, and reversible. It allowed agencies to petition for exemptions in cases of genuine operational need, but forced every cardholder and department head to justify the existence of each card. Waste thrives in opacity. The $1 cap turned on the lights.

    Naturally, the immediate reaction inside many agencies was panic. At the National Park Service, staff could not process trash removal contracts. At the FDA, scientific research paused as laboratories found themselves unable to order reagents. At the Department of Defense, travel for civilian personnel ground to a halt. Critics likened it to a shutdown, albeit without furloughs. Others, more charitable, described it as a stress test. And indeed, that is precisely what it was: a large-scale audit conducted not by paper trails and desk reviews, but by rendering all purchases impossible and observing who protested, why, and with what justification.

    This approach reflects a deeper philosophical question. What is government for? Is it a perpetuator of routine, or a servant of necessity? The DOGE initiative, in its credit card audit, insisted that nothing in government spending ought to be assumed sacred or automatic. Every purchase, every expense, must be rooted in mission-critical need. And for that to happen, a culture shift must occur, not merely in policy, but in mindset. The federal worker must no longer be an apologist for the status quo, but an agent of reform.

    Remarkably, this message has found traction. Inside the agencies affected by the freeze, DOGE has reported a surge in what one official described as “constructive dissent.” Civil servants who once reflexively recited reasons for inaction are now offering alternative mechanisms, revised workflows, and digital solutions. One employee at the Department of Agriculture proposed consolidating regional office supply chains after realizing that over a dozen separate cardholders were purchasing duplicative items within the same week. A NOAA field team discovered it could pool resources for bulk procurement, saving money and reducing redundancy. These are not acts of whistleblowing or radical restructuring. They are small, localized acts of efficiency, and they matter.

    Critics argue that these are marginal gains and that the real drivers of federal bloat lie elsewhere: entitlement spending, defense procurement, or healthcare subsidies. And they are not wrong. But they miss the point. DOGE’s $1 limit was not about accounting minutiae, it was about psychology. In a system where inertia reigns, a symbolic shock is often the necessary prelude to substantive reform. The act of asking why, why this card, why this purchase, why this employee, forces a reappraisal that scales. Culture, not just cost, was the target.

    There is a danger here, of course. Symbolism can become performance, and austerity can become vanity. If agencies are deprived of necessary tools for the sake of headlines, then reform becomes sabotage. This is why the $1 policy included an appeals process, a mechanism for restoring functionality where needed. In a philosophical sense, this is the principle of proportionality applied to public finance: restrictions should be commensurate with the likelihood of abuse, and reversible upon demonstration of legitimate need.

    DOGE’s broader audit, still underway, has now expanded to cover nearly thirty agencies. It is not simply cutting cards. It is classifying them, comparing issuance practices, flagging statistical anomalies, and building a federal dashboard of real-time usage. This is not glamorous work. There are no ribbon-cuttings, no legacy-defining achievements. But it is the marrow of good governance. As Aristotle noted, excellence is not an act, but a habit. The DOGE team has adopted a habit of scrutiny. And that habit, when instilled in the civil service, is a kind of virtue.

    Here we arrive at the most profound implication. What if the federal workforce is not inherently wasteful or cynical, but simply trapped in a system that rewards compliance over creativity? What if, when given both the mandate and the moral permission to think, civil servants become problem solvers? The $1 limit policy is, in this light, less a budgetary tool than a pedagogical one. It teaches. It asks employees to imagine how their department might function if every dollar mattered, and to act accordingly.

    In a bureaucratic culture where the phrase “we can’t do that” serves as both shield and apology, DOGE has introduced a new mantra: try. Try to find the workaround. Try to reimagine procurement. Try to do more with less. This shift may not register on a spreadsheet. It may not win an election. But it rehumanizes the federal workforce. It treats them not as drones executing policy, but as intelligent actors capable of judgment, reform, and even invention.

    The future of DOGE will no doubt face resistance. Unions, entrenched bureaucrats, and political opponents will argue it oversteps or misunderstands the delicate machinery of governance. Some of that criticism will be valid. But what cannot be denied is that DOGE has already achieved something rare: it has made federal workers think differently. It has shown that even the most byzantine of systems contains levers for change—if one is willing to pull them.

    The $1 card limit is not a policy; it is a parable. It tells us that in the face of complexity, simplicity is a virtue. That in the face of inertia, audacity has a place. And that in the face of sprawling bureaucracies, sometimes the best way to fix the machine is to unplug it and see who calls to complain. That is when the real work begins.

    Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

    READ NEXT: Federal Judge Blocks Hugely Popular Trump-Backed Reform

    Hegseth’s Inner Circle Crumbles — Top Aide Out In Pentagon Shakeup

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

    Joe Kasper, former chief of staff to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, likely walked out of the Pentagon as a Department of Defense (DOD) employee for the last time Thursday as controversy over leaked classified information spiraled out of control. His exit follows bombshell revelations that Hegseth shared sensitive military plans — including airstrike details in Yemen — with unauthorized parties via Signal, an encrypted messaging app.

    The scandal, now called “Signalgate,” has set off a series of investigations and toppled senior aides, including Deputy Chief of Staff Darin Selnick and Senior Advisor Dan Caldwell. Former Pentagon spokesman John Ullyot called it a “full-blown meltdown,” and warned that Hegseth’s days could be numbered.

    Even as the chaos grows, President Trump is standing by Hegseth — at least publicly. But the fallout is exposing serious cracks in the Pentagon’s leadership and raising alarms about operational security.

    Kasper’s abrupt departure marks another blow during a brutal period of scrutiny. Although Hegseth told the hosts of “Fox & Friends” that his chief adviser would move to “a slightly different role” within the DOD, Kasper is officially gone — eyeing a return to government relations and consulting.

    A senior official confirmed the news on Friday, according to a report by The Guardian:

    “Secretary Hegseth is thankful for [Kasper’s] continued leadership and work to advance the America First agenda,” the official said in a statement, referring to Donald Trump’s protectionist policy push.

    The quick exit comes after Kasper was implicated as the orchestrator of a power grab that led to the dismissal of three senior Pentagon officials – Dan Caldwell, Darin Selnick and Colin Carroll – allegedly as part of a leak investigation.

    The administration’s first hundred days created a troubled tenure for Kasper, with anonymous sources claiming he was frequently late to meetings, failed to follow through on critical tasks, and displayed inappropriate behavior, including berating officials and making crude comments allegedly about his bowel movements during high-level meetings.

    “He lacked the focus and organizational skills needed to get things done,” one anonymous insider told Politico.

    Other reports surfaced that the strip club aficionado shared inappropriate personal stories about exotic dancers during classified meetings — one of several reasons he became a liability. He’s now the fifth top aide to leave Hegseth’s circle in just a week.

    Meanwhile, the broader Pentagon leadership is under fire for security breaches, including Hegseth’s use of an unsecured “dirty” internet line for Signal communications — a move that may have exposed critical data to foreign surveillance, according to NSA warnings.

    READ NEXT: Trump’s Deportation Squad Takes Down Judge Linked To Gruesome Pics

    Trump’s Voter Citizenship Requirement Blocked By Federal Judge

    In a controversial decision that critics say undermines basic electoral integrity, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction Thursday blocking the Trump administration from implementing key provisions of its election reform order — including a requirement that individuals provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.

    The Trump administration’s order, signed in March, sought to address the widespread public concern over election security by aligning U.S. registration standards with those used by many developed nations — where proof of citizenship is a basic requirement to cast a vote. Yet, in her ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly sided with Democratic operatives and partisan groups, granting their request to halt implementation of what should be a commonsense safeguard.

    It’s already a felony for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. So why oppose a mechanism to verify that voters are, in fact, eligible citizens? The administration’s proposed policy simply sought to enforce existing law, not change it. But for activists and partisan lawyers, that’s apparently too much.

    Critics of the ruling argue that it demonstrates a disturbing disconnect between legal theory and electoral reality. While the plaintiffs claimed the executive order infringes on the “Elections Clause” of the Constitution — which delegates much of the authority over elections to the states — the Trump order targeted the federal voter registration form, which is a product of federal law and administered by a federal agency.

    Among the more absurd arguments presented during the case was the suggestion that requiring proof of citizenship would complicate voter registration drives at grocery stores and public venues. In other words, ensuring that only citizens vote is too inconvenient for activists looking to register voters en masse.

    But this framing reveals the central issue: voter registration is being treated like a political campaign tactic, not a civic responsibility. If accuracy and integrity are seen as barriers to convenience, something is deeply wrong with the system.

    If the courts won’t even allow the federal form to be updated to reflect current law, critics argue, how can Americans have confidence that elections are fair and secure?

    Ironically, while liberal groups celebrate the decision as a “victory for voters,” many Americans see it as a victory for loopholes and ambiguity. The same people who insist elections are sacred and democracy is under threat are now openly opposing the most basic eligibility checks used around the world.

    Meanwhile, Trump’s other proposed reforms — including tighter mail ballot deadlines and review of voter rolls against immigration databases — were allowed to stand. But with the citizenship requirement blocked, many worry that the core vulnerability in the system remains unaddressed.

    When noncitizens can easily register to vote — intentionally or accidentally — and the federal government is barred from checking, who exactly benefits?

    This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It is republished with permission.

    READ NEXT: President Trump Signs Executive Order Requiring Proof Of Citizenship To Vote In Federal Elections

    Former NATO Commander Goes On CNN To Mock Trump’s Plea To Putin

    CNN Headquarters via Wikimedia Commons

    Retired U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, took a swipe at President Donald Trump’s Truth Social message to Vladimir Putin, calling the public plea unlikely to influence Russian military behavior.

    Clark’s comments came during a Thursday appearance on CNN’s “Situation Room,” shortly after Trump had posted:

    “I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Let’s get the Peace Deal DONE!”

    “Do you think a post from President Trump on social media will actually wind up stopping Putin from launching more attacks on civilians, like in Kyiv, for example, where civilian men, women and children were just killed in big numbers?” asked CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

    Clark replied bluntly: “Well, I think it would be very surprising if President Trump’s tweet would have any real impact on President Putin.”

    The retired Army officer argued that Putin sees a strategic opening, particularly as the U.S. appears to be retreating from some of its longstanding commitments in Europe.

    Mediaite further reports:

    “So this is a moment for Putin, really. It’s what he’s been waiting for,” he continued. “This gives him a clear field to bring pressure to bear against Ukrainian population like this missile strike, and also to go to his allies, China, North Korea, and Iran, and say, ‘Give me more, give me more. This is the moment we can go.”

    “We know there are exercises being prepared for this summer in Belarus. Rumors of brigades being ready to attack from Belarus into Kaliningrad to open that gate. This is a really perilous time for Europe. And it’s the opposite time to be pulling back,” he said.

    “What President Trump should be saying is, ‘Since you did this, I’m reinforcing U.S. Military assistance to Kyiv, and you can forget about it. We’re going to stay with it until you realize you’re not going to win militarily,’” Clark advised Trump. That’s what it’s going to take to bring peace to Ukraine.”

    Trump had pledged to end the Russian invasion of Ukraine within 24 hours of being elected, but he and his diplomatic team have thus far found it difficult to broker a peace agreement with Russia and Ukraine, going so far as to suggest they will give up any efforts recently.

    READ NEXT: Trump Pushes To Revive Sweeping Ban – Supreme Court Now Involved

    Trump’s Patience With Zelensky Evaporates As White House Issues Dire Warning

    By President Of Ukraine - https://www.flickr.com/photos/165930373@N06/54169325552/, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=156221279

    President Trump’s growing frustration with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky came to a head on Wednesday. At the center of the tension: a statement from Zelensky demanding full Russian withdrawal — including from Crimea — before even sitting down for peace talks.

    While the Ukrainian leader remains steadfast in his refusal to negotiate without a complete rollback of Russian control, critics argue that this kind of rigid posture may be stalling real progress and prolonging the war’s human cost.

    The Trump team has been exploring more pragmatic solutions to break the deadlock — one of which includes floating the idea of formally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. It’s a bold play meant to strip away one of the biggest barriers to getting both sides to the table.

    As the New York Post explains, Trump’s dire warning to the Ukrainian president included a particularly ominous comment: settle for a negotiated peace or risk “losing the entire country.”

    Trump, 78, was responding to Zelensky telling reporters Tuesday that “Ukraine will not legally recognize the [Russian] occupation of Crimea” — a key part of a US-proposed peace plan under discussion in London Wednesday, and a condition that has long been a red line for Kyiv.

    “This statement is very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama, and is not even a point of discussion,” the president seethed on Truth Social. 

    “Nobody is asking Zelenskyy to recognize Crimea as Russian Territory but, if he wants Crimea, why didn’t they fight for it eleven years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired?”

    Trump a decade ago criticized Obama for not intervening when Russia annexed Crimea. Kyiv has been working since 2014 to get its territory back and expel Russians from eastern Ukraine.

    In a bid to end the grinding, trench-style war in Ukraine, the Trump administration is preparing to upend more than eight decades of U.S. foreign policy.

    “There’s a doctrine out there called the Welles Declaration, that goes back to 1940, that says the United States will not acknowledge the occupation of a foreign land by another nation,” a senior administration official told the Post. “That’s on the table.”

    The Welles Doctrine, first invoked to condemn the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, has long guided America’s refusal to recognize territorial seizures. Reversing or softening that position would mark a historic shift — one aimed at pressuring Ukraine and Russia toward a negotiated ceasefire.

    The move, while politically explosive, is rooted in realpolitik. Crimea has been effectively under Russian control since 2014, and there’s an argument to be made that clinging to pre-2014 maps may be standing in the way of saving lives today.

    Predictably, the proposal sparked outrage in Kyiv. For Ukrainians, Crimea isn’t just land — it’s a Maryland size chunk of heritage, identity and pride.

    But an important question remains: At what point does principled resistance become strategic blindness?

    READ NEXT: Fox News Star UNLOADS On Democrat Rep In Explosive Clash [WATCH]