Latest

    Media

    Home Media

    Trump Rejects Paramount’s $15 Million Offer To Settle CBS News Lawsuit

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3
    Image via Pixabay free images

    President Donald Trump has rejected a settlement offer of $15 million from Paramount after he sued the company over a 60 Minutes interview last year with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

    Fox News Digital confirmed that Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle his lawsuit, according to a source familiar with the matter. The president’s legal team is also demanding at least $25 million and an apology from CBS News. Trump’s attorneys even floated another lawsuit against the company.

    Last October, Trump sued CBS News and Paramount for $10 billion over allegations of election interference involving the “60 Minutes” interview of then-Vice President Kamala Harris that aired weeks before the presidential election (the amount has since jumped to $20 billion).

    The lawsuit alleges CBS News deceitfully edited an exchange Harris had with “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker, who asked her why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn’t “listening” to the Biden administration. Harris was widely mocked for the “word salad” answer that aired in a preview clip of the interview on “Face the Nation.” 

    However, when the same question aired during a primetime special on the network, Harris had a different, more concise response. Critics at the time accused CBS News of deceitfully editing Harris’ “word salad” answer to shield the Democratic nominee from further backlash leading up to Election Day.

    The raw transcript and footage released earlier this year by the FCC showed that both sets of Harris’ comments came from the same response, but CBS News had aired only the first half of her response in the “Face the Nation” preview clip and aired the second half during the primetime special. 

    CBS News has denied any wrongdoing and stands by the broadcast and its reporting. 

    The lawsuit is just the latest a string of litigation Trump has brought against media companies. In December, ABC settled a defamation lawsuit by giving $15 million to Trump’s presidential foundation and issuing an apology.

    Trump Announces Pardon For Reality Stars Todd and Julie Chrisley

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    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)

    On Tuesday evening, President Trump revealed he will issues a full presidential pardon to reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley after they were found guilty of fraud and tax evasion in 2022. 

    Todd and Julie, who rose to fame on the reality series “Chrisley Knows Best,” were convicted of conspiring to defraud community banks out of more than $30 million in fraudulent loans as well as tax evasion and sentenced to 12 and seven years, respectively. Their sentences were later reduced. 

    “It’s a terrible thing, but it’s a great thing, because your parents are going to be free and clean, and I hope we can do it by tomorrow. Is that OK? We’ll try getting it done tomorrow,” Trump told their daughter Savannah Chrisley and son Chase, in a phone call from the Oval Office on Tuesday that was posted onto an X account of a White House aide. The post was captioned in part, “Trump Knows Best!”

    “Thank you so much, Mr. President,” Savannah could be heard saying on the call. Chase, through tears, added, “I just want to say thank you for bringing my parents back.” 

    Trump told Savannah and Chase to give their parents his “regards and wish them a good life.” 

    “They were given pretty harsh treatment based on what I’m hearing, pretty harsh treatment,” Trump said. “Congratulate your parents, and I hear they’re terrific people. This should not have happened.” 

    He continued, “They have good children — you’re no longer children, but I’ll say it anyway. They have good children, don’t they, huh?”

    Standing behind Trump was Alice Marie Johnson, whose sentence on drug charges he commuted during his first term and whom he appointed as his pardon czar in February. 

    “Alice had a lot to do with this,” Trump told Savannah and Chase. 

    The Chrisleys’ attorney, Alex Little, told Fox News Digital the pardon “corrects a deep injustice and restores two devoted parents to their family and community. President Trump recognized what we’ve argued from the beginning: Todd and Julie were targeted because of their conservative values and high profile. Their prosecution was tainted by multiple constitutional violations and political bias.” 

    After the phone call with Trump, Savannah posted a video on her Instagram saying she got the call from the president that he was signing pardon papers for her parents while she was walking into a Sam’s Club. 

    “So, both of my parents are coming home tonight or tomorrow and I still don’t believe it’s real!” she exclaimed. 

    She said she will be “forever grateful” to Trump and his administration as well as her lawyers and everyone else who “put in countless hours” to “make sure that my parents got home.” 

    “My parents get to start their lives over!” she added, saying she “vowed to stand next to you and your administration, exposing the corruption and continue fighting for the men and women who are in prison … Thank you, thank you, thank you and I will repay your kindness to every person that I meet, so thank God for a president like Donald J. Trump. Thank you, God, for a president who wants to restore families and loves people … and took the time to call me from the Oval Office to let me know my parents are getting their lives back.” 

    Since entering the White House, Trump has issued a number of high profile pardons including for January 6 defendants. President Donald Trump on Monday announced that he will pardon a former Virginia sheriff Scott Jenkins.

    NPR, Public Radio Stations Sue Trump Over ‘Unconstitutional’ Defunding

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    6
    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    NPR and three Colorado public radio stations have sued President Donald Trump and his administration over an executive order stripping away public funds for NPR and PBS.

    President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this month instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other federal agencies “to cease Federal funding for NPR” and other public media outlets. NPR has vowed to challenge the order “by all means available,” and CEO Katherine Maher took action. 

    The radio stations joining NPR in the suit are Colorado Public Radio, Aspen Public Radio, and KSUT.

    “The Executive Order is a clear violation of the Constitution and the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and association, and freedom of the press. It is an affront to the rights of NPR and NPR’s 246 Member stations, which are locally owned, nonprofit, noncommercial media organizations serving all 50 states and territories. Today, we challenge its constitutionality in the nation’s independent courts,” Maher said in a lengthy statement. 

    “Public media was established to inform the American public and uphold American democratic values,” Maher continued. “The President’s Executive Order is directly counter to Congress’s long standing intent, as expressed in the Public Broadcasting Act, to foster vibrant institutions that achieve that mission, serving all Americans independent of political influence.”

    The lawsuit names White House budget director Russel Vought, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and National Endowment for the Arts chair Maria Rosario Jackson as defendants, along with President Trump.

    Maher said Trump “has repeatedly expressed his disapproval of editorial decisions reflected in programming offered by NPR and PBS,” and “disparaged NPR’s news and other content as ‘left-wing propaganda.’”

    “His Executive Order states that our coverage is not ‘fair, accurate, or unbiased,’ building on prior statements making clear the President’s disapproval of NPR’s news coverage and editorial choices. The intent could not be more clear — the Executive Order aims to punish NPR for the content of news and other programming the President dislikes,” Maher said. 

    “This is retaliatory, viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times over the past 80 years that the government does not have the right to determine what counts as ‘biased,’” she continued.” NPR will never agree to this infringement of our constitutional rights, or the constitutional rights of our Member stations, and NPR will not compromise our commitment to an independent free press and journalistic integrity.”

    Maher said NPR has a First Amendment right to be “free from government attempts to control private speech as well as from retaliation aimed at punishing and chilling protected speech,” and believes the executive order “seeks to force NPR to adapt its journalistic standards and editorial choices to the preferences of the government if it is to continue to receive federal funding

    NPR is asking for Trump’s executive order to be deemed unlawful and unconstitutional, along with reasonable costs, attorney’s fees and “any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.”

    Read:

    npr-lawsuit-trump-executive-orderDownload

    CNN Facing Widespread Ridicule After Cartel Interview Goes Off The Rails

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1

    The lamestream media is at it again…

    CNN is in hot water after an interview with a Mexican drug cartel member took an unexpected turn.

    The interview, aired Saturday, featured CNN correspondent Isobel Yeung questioning a heavily disguised cartel member in an undisclosed hideout in Mexico, according to the New York Post.

    Trump designated the Mexico-based Sinaloa Cartel as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in a January 20 executive order, with the State Department writing that the cartel is “one of the largest producers and traffickers of fentanyl and other illicit drugs to the United States.”

    “According to the Trump administration, you are a terrorist. … What do you make of that?” Yeung asked.

    The masked gangster, wearing sunglasses and latex gloves to conceal his identity, initially responded, “Well, the situation is ugly, but we have to eat.”

    When asked what he would say directly to Trump, the cartel member didn’t take the bait.

    “My respect. According to him, he’s looking out for his people,” the gangster stated, adding, “But the problem is the consumers are in the United States. If there weren’t any consumers, we would stop.”

    Social media immediately mocked CNN’s apparent attempt to elicit anti-Trump commentary from a member of a violent drug trafficking organization.

    “CNN tried to create a scandal and accidentally gave Trump a campaign ad. You can’t script this kind of desperation,” one user remarked.

    “Unbelievably, CNN gives Sinaloa cartel member a chance to throw a pity party about being labeled a terrorist, but the cartel member tells them President Trump is just rightly ‘looking after his people,’” another social media user pointed out.

    Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) suggested, “Let them [CNN] live under the rule of foreign terrorist drug traffickers for a few months. And then tell us how they feel.”

    On Monday night’s edition of Fox News Channel’s Hannity, Leavitt firmly joined the backlash camp when host Sean Hannity asked for her response to the interview, calling it “despicable”:

    HANNITY: Karoline, what did you and the administration make of the Sinaloa cartel gang member interviewed on CNN? Why would they care what he thinks?

    LEAVITT: Well, it was fascinating to me, Sean. I was actually scrolling on Instagram when I came across this interview and it stopped me in my tracks, not just because they sat down with a member of a Mexican cartel that is now designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States government, but because of the nature of the questions of this notorious foreign terrorist. It — it was a softball interview, giving a platform to a notorious drug cartel that has killed American citizens. I thought it was quite despicable. But, again, this is just another reason why the — the trust in the legacy media is at an all-time low amongst the American public.

    Over the weekend, President Trump hit back at Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum after she rejected his offer to send U.S. troops to Mexico to help fight against cartels.

    While addressing reporters on Air Force One, Trump said he proposed the idea of sending American troops to deal with the Mexican cartels facilitating drug trafficking, and criticized Sheinbaum for refusing his offer.

    “She’s so afraid of the cartels she can’t walk … And I think she’s a lovely woman. The president of Mexico is a lovely woman, but she is so afraid of the cartels that she can’t even think straight,” Trump said.

    Sheinbaum said she told Trump at the time that Mexico would “never accept” a U.S. military presence.

    “No, President Trump, our territory is inalienable, sovereignty is inalienable,” Sheinbaum claimed to have said. “We can collaborate. We can work together, but with you in your territory and us in ours. We can share information, but we will never accept the presence of the United States Army on our territory.”

    Former ABC News Anchor Suggests Replacement For Ousted National Security Official

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54325633746/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159707159

    Former ABC News journalist Mark Halperin suggested a replacement for President Trump’s National Security Council after Thursday’s shakeup.

    Halperin said Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff was Waltz’s likely replacement.

    Trump administration National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and other staffers are out at the National Security Council, sources confirmed to Fox News.

    Watch:

    Fox News confirmed Waltz and his deputy Alex Wong were purged Thursday. 

    Waltz, who previously served as a Florida congressman, has come under fire from Democrats and critics since March, when the Atlantic magazine’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg published a firsthand account of getting added to a Signal group chat with top national security leaders, including Waltz, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, while they discussed strikes against Yemen terrorists. 

    Waltz took responsibility for the inclusion of a journalist in the group chat in April, telling Fox News’ Laura Ingraham: “I take full responsibility. I built the group. … It’s embarrassing. We’re going to get to the bottom of it.”

    Alex Wong served as Waltz’s principal deputy national security advisor, who was detailed in the Signal chat leak earlier this year as the staffer charged with “pulling together a tiger team” in Waltz’s initial message sent to the Signal group chat in March, the Atlantic reported at the time. 

    White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital earlier Monday when asked about reports claiming Waltz and other would be shown the door: “We are not going to respond to reporting from anonymous sources.”

    President Donald Trump held a meeting with members of his Cabinet Wednesday, following his 100th day back in office on Tuesday, with Waltz attending the meeting. 

    Report: Paramount Board Clears Possible Path for Settling Trump’s ‘60 Minutes’ Lawsuit

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    A significant step forward…

    A recent report from the New York Times signals that the parent of CBS News, who are set to begin mediation on Wednesday are increasingly inclined to settle the matter.

    CBS News’ parent company, Paramount Global, is currently in a legal battle against President Donald Trump, who filed a now-$20 billion lawsuit last year (it was initially $10 billion) alleging election interference over the network’s handling of its “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. 

    The New York Times reports:

    In an April 18 meeting, the Paramount board outlined acceptable financial terms for a potential settlement with the president, according to three people with knowledge of the internal discussions. The exact dollar amounts remain unclear, but the board’s move clears a path for an out-of-court resolution.

    Shari Redstone, the company’s controlling shareholder, has said she favors settling the case. She is set to receive a major payday in a pending sale of Paramount to a Hollywood studio, Skydance, that requires sign-off from the Trump administration. Any settlement would ultimately require the board’s approval, and Ms. Redstone has told the board that she is recusing herself from deliberations related to the lawsuit.

    Paramount’s interest in settling has dismayed CBS’s news division, in particular the staff of “60 Minutes,” the country’s most popular weekly news program. Four days after the April 18 board meeting, the show’s executive producer, Bill Owens, abruptly announced he would resign, citing encroachment on its journalistic independence and saying Paramount “is done with me.”

    Owens’ abrupt resignation has sent shockwaves through the industry.

    CBS News staffers have been “on edge” since the abrupt departure of “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens, according to a network insider. 

    “Everyone is talking about it, even today,” the CBS staffer told Fox News Digital on Monday, nearly a week after Owens announced his departure. 

    In a memo sent to colleagues, Owens suggested his decision was brought upon by corporate overreach he said impacted his ability to maintain an independent newsroom. 

    “Over the past months, it has also become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it. To make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience,” Owens wrote in the memo. “So, having defended this show – and what we stand for – from every angle, over time with everything I could, I am stepping aside so the show can move forward.”

    Former First Lady Reveals The Trump Policy That ‘Keeps Her Awake At Night’

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    FLOTUS at Fayetteville, N.C. -The Arts Center speech Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

    Former first lady Michelle Obama expressed fear over President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, saying they have kept her up at night. 

    “Now that we have leadership that is sort of indiscriminately determining who belongs and who doesn’t,” the former first lady said Monday during an appearance on the podcast “On Purpose with Jay Shetty,” adding that such deportation decisions “aren’t being made with courts and with due process.” 

    “I worry for people of color all over this country, and I don’t know that we will have the advocates to protect everybody,” she continued. “And that makes me … that frightens me. It keeps me up at night.” 

    “And I and I see that when I’m driving around LA. I’m just looking in the faces of folks who could be a victim and I’m wondering, how are you feeling, how do you feel standing on the bus stop,” she said. 

    “In this current climate, for me it’s what’s happening to immigrants,” Obama said when asked about “recent tests of fear” related to individuals facing discrimination over the color of their skin. 

    Obama noted that the “fear” does not personally impact her as a former first lady who has police protection. 

    “It’s not the fear for myself anymore,” she continued. “I drive around in a four-car motorcade with a police escort. I’m Michelle Obama. I do still worry about my daughters in the world, even though they are somewhat recognizable.”

    “My fears are for what I know is happening out there in streets all over the city,” she added, referring to her hometown of Chicago. 

    During a Monday White House briefing to discuss border enforcement during President Donald Trump’s first hundred days border czar Tom Homan said that under Trump, unlawful crossings were “historically low” and that the border was the most secure it has ever been. Homan drew a sharp contrast to the record number of illegal immigrants that entered the United States under the Biden administration.

    “Every president I ever worked for took border security seriously because you can’t have national security if you don’t have strong border security,” Homan said. “Even President Obama and President Clinton took some steps to secure the border because they understood national security was important. Joe Biden is the first president in the history of this nation who came into office and unsecured a border on purpose. That’s just a fact.”

    Homan accused the Biden administration of weaponizing its immigration policies, motivated by the desire that a future Democrat president would give illegal immigrants released into the country amnesty, saying Biden was “selling this country off for future political power.”

    Watch:

    Contrasting Biden and Trump, Homan said that between 11,000-15,000 people were crossing the border illegally per day this time of the year under Biden, while under Trump, just 178 had crossed in the last 24 hours. During the same time, he said there were 1,800 known “gotaways” under Biden, compared to just 38 under Trump. Homan added that from January 20 to April 1, 2024, Biden released 184,000 illegals out of federal custody into the country. The Trump administration has only released nine total, including four so they could testify in criminal cases and four with extreme medical conditions.

    In total, Homan said that there have been 139,000 deportations under Trump. He added that the administration was prioritizing the estimated 700,000 illegals who have been charged with crimes.

    Megyn Kelly Explains Full Turnaround On Trump: ‘I’m Proud of It’

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    1

    Megyn Kelly, once one of President Donald Trump’s fiercest media critics, is now among his most vocal supporters. In a recent interview on “The Stephen A. Smith Show,” Kelly reflected on her political evolution, describing how she went from a sharp opponent of Trump in 2015 to a staunch backer today.

    Kelly, now a leading voice on SiriusXM and in the podcast world, acknowledged the shift was gradual. She pointed to the contentious period during the 2016 Republican primary when Trump publicly attacked her for questioning him about past remarks regarding women.

    “When he was attacking me for that nine-month period, I really was not his fan,” Kelly said. “It was highly unpleasant.”

    The conflict peaked when Trump, during an interview on CNN, suggested that Kelly’s debate questioning was driven by menstruation — a remark that triggered widespread backlash and helped define Trump’s early image as a candidate willing to attack anyone, anywhere.

    Stephen A. Smith pressed Kelly on how she reconciled supporting someone who once targeted her so personally. Kelly responded that while the attacks were hard to ignore, she ultimately prioritized policy over personal history.

    “Professionally, I fell in love with Trump, the president, because I believed him that he would close the border,” Kelly said. “I believed that he would fight back against the gender madness and get DEI out of our colleges and our woke schools.”

    She contrasted Trump’s record with what she called the “disastrous” presidency of Joe Biden, arguing that Trump’s impact on key issues outweighed the personal grievances of the past.

    Kelly’s support became active in the 2024 campaign cycle. She appeared at Trump rallies, hosted him for interviews, and defended his platform across news outlets and social media. After Trump’s reelection, Kelly has remained a prominent media ally, using her platform to counter criticism from both the mainstream press and within Republican ranks.

    “I’m actually proud of it,” she said. “I’m 100% rooting for him. I’m thrilled I saw the light on him.”

    Watch Kelly’s full interview with Stephen A. Smith below:

    READ NEXT: China Weaponizes Key Resource, Threatening Elon’s Newest Project

    CBS In Chaos? ‘60 Minutes’ Producer Resigns Amid Trump Legal Battle

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    4
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Bill Owens, the executive producer of CBS’ “60 Minutes,” announced his resignation on Tuesday, claiming a loss of editorial independence. The decision comes in the wake of a $20 billion lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against CBS, alleging deceptive editing in a 2024 interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

    As Mediaite reports:

    Owens said Tuesday in a memo to staffers obtained by Mediaite that he decided to step aside because “over the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for ‘60 Minutes,’ right for the audience.”

    Owens is the third producer to run 60 Minutes in its more than 50 years on the air.

    “So, having defended this show — and what we stand for — from every angle, over time with everything I could, I am stepping aside so the show can move forward,” Owens wrote.

    Owens made clear the show will continue without him. “The show is too important to the country. It has to continue, just not with me as the executive producer,” he wrote.

    The Lawsuit’s Allegations

    President Trump’s lawsuit, initiated in December 2024, accuses CBS of violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the federal Lanham Act. The core of the complaint is that “60 Minutes” edited Harris’ interview to portray her more favorably, potentially influencing public opinion during the presidential election. Specifically, the lawsuit points to discrepancies in Harris’s responses about the Israel-Gaza conflict, suggesting that the edits were made to enhance her image and disadvantage Trump’s campaign.​

    Resignation Amid Corporate Considerations

    CBS’ parent company, Paramount Global, is reportedly considering settling the lawsuit to facilitate an $8 billion merger with Skydance Media, which requires FCC approval. This move has sparked internal conflict, with Owens and other CBS journalists opposing a settlement, viewing it as a compromise of journalistic integrity.

    CBS’ Response and Transparency Efforts

    In response to Trump’s allegations, CBS released the full, unedited transcript of the Harris interview in February, asserting that the editing was standard journalistic practice aimed at clarity and brevity, not deception. The network maintains that its editorial decisions are protected under the First Amendment.

    The ongoing situation underscores the tensions between media organizations and political figures, raising questions about journalistic independence, corporate influence and the role of the press in democratic societies. As CBS navigates legal challenges and corporate decisions, the resignation of a key figure like Owens highlights the complexities at the intersection of media, politics and business.​

    READ NEXT: Ex-Fox News Star Jumps Into High-Stakes Governor’s Race [WATCH]

    John Cusack Compares Trump To ‘Killers Of Christ’ In Easter Post, Sparks Backlash

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    5
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Actor John Cusack, once a household name in American cinema, used Easter Sunday to compare President Donald Trump to those who killed Jesus Christ. The post, shared on his X (formerly Twitter) account, quickly stirred controversy and prompted withering criticism from users across the platform.

    Cusack, who achieved A-list status in the late ’80s and ’90s with films like “Say Anything,” “High Fidelity” and “Grosse Pointe Blank,” has become better known in recent years for his political commentary than his acting work. He’s been a persistent critic of both Hollywood’s corporate culture and right-leaning political figures, often using sweeping, inflammatory language to make his points.

    Breitbart’s Warner Todd Huston provides further information and corrects the actor’s historical narrative:

    Of course, Cusack’s simple-minded framing of the death of Jesus Christ is not entirely correct. Jesus was not crucified merely for “politics.” The Jewish leaders who conspired to eliminate Jesus were incensed that he had called himself the Son of God and, therefore, a divine figure. They felt he was engaging in blasphemy. And the Romans prosecuted him for claiming to be “King of the Jews.” That was a crime in their eyes because only Caesar could be king. The question of Christ’s divinity was not as incidental as Cusack wants to make it seem.

    Certainly, Jesus also threatened the political power of the Jewish leaders. But the Romans were somewhat indifferent and did not feel he was all that much of a political threat to them. So, obviously there was a political aspect to the whole thing, but to say it was all just a “political calculation” is an oversimplification. There was also deep religious context to it all.

    The Say Anything star is a constant presence on social media where he often engages in wild-eyed, hate-filled attacks on Donald Trump and anyone else who opposes Cusack’s extremist opinions.

    Last month, for instance, Cusack once again broke out his tired “Nazi” epithets by calling Tesla chief Elon Musk a “Nazi” who is “literally killing people” for heading up Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and looking for ways to cut the bloated and out-of-control federal budget.

    Reactions on Social Media

    The reaction to Cusack’s Easter post was swift. Many users mocked the statement, calling it “unhinged” and labeling the actor a “nut job.” Others accused him of being out of touch with everyday Americans and using religion as a tool for political attacks.

    While Cusack has long aligned himself with progressive causes and anti-establishment rhetoric, critics argue that these kinds of extreme comparisons do more to alienate than persuade. Some pointed out the irony of invoking a religious holiday to make a hyperbolic political statement, particularly one that equates a democratically-elected president to biblical villains.

    A Career Shifted from Blockbusters to Activism

    Once a reliable lead in major Hollywood films, Cusack’s presence on screen has waned over the past two decades. Though he maintains a devoted fan base and occasional roles in direct-to-video flicks, his voice is now more commonly heard online, where he frequently engages in political debates and ad hominem attacks on his political opponents.

    His legacy as a cultural figure from the ’80s and ’90s remains intact, but his recent public statements continue to polarize. Whether this latest post was an attempt to spark discussion or simply another instance of performative outrage, it’s clear Cusack remains committed to using his platform, even if it means drawing fire in the process.

    READ NEXT: White House Responds To Report It’s Seeking New Top Cabinet Official

    123...10Page 1 of 10
    © Great America News Desk 2022