Marjorie Taylor Greene -Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, via Wikimedia Commons
CNN contributor and veteran Republican strategist Scott Jennings delivered a blunt assessment of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) during a rare appearance on ABC’s This Week, arguing that Greene’s recent attacks on President Donald Trump stem more from personal frustration than from any serious ideological break within the MAGA movement.
Jennings appeared on the program to promote his new book when anchor Jonathan Karl asked him about what Karl described as a “burgeoning split” inside MAGA-world — a narrative increasingly pushed by legacy media outlets eager to frame Republican politics as unstable heading into a pivotal election year.
“The, kind of, divide in MAGA,” Karl said. “Which is a relatively new phenomenon — I mean, there was always a little bit there, but …if I were to say what the most surprising story [of the year] was, I would say Marjorie Taylor Greene becomes not just a Trump critic, but a—”
Jennings interrupted with a jab that immediately cut through the premise.
“MTG becomes a lib!” Jennings said.
While clearly tongue-in-cheek, the comment underscored what many Republicans see as an overreaction to Greene’s recent criticisms of Trump and the party leadership. In recent months, Greene has publicly complained about what she characterizes as broken promises from Republican leadership, lack of follow-through on conservative priorities, and Trump’s decision not to endorse her for a potential statewide run in Georgia.
Jennings suggested that the dispute is less about policy and more about political disappointment.
“She got a little bent out of shape because the president wouldn’t support her for a statewide office in Georgia — which she was going to lose if she had gotten into it, by the way,” Jennings said. “And so she goes off the deep end.”
Greene’s criticism of Trump has surprised many grassroots conservatives, given her long history as one of his most vocal and reliable defenders in Congress. Her sharp turn has included public complaints about Republican leadership, warnings about “uniparty” influence, and suggestions that the party has failed to fully deliver on the America First agenda — rhetoric that has resonated with some activists but raised eyebrows among party strategists.
That unease only deepened following Greene’s unexpected announcement that she would resign from Congress, a move that stunned allies and critics alike. While Greene framed her departure as a rejection of what she called a broken institution, many Republicans interpreted it as a sign of frustration rather than a serious realignment within the conservative movement.
Jennings, for his part, rejected the idea that Greene’s break signals meaningful fractures within MAGA or the Republican base more broadly.
“Look, I don’t think these divisions and all this fraying are as big a deal as some people make it out to be,” Jennings said. “Trump is still extraordinarily popular among Republicans. He’s the strongest party boss in the modern era. And he can get his allies in Congress to do most anything he wants them to do — which is why I think in the coming year they really ought to spend some time trying to codify … his executive orders and some of the other initiatives that he’s had, really try to make it stick and really fight it out.”
Jennings argued that Republicans would be better served focusing on governing and locking in Trump-era policies rather than amplifying internal disagreements that the media is eager to exploit.
“Because I think a lot of the things he did would actually be pretty popular political debates to have,” he added.
The Fox & Friends co-host recently broke with several conservative allies after blasting President Trump’s newly unveiled “Presidential Walk of Fame” plaques at the White House, warning the displays go too far — and could come back to haunt Republicans.
Installed along the White House Colonnade, the plaques feature blunt and often mocking descriptions of former presidents. While some on the right have praised the move as funny and overdue, Kilmeade says it crosses a line.
“I’m not for this at all,” he said.
Brian Kilmeade is not a fan of Trump’s “trolling” with the Presidential Walk of Fame plaques:
The displays take direct aim at multiple Trump predecessors:
Joe Biden: Replaced with an autopen image and labeled “by far, the worst President in American history.”
Barack Obama: Called “one of the most divisive political figures in American history.”
Bill Clinton: Noted mainly for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Trump.
George W. Bush: Also targeted with critical commentary.
The plaques first sparked debate on The Five, where Jessica Tarlov called them “repulsive behavior.”
Why Kilmeade objects
Kilmeade warned that today’s trolling could become tomorrow’s problem.
“They’re just going to mock President Trump or put something on his plaque,” he said, arguing the displays could fuel endless political payback as power shifts.
He was especially critical of the autopen image used for Biden.
“I am not for the autopen,” Kilmeade said, calling it juvenile and unfit for a historic setting.
“If you’re going to do it,” he added, “just put the profiles up there.”
History — and consequences
Kilmeade also noted that presidential reputations often change, pointing to Ulysses S. Grant as a leader once derided but later reassessed.
Even so, he made clear he opposes using the White House for political trolling.
“I don’t think it’s going to happen with Joe Biden,” he said, “but I am not for the trolling.”
Conservatives divided
Kilmeade’s stance puts him at odds with Fox colleagues Jesse Watters and Greg Gutfeld, who defended the plaques as entertaining and brushed off concerns about decorum or future blowback.
What do you think? Is this harmless trolling that is long overdue in response to the left’s taunts, or is it inappropriate for the president to display on the side of the White House? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., accused President Donald Trump of “mental incapacity” during a recent interview with ABC News—despite admitting she did not actually watch his speech to the nation.
“I didn’t even think about his speech, but I did see some of it in the news afterward, and I think it was a demonstration of his mental incapacity,” Pelosi told ABC’s Jonathan Karl in a clip that aired Sunday on This Week.
Pelosi said she chose not to watch the address, explaining that she had “had enough” of the president. Still, she did not hesitate to publicly criticize Trump, continuing a pattern of weighing in on his presidency even when acknowledging she lacked firsthand exposure to the event in question.
When pressed by Karl to explain her remarks, Pelosi added, “Well, that was a ridiculous speech. Of course, we were all offended because of what he said about Rob Reiner… and Michele just a few days before, after the tragedy. Something’s wrong there, and something’s wrong with the people around him that they don’t stop him from his ridiculousness.”
During the speech, Trump said he had brought the nation back from “the brink of ruin” in less than a year back in office, sharply criticized Democrats, and touted that he had made America the “hottest country” in the world. As expected, reactions to the politically charged address largely fell along partisan lines, as Trump continues to face negative polling on the nation’s economic outlook.
Pelosi’s attack on Trump’s mental capacity comes with notable irony, given her role in 2024 in pressuring President Joe Biden to step aside as the Democratic nominee—a move that fractured their long-standing political relationship.
Before Biden’s disastrous debate performance against Trump last June, Pelosi had been one of the most vocal defenders of Biden’s mental sharpness. She publicly dismissed concerns about his cognitive decline and criticized a Wall Street Journal report detailing issues behind the scenes.
Earlier that year, Pelosi praised Biden as “very sharp” and “always on the ball.”
However, according to a book by Chris Whipple, Pelosi privately told a friend that Biden had “lost a step” last year. After Biden’s debate struggles became impossible to ignore, Pelosi’s carefully worded comments on Morning Joe—which avoided endorsing his insistence on staying in the race—signaled that her confidence had waned.
Biden ultimately dropped out of the race, but the fallout with Pelosi has lingered. The two longtime allies have not spoken since.
Pelosi has consistently maintained that she did not push Biden to withdraw, claiming instead that she merely urged him to look honestly at polling data showing the steep odds he faced.
Still, her latest remarks underscore a familiar dynamic: Pelosi distancing herself from accountability for her years of Democratic leadership failures while remaining eager to criticize President Trump—this time without even watching the speech she condemned.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made clear Sunday on ABC News’s This Week that he does not see Vice President JD Vance as someone he would support in a hypothetical 2028 presidential bid, underscoring deep philosophical differences over trade and the future direction of the GOP.
When asked whether he views Vance — widely viewed within GOP circles as a leading contender to carry the Republican banner after President Donald Trump — as the so-called heir apparent, Paul was direct about the limits of their alignment.
“I think there needs to be representatives in the Republican Party who still believe international trade is good, who still believe in free market capitalism, who still believe in low taxes,” Paul said, emphasizing his long-standing libertarian philosophy.
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Pressed on whether that description fits Vance, Paul answered, “No.”
Paul lamented what he sees as a shift in GOP economic thinking — away from traditional free-market conservatism toward protectionist policies that embrace tariffs.
“It used to separate conservatives and liberals that conservatives thought it was a spending problem — we didn’t want less revenue, we wanted less spending,” he said. “But now all these pro-tariff protectionists, they love taxes. And so they tax, tax, tax, and then they brag about all the revenue coming in. That has never been a conservative position.”
Paul said he intends to continue championing a free-market, low-tax wing of the party and will let time — and voters — determine where GOP leadership settles.
Context: Trump, Vance, and a Fractured GOP
Vance’s position as a prominent Trump loyalist — often touted by MAGA-aligned activists as the next leader of the movement — stands in contrast to Paul’s more classical libertarian outlook. Trump and Vance have worked closely throughout the administration, and Trump himself has suggested both Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio would make strong contenders in 2028, even as speculation swirls about Trump’s own future political plans.
Paul and Vance’s disagreements aren’t limited to trade. Earlier in 2025, Paul publicly criticized Vance’s support for a controversial U.S. military strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug-smuggling vessel — going so far as to call the actions Vance defended “despicable and thoughtless” for celebrating lethal force without due process. This public spar highlights deeper philosophical divides between the libertarian wing of the party and its more interventionist or nationalist elements.
Those tensions reflect a broader conversation within the GOP about its core principles — from foreign policy to economic strategy — as the party prepares for post-Trump leadership.
Erika Kirk Endorses Vance for 2028
Adding to the political backdrop, Erika Kirk — the widow of conservative activist and Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk and the organization’s CEO — officially endorsed Vice President Vance for president in 2028 during the group’s annual AmericaFest conference in Phoenix.
Kirk, speaking to thousands of activists, pledged Turning Point’s powerful grassroots support and framed Vance as a continuation of her husband’s conservative legacy:
“We are going to get my husband’s friend JD Vance elected for 48 in the most resounding way possible.”
Her endorsement — and Turning Point’s mobilization capacity on campuses and with younger conservatives — could be a significant boost in the early stages of a national campaign, even though Vance has not yet announced a formal campaign bid
Vice President JD Vance had two choice words for racist troll Nick Fuentes and others like MS NOW host Jen Psaki, who have made comments about the second lady: “Eat s–t.”
“Let me be clear. Anyone who attacks my wife, whether their name is Jen Psaki or Nick Fuentes, can eat s–t,” Vance told UnHerd in an interview published Sunday.
“That’s my official policy as vice president of the United States.”
He then told writer Sohrab Ahmari that “all forms of ethnic hatred” including antisemitism have “no place in the conservative movement.”
Vance’s response comes after Fuentes bashed him for being a “race traitor” for marrying his wife; Usha Vance is an American citizen born in San Diego to two Hindu Indian immigrants. Fuentes has also used derogatory terms about Indians to describe The Second Lady.
The vice president’s comments were published a few hours after he told the crowd at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest that President Donald Trump had wisely “relegated DEI to the dustbin of history.”
Vance said DEI is antithetical to American values and a meritocratic society — which made it an easy target for the second Trump Administration.
“We don’t treat anybody different because of their race or their sex,” Vance told the Phoenix crowd.
Vance continued his message about unity:
In the United States of America, you don’t have to apologize for being white anymore.
And if you’re an Asian, you don’t have to talk around your skin color when you’re applying for college. Because we judge people based on who they are, not on ethnicity and things they can’t control.
We don’t persecute you for being male, for being straight, for being gay, for being anything. The only thing that we demand is that you be a great American patriot. And if you’re that. you’re very much on our team.
Watch:
JD VANCE: "In the United States of America, you don't have to apologize for being white anymore."pic.twitter.com/Kam96xWa1o
Those comments were also well-received by the arena. His remark on white men comes a few days after a viral Compact article reported a number of professional fields had “gatekeepers [who] promised extra consideration to anyone who wasn’t a white man.”
Vice President Vance touted a number of accomplishments he said the Trump Administration has had in less than a year, including closing down the southern border. He said the crowd must continue to support the “America First Party” — echoing Donald Trump Jr., who earlier in the day said the Republican Party was no longer a thing.
Trump Jr. said it is a new era for the conservative movement — one that is constantly under attack from the Democratic Party and Republicans In Name Only (RINOs). He said those attacks are ramping up as both parties plow towards the 2026 midterm elections.
Here is what the told the AmFest crowd:
Midterms are coming around the corner and make no mistake, the Democrat Party wants to do whatever they possibly can to shut this movement down. Not just the Democrats. The RINOs.
You see the manufactured attacks on JD [Vance], myself, my father — anyone who understands that this isn’t the Republican Party anymore. It’s the America First Party. It’s the Make America Great Again Party. And we are not going back!
Watch:
🇺🇸 DON JR: "THIS ISN’T THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ANYMORE – IT’S THE AMERICA FIRST PARTY"
Don Jr. kept the fire going, this time taking aim at both Democrats and establishment Republicans, or as he calls them, “RINOs.”
By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54581054338/, Public Domain,
TikTok has secured a last-minute lifeline.
The social media giant reached a binding agreement Thursday with a Trump-backed group of U.S. and global investors, restructuring its American operations in an effort to avoid a nationwide ban and remain available to its 170 million U.S. users.
Under the agreement with its Chinese parent ByteDance, the hugely popular social media app will shift control of its core U.S. operations to a newly created joint venture majority-owned by American investors.
TikTok’s U.S. business will be placed under a newly created company, TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC, majority-owned by American investors including Oracle, Silver Lake, and MGX. ByteDance will retain a 19.9% stake — the maximum allowed under U.S. law.
The new entity will control sensitive areas like user data, algorithms, and content moderation, while ByteDance continues to handle advertising and e-commerce through separate units. Oracle will act as a trusted security partner, hosting U.S. data and monitoring compliance.
The move comes after years of mounting pressure from Washington. A 2024 bipartisan law forced ByteDance to divest TikTok’s U.S. operations or face a ban, putting the platform on borrowed time after repeated deadline extensions.
Trump and other supporters argue the deal protects national security without wiping out one of the country’s most influential tech platforms. Critics remain skeptical, warning that ByteDance’s continued involvement could still pose risks.
At the heart of the TikTok debate is China.
ByteDance operates under Chinese laws that can force companies to turn over user data, intensifying fears in Washington that information on millions of Americans could — or may already — be in Beijing’s hands.
National security officials and lawmakers warn that such data could have military value, raising concerns about potential access by the Chinese Communist Party.
The White House has confirmed that Oracle, co-founded by Trump ally Larry Ellison, will license a copy of TikTok’s powerful recommendation algorithm and expand its existing role managing the data of the app’s 170 million U.S. users. A potential ban was hinged on national security concerns.
In September, Trump said he had spoken directly with China’s leader, adding: “I had a very good talk with President Xi [Jinping]” and “he gave us the go ahead.” A month later, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared that Washington and Beijing had “reached a final deal on TikTok.”
During his first term, Trump threatened to ban TikTok outright in 2020. Congress later passed legislation forcing a sale or shutdown over security fears, which former President Joe Biden signed into law in April 2024. The ban was due to take effect in January 2025, but was repeatedly delayed by Trump as negotiations continued.
Not everyone is on board, however. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) panned the deal in a post on BlueSky late Thursday: “First Paramount/CBS and now TikTok. Trump wants to hand over even more control of what you watch to his billionaire buddies. Americans deserve to know if the president struck another backdoor deal for this billionaire takeover of TikTok.”
If regulators sign off, the deal is expected to close by Jan. 22, 2026. TikTok says users shouldn’t notice any immediate changes — but scrutiny of the platform is far from over.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has claimed she would “stomp” JD Vance in a presidential election.
Ocasio-Cortez, the Left-wing congresswoman, made the claim hours after sharing a poll — conducted by The Argument and Verasight and released Tuesday — found Ocasio-Cortez leading Vance 51% to 49%, a difference within the survey’s 2.7-percentage-point margin of error, making the two candidates statistically tied. Respondents were asked how they would vote if the election were held between the New York Democrat and the Republican vice president.
When asked about the poll as she left the US Capitol on Wednesday evening, she initially downplayed its significance.
“These polls like three years out… they are what they are,” she told a reporter, who filmed the encounter.
“But let the record show I would stomp him – I would stomp him!” she added, laughing as she walked off and entered a waiting car.
Ocasio-Cortez, often known by her initials “AOC”, is seen as one of the frontrunners in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028.
The poll — conducted by The Argument and Verasight and released Tuesday — found Ocasio-Cortez leading Vance 51% to 49%, a difference within the survey’s 2.7-percentage-point margin of error, making the two candidates statistically tied. Respondents were asked how they would vote if the election were held between the New York Democrat and the Republican vice president.
Neither Ocasio-Cortez nor Vance has formally announced a 2028 campaign, but both are widely viewed as potential contenders to lead their respective parties. Ocasio-Cortez, first elected to Congress in 2018, has become one of the most prominent progressive voices in national politics. Vance, a former U.S. senator from Ohio and bestselling author, joined the GOP ticket in 2024 and became vice president after Donald Trump returned to the White House.
Demographic Splits Highlight Each Candidate’s Base
The poll found that Vance maintains a substantial advantage with white voters, leading Ocasio-Cortez 57% to 43% in that demographic. Ocasio-Cortez, however, holds wide leads among voters of color, including 79% support among Black voters and 64% among Hispanic voters. (RELATED: Democrats Win Miami Mayor’s Office After Nearly 30 Years Out Of Power)
Those patterns reflect longstanding partisan alignments: Republicans have consistently performed strongly with white voters in recent presidential contests, while Democrats have relied heavily on support from Black and Hispanic voters, though margins among the latter group have narrowed in recent years.
Standings Within Their Parties
Although Ocasio-Cortez polls competitively in a general election hypothetical, recent Democratic primary surveys show her trailing more established national figures, including former Vice President Kamala Harris and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. This suggests she would face a difficult path in a crowded primary field.
Another recent survey testing a three-way hypothetical between California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Vance, and Ocasio-Cortez found Newsom leading with 36%, with Ocasio-Cortez and Vance tied at 34% each.
On the Republican side, speculation around the 2028 field remains fluid. Asked in October which Republicans might consider a future presidential run, President Donald Trump told reporters, “We have great people… We have JD, obviously, the vice president is great. I think [Secretary of State] Marco’s [Rubio] great. I think I’m not sure if anybody would run against those. I think if they ever formed a group, it would be unstoppable. I really do. I believe that. I would love to do it. I have my best numbers ever.”
Trump, who returned to the presidency in 2025 after previously serving from 2017 to 2021, remains subject to the constitutional limits of the 22nd Amendment, which states that “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” The provision clearly bars any individual from winning a third term, but its application to Trump’s unique electoral history has become a matter of legal dispute.
Constitutional scholars and legal analysts differ on how the amendment should be interpreted in Trump’s case, particularly whether his two election victories — in 2016 and 2024 — preclude him from pursuing future campaigns. Several lawsuits filed in 2025 seek judicial rulings enforcing the 22nd Amendment against Trump’s eligibility to appear on future ballots. Those cases are pending in federal courts and are expected to draw appeals, potentially reaching the Supreme Court. (RELATED: President Trump’s Legal Battle With The Pulitzer Prize Board Escalates)
Vance Addresses Speculation About His Future
Vice President Vance has attempted to downplay discussions about his potential 2028 ambitions.
In an interview earlier this month with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Vance said, “I would say that I’ve thought about what that moment might look like after the midterm elections. But I also, whenever I think about that, I try to put it out of my head and remind myself the American people elected me to do a job right now, and my job is to do it.”
First Lady Melania Trump participates in the Senate Spouses Luncheon at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, May 21,2025. (Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks)
First Lady Melania Trump is stepping back into the global spotlight with the release of MELANIA, a sweeping 104-minute cinematic film debuting in theaters worldwide on January 30, 2026. Fox News received the exclusive first preview, offering Americans an early look at what promises to be one of the most talked-about cultural releases of the election era.
The film will premiere across North and South America, Europe, Asia, Israel, the UAE, and more—underscoring the international interest surrounding the Trump family’s historic return to the White House. Amazon will also launch a companion documentary series in the following months.
“For the first time, global audiences are invited into theaters to witness this pivotal chapter unfold,” Mrs. Trump told Fox News. “This is a private, unfiltered look at the 20 days leading up to the U.S. Presidential Inauguration—my journey through family, business, and philanthropy on the path to becoming First Lady.”
The trailer, released exclusively to Fox News, opens with Mrs. Trump entering the U.S. Capitol Rotunda ahead of President Donald Trump’s second inauguration. With quiet resolve, dressed in her signature inaugural ensemble, she looks into the camera and says, “Here we go again.”
The trailer, released exclusively to Fox News, opens with Mrs. Trump entering the U.S. Capitol Rotunda ahead of President Donald Trump’s second inauguration. With quiet resolve, dressed in her signature inaugural ensemble, she looks into the camera and says, “Here we go again.”
Watch:
A Behind-the-Scenes Look at a Historic Moment
MELANIA traces the first lady’s steps in the weeks leading up to inauguration—from Trump Tower in New York City to Mar-a-Lago in Florida and behind closed doors in Washington, D.C. Insiders say Mrs. Trump envisioned the project shortly after President Trump’s 2024 victory, beginning discussions with her team that same month.
Her longtime advisor and agent Marc Beckman led negotiations with Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, starting November 18, 2024. The project drew intense interest from major studios, including Disney, Netflix, and Paramount. Ultimately, Amazon and MGM secured rights with a record-setting $40 million license deal, now the largest documentary acquisition in history.
Beckman told Fox News Digital he chose Amazon because they not only secured both the feature film and the series but also offered a full theatrical release, meeting every criterion the first lady sought.
A Film That Breaks From the Documentary Mold
Executive-produced by Melania Trump and Fernando Sulichin of New Element Media, with Brett Ratner (RatPac Entertainment) directing, the film avoids the typical documentary aesthetic. Sources say Mrs. Trump demanded a “highly cinematic” look—an elevated, polished presentation that captures the gravity of the moment and her unique perspective on public life.
The project follows the success of her 2025 memoir, Melania, which gave readers an intimate, personal look into her life, complete with never-before-seen photographs. The new film aims to extend that openness to a global audience.
A Cultural Moment Republicans Will Be Watching
As the country enters another pivotal year, MELANIA offers supporters an unprecedented, deeply personal glimpse into the woman who has become one of America’s most intriguing—and often misunderstood—public figures.
President Donald Trump has filed a $5 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC over its deceptive editing of a speech delivered by Trump on Jan. 6, 2021.
The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Miami. In the 46-page filing, Trump’s team argues the edit gave the “mistaken impression” he called for violence on that day.
“This instance of doctoring–in the form of distortion of meaning and splicing of entirely unrelated word sequences–is part of the BBC’s longstanding pattern of manipulating President Trump’s speeches and presenting content in a misleading manner in order to defame him, including fabricating calls for violence that he never made,” the lawsuit states.
“The BBC, faced with overwhelming and justifiable outrage on both sides of the Atlantic, has publicly admitted its staggering breach of journalistic ethics, and apologized, but has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses,” it continues.
The footage used in the broadcaster’s Panorama documentary spliced together two separate clips, creating the impression Trump told supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”
The two clips are separated by 55 minutes in Trump’s original speech, and the documentary also left out Trump’s explicit calls for supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.”
Speaking in Washington DC, the president accused the broadcaster of “putting terrible words in my mouth that I didn’t say” and claimed the BBC “may have used AI” in its investigative Panorama show. He later added: “They actually have me speaking with words that I never said, and they got caught… Let’s call [it] fake news.”
In a statement to The New York Times, Trump’s legal team said: “The formerly respected and now disgraced BBC defamed President Trump by intentionally, maliciously and deceptively doctoring his speech in a brazen attempt to interfere in the 2024 presidential election.”
The fallout has already triggered resignations at the top of the BBC, including director general Tim Davie and BBC News CEO Deborah Turness.
The BBC later issued an apology to Trump for his portrayal in the documentary:
“[W]e accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action,” the statement said.
“The BBC would like to apologize to President Trump for that error of judgement. This programme was not scheduled to be re-broadcast and will not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms,” it added.
Trump’s latest lawsuit follows a string of high-profile legal battles against U.S.-based media outlets, including The New York Times and Wall Street Journal.
Erika Kirk announced that she will meet privately with commentator Candace Owens, marking the first direct conversation between the two since a period of public disagreement and discussion following her late husband’s death.
In a brief statement posted Sunday on X, Kirk said both women have agreed to pause all public commentary until after their meeting.
“Candace Owens and I are meeting for a private, in-person discussion on Monday, December 15,” Erika said.
“@RealCandaceO and I have agreed that public discussions, livestreams, and tweets are on hold until after this meeting. I look forward to a productive conversation. Thank you,” she added.
The planned meeting reflects a joint effort to move beyond weeks of escalating tension and online conspiracy theories by creating space for a more personal and thoughtful exchange.
Image via Gage Skidmore Flickr
During a recent CBS town hall, Erika spoke candidly about the emotional toll of the speculation surrounding her husband’s passing. When asked what she would say to those spreading unfounded claims, she responded, “Stop. That’s it. That’s all I have to say. Stop.”
She also addressed the issue during a Dec. 10 appearance on Outnumbered, saying, “When you go after my family, my Turning Point USA family, my Charlie Kirk Show family, when you go after the people that I love, and you’re making hundreds and thousands of dollars every single episode going after the people that I love because somehow they’re in on this, no.”
Despite their earlier collaboration and personal friendship, the relationship between Kirk and Owens has deteriorated sharply in recent months. Their decision to meet privately signals a mutual desire to communicate directly, clear up misunderstandings, and reduce further speculation.
Since the tragic death of her husband, Charlie Kirk, in September, Erika has focused publicly on preserving his legacy while navigating the intense scrutiny surrounding the circumstances of his passing.
Earlier this month, Charlie Kirk Show producer Blake Neff announced that Kirk’s friends will be holding an event to refute Owens’s incendiary claims. Owens has turned down an invitation to attend it in person.
Owens has a reputation for spreading widely debunked conspiracy theories, including once staking her entire professional reputation on the claim that the First Lady of France, Brigitte Macron, is a man. Owens has also suggested that Israel was somehow connected to Charlie Kirk’s death.
Kirk, who founded the pro-Trump student group Turning Point USA, was shot and killed at a Utah university in September, and his alleged assassin is currently awaiting trial on murder charges. Neff called Owens’s claims “either lies or they are innuendos thrown around with a total, reckless disregard for the truth,” and added, “I would say we have suffered more harassment from these people than we have from Antifa supporters who overtly celebrate Charlie’s murder.”
He concluded by saying Turning Point will host a live stream to further debunk Owens’s conspiracies and invited her to participate.
“We wanted to use this segment at the top of this hour to say something important, something very important. For the past two and a half months, there is a topic that has flooded our Freedom inbox. It has been nonstop on social media, but which we have almost totally avoided on this show. You probably already know what I’m talking about, which shows just how ubiquitous it has been,” Neff began.
Read his full statement below:
Ever since Charlie’s murder, Candace Owens has leveled a flood of allegations against people at Turning Point USA, people at Turning Point Action, and people who work for this show. She has made them against some of Charlie’s closest friends and against some of his most dedicated employees. She has suggested that Michael McCoy, Charlie’s chief of staff, knew Charlie would be murdered, was happy that he died, and stayed silent because he was told he would be the next Charlie.
She has suggested Michael is not his real name. It is—I have seen his birth certificate myself. She has called it suspicious that Mikey’s wife, who works at Turning Point, helped plan the campus tour event where Charlie was murdered, which she didn’t, by the way. She doesn’t work on campus events.
Candace has suggested the Utah Valley University event was unusual and its details suggested a quote “inside job.” She has claimed that foreign aircraft have followed Erica Kirk around the country and that Turning Point has lied about this happening. She has accused us of lying about Charlie wanting Erica to take over for him if he died. She has suggested Charlie’s security team intentionally denied him first aid after the shooting to ensure that he died. She has raised suspicions about the head of our technical team because he took an SD card out of a camera. She has spread absurd claims that Tyler Boyer, who we just had on the show, sexually abuses male interns. She has suggested that TPUSA Faith-affiliated pastors, like theologian Frank Turek, who we’ll have on in a moment, and Pastor Rob McCoy, are part of a military quote “infiltration” of Turning Point, either because they are veterans or because they have family members who are.
Even if not everyone has been named specifically, though, Candace has effectively tarred everyone here with complicity in Charlie’s death by repeatedly saying he was, quote, “betrayed by,” quote, “everyone.” She has said Charlie’s murder, quote, “had to be approved by Charlie’s friends,” and then suggested those friends might have her murdered too for quote “knowing the truth.” She has made claims of financial impropriety and fraud at Turning Point, adding up into the millions of dollars, which again is not true. Charlie made sure the organization was audited by a third party every year. He personally reviewed and signed off on every expense report and literally every single bill paid by the organization down to a single United States dollar. We have never missed a 990 deadline.
Candace has made other, stranger allegations involving French paratroopers in maroon shirts, Egyptian Air Force planes flying out of Provo, Utah, and potential underground assassins traveling through unseen tunnels. At one point in early November, she started wildly throwing suspicion on members of Utah Valley’s soccer team for wearing hoodies. I could go on. There is always something new coming up, and none of it ever pans out. Because from the start, there has been nothing there.
The attacks and allegations from Candace are either lies or they are innuendos thrown around with a total, reckless disregard for the truth, so that Candace can manipulate and string along an audience of people who don’t realize they are being played. Instead of being able to grieve properly after one of the most heinous murders in American history, a murder many of us had to witness, my friends have had to endure harassment from people who have gotten whipped up by what Candace is saying. I would say we have suffered more harassment from these people than we have from Antifa supporters who overtly celebrate Charlie’s murder. And just like a lot of those Antifa members, many of these people take delight in how gross and unpleasant they can be. What our friends have had to endure is not funny and it’s not insignificant. It is evil. I have seen it.
For months, we have received hundreds, thousands, I suspect, of emails and calls asking us to respond. People have wanted us to invite Candace on the show. But for a long time, our approach was to say nothing. We did that for several reasons. First, we thought that her prevarications were so absurd that nobody would believe them. We shouldn’t have to answer questions about secret tunnels or Egyptian Air Force planes. That sort of thing is just—it’s beneath contempt to respond to. Lastly, we didn’t respond because Charlie always viewed Candace as a friend, and we were holding out hope that she would return that friendship and stop what she was doing.
But a week from now it’s going to be three months since Charlie’s murder. Candace has not changed her behavior. She has continued to spread falsehoods about Charlie’s friends, and she continues to concoct new ones about new people. She’s using these falsehoods to enrich herself while dividing the conservative movement at an absolutely critical time for this country. And far too often, we here have heard from ordinary people, people who loved Charlie and who Charlie loved so much in return. These people have expressed the worry that we are staying silent out of cowardice or as some sort of tacit admission that some of the attacks are true. Neither is the case. Our silence has never been, and it will never be, equal to complacency or approval.
Still, we decided Charlie would not allow this to go on. Charlie was not a coward. Charlie was a fighter. Charlie would not allow someone to spread lies about the people closest to him with impunity. And he would feel ashamed if other people were stepping up to defend his friends while he never did so himself. Candace has mentioned several times that the ball is in our court.
So here’s what is going to happen. In the near future, there will be a livestream here in Phoenix where we address in a clear and comprehensive way the claims and accusations, the false accusations that have been made against Charlie’s family, friends, and the people here at Turning Point. We plan to walk through everything carefully and thoroughly. If Candace is available, we would sincerely welcome her participation in that livestream at our studio here in Phoenix. At this point, we believe the ball is back in her court.
Our motivation for doing this is not out of any obligation to Candace. It is about honoring Charlie. We feel a deep responsibility to protect his legacy, his work, and the truth. I feel that. I owe Charlie everything in my life. I feel it immensely. And that is why we feel compelled to speak clearly and openly now. We’ll have more on this in the near future.