An ethics watchdog is suing two top prosecutors for documents that may reveal a collusion scheme against President Donald Trump intended to influence the 2024 presidential election.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement it “filed a lawsuit against Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes for her communications with former Special Counsel Jack Smith.”
“On January 13, 2025 several media outlets reported that Attorney General Mayes had formally requested case documents from U.S. Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal investigation into President Donald Trump regarding the 2020 presidential election,” Judicial Watch.
“12News reported that ‘Mayes said the documents could ensure defendants in Arizona’s fake electors case would be held accountable,’” Judicial Watch notes.
That case refers to supporters of President Trump from states whose Electoral College votes went to Joe Biden, who alleged the results were fraudulent offered themselves to the Electoral College as “alternate electors” under a theory the Electoral College could refuse to accept a state’s official slate of electors.
Many of them in states like Arizona now face prosecution on charges of fraud.
Critics argue there were no “fake electors” because the accused persons never mislead anyone about their identity, publicly identified themselves as alternate electors to be considered only in the event the slate of electors submitted by state officials could be rejected by the Electoral Congress and even held press conferences to explain what they were doing.
Judicial Watch reports it “filed the Arizona Public Records Law complaint in the Superior Court of Arizona after the attorney general failed to respond to a January 13, 2025, request for:”
Any communications and/or documents with Jack Smith and/or the DOJ Special Counsel group/team from January 1, 2022, to the completion of this request.
“Collusion against President Trump by Democratic politicians with Jack Smith and the weaponized Biden Justice Department are of great public interest,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Attorney General Mayes is acting as if she has something to hide.”
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.
A new major poll finds most Americans are growing more optimistic about the nation’s future – but Democrats are plunging new depths of despair.
The Associated Press reports the latest AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds “overall, the public has become less pessimistic about the state of politics and the system of choosing leaders. In July 2024, 66% were pessimistic about the state of politics in the country. Now 59% of the public are pessimistic. Forty percent are pessimistic about how the country’s leaders are chosen, down from 47% last July.”
“Republicans have grown slightly more optimistic about the future of the Republican Party than they were last summer. In July 2024, 47% said they were optimistic about their party. Now, three months into Donald Trump’s second term, 55% are hopeful about their party’s future,” the AP reports.
“While half of Republicans are pessimistic about the state of politics in the United States, that is down from 73% last July. And they have grown slightly more optimistic about the way our leaders are chosen under the country’s political system,” the AP adds.
But not everyone is happy, with Democrats almost in total despair.
“In contrast, Democrats have become more pessimistic about their party’s future, the state of the country’s politics, and the country’s process for choosing political leaders. Only 35% of Democrats say they are optimistic about the future of the Democratic Party, down sharply from 57% in the July 2024 poll,” the AP reports.
“About 7 in 10 Democrats are pessimistic about the state of politics in this country, up from 60% last summer. And 55% of Democrats are pessimistic about the way our leaders are chosen under our political system, up from last summer when Joe Biden was still in the White House,” the AP adds.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.
Without a whisper, David Brock once again took his seat in that deep club chair, the one upholstered in battered oxblood leather and steeped in quiet menace. He reached for his tailor-crafted inner pocket, drawing from it a fresh Davidoff 702 Double R. The oily Ecuadorian leaf caught flame with practiced ease, releasing those same familiar notes of dark chocolate and café crema. Nearby, a Baccarat tumbler appeared in a silent ritual of service, filled just so with Pappy Van Winkle, as though it had always been there. This wasn’t just habit. It was stagecraft, and the man in the chair was directing a performance with constitutional consequences.
There was no need for preamble. Those in the room knew why they were there. Brock was about to reintroduce the legal profession to its own velvet-clad nightmare. His audience, a quiet circle of left-wing patrons and media barons, leaned in as he explained the next phase of his campaign, not against Donald Trump per se, but against anyone daring to offer him or his allies a legal defense. This wasn’t about winning court cases. This was about ensuring those cases were never filed at all.
The 65 Project, Brock explained, was not an electoral effort. It was not a messaging campaign. It was war. A war against the 6th Amendment, that slender but essential clause guaranteeing every American the right to legal counsel. Its aim? To deprive Republicans, particularly those challenging elections or government orthodoxy, of any capable legal defense.
Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]
Run through Brock’s network of nonprofits and housed under Law Works, the 65 Project deployed seasoned political operatives to file bar complaints, ethics charges, and sanctions motions against Trump-affiliated attorneys. The power of the model lay in its asymmetry. A single complaint, even meritless, could cost an attorney tens of thousands of dollars and a year or more in disciplinary review. And even if dismissed, the stain was permanent.
In 2025, this campaign has not slowed. In February, the 65 Project filed a high-profile complaint against Edward Martin, then the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. His offense? Alleged conflicts of interest tied to representing January 6 defendants before his federal appointment. The complaint cited violations of Rule 4-1.7 of professional conduct, a detail blasted across the headlines of friendly media outlets. As of June, there is no word on whether the complaint succeeded, but that isn’t the point. The accusation is the punishment.
Incredibly, the 65 Project also targeted the sitting Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. On June 5, 2025, a coalition including the 65 Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law filed a 23-page ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” The complaint alleged that Bondi threatened DOJ lawyers with discipline or termination for failing to pursue President Trump’s political objectives, particularly via a February 5 “zealous advocacy” memo. It claimed her actions led to resignations and firings in violation of DOJ norms and Florida Bar rules. Yet, on June 6, the Florida Bar summarily rejected the complaint, citing a policy against investigating sitting officers appointed under the US Constitution. It was the third such complaint against Bondi, and the third rejection. Critics like DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle called the filings “vexatious” and politically motivated. That the 65 Project would go after a sitting Attorney General at all illustrates the sheer audacity, and absurdity, of their campaign. They have announced they will be filing more complaints against Bondi.
Even more outrageous, the same coalition named two additional Trump administration officials in their June 5 complaint: Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General. The complaint accused them contributing to a culture of unethical conduct within the Justice Department by pressuring career lawyers to ignore professional responsibilities and instead pursue political objectives at the behest of President Trump. The goal was clear: not just to intimidate one leader, but to undermine the credibility of an entire legal team working within the bounds of the law.
This complaint, like so many others, underscores the project’s enduring mission: to ensure lawyers think twice before defending Trump or any of his associates. Public defenders and private litigators alike have been swept into the net. Whether you were in court for Giuliani, or simply filed an amicus brief on election integrity, the 65 Project likely has your name on a list.
This strategy, weaponizing legal ethics as a partisan bludgeon, would have made Boss Tweed grin from ear to ear. Backroom operators like Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey would recognize it instantly. Harvey, managing editor of the Democratic Party’s press empire at the turn of the 20th century, orchestrated conventions from smoke-filled rooms in Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, where policies were written not in law books, but on cocktail napkins between puffs of Havana cigars. Brock, in many ways, is his spiritual heir, using legal bureaucracy the way Harvey used ink and influence.
The Biden-appointed judiciary has not resisted. In Michigan, Democratic activists succeeded in convincing a federal judge to sanction every lawyer who filed election-related litigation for Trump in 2020. Among them: Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Stefanie Junttila. Each was ordered to pay legal fees to Democratic Party groups and attend re-education courses, under the euphemism of continuing legal education. The court referred them for possible disbarment, fulfilling Brock’s vision.
Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, has filed complaints against more than 100 attorneys across 26 states. The targets include high-profile figures like Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Cleta Mitchell. And while many of these complaints were dismissed by mid-2023, the damage to reputations and client relationships lingers.
The project’s tactics have drawn sharp rebuke. Congressman Lance Gooden, in April 2025, called the 65 Project a “political hit squad” and demanded a Justice Department investigation. Others on social media have accused the group of colluding with establishment Republicans to kneecap Trump’s legal allies. Yet Brock’s defenders frame the group as guardians of democracy, protecting the legal profession from ethical collapse.
Such framing is dishonest. When Alan Dershowitz defended Al Gore in 2000, no one suggested he should be disbarred for challenging election results. But now, lawyers challenging questionable election conduct on behalf of Republicans face professional ruin. This is not accountability. It is ideological warfare.
Critics may point out that the 65 Project has not secured many disbarments. That may be true, but they have achieved some high-profile penalties. Jenna Ellis was publicly censured by a Colorado judge in March 2023. Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and is facing permanent disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC. John Eastman was disbarred in California following a March 27, 2024, decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, who found him culpable of 10 out of 11 disciplinary charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His license was placed on involuntary inactive status days later, rendering him ineligible to practice law in California. Eastman has appealed, but as of June 15, 2025, no reversal has been reported. He was also suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024, pending resolution of the California case. Lin Wood surrendered his law license in Georgia under pressure from multiple complaints. These results are rare but not insignificant. Still, the goal was never just disbarment. It was deterrence. It was a public display of consequence, a digital scarlet letter. No need to win in court when you can win in LinkedIn’s HR department.
The project has inspired imitators including the Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law. The Lincoln Project also targets law firms, encouraging junior associates to pressure partners against accepting GOP clients. Shutdown DC and the Un-American Bar maintain lists of “insurrectionist” lawyers. Others push the American Bar Association to adopt rules banning election challenges altogether, cloaking censorship in the rhetoric of professionalism.
Marc Elias, the left’s court general, has taken the mission even further, seeking to disqualify GOP candidates under the 14th Amendment, resurrecting post-Civil War measures to bar Trump allies from holding office. Lawsuits against Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and others reflect this broader ecosystem of lawfare. It is a constellation of coordinated attacks designed to render conservative legal advocacy untenable.
And what of the Constitution? The Sixth Amendment was never meant to be partisan. It exists not to protect the powerful, but the accused. In America, even pariahs have lawyers. Even the guilty deserve defense. The 65 Project’s perverse genius is to flip that premise, treating legal representation as complicity, and enforcing political loyalty through professional terror.
David Brock did not build this machinery alone. Melissa Moss, a Clinton veteran, helped architect the effort. She recruited Democratic grandees, Tom Daschle, ABA presidents, former state judges, to lend legitimacy. Their goal? To make conservative legal advocacy professionally radioactive.
And it may be working. Some lawyers are declining GOP clients outright. Others fear disciplinary complaints, X mobs, or worse. The chilling effect is real, and precisely what the architects intended. The War on the Sixth is a war on courage, a war on professional independence, a war on the idea that justice should be blind.
In the end, Brock’s smoke-filled rooms are not about cigars or cocktails. They are about control. They are about ensuring that when Republicans step into a courtroom, they do so alone.
Americans may soon learn why the man who stole the confidential financial information of 18,000 taxpayers got the lightest possible criminal sentence from the Biden administration after leaking the tax returns of one of those people – President Donald Trump.
U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) announced in a statement he has “sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi requesting information about the prosecution of Charles Littlejohn, the former IRS contractor who leaked the tax returns of President and Trump and thousands of others to ProPublica and the New York Times.”
“During Littlejohn’s sentencing, Biden-Harris Justice Department prosecutors stated that the scope and scale his unauthorized disclosure was unparalleled in the IRS’s history yet allowed Littlejohn to plead guilty to only one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information, resulting in only a five-year prison sentence, three years’ supervised release, and a $5,000 fine,” the statement explains.
“It remains unclear why the Biden-Harris Justice Department chose to allow him to plead guilty to only a single felony count,” the statement notes.
Jordan’s letter reads, in part:
“The Committee on the Judiciary is continuing to investigate the unprecedented leak of protected taxpayer information by Charles E. Littlejohn. Despite confessing to leaking ‘thousands of individuals’ and entities’ tax returns’ to ProPublica and the New York Times, the Biden-Harris Administration charged Mr. Littlejohn, a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) contractor, with only one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information. Due to the Trump Administration’s commitment to transparency and accountability, the Committee has learned that the scope of Mr. Littlejohn’s leak was much broader than the Biden-Harris Administration had led the public to believe. Accordingly, we respectfully renew our request for documents relating to Mr. Littlejohn’s prosecution.
“During Mr. Littlejohn’s sentencing, Justice Department prosecutors stated that the ‘scope and scale’ of Mr. Littlejohn’s unauthorized disclosure was ‘unparalleled in the IRS’s history.’ They claimed at the time that the data stolen by Mr. Littlejohn included ‘returns’ and ‘return information’ for approximately 18,000 individuals and 73,000 businesses. Yet, the Justice Department under President Biden allowed Mr. Littlejohn to plead guilty to only one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information, which resulted in a five-year prison sentence, three years’ supervised release, and a $5,000 fine.
“During Mr. Littlejohn’s sentencing, the judge expressed that she was ‘perplexed’ and ‘troubled’ by the overly lenient plea agreement, stating: ‘The fact that [Mr. Littlejohn] is facing one felony count, I have no words for.’
“On February 8, 2024, the Committee wrote to the Biden-Harris Justice Department requesting documents about the Department’s decision to pursue one charge against Mr. Littlejohn despite the severity of his actions. On March 18, 2024, the Biden-Harris Justice Department responded by defending Mr. Littlejohn’s single felony charge and his five-year prison sentence. The Biden-Harris Justice Department failed to produce any substantive or nonpublic information to the Committee.
“After President Trump took office, the IRS disclosed to the Committee that over 405,000 taxpayers were victims of Mr. Littlejohn’s leaks and that ’89 [percent] of the taxpayers [we]re business entities.’ While it is now clear that Mr. Littlejohn’s conduct violated the privacy of hundreds of thousands of American taxpayers, it remains unclear why the Biden-Harris Justice Department chose to allow him to plead guilty to only a single felony count. It appears that the Biden-Harris Justice Department authorized a plea agreement in this case that did not ensure full accountability for criminal conduct that was unprecedented in its scope and scale.”
President Joe Biden’s White House physician, along with Biden’s top aides, have been ordered to testify to Congress on Biden’s mental decline and whether top decisions were made by Biden or by unelected figures.
“As part of the investigation into the cover-up of President Joe Biden’s mental decline and potentially unauthorized use of autopen for sweeping pardons and other executive actions, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) today sent letters to President Biden’s physician and former White House aides demanding they appear for transcribed interviews,” the committee announced in a statement.
“The cover-up of President Biden’s obvious mental decline is a historic scandal. The American people deserve to know when this decline began, how far it progressed, and who was making critical decisions on his behalf. Key executive actions signed by autopen, such as sweeping pardons for the Biden Crime Family, must be examined considering President Biden’s diminished capacity. Today, we are calling on President Biden’s physician and former White House advisors to participate in transcribed interviews so we can begin to uncover the truth. In the last Congress, the Biden White House blocked these individuals from providing testimony to the Oversight Committee as part of the effort to cover-up Biden’s declining health. Any continued obstruction will be met with swift and decisive action. The American people demand transparency and accountability now,” said Comer.
The committee reports:
Last Congress, Chairman Comer subpoenaed three key White House aides – Annie Tomasini, Anthony Bernal, and Ashley Williams – who ran interference for President Biden and also requested a transcribed interview with his physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor.
The Biden White House obstructed the Committee’s investigation and refused to make the aides available for depositions or interviews. Chairman Comer also subpoenaed the audio recordings related to Special Counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into President Biden’s mishandling of classified documents, but Attorney General Merrick Garland defied the subpoena.
According to a new book, Original Sin, one person familiar with the internal dynamic at the White House stated, “Five people were running the country, and Joe Biden was at best a senior member of the board.”
Comer reports he is continuing “the investigation into the cover-up of Biden’s mental decline and use of autopen for key decisions.”
This Memorial Day, as we gather with family, fire up the grill, or visit our local cemeteries and memorials, it’s worth remembering the leaders who never lost sight of the true meaning behind the day. President Donald J. Trump has always placed America’s fallen heroes at the center of his message, offering powerful words and sincere gestures that reflect deep respect for our military and their families.
Throughout his presidency, President Trump used Memorial Day not for politics—but for patriotism. Year after year, he stood before veterans, Gold Star families, and active-duty troops with one purpose: to honor the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for this nation.
Here’s a look back at some of his most moving Memorial Day tributes:
2017 – Arlington National Cemetery
President Trump delivered his first Memorial Day address at Arlington National Cemetery, laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and offering a solemn promise:
“Words cannot measure the depth of their devotion, the purity of their love, or the totality of their courage.”
It was a speech that reminded the country—and the world—that America remembers.
2018 – Arlington Again, and a Call for Prayer
Returning to Arlington in 2018, President Trump spoke of sacred ground and permanent peace:
“We are gathered here on the sacred soil of Arlington National Cemetery to honor the lives and deeds of America’s greatest heroes.”
That year, he issued a proclamation declaring Memorial Day a Day of Prayer for Permanent Peace, calling on Americans to pause at 11:00 a.m. for a national moment of prayer.
2019 – Speaking from the USS Wasp in Japan
While abroad visiting troops, President Trump addressed sailors aboard the USS Wasp in Yokosuka, Japan:
“Today, the unbreakable resolve of our great American heroes is inspiring our nation to achieve new heights.”
Even halfway around the world, the president made sure Memorial Day was observed with honor, reflection, and gratitude.
2020 – Fort McHenry Amid Crisis
During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, while others canceled public observances, President Trump stood tall at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, honoring the brave and the fallen:
“We remember the young Americans who never got the chance to grow old, but whose legacy will outlive us all.”
He reminded us that even in times of hardship, we must continue to honor the past and those who gave everything for our freedom.
A President Who Never Forgot
In every one of these speeches, President Trump put America’s heroes first—not soundbites, not political spin. His words carried the weight of gratitude and the clarity of purpose. Whether in Arlington, Baltimore, or aboard a Navy vessel, he stood firm in his belief that our nation owes eternal respect to those who served and sacrificed.
This Memorial Day, let’s take a moment to reflect—not only on the brave men and women who gave their lives—but also on the kind of leadership that never forgets them.
President Trump didn’t just speak about honoring our military. He lived it. And millions of Americans still remember.
A leading House conservative and member of the Budget Committee used his time in a committee hearing on the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” spending package to explain that the bill does little to reform spending and the supposed spending cuts are pushed to future years, giving future congresses and the next president time to repeal them.
Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy explained that while the bill does deliver tax relief it dramatically increases budget deficits by putting off spending reform:
“I appreciate my friend from Texas, the chairman, and you know, my Democratic colleagues keep telling things that are not true. The vast majority of Americans will get tax benefits under this bill. It’s just simply false to say that that’s not true. Hardworking Americans who will benefit from the standard deduction increase, hardworking Americans who will benefit from child tax credits and lower tax rates—stop saying things that aren’t true. Those things are true. The fact is, we have money in here for the border to undo the damage of Joe Biden. We have more money in here for defense to undo the damage of Joe Biden, but we also address Medicaid and Medicaid spending goes up. Stop lying. Medicaid spending goes up. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are profoundly unserious when it comes to being real about what’s happening with the numbers. I applaud Chairman Arrington. I applaud my colleagues on this side of the aisle for taking a step forward in dealing with the spending problem in this town.
But I have to now admonish my colleagues on this side of the aisle: this bill falls profoundly short. It does not do what we say it does with respect to deficits. The fact of the matter is, on the spending, what we’re dealing with here is tax cuts and spending a massive front-loaded deficit increase. That’s the truth. That’s the truth. Deficits will go up in the first half of the 10-year budget window. And we all know it’s true, and we shouldn’t do that. We shouldn’t say that we’re doing something we’re not doing.
The fact of the matter is, this bill has back-loaded savings and front-loaded spending, nowhere near the Senate Budget top line, by the way. The Senate Budget top line of six and a half trillion dollars, which, by the way, is what we were pre-COVID, inflation-adjusted, on interest, on Medicare and Social Security. And if we would reform Medicaid, we could actually get to the core of the problem, but we refuse to do it. And I’m not going to sit here and say that everything is hunky-dory when this is the Budget Committee. This is the Budget Committee. We are supposed to do something to actually result in balanced budgets, but we’re not doing it. Look at what happens under deficits… Only in Washington are we expected to bet on the come that in five years, everything will work, then we will solve the problem.
We have got to change the direction of this town, and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: yes, that means touching Medicaid. It went from $400 billion in 2019 to $600 billion this year. It’ll be over a trillion in the 2030s. We are making promises that we cannot keep. We do need to reform it. We need to stop giving seven times as much money to the able-bodied over the vulnerable. Why are we sticking it to the vulnerable population, the disabled and the sick, to give money to single able-bodied male adults? We shouldn’t do that. We should reform it. But guess what? That message needs to be delivered to my colleagues on this side of the aisle too.
We are writing checks we cannot cash, and our children are going to pay the price. So I am a no on this bill unless serious reforms are made today, tomorrow, Sunday. We’re having conversations as we speak, but something needs to change, or you’re not going to get my support.”
It is not hyperbole to speak of a golden age. The phrase has been cheapened by pundits and prematurely invoked by partisans, but now it fits. Something has shifted in the tectonic plates of American politics, culture, and global influence. And unlike prior inflection points, this one is not merely symbolic. It is empirical. Measurable. Concrete. We are not gazing at a mirage, but witnessing a renaissance. The agent of this change is President Donald J. Trump.
In 2019, the New York Times launched the 1619 Project with a simple proposition: that the true founding of America occurred not with the Declaration of Independence, but with the arrival of the first African slaves. What followed was a coordinated attempt to reframe the country as irredeemably racist, its history irreparably stained. Under the Biden administration, this view metastasized. Patriotic symbols were treated as threats. The FBI circulated training documents labeling common American flags as markers of “domestic extremism.” Catholics were surveilled, not for terrorism, but for attending Latin Mass. And over 800 January 6 defendants were held for years, many for crimes more symbolic than violent. Meanwhile, across the country, statues of Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson were torn down by mobs or removed by local governments in the dead of night. Schools named after America’s founders were renamed for lesser figures more palatable to progressive tastes. Military bases, long-standing monuments to American history, were stripped of their names and given bland, ideologically approved replacements. The point was not justice. It was deterrence. It was ideological conformity enforced by state power.
Then Trump returned.
His re-election, certified on January 6, 2025, and his inauguration on January 20, marked not merely the return of a man, but the restoration of a nation. Within 100 days, Trump had secured the border, reversing years of open-border chaos. Migration flows dropped to levels unseen since the early 1990s. His decisive action became a global model. From England to Romania, political movements took note. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK surged. The AfD in Germany crept into double digits. Marine Le Pen’s party is now the frontrunner in France. Elites sneered, but voters saw results.
At home, Trump wielded his mandate like a scalpel. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, began a forensic audit of the administrative state. Within weeks, billions in funding were clawed back from useless programs and slush funds hidden in alphabet agencies. USAID, long a globalist piggy bank, is being dismantled. The FBI, purged of its partisan leadership, is now focused on actual crime. DEI offices, once metastasizing across government and corporate America like ideological tumors, were defunded. Wokeness, once a cultural juggernaut, is now a punchline.
The military, gutted by social engineering and recruitment failures under Biden, is now over capacity. Credit belongs not only to President Trump’s message of strength and national pride, but also to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who moved swiftly to eliminate identity-based promotions and reinstate merit as the lodestar of advancement. Hegseth’s decision to end the inclusion of transgender individuals in combat roles and restore a focus on unit cohesion and battlefield readiness was met with predictable outrage from progressive quarters, but it worked. Military service is now admired again. Recruiters have lines out the door. The stars and stripes, once seen as fraught, are fashionable again. The American flag, once viewed with suspicion on elite campuses, is now trending in TikTok videos of patriotic Gen Z influencers. Coolness, that elusive cultural currency, has shifted.
Internationally, Trump has turned the tide. China is back at the negotiating table, offering market access in exchange for tariff relief. For the first time in decades, Beijing blinked. Iran, isolated and bleeding economically, has returned to disarmament talks. The Abraham Accords have expanded to include Oman and Tunisia. Just today, Trump announced a new trade deal with the United Kingdom that will open British markets to American farmers, slash tariffs, and generate billions in revenue. It is the first of more than a dozen similar deals being negotiated with U.S. trading partners, all aimed at restoring prosperity and security to the American heartland. American prestige, once bartered away for UN resolutions and climate pledges, has been restored. Even the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church’s College of Cardinals seems to have acknowledged this new moral order.
On May 8, 2025, for the first time in 2,000 years of Catholic history, an American was elected pope. The symbolism is staggering. For a Church whose demographic heart now beats in the Western Hemisphere, the election of an American Pontiff signals a new center of gravity. It is not just Rome that looks to America. It is the world.
America’s 250th anniversary is now on the horizon. The semiquincentennial of 1776 looms not as a melancholy remembrance of faded glory, but as a celebration of resurgence. The events planned for 2026 reflect this. Trump has ordered a return to original principles: liberty, individual rights, national pride. Not apologies. Not guilt. Not equivocations. But more than that, he intends to use the anniversary as a global advertisement. A demonstration of American resolve. A reminder to our enemies that this is a nation of strength, unity, and enduring purpose. And a signal to our allies that America, once written off as declining or distracted, is once again the anchor of the free world. A nation built on the proposition that all men are created equal should not teach its children that they are born guilty because of their skin or their flag. Trump understands this, and his policies reflect it.
Consider economics. In just over three months, Trump has attracted over $8 trillion in foreign investment back to American shores, revitalizing the heartland. Factories are reopening in Ohio, chip manufacturers are building plants in Texas, and manufacturing is surging with new, higher-paying jobs for American workers. Trump’s commitment to the American farmer is unwavering, with policies boosting agriculture, creating robust farming jobs, and safeguarding rural communities. AI and crypto, once fields dominated by offshore interests and regulatory chaos, are now firmly within American jurisdiction. His administration is protecting America’s supply chains from global threats, ensuring self-reliance in critical industries. Trump’s policy is clear: innovation without apology, regulation with reason, and a fierce dedication to bringing back manufacturing, mining, drilling, and farming. He is not afraid of technology or competition but is resolute against decay, acting decisively to secure prosperity for American workers and farmers.
And yet, symbols matter. Culture matters. Which is why the upcoming twin spectacles of the FIFA World Cup and the Summer Olympics cannot be dismissed as fluff. Trump’s personal involvement in securing these events was not mere vanity. It was strategy. It was signal. During his first term, Trump courted FIFA President Gianni Infantino with unusual persistence. Infantino credited Trump’s enthusiasm as pivotal to the U.S. winning the bid. “You are part of the FIFA team now,” he said in the Oval Office. That statement, once treated as flattery, now seems prophetic.
The 2026 World Cup will be the longest in history: 104 matches across 16 U.S. cities. It will not be a tournament. It will be a coronation. The same applies to the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. Trump personally engaged with the IOC before even taking office in 2016, offering federal guarantees for security and logistics. He met with IOC President Thomas Bach in 2017. The result? A winning bid. The message is clear: if America is back, it must also be seen. And what better global stage than the Olympics?
Critics will scoff. They always do. They did in 2016. They did in 2020. They did in 2024. They were wrong every time. Trump’s critics have spent years arguing that he is a fluke, a menace, an aberration. What they have missed, and what they still refuse to see, is that Trump is not the outlier. He is the correction. He is the pendulum swinging back. And this time, it is not swinging timidly. It is swinging with force.
What makes this era a golden age is not merely policy success or economic growth. It is coherence. It is the re-alignment of institutions with the people they purport to serve. It is the re-legitimization of patriotism. It is the death of the idea that to love one’s country is to be blind, or bigoted, or bitter. America, like Rome at its height, is asserting its identity not through conquest, but through clarity. Through excellence. Through example.
The left has spent years insisting America was founded on sin, sustained by oppression, and systemically incapable of redemption. Trump has answered not with theory, but with action. He has rebuilt the house while others argued about whether it deserved to stand. And now, the house is full again. Full of workers. Full of industry. Full of flags. Full of hope.
That is what a golden age looks like. And for the first time in a long time, the gold is real.
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.
Americans have been getting ripped off. That is not hyperbole, nor a populist refrain, but a blunt statement of economic reality. The average American pays more for prescription drugs than any other patient in the developed world. This is not a function of greater access, higher quality, or more innovation. It is a product of a system that has, for decades, allowed foreign governments to underpay for medicine while forcing Americans to pick up the tab.
How did we arrive here? The answer is simple, if depressing: the United States accounts for less than five percent of the global population, yet pharmaceutical companies derive nearly three-quarters of their global profits from the American market. Foreign nations, through centralized health systems and price controls, bargain down the price of medicines. Drug manufacturers accept those lower prices because they know they can make up the shortfall in the United States. That is, in effect, a transfer of wealth from the American sick to the foreign healthy.
President Trump has had enough. On May 12, 2025, he signed an Executive Order resurrecting and expanding upon a policy initiative from his first term: the Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) pricing model. In his first term, the MFN model focused on Medicare Part B drugs, those administered in clinical settings, and proposed that the US would pay no more than the lowest price paid by a comparable country. That version was blocked by the courts in 2021 due to procedural issues and was quickly abandoned by the Biden administration. The 2025 version not only revives the core concept but also broadens its scope significantly. It retains the pricing benchmark based on peer nations while adding a novel direct-to-consumer purchasing mechanism. This allows patients to bypass pharmacy benefit managers entirely and buy drugs directly from manufacturers at MFN prices. The new policy thus marries institutional price reform with individual consumer empowerment, expanding the ambition and reach of Trump’s original plan.
Critics, as always, are quick to object. They warn that drug manufacturers will simply stop selling in the US or that research and development will dry up. Some even suggest that international reference pricing is a form of price-fixing by another name. These concerns deserve serious consideration. But they do not outweigh the manifest injustice of the status quo, nor do they erase the practical and moral urgency of reform.
First, consider the structure of the order itself. The MFN model applies immediately to Medicare Part B drugs, those administered in doctors’ offices, often the most expensive and specialized. Trump has instructed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to set price targets within 30 days and deliver measurable results within six months. If pharmaceutical companies fail to comply, the administration will take further action: drug importation from allied nations, penalties on noncompliant firms, and antitrust enforcement through the FTC targeting anti-competitive practices like patent abuse.
Second, the Executive Order proposes a direct-to-consumer mechanism, allowing American patients to buy drugs from manufacturers at international prices, bypassing the profit-hungry middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). This proposal reflects an economic reality too long ignored: the price of a drug is not set by market forces but by negotiated distortions, rebates, and arbitrage. By cutting out the layers of rent-seeking intermediaries, the Trump administration aims to restore both transparency and affordability.
On this point, perhaps the most surprising endorsement came from Mark Cuban who actively campaigned against the president supporting Kamala Harris’s failed White House bid. Cuban has emerged in recent years as one of the fiercest critics of PBMs in the pharmaceutical supply chain. Through his Cost Plus Drug Company, Cuban has championed a model that eliminates PBMs entirely, selling generic drugs directly to consumers at a fixed markup. He sees PBMs not as neutral facilitators, but as parasites, entities that profit not from creating value, but from distorting it.
In an X post on April 16, 2025, Cuban praised Trump’s Executive Order on healthcare and in particular, drug pricing by explaining how it could save hundreds of billions of dollars. His enthusiasm was not just theoretical. He outlined six specific reforms targeting PBM practices and emphasized that the EO’s direct-to-consumer mechanism aligns with the very business model he has built. For Cuban, this is not about politics, but principle. If Americans can bypass PBMs and purchase drugs at MFN prices, the savings could be transformative.
Gotta be honest. The @realDonaldTrump EO on healthcare and in particular, drug pricing could save hundreds of billions.
Here is how: 1. Divorce formularies from PBMs. Require them to come from independent organizations with no economic incentive from the formulary Make them…
Cuban has long called for transparency in PBM contracts, elimination of specialty tiers, and reform of rebate structures that inflate drug prices. These are the same structural defects the EO seeks to address. The alignment between Trump’s policy and Cuban’s advocacy is more than accidental. It reflects a growing consensus that PBMs have become a market failure in themselves, distorting prices and blocking access in pursuit of opaque profits.
Charlie , you aren't close. Drug prices are too damn high. But the big culprit isn't the brand manufacturers, it's the big middlemen. Namely PBMs. They work so hard to distort pricing the first lines in their contracts with everyone is "you can't disclose any of this "
That Trump and Cuban, two men with vastly different public personas, can agree on this solution is a testament to its power. The issue of drug pricing, once mired in partisan clichés, is now the battleground for real reform. Cuban’s support underscores the seriousness of the EO. It is not simply a gesture, but a genuine effort to untangle the knotted system that has left so many Americans paying so much, for so little.
Opponents cite legal precedent. Indeed, a similar MFN policy was blocked by federal courts in 2021. The Biden administration quickly shelved the idea, preferring not to test its legal authority. But legal difficulty is not legal impossibility. Trump’s new Executive Order is crafted more carefully, with an expanded evidentiary record and administrative justification. Implementation will no doubt be litigated, but the constitutional structure gives the executive branch discretion over how Medicare reimburses for services. Provided the process adheres to administrative law, the courts may well uphold it.
Let us confront the core objection head-on: that price controls reduce innovation. This concern is not frivolous. America leads the world in pharmaceutical innovation precisely because it has, historically, paid the price. The profits derived from the US market fund research labs from Basel to Boston. But this global good comes at a local cost, one that is becoming unbearable.
What Trump offers is not an end to pharmaceutical profitability, but an insistence on proportionality. If research and development are a global public good, then the funding of that good should not be extracted primarily from one nation. Let the Germans and the French and the Canadians contribute more. Let them pay their share. And let the American patient, who already shoulders more than enough, get some relief.
Consider the counterfactual: suppose the MFN policy were in place ten years ago. American taxpayers might have saved hundreds of billions of dollars. Lower out-of-pocket costs would have meant better medication adherence, fewer medical complications, and a healthier, more productive citizenry. That is not a theoretical hope but an economic projection rooted in well-documented health economics. The US spends more per capita on health care than any other country, and drug prices are a major contributor. The MFN model begins to correct that imbalance.
To be sure, implementation challenges remain. Drugmakers may respond by raising prices in foreign countries, undermining the benchmark. The direct purchasing mechanism may be slow to launch, hampered by logistics, safety protocols, or bureaucratic inertia. But these are not arguments against reform, only reminders that reform must be executed with competence.
Trump’s order also calls out foreign governments for their own price manipulation. The US Trade Representative is directed to push back against discriminatory pricing policies abroad. In effect, the administration is making clear: if you want access to the American market, you must stop freeloading off the American consumer. This is economic diplomacy at its most justified.
The pharmaceutical lobby will fight this tooth and nail. Already, industry stocks surged after the EO’s announcement, a signal that insiders believe implementation may be delayed or diluted. But if the Trump administration can muster the will to enforce the order, the effects will be historic. It would mark the first time in decades that the US government sided squarely with the American patient over the multinational drug cartel.
No other president has dared confront this imbalance so directly. Democrats have talked about drug pricing reform for years, yet under Biden, the MFN rule was rescinded without a whimper. Trump, in contrast, resurrected it and expanded its scope. In so doing, he returned to the populist conservative ethos that put him in the White House: government exists to serve its citizens, not to enrich corporate middlemen or subsidize foreign welfare states.
The critics will continue to cry foul. But as prices fall and access improves, their objections will ring hollow. The moral arc of drug pricing reform is long, but with this Executive Order, it bends toward justice. Americans deserve to pay no more than their peers abroad. At last, there is a president willing to say so, and more importantly, to act on it.
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.
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.
Liberal Prosecutors Sued For Colluding Against Trump In 2024 Election
An ethics watchdog is suing two top prosecutors for documents that may reveal a collusion scheme against President Donald Trump intended to influence the 2024 presidential election.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement it “filed a lawsuit against Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes for her communications with former Special Counsel Jack Smith.”
“On January 13, 2025 several media outlets reported that Attorney General Mayes had formally requested case documents from U.S. Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal investigation into President Donald Trump regarding the 2020 presidential election,” Judicial Watch.
“12News reported that ‘Mayes said the documents could ensure defendants in Arizona’s fake electors case would be held accountable,’” Judicial Watch notes.
That case refers to supporters of President Trump from states whose Electoral College votes went to Joe Biden, who alleged the results were fraudulent offered themselves to the Electoral College as “alternate electors” under a theory the Electoral College could refuse to accept a state’s official slate of electors.
Many of them in states like Arizona now face prosecution on charges of fraud.
Critics argue there were no “fake electors” because the accused persons never mislead anyone about their identity, publicly identified themselves as alternate electors to be considered only in the event the slate of electors submitted by state officials could be rejected by the Electoral Congress and even held press conferences to explain what they were doing.
Judicial Watch reports it “filed the Arizona Public Records Law complaint in the Superior Court of Arizona after the attorney general failed to respond to a January 13, 2025, request for:”
Any communications and/or documents with Jack Smith and/or the DOJ Special Counsel group/team from January 1, 2022, to the completion of this request.
“Collusion against President Trump by Democratic politicians with Jack Smith and the weaponized Biden Justice Department are of great public interest,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Attorney General Mayes is acting as if she has something to hide.”
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.
Sponsored
We Must Protect Election Integrity! Take the Official 2025 Voter Verification Questionnaire AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!