Like it or not Donald Trump is still popular…
The 2024 Republican frontrunner recently attended a UFC fight and the night’s events were interesting, to say the least.
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
A new federal lawsuit may reveal proof two CIA employees discussed a plot to “get rid of” and “take out” President Donald Trump.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced they filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Defense Department for “reports submitted by a military officer to his superiors regarding an alleged conversation around January 2017 between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko about trying to ‘get rid’ of then-President Trump.”
“The intelligence community targeted Trump for removal for daring to question Biden family corruption and election interference tied to Ukraine and Burisma,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The Biden Defense Department’s sitting for over a year on a simple FOIA request on the Deep State targeting of Trump is a cover-up plain and simple.”
In 2022 Real Clear Investigations reported:
Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower” who touched off Trump’s impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.
Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues…
At a meeting of National Security Council employees two weeks into the Trump administration, the unidentified military staffer, who was seated directly in front of Ciaramella and Misko, confirmed hearing them talk about toppling Trump.
“After Flynn briefed [the staff] about what ‘America First’ foreign policy means, Ciaramella turned to Misko and commented, ‘We need to take him out,’ ” the staffer recalled. “And Misko replied, ‘Yeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president.’”
Added the military detailee, who spoke on condition of anonymity: “By ‘taking him out,’ they meant removing him from office by any means necessary…”
Alarmed by their conversation, the military staffer immediately reported what he heard to his superiors.
“It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion,” he recalled. “They weren’t shouting it, but they didn’t seem to feel the need to hide it.”
In response, Judicial Watch file the suit after the Defense Department failed to respond to a January 14, 2022, FOIA request for:
Any and all reports submitted by a US military officer assigned to the National Security Council to his superiors relating to a conversation he overheard circa January 2017 at an “all-hands” NSC staff meeting between CIA analysts Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko regarding trying to “get rid” of then-President Trump, as discussed in a January 22, 2020 Real Clear Investigations article available at this link.
Any and all records relating to any investigations conducted by the Department of Defense and/or its sub-agencies and departments into the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella referenced above, including but not limited to investigative reports and witness statements.
All emails and communications sent to and from members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the alleged conversation between Misko and Ciaramella and any related investigations.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Despite the still ongoing media-Big Tech-Democrat Party c*llusion to ignore, minimize or denigrate any calls to investigate H*nter B*den’s foreign business deals, Americans are increasingly supportive of the idea.
This is great news for the incoming Republican House Majority which plans to do just that.
The latest Rasmussen Reports survey found that a whopping 62% of Americans want H*nter Bi*en’s business dealings investigated, especially those with C*mmunist China.
Similarly, about 63% told Rasmussen that the H*nter B*den l*ptop computer is an important story.
Of course, out of this nearly 2/3 majority, Republicans and independent voters are the most eager for a thorough H*nter probe, and Democrats less so.
But the numbers should still be highly concerning to the White House and its apologists.
The Washington Examiner noted that:
…a majority joined Republicans in raising questions about H*nter B*den’s computer files and advice the president gave his son prior to scoring big money payoffs from his overseas businesses
The survey found the public is gobbling up stories in the media about H*nter B**en and that they are especially interested in those about his computer.
Conservative media covered the computer stories heavily, but only recently have the liberal media joined in drawing attention to the controversy.
The Examiner added:
Frustrated with the liberal media’s slow wake-up to the computer and H*nter B*den controversy, the new House GOP has promised to make a big deal out of probing the president’s son, and the poll of likely voters showed support for that move.
However, let’s be clear. This isn’t just an investigation into the President’s w*yward son. It is a much-needed investigation into the entire B*den family enr*ching themselves un*thically, if not ill*gally.
And the real focus is on the ‘B*g Guy’ – J*e Bid*n.
As Spectrum News reported right before the GOP won control of the House:
GOP members of the Oversight and Reform Committee held a news conference Thursday in which they alleged, among other things, that Pre*ident B*den “personally participated in meetings and phone calls” regarding his s*n’s business exploits and that there was personal business conducted on Air Force Two while he was vice president.
Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., who is poised to chair the panel beginning in January, called the president “chairman of the board” and a “partner with access to an office.”
Republicans, who released an interim report Thursday, said they identified more than 50 countries where the B*den family, often led by H*nter B*den, sought business transactions.
“To be clear, J*e Biden is the b*g g*y,” Comer said. “This evidence raises troubling questions about whether President Biden is a national security risk and about whether he is compromised by foreign governments.”
Comer made it clear the investigation will focus on the pr*sident, not his s*n.
“We’re not trying to prove H*nter B*den is a b*d actor,” he said. “He is. If anybody wants to disagree with that, there’s nothing we have to talk about. Our investigation is about J*e B*den. And we already have e*idence that would point that J*e B*den was inv*lved with Hu*ter Bi*en on this.”
…
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views 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.
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.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.
In the quiet corridors of Republican power, something unprecedented is happening. For decades, party leadership maintained a mostly unspoken, but deeply respected ethic: do not intervene in open-seat primaries, especially in safely Republican districts. Let the voters decide. Let the grassroots rise. Let the contest unfold without the heavy thumb of Washington tipping the scale. This was not merely tradition. It was a matter of trust, a recognition that voters, not donors, not operatives, not Majority Whips, should choose the next Republican standard-bearer. Today, that ethic is being cast aside.
The stage is Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, a deep-red seat held by House Freedom Caucus (HFC) stalwart Andy Biggs, who is stepping down to pursue the governorship. Historically, this would be the moment for conservative insurgents to rise, for HFC allies to present their case to voters without interference from party brass. Instead, what we are witnessing is an unmistakable effort by House Republican leadership to erase one of the Freedom Caucus’s most reliable seats.
Three separate leadership PACs have now contributed directly to Jay Feely, a former NFL kicker and establishment-favored Republican who is not aligned with the Freedom Caucus. Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s “Electing Majority Making Effective Republicans” PAC gave $5,000. NRCC Chair Richard Hudson’s “First in Freedom PAC” gave $2,500. And Rep. Juan Ciscomani, of neighboring AZ-6, added $1,000 from his own “Defending the American Dream PAC.” These are not idle contributions. They are targeted, strategic, and meant to shape the outcome of a race that should have been left to the people.
Only one candidate in the race, Daniel Keenan, a local home builder, has pledged to join the Freedom Caucus. His candidacy represents continuity with Biggs’s conservative legacy. Feely’s candidacy, by contrast, is backed by leadership precisely because it promises rupture. That is the point. The goal here is not merely to elect a Republican, but to deny the seat to the Freedom Caucus entirely.
To grasp the seriousness of this act, one must understand just how rare it is. Leadership PACs, particularly those operated by high-ranking figures like the Majority Whip and NRCC Chair, have historically stayed neutral in Republican primaries unless protecting incumbents. This was not a legal requirement, but a moral one. Rick Scott, as NRSC chair, was emphatic on this point during his tenure: “We should remain neutral in primaries, except in the cases of GOP incumbents. The voters will decide.”
In fact, neutrality in safe-seat primaries was such a bedrock value that during the contentious 2023 Speaker’s race, conservative holdouts demanded that Kevin McCarthy enshrine it in writing. The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP’s main super PAC aligned with McCarthy, publicly promised not to interfere in open safe Republican primaries. CLF president Dan Conston declared, “CLF will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts, and CLF will not grant resources to other super PACs to do so.” That promise secured enough support for McCarthy to win the gavel. It was a recognition that such meddling would constitute a betrayal.
And yet, here we are, watching as Emmer, Hudson, and Ciscomani appear to do precisely what CLF promised not to do. They are not spending millions, but the act is significant because of who they are and what it signals. A whisper from the Majority Whip carries weight. A nod from the NRCC chair is not an idle gesture. Their PAC money announces a clear intention: the Republican Party must no longer accommodate the Freedom Caucus.
To call this behavior unethical is not hyperbole. The entire point of leadership PACs is to strengthen the party against Democrats, not to wage civil war within it. Donors to these PACs do not expect their money to be used to sandbag fellow Republicans who happen to believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, in tighter budgets, in actually following the rules. They expect their money to be used to expand the majority, not to hollow it out ideologically.
This is why even modest interventions like these cause such a stir. They are not just financial acts, but symbolic declarations. They say to the conservative base, “You are not welcome here.” They say to the House Freedom Caucus, “You will be replaced.” They signal that what was once an uneasy coalition is now an open conflict.
There is precedent, to be sure, but not encouraging one. In 2016, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp was defeated in his Kansas primary after outside money flooded the race. It was widely seen as retaliation for his opposition to then-Speaker John Boehner. The establishment, furious at Huelskamp’s independence, funded a challenger, Roger Marshall, who went on to win. At the time, that maneuver was shocking. Paul Gosar, another HFC member, remarked, “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t challenged sitting members. We’ve only played in open seats. But isn’t it interesting that K Street and Wall Street are playing against our members?”
Now, that behavior is becoming institutional. The NRCC chair and the Majority Whip are no longer merely allowing such intervention, they are directing it. The shift is profound. It marks a move from tolerating intra-party dissent to crushing it.
What changed? The rise of the Freedom Caucus has been a source of anxiety for establishment Republicans ever since its inception. But with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 and the growing alignment between the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA base, that anxiety has morphed into fear. The Freedom Caucus has shown it can shape leadership elections, influence appropriations bills, and demand accountability. It is no longer a fringe. It is a force. And that makes it a target.
Trump himself has called Tom Emmer a “RINO” and opposed his speakership bid. Hudson and Ciscomani have similarly earned the ire of MAGA-aligned voters for their votes on spending bills and procedural maneuvers seen as too accommodating to Democrats. The leadership PAC donations in Arizona’s 5th are not just about that race. They are part of a larger strategy to neutralize the most vocal advocates of the America First agenda.
None of this is illegal. But neither is it wise. When party leadership abandons neutrality, it sends a message to grassroots conservatives: your vote does not count unless we approve of your candidate. That message corrodes trust. It demoralizes volunteers. It severs the organic connection between representative and represented. It replaces the republican with the oligarchic.
The party should not fear its conservative wing. It should listen to it. If leadership believes Freedom Caucus members are too extreme, they should make that argument on the merits, in public, and with courage. They should not attempt to buy the outcome behind closed doors with PAC money. That is not persuasion. That is manipulation.
What is unfolding in Arizona’s 5th is not just a local race. It is a test case. If leadership succeeds in deleting a Freedom Caucus seat here, others will follow. More PAC money will flow. More loyal conservatives will be boxed out before the voters even speak. The House Freedom Caucus will be diminished, not by debate or democracy, but by design.
This is not the path to unity. It is the road to irrelevance. The Republican Party must decide whether it wishes to be a big tent or a closed club. If the answer is the latter, it should at least have the honesty to admit it.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.
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.
.
ANALYSIS – As most of my readers know, I’m not a big fan of Joe Biden, or any of his lefty White House minions. This includes retired Rear Admiral John Kirby, the oftentimes Democrat hack, previously Pentagon press secretary, and currently coordinator for strategic communications at the National Security Council (NSC).
Watching this former senior military officer try to spin ridiculous and dangerous Biden foreign and defense policies is often stomach churning.
But, if nothing else, I try to be fair and honest, and can applaud my opponents when they occasionally get something right.
And this time Kirby not only got things right, but he surprisingly dropped a major ‘truth bomb.’ And even Biden played a part.
On Wednesday Biden correctly responded to a lefty reporter’s loaded question about Israel causing civilian casualties in Gaza by saying he can’t trust the civilian casualty numbers disseminated by the Gaza Ministry of Health, controlled by Hamas. They are, essentially, terrorist propaganda.
In his response the elderly Biden referred to Hamas as “the Palestinians,” but it’s clear what who was talking about.
“What they say to me is I have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed. I’m sure innocents have been killed, and it’s the price of waging a war,” Biden said.
“But I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using.”
And that was spot on. The figures coming from Palestinian Hamas officials in Gaza are worse than worthless, they are lies.
Biden’s accurate observation was followed on Thursday by a question from another lefty reporter asking Kirby if Biden would apologize for his remarks since they had angered the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who called his comments “shocking and dehumanizing.”
Referring to Biden’s remarks, the reporter asked Kirby:
Don’t you think it is insensitive? There [is] very harsh criticism about it. For example, the Council of American-Islamic Relations said it was deeply disturbed and called on the president to apologize. Would the president apologize, and does he regret saying something like that?
To provide some background here, we need to note that while CAIR pretends to be a Muslim human rights group, it often traffics in anti-Jewish rhetoric.
CAIR’s Executive Director has claimed that ‘Zionist organizations’ in the U.S. are “enemies of the Muslim community” and that “Zionist organizations make up the core of the Islamophobia network in the United States.”
He has also used the trope that pro-Israel groups have “corrupted” the U.S. government and that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist. It’s really just another front group for promoting Islamism and antisemitism in the U.S.
So, it was refreshing to hear Kirby provide the biased reporter a firm and simple “no,” Biden won’t apologize.
Kirby then dropped the major ‘truth bomb’ about the Israeli-Hamas conflict. As Blaze Media reported:
“What’s harsh is the way Hamas is using people as human shields. What’s harsh is taking a couple of hundred hostages and leaving families anxious, waiting, and worrying to figure out where their loved ones are. What’s harsh is dropping in on a music festival and slaughtering a bunch of young people just trying to enjoy an afternoon,” he said.
“That’s what’s harsh. And being honest about the fact that there have been civilian casualties — and that there likely will be more — is being honest, because that’s what war is. It’s brutal. It’s ugly. It’s messy,” he continued. “I’ve said that before. President also said that yesterday. Doesn’t mean we have to like it. And it doesn’t mean that we’re dismissing any one of those casualties — each and every one is a tragedy in its own right.”
Kirby, moreover, revealed that the U.S. government is helping Israel minimize civilian casualties but highlighted how Hamas is making that difficult.
“It would be helpful if Hamas would let [Gazan civilians] leave,” he pointed out. “We know that there are thousands waiting to leave Gaza writ large, and Hamas is preventing them from doing it. That is what is harsh.”
BOOM! That truth bomb was a direct hit and must have caused some casualties among the leftist press corps. Well done, Admiral Kirby. Now can you tell the truth about Iran, the border, etc., etc.?
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
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.”
The showdown between former President Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has America hooked.
Have you already made up your mind or are you waiting for a fight?
Watch Amanda below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Today is the final day to cast your ballot for Republican Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker in the Peach State’s runoff election. Make sure to head to the polls to cast your vote!
Watch Amanda break down the latest Georgia runoff poll results below:
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.
