In an attack that shook America to its core on Saturday afternoon, a failed loner attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump. The New York Times’ editorial choices in covering it over the past 24 hours have sparked widespread discussion and criticism.
NYT’s Editorial Decisions
One of the most controversial decisions was the alteration of their cover photo, which conspicuously cut out the American flag. This move did not go unnoticed and spurred intense reaction online. Additionally, The New York Times opted not to use the word “assassination” in its front-page story about the shooting.
The New York Times deliberately cropped out the American flag and they didn’t even zoom in the photo if that was their intention. It’s so obvious. pic.twitter.com/wx64WnBlkw
The New York Times wasn’t alone in making editorial choices that drew scrutiny. CNN’s Jamie Gangel also faced criticism for her response. Gangel chose to chide Trump’s rhetoric mere seconds after the attack, a decision sorely lacking empathy and perspective.
However, these responses were somewhat subdued when compared to the reactions from two reporters from a far-left Seattle outlet. These ideologues appeared to cheer the near miss.
Staff writer at The Stranger Ashley Nerbovig, who covers “policing, incarceration and courts” for the far-left outlet posted on X, “Make America aim again,” in reaction to the news that the former president had survived the shooting at a rally in Pennsylvania on Sunday. Nervobig deleted the post, but screenshots went viral. She then deleted her account.
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) July 14, 2024
Fellow Stranger writer Hannah Krieg criticized Seattle’s Democratic mayor for praising the Secret Service and wishing the best for the former president.
Following the news of the failed assassination, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrel posted on X, “This act of political violence is disturbing and unacceptable in our country. Thank you to the Secret Service and all the first responders who quickly secured the scene. Our thoughts are with the former president and all the people who attended today’s rally.”
Krieg shared the post and wrote, “Mayor Bruce Harrel swiftly comes to the defense of Trump, a failed insurrectionist touted by mainstream Democrats as an existential threat to Democracy.” She deleted the post and then locked her account after the blowback.
Nerbovig and fellow Stranger writer Hannah Krieg have been obsessed with defending Hamas since Oct 7. They appear to be laser-focused on supporting terrorists while demonizing the Jewish state. pic.twitter.com/vi4gwymUlU
For readers and viewers, these examples highlight the importance of critically evaluating news sources and being aware of potential biases. It also underscores the need for media literacy in this country.
The House on Tuesday overwhelmingly voted to quash an effort by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) to impeach President Trump over the U.S. strikes on Iran.
The chamber voted 344-79 to table Green’s resolution, which charges Trump with abuse of power. One hundred-twenty eight Democrats voted with Republicans to table the measure.
Green has sought for months to trigger a vote on impeaching Trump, slamming his handling of foreign and domestic policy issues.
The congressman on Tuesday reupped that effort, filing a resolution accusing Trump of failing to seek authorization from Congress before striking three sites in Iran over the weekend, which Democrats have taken issue with.
“In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, abused the powers of the presidency when he disregarded the doctrine of separation of powers by usurping Congress’s power to declare war and ordered the United States military to bomb another country without the constitutionally mandated congressional authorization or notice to Congress — cognizant of the fact that should another country’s military bomb a facility within the United States of America, it would be a de facto declaration of war against the United States of America,” the impeachment resolution reads.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
A group of Evanston, Illinois, residents are suing their city government over a $20 million scheme to give away $25,000 each to Black residents as “reparations” for wrongs experienced by past generations.
The nonprofit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced it “filed a class action lawsuit against Evanston, Illinois, on behalf of six individuals over the city’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program which makes $25,000 payments to black residents and descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969.” (RELATED: San Francisco Debates $5 Million Per Person Reparations Proposal)
The New York Times photo archive, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“The Evanston, Illinois’ ‘reparations’ program is nothing more than a ploy to redistribute tax dollars to individuals based on race,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This scheme unconstitutionally discriminates against anyone who does not identify as Black or African American. This class action, civil rights lawsuit will be a historic defense of our color-blind Constitution.”
“Through a series of resolutions, the Evanston City Council created a program to provide $25,000 cash payments to residents who lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969 and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren,” JW reports, after filing a class action, civil rights lawsuit which challenges “on Equal Protection grounds Defendant City of Evanston’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a program that makes $25,000 payments to residents and direct descendants of residents of the city five-plus decades if not more than a century ago. Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the Defendant’s use of race to be unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing to use race as a requirement for receiving payment under the program and request that the Court award them and all class members damages in the amount of $25,000 each.”
Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
JW argues that “the program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because:”
Remedying societal discrimination is not a compelling governmental interest. Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 505 (1989); see also Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 307 ((1978) (opinion of Powell, J.) (describing “societal discrimination” as “an amorphous concept of injury that may be ageless in its reach into the past.”) Remedying discrimination from 55 to 105 years ago or remedying discrimination experienced at any time by an individual’s parents, grandparents, or great grandparents has not been recognized as a compelling governmental interest…
Defendant also has not and cannot demonstrate that its use of a race as an eligibility requirement is narrowly tailored. Among other shortcomings, Defendant’s use of race as a proxy for experiencing discrimination between 1919 and 1969 does not limit eligibility to persons who actually experienced discrimination during that relevant time period and therefore is overinclusive. Defendant also failed to consider race-neutral alternatives, such as requiring prospective recipients show that they or their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents actually experienced housing discrimination during the relevant time period because of an Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure, as Defendant requires for the third group of prospective recipients. Nor did Defendant take into account race-neutral anti-discrimination remedies before adopting its race-based eligibility requirement.
According to JW, the program works as follows:
The first group of persons eligible for the $25,000 payments are current Evanston residents who identify as Black or African American and were at least 18 years of age between 1919 and 1969. Evanston refers to this group as “ancestors.”
The second group are individuals who identify as Black or African American who are at least 18 years of age and have at least one parent, grandparent, or great grandparent who identifies (or identified) as Black or African American, lived in Evanston for any period between 1919 and 1969, and was at least 18 at the time. Evanston refers to this group as “direct descendants.” A “direct descendant” is not required to be a current resident of Evanston to receive the payment.
“At no point in the application process are persons in the first and second groups required to present evidence that they or their ancestors experienced housing discrimination or otherwise suffered harm because of an unlawful Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure or some other unlawful act or series of acts by Evanston between 1919 and 1969,” Judicial Watch states in the laws.” “In effect, Evanston is using race as a proxy for having experienced discrimination during this time period.” (RELATED: Squad Member Introduces Proposal For $14 Trillion In Reparations)
Judicial Watch states in the lawsuit that “the six plaintiffs satisfy all eligibility requirements for participating in the program as ‘direct descendants’ other that the race requirement (the actual number of individuals who are potential class members is in the tens of thousands).”
Christine Svenson of Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufman, LLC is assisting Judicial Watch in the lawsuit.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News.
Donald Trump Jr. has once again found himself in the spotlight, this time for his fiery response to a Mediaite reporter’s question about his potential 2028 presidential run. In a tense exchange, Trump Jr. asked the reporter, “Are you f**king retarded?” after being asked whether he was considering a run for the White House in the upcoming election.
The controversy stemmed from a Mediaite article titled “Donald Trump Jr. Considering a Run for President in 2028,” which cited three anonymous “high-level sources” who claimed that Trump Jr. was seriously weighing a presidential bid. Despite Trump Jr.’s strong denial of the claim, Mediaite proceeded with the headline and included his rebuttal much later in the article.
“I accurately predicted that my buddy JD would be an instant power player in national GOP politics, so your theory is that I worked my ass off to help get him the VP nomination because I want to run for president in 2028? Are you f**king retarded?” Trump Jr. responded, according to Mediaite. “I’m actually glad you’re printing this though because at least now the rest of the press corps will see how sh**ty your ‘sources’ are and how easily you’re played by them. Congrats, moron,” he added, emphasizing his frustration with the claims.
His reaction gained traction political circles, with many mocking Mediaite for running the story despite Trump Jr.’s strong dismissal. Republican strategist Andrew Surabian quickly weighed in on Twitter, claiming that many reporters in Washington, D.C., were sending him the story to mock Mediaite’s handling of the situation. “Every reporter in DC I know is sending me the story mocking Mediaite for running it. Total clowns,” Surabian tweeted on Friday.
Trump Jr. remains the only named source in the Mediaite story, with the outlet running his direct denial much later in the article after his sharp rebuke. The situation highlights the ongoing tension between politicians and the media, especially when it comes to high-profile figures like Trump Jr. who are often the subject of speculation.
The incident also highlights a broader trend in modern journalism, particularly with regard to Donald Trump and his family. Starting with his initial presidential run, many media outlets have been accused of loosening or outright abandoning traditional journalistic standards in their coverage of Trump and his associates. This has often included sensationalized headlines, reliance on anonymous sources, and the prioritization of clickbait over factual reporting.
In the case of Donald Trump Jr., Mediaite’s story—despite his firm denial—was a prime example of how some outlets have increasingly blurred the lines between speculation and reporting. Critics argue that the aggressive nature of the media’s coverage of the Trump family has led to a growing mistrust of the press, with outlets prioritizing controversy, intrigue and partisan agendas over responsible, balanced journalism. As the Trump dynasty continues to dominate American politics, the way the media handles their coverage remains a contentious issue, with many wondering if the standards that once governed political reporting will ever fully be restored.
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News
New York Republican gubernatorial nominee Lee Zeldin has been targeted in a new investigation less than two weeks before the midterm elections.
Zeldin is under investigation by the State Board of Elections over allegations that he coordinated with two super PACs supporting his campaign, according to The Hill.
Michael Johnson, the chief enforcement counsel of the New York State Board of Elections, opened a preliminary investigation into Zeldin’s campaign after the allegations emerged.
Johnson is now seeking subpoena authority from the State Board of Elections to compel cooperation with his investigation, according to the Times.
However, he was stymied when two Republican members of the board unexpectedly missed a business meeting on Tuesday, preventing the board from reaching a quorum to vote on the subpoena issue and likely delaying the issue until after the election, per the Times.
The Albany Times-Union first reported in mid-October that there were several overlaps between Zeldin’s campaign and two super PACs supporting him — Safe Together New York and Save Our State New York.
Days later, the New York State Democratic Party filed a complaint against Zeldin’s campaign over the alleged super PAC. Super PACs are legally allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against candidates but are barred from coordinating with the candidates they benefit.
Zeldin has been rapidly closing the gap against New York Gov. Kathy Hochul in recent weeks.
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Lauren Boebert is already facing a challenger in 2024’s campaign for what would be her third term in Congress.
On Tuesday, Adam Frisch, the Democrat who came within half a percentage point of unseating the conservative lawmaker, announced his 2024 campaign.
“November’s election results show us that Boebert is weak and will be defeated, which is why I have decided to launch my 2024 congressional campaign,” Frisch said in a statement.
Frisch drew widespread headlines in November for his unexpectedly close race against Boebert. According to The Hill, Frisch led the incumbent by 64 votes at one point during the race despite his lack of political experience.
“Lauren Boebert is everything that’s wrong with Congress,” he said in his announcement video, zeroing in on her vote against certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election and her stance against abortion.
“She’s part of the anger-tainment circus that’s tearing our country apart,” he said. “I’ll put Colorado first — Colorado energy, Colorado water and Colorado jobs.”
Despite Frisch’s early entrance to the race, a spokesperson for Boebert touted her legislative record
“The entire country watched as Congresswoman Lauren Boebert helped fearlessly lead the way in making historic improvements to how Congress operates,” Boebert spokesman Ben Stout said. “In just a matter of weeks since then, Congresswoman Boebert has cosponsored and helped pass 6 bills and authored 4 amendments, each one passing on the House floor with bipartisan support.”
Casa Rosada (Argentina Presidency of the Nation), CC BY 2.5 AR via Wikimedia Commons
California Democrats have plans to redraw the state’s districts in a long-shot attempt to threaten Republicans’ majority in Congress.
According to California Democrats, the move was prompted by news that Texas might try to redraw its districts to gain more Congressional seats. Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott has “directed the state Legislature to discuss redistricting in an upcoming special legislative session,” KCRA noted. California Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom said of Texas, “They’re playing by a different set of rules.” (RELATED: Trump Eyes Redistricting Blitz To Add 5 More GOP Seats In Texas Before 2026)
On Wednesday, the California Democratic congressional delegation met with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and reportedly discussed ideas for gaining even more seats to overturn the perilously slim majority Republicans hold in the House, Punchbowl News reports.
“The games they play aren’t working and the more people get educated on what’s going on, the more they’re going to fight back,” California Assemblymember Leticia Castillo of Riverside, who left the Democratic Party and became a Republican, said of California’s Democrats.
In 2010, California voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 20, a constitutional amendment that stripped politicians of the ability to draw their own districts and instead handed that responsibility to an independent redistricting commission.
But now, California Democrats—led by Governor Gavin Newsom—are exploring ways to claw back that authority, effectively undoing the will of the people. As Punchbowl News reported, Newsom sees two potential paths to tilt the balance of power in his party’s favor.
The first plan would involve Newsom calling a special session of the Democratic supermajority legislature to put a proposition on the ballot that would “pause” or completely eliminate the independent commission’s authority. It would then be up to voters—again—to decide. But Democrats are reportedly weighing whether to sweeten the deal by bundling the measure with conservative-friendly policies like a voter ID requirement, which is broadly popular among Republicans. Critics point out that this could be a costly and deceptive move, as it would require millions in campaign funds to push the message through California’s media markets.
The second strategy would be even more brazen: simply redrawing the maps mid-decade by claiming California’s constitution doesn’t explicitly prohibit it. Newsom himself has called this a “novel legal question,” but it would almost certainly invite a legal battle. Such a move would represent a major break from precedent and an alarming use of loopholes to override voters’ intent.
One potential legal barrier is the Voting Rights Act, which protects majority-minority districts—particularly Latino-majority seats—from being dismantled. Redrawing those lines could dilute minority voting power and ignite a broader constitutional showdown.
Targeted GOP districts that have reportedly been discussed include these GOP Congressmen:
Ken Calvert
Kevin Kiley
Darrell Issa
Young Kim
David Valadao
Doug LaMalfa
“We want our gavels back,” Rep. Mark Takano, who would be the new chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee should Democrats regain the majority in the House, stated. “That’s what this is about.”
The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Ron DeSantis is issuing a challenge to his rival Donald Trump.
On Wednesday, the Florida Governor and Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis asked Fox News anchor Sean Hannity to arrange a debate between himself and former President Donald Trump.
Recently, Hannity moderated a long-awaited debate between DeSantis and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The Fox anchor seemed to welcome the idea of a similar event involving Trump before asking if DeSantis was confident Joe Biden would be the Democrat party’s nominee for president.
“Well, Sean, I don’t think we’ve spoken since that debate, and the reaction that I’ve gotten has been incredible in terms of obviously being able to show that freedom works and the California models of failure, what that means for the country. But people appreciated the way you set it up, and they said it was the most substantive debate that they’ve seen in this entire election cycle, and so kudos to you for doing it,” began DeSantis before throwing down the gauntlet. “So I’m glad we were able to get that done, and just know if you want to do other debates — Nikki Haley and me, I’m in, Donald Trump, and me, I’m in — so just say the word. You’ve shown that you can do it in a way that I think really helps the voters. So I’m game. Just let me know.”
“Okay, those are two. Do you have any more on your list? Maybe Joe Manchin, He’s going on a two month tour. Anybody else on your list that you’d like to do?” replied an amused Hannity.
Trump has dominated the polls and so far has refused to participate in any Republican primary debates.
The surveys tested how Biden would perform against the Republican frontrunner — whom Biden defeated in the 2020 election — and found that Trump would beat him in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
President Donald J. Trump hosts a Rose Garden Club dinner in honor of Police Week in the White House Rose Garden, Monday, May 11, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)
President Donald Trump will deliver a prime-time “Speech to the Nation” from the White House on Thursday evening, with senior administration officials saying the address is expected to cover a variety of topics — including election integrity and the ongoing confrontation with Iran.
Trump announced the address Monday on Truth Social, saying it will begin at 9 p.m. ET. While he did not outline the full agenda, a senior adviser described the speech as a “potpourri” of issues the president considers most important.
Iran expected to be a major focus
According to a senior White House adviser, Trump is expected to provide an update on the administration’s response to Iran following weeks of escalating tensions in the Middle East.
The address comes after the United States launched additional military strikes against Iranian targets in response to renewed threats against commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Trump has repeatedly vowed to keep the strategic waterway open and has warned Tehran of further consequences if it interferes with international maritime traffic.
Election integrity also on agenda
The adviser said election integrity is also expected to feature prominently in the speech.
Online speculation suggested Trump might revisit the 2020 Georgia Senate runoff elections, but the White House adviser rejected those reports, saying the president does not plan to focus specifically on those contests.
Instead, the president is expected to discuss election security more broadly as he continues pushing for stricter voter identification requirements and other election reforms ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Trump wants more prime-time addresses
Although Trump frequently speaks with reporters and holds campaign-style events, he has delivered relatively few formal, direct-to-camera prime-time addresses from the White House during his second term.
According to the senior adviser, the president wants to make such speeches a more regular part of his communications strategy, allowing him to address Americans directly on issues he considers significant.
The White House has not released additional details about the speech’s format or confirmed where on the White House grounds Trump will deliver the remarks.
With Iran, election security and other major issues expected to be discussed, Thursday’s address is shaping up to be one of the administration’s highest-profile televised events in recent months.
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Former President Trump is suing CBS News for $10 billion in damages.
Trump’s attorneys said the complaint comes due to “CBS’ partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion calculated to confuse, deceive, and mislead the public.”
Trump’s legal team also argued the edits were done in an effort to “attempt to tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party as the heated 2024 Presidential Election — which President Trump is leading — approaches its conclusion.”
“President Trump brings this action to redress the immense harm caused to him, to his campaign, and to tens of millions of citizens in Texas and across America by CBS’s deceptive broadcasting conduct,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit comes after Trump’s attorneys wrote letters to CBS News demanding the network release the full transcript of the “60 Minutes” interview with Harris after it aired two different answers to the same question. Trump attorneys asked CBS to preserve all documents and communications related to the interview pending a potential legal battle.
The lawsuit filed Thursday specifically references the exchange Harris had with “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker. In a preview clip that aired on “Face the Nation,” Harris was asked why it seemed like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn’t listening to the U.S.
“Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region,” Harris responded in the “Face the Nation” clip.
“We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end,” Harris said in the primetime special.
Critics have accused CBS News of editing Harris’ “word salad” answer to shield the vice president from further backlash.
Trump lawyers argue that news organizations “are responsible for accurately representing the truth of events, not distorting an interview to try and falsely make their preferred candidate appear coherent and decisive, which Kamala most certainly is not.”
“Due to CBS’ actions, the public could not distinguish which Kamala they saw in the Interview: the candidate or the actual puppet of a behind-the-scenes editor,” the lawsuit states, noting that Whitaker’s question “was of the utmost public significance — U.S. foreign policy on the matter of the Israel/Gaza war — at a time of immense importance, mere weeks before the most critical presidential election in American history.”
Trump is demanding a jury trial and at least $10 billion in damages for CBS’ alleged “ongoing false, misleading, and deceptive acts; the attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this action; and such other relief as the court deems just and proper.”
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
