Home Blog Page 3

Trump Sends Ultimatum to Maduro Allies as U.S. Signals End to Negotiations

President Donald Trump monitors U.S. military operations in Venezuela, from Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Saturday, January 3, 2026.

President Donald Trump has delivered a blunt message to Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and his inner circle: cooperate with the United States—or step aside.

Fox News senior foreign correspondent Benjamin Hall revealed Sunday that Trump personally warned Maduro’s allies that they must either “surrender or play ball,” underscoring what the administration describes as a decisive shift away from diplomacy and toward direct action.

According to Hall, President Trump spoke directly with Maduro roughly a week before Saturday’s strike in Caracas. During that call, Trump reportedly issued a clear ultimatum demanding Maduro’s surrender. Maduro, Trump said, “was not willing.”

Hall noted that while Maduro has now been removed, several senior figures within the Venezuelan regime remain aligned with him, presenting an ongoing challenge for U.S. policymakers seeking stability in the region and an end to what they describe as narco-terrorist activity emanating from the country.

Operation Absolute Resolve – January 3rd, 2026

That message was reinforced by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who made clear that the Trump administration has no intention of tolerating continued obstruction from Venezuela’s remaining leadership.

“President Trump is done negotiating. He proved that a couple of days ago, that he is a man of action, that when someone is threatening the United States, he will defend it with every resource that we have, and he’ll continue to do that,” Noem said on Fox News Sunday.

Noem explained that Trump’s communications with Venezuela’s vice president were deliberately direct and unambiguous.

“His conversations now with the vice president in Venezuela are very matter-of-fact and very clear: ‘You can lead, or you can get out of the way because we’re not going to allow you to continue to subvert our American influence and our need to have a free country like Venezuela to work with rather than to have dictators in place who perpetuate crimes and drug trafficking,’” she said.

Her remarks followed the Trump administration’s high-profile operation on Saturday that resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro—an unprecedented move that sparked intense debate in Washington. While Democrats and some Republicans raised questions about the legality of the action and the long-term implications for Venezuela, supporters of the operation argued it sent a long-overdue message to hostile regimes.

The operation capped months of U.S. efforts to dismantle what officials describe as a network of narcoterrorism tied to the Venezuelan government. Those efforts included strikes against suspected drug trafficking vessels operating in Caribbean waters and increased enforcement against illicit oil shipments.

Noem pointed to those actions as further proof that the administration is committed to protecting American security interests and cutting off financial lifelines to adversarial governments.

“The Coast Guard has been heavily involved in stopping a lot of this shadow fleet of oil that has been trafficking illegally to many of our enemies in other countries,” she said.

Administration officials argue that Venezuela’s instability has long fueled drug trafficking, mass migration, and regional insecurity, and that decisive action was necessary after years of what they view as failed appeasement. Supporters say Trump’s approach represents a return to peace through strength—using American power to deter threats before they reach U.S. shores.

Trump Bombs Venezuela, Maduro And Wife Captured By US Forces

President Donald Trump holds a Cabinet meeting, Wednesday, April 30, 2025, in the Cabinet Room. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

President Donald Trump shared a bombshell announcement in an early-morning social media post as he claimed that the United States has “captured” Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and flown him to the U.S. following massive strikes on the Venezuelan capital of Caracas.

News broke after midnight Friday that the United States struck Venezuela’s capital of Caracas early Saturday morning as a series of explosions were reported by multiple news outlets.

At 4:21 AM, Trump posted on Truth Social that Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were captured, and promised a press conference later in the day:

The United States of America has successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country. This operation was done in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement. Details to follow. There will be a News Conference today at 11 A.M., at Mar-a-Lago. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

US Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on X, “Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, have been indicted in the Southern District of New York. Nicolas Maduro has been charged with Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States.”

The New York Times reported on reaction from inside Venezuela by that country’s Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello:

Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello of Venezuela, considered one of Nicolás Maduro’s top enforcers, called for calm in televised remarks and urged Venezuelans to trust the leadership. “Let no one fall into despair. Let no one make things easier for the invading enemy,” he said. Cabello also said, without providing evidence, that bombs had struck civilian buildings.

The moves follow months of threats and strikes on alleged drug boats and the U.S. seizure of oil tankers.

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

Israel’s President Directly Refutes Trump’s Pardon Claim

0
President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands during their joint press conference, Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2017, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Leslie N. Emory)

President Donald Trump sparked a brief diplomatic dust-up this week after remarks he made during a bilateral press appearance suggested that Israel’s president was preparing to pardon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump and Netanyahu met for several hours at Mar-a-Lago on Monday, followed by an extended question-and-answer session with reporters. During the exchange, Trump was asked whether Netanyahu—who is currently facing multiple corruption trials in Israel—deserved a pardon.

“I think he will,” Trump replied. “How do you not? He’s a wartime prime minister who’s a hero. How do you not give a pardon?”

Trump went further, telling reporters that he had personally discussed the matter with Israel’s head of state. “I spoke to the president, he tells me it’s on its way,” Trump said. “You can’t do better than that, right?”

Within hours, however, Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s office publicly pushed back, disputing Trump’s account. In a statement released shortly after the press conference, Herzog’s office said there had been no such conversation.

“There has been no conversation between President Herzog and President Trump since the pardon request was submitted,” the statement said.

The clarification went on to explain that while there had been prior contact involving Trump’s team, it did not involve any new assurances or commitments. According to Herzog’s office, “Several weeks ago, a conversation took place between President Herzog and a representative on behalf of Trump, who inquired about the American president’s letter. He was given an explanation of the stage the request is currently at, and that a decision on the matter would be made in accordance with the established procedures.”

The statement emphasized that this explanation mirrored what Herzog had already told the Israeli public.

Trump has been outspoken in his support of Netanyahu, both during and after his presidency. In October, while addressing Israel’s Knesset, Trump publicly urged Herzog to issue a pardon, brushing aside the allegations against Netanyahu as politically motivated. “I have an idea, why don’t you give Netanyahu a pardon?” Trump said at the time. “Who cares about cigars and champagne?”

Netanyahu’s legal troubles stem from several ongoing cases. He has been charged with unlawfully accepting gifts—including cigars and champagne—from wealthy associates, as well as more serious allegations involving quid pro quo arrangements. Prosecutors claim Netanyahu offered regulatory benefits to major media companies in exchange for favorable coverage, charges his supporters argue reflect judicial overreach and a politicized legal system targeting Israel’s most successful conservative leader.

Herzog, a former leader of Israel’s Labor Party, has the constitutional authority to issue pardons, though such decisions are traditionally handled cautiously and through formal procedures. While Trump formally requested a pardon in a letter sent in November, Herzog has made clear that no final decision has been reached.

Fox News Star Predicts Two Dems Will Announce 2028 Bids Early

0

Fox News contributor and former Trump White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany is already looking ahead to the next presidential cycle—and her prediction underscores a growing concern on the Right: Democrats may try to mimic President Donald Trump’s political playbook after years of vilifying it.

In a promotional video shared by Fox News on X and captioned, “We asked our talent to share their predictions for 2026!”, McEnany kicked off the segment with a bold forecast. According to McEnany, Democrats—despite routinely attacking Trump’s unconventional style—are quietly preparing to copy the very strategy they once denounced.

“Happy 2026,” McEnany said. “Here’s my prediction: there will be a Democrat who tries to emulate and copy the Trump playbook—meaning they will declare their candidacy for the presidency before the end of next year.”

McEnany named California Gov. Gavin Newsom as the most likely Democrat to break with tradition and launch an early White House bid, followed closely—perhaps uncomfortably closely—by former Vice President Kamala Harris.

“I believe that Democrat will be Gavin Newsom,” McEnany continued. “And shortly thereafter—though I don’t want to scare everyone—I believe Kamala Harris will declare shortly after in 2027. We’ll see!”

Democrats Imitating Trump?

The irony of McEnany’s prediction is hard to miss. For nearly a decade, Democrats and legacy media outlets have castigated President Trump for disrupting political norms, launching early campaigns, dominating media attention, and speaking directly to voters outside traditional party structures. Yet as Republicans consolidate behind Trump-style populism, Democrats appear increasingly eager to borrow from the same rulebook—early announcements, personality-driven politics, and nonstop media exposure.

Newsom, the progressive governor of California, has long been rumored to harbor national ambitions. His frequent appearances on cable news, high-profile red-state visits, and aggressive messaging against Republican governors have fueled speculation that he is positioning himself as the Democratic Party’s next standard-bearer.

Harris, meanwhile, remains one of the most polarizing figures in modern Democratic politics. After a historically weak vice presidency marked by staff turnover, low approval ratings, and policy misfires—particularly on immigration—Harris has been cautiously testing the waters for a political comeback.

A Tense California Power Struggle

Adding intrigue to McEnany’s prediction is the longstanding rivalry between Newsom and Harris, two California Democrats whose careers have frequently intersected—and occasionally clashed.

The relationship has often been described by political observers as “frenemies.” While publicly supportive, both figures clearly view one another as obstacles on the path to higher office.

That tension surfaced last summer during Newsom’s appearance on Pod Save America, shortly after Harris replaced President Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket. Asked about the abrupt switch, Newsom responded with thinly veiled sarcasm.

“We went through a very open process, a very inclusive process,” Newsom quipped. “It was bottom-up—I don’t know if you know that. That’s what I’ve been told to say!”

The remark was widely interpreted as a jab at Democratic leadership and their handling of Biden’s exit, reinforcing GOP criticisms that Democratic “democracy” often amounts to backroom decision-making.

Harris, for her part, took a swipe at Newsom in her campaign memoir 107 Days. She recalled calling Newsom to secure his support after Biden dropped out of the race—only to receive a terse text message.

“Hiking. Will call back,” Newsom reportedly replied.

“He never did,” Harris added pointedly.

Signs of a Harris Comeback?

Despite her past struggles, Harris has been making calculated moves that many Democrats—and Republicans—see as the early stages of a 2028 presidential run.

According to Axios, Harris has been “stepping toward” another campaign, citing her expanded book tour, renewed engagement with Democratic donors, and a high-profile appearance before the Democratic National Committee earlier this month.

Reporter Alex Thompson noted that after lying low for much of the year, Harris has suddenly reemerged on the national stage—raising eyebrows within her own party.

“After embarking on a 2024-focused book tour,” Thompson wrote, “Harris made several moves this week that many Democrats see as the beginnings of a 2028 campaign.”

DNC Chair Ken Martin has also offered unusually warm public praise for Harris, further fueling speculation.

Republican Congressman To Force Vote On Expelling Ilhan Omar From Congress

0

Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) says he is considering forcing a House vote to expel Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), citing long-standing allegations surrounding her personal conduct, past statements, and what he describes as her repeated hostility toward American values and national security.

Fine told Axios on Wednesday that the potential action would be based in part on allegations that Omar married her brother—claims Omar has repeatedly denied—as well as what Fine characterized as her “general embrace of Muslim terror.”

“I don’t think she should be a citizen, let alone a member of Congress,” Fine told the outlet.

Fine’s comments came in response to a recent fundraising email from Omar’s campaign that called for his expulsion from Congress, pointing to prior remarks in which Fine said radical Islamic ideology should be “destroyed.” Fine has argued that his statements were aimed at extremist ideology, not peaceful Muslims.

“I won’t send out fundraising emails calling for her expulsion,” Fine said.

“If I’m going to do that, you will see me bring the piece of paper. And I am actively considering that.”

Under House rules, expelling a sitting member requires a two-thirds majority vote. With Republicans holding only a narrow majority, Fine would need support from at least 85 Democrats—an extremely high bar that underscores how serious and rare such actions are. Historically, expulsions have been reserved for cases involving corruption, criminal conduct, or national security concerns.

Omar, a member of the progressive “Squad,” has faced ongoing criticism over past remarks about Israel, U.S. foreign policy, and terrorism, which many Republicans argue cross the line from criticism into outright hostility toward America and its allies.

She has also drawn renewed scrutiny following revelations of massive fraud tied to the Minnesota-based “Feeding Our Future” program, which prosecutors say siphoned more than $250 million from taxpayer-funded pandemic food aid. While Omar has not been charged, critics note that she supported the MEALS Act, which expanded food-aid flexibility during COVID lockdowns and later became linked to the fraud scheme.

When asked earlier this month whether she regretted backing the legislation, Omar dismissed any connection.

“Do you regret pushing for that bill, the MEALS Act? Do you think it led to the fraud?” Fox News reporter Nicholas Ballasy asked, according to Fox News.

“Absolutely not, it did help feed kids,” Omar replied.

President Donald Trump has also been sharply critical of Omar in recent weeks, frequently citing her rhetoric and broader concerns about unchecked migration and assimilation.

He referred to the congresswoman as “garbage” earlier this month and expressed blunt views about large-scale immigration from failed states, including Somalia, Omar’s country of birth, according to NBC News.

“I don’t want them in our country. I’ll be honest with you, okay. Somebody will say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct.’ I don’t care,” Trump said.

“I don’t want them in our country. Their country is no good for a reason,” he continued.

“Her friends are garbage,” Trump said in reference to Omar. “These aren’t people that work. These aren’t people that say, ‘Let’s go, come on, let’s make this place great.’ These are people that do nothing but complain.”

While any effort to expel Omar would face steep procedural odds, Fine’s comments reflect growing frustration among Republicans

Trump Vows To Intervene If Iran Starts Killing Protesters

President Donald Trump answers questions from members of the media aboard Air Force One en route to Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, for a rally on the economy, Tuesday, December 9, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

President Donald Trump early Friday warned the Islamic Republic of Iran that the United States would intervene if Iranian security forces violently suppress peaceful demonstrators. In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote that if Iran “shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom,” the U.S. “will come to their rescue.”

He added: “We are locked and loaded and ready to go.”

The president’s warning comes as widespread demonstrations over Iran’s deteriorating economy have expanded beyond Tehran to multiple provinces, raising concerns about a potential heavy-handed crackdown. At least seven people — including both protesters and security personnel — have been reported killed in clashes, according to international reporting.

Iranian officials sharply rebuked Trump’s remarks. Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, posted that U.S. interference “would mean destabilizing the entire region and destroying America’s interests” and urged Trump to reconsider.

The unrest is the most significant since the 2022 protests sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini. This week’s demonstrations began with shopkeepers objecting to a steep depreciation in the Iranian rial and have grown to include students and other citizens chanting against the theocratic leadership. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian acknowledged public grievances and urged listening to protesters’ “legitimate demands,” but his government faces limited options as economic conditions worsen.

State media has reported arrests and claims of seized smuggled weapons linked to the unrest, though details remain limited.

Trump’s Recent Iran Statements
Trump’s warning on Friday follows a series of hardline statements on Iran over the past week:

  • On Dec. 29, Trump warned at Mar-a-Lago that the U.S. could support further strikes against Iran if Tehran resumes its nuclear or ballistic-missile programs, saying intelligence suggested Iran may be rebuilding capabilities and that future action may be required.
  • On Dec. 30, Trump again signaled that the U.S. would take military action if Iran attempts to revive its nuclear weapons program, warning reporters that if Tehran “tries to build up again… we have to knock them down.”

These comments come amid heightened regional tensions after U.S. and allied strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in the summer of 2025 and Iran’s retaliatory attack on the U.S.-linked Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar.

Domestic Political Support for Tough Stance
Sen. John Fetterman (D–Pa.) — one of the few Democrats to break with his party’s mainstream on Iran — has publicly endorsed a strong military posture toward Tehran. Fetterman praised Trump’s June strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and wrote on X that he “fully support[s] any future strikes to damage or destroy their nuclear ambitions.” x

Fetterman’s stance underscores a rare bipartisan alignment on confronting Iran’s nuclear threat, even as other lawmakers emphasize congressional authority and caution.

Regional and Policy Implications
Iran’s government, beset by economic turmoil and foreign pressure, faces mounting internal dissent. Its currency has sharply depreciated, contributing to public anger and eroding confidence in the regime. Meanwhile, regional actors — including Israel and Russia — are warning against escalation, with Tehran emphasizing resistance against perceived foreign interference and rejecting renewed nuclear negotiations.

Democrat Senator Openly Backs Trump’s Iran Proposal

Gage Skidmore Flickr

President Donald Trump said Monday that the United States and Israel have already destroyed Iran’s nuclear program and warned that Tehran would face renewed military action if it attempts to rebuild its weapons capabilities. His remarks came as new reports allege the Iranian regime is pursuing chemical and biological warheads for its ballistic missiles.

Speaking at Mar-a-Lago alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump delivered a blunt warning to Tehran over its nuclear and missile ambitions.

“Now I hear that Iran is trying to build up again, and if they are, we’re going to have to knock them down,” Trump said. “We’ll knock the hell out of them.” He added that Iran would be “much smarter” to pursue a deal.

Trump framed Iran’s defeat as central to restoring stability in the Middle East, crediting joint U.S.-Israeli military action with fundamentally shifting the regional balance of power.

“We just won a big war together,” he said. “If we didn’t beat Iran, you wouldn’t have had peace in the Middle East. We wiped it out.”

When asked whether he would support further Israeli military action if Iran continues advancing its missile or nuclear programs, Trump responded without hesitation.

“If they continue with the missiles — yes,” he said. “The nuclear — absolutely.”

Pressed on whether he would support efforts to overthrow Iran’s ruling regime, Trump declined, while pointing to the country’s internal turmoil and economic collapse.

“I’m not going to talk about overthrow of a regime,” he said. “But they have tremendous inflation. Their economy is busted.”

Trump also noted that widespread protests inside Iran are frequently met with deadly force by the government.

The president’s comments followed a report Sunday from Iran International alleging that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is accelerating work on unconventional missile payloads, including chemical and biological weapons. The report cited unnamed military and security sources.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) echoed Trump’s hardline stance in a Monday post on X, saying he would support military strikes to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

“Iran can’t ever develop a nuclear weapon,” Fetterman wrote.

“Fully supported the strike earlier this year. Fully support any future strikes to damage or destroy their nuclear ambitions,” added Fetterman, a vocal supporter of Israel.


House Democrat Puts Trump Chief Of Staff ‘On Notice’ Over Vanity Fair Article

3
By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54327362226/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159757968

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is escalating his rhetoric against the Trump White House, warning chief of staff Susie Wiles to preserve internal communications as he vows to launch investigations into what he claims is political “retribution” by President Donald Trump.

The threat follows months of controversy surrounding criminal referrals involving prominent Democrats, including Swalwell himself, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and New York Attorney General Letitia James—cases Democrats have repeatedly framed as evidence of a politicized justice system, despite a lack of formal charges to date.

In a video posted Monday to his social media accounts, Swalwell said he had formally put Trump officials “on notice,” citing remarks by Wiles in a recent Vanity Fair interview that he claims amount to an admission that Trump is willing to pursue perceived enemies when opportunities arise.

“I want you to hear from me first. I’m going on offense against Donald Trump, and I just put senior Trump officials on notice,” Swalwell said. “Donald Trump once again is trying to weaponize the Department of Justice to go after his enemies list. That’s me, Adam Schiff, Tish James, and (Federal Reserve Governor) Lisa Cook.”

Background: Referrals, Not Charges

The confrontation comes after Trump-appointed Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte referred Swalwell to the Justice Department earlier this year over alleged mortgage and tax irregularities. Swalwell dismissed the referral as politically motivated. Similar referrals or allegations have been made against Schiff and James, though James’ case was dismissed in early December.

Republicans have argued that referrals themselves are routine and that Democrats are attempting to preemptively discredit oversight efforts by framing them as retaliation—particularly given Democrats’ own extensive use of investigations, subpoenas, and prosecutions during Trump’s first term.

The Vanity Fair Interview That Sparked the Fallout

Swalwell’s latest escalation centers on comments made by Wiles—widely viewed as one of Trump’s most disciplined and media-averse operatives—in an unusually candid Vanity Fair interview that has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle.

When pressed by the magazine about whether prosecutions of Trump critics could appear vindictive, Wiles acknowledged the political optics were problematic.

“I mean, people could think it does look vindictive. I can’t tell you why you shouldn’t think that,” she said.

Wiles added that Trump is not consumed by revenge but does not shy away from confrontation when opportunities present themselves.

“I don’t think he wakes up thinking about retribution,” she said. “But when there’s an opportunity, he will go for it.”

On New York Attorney General Letitia James—who built her political profile around investigations and prosecutions of Trump—Wiles was more blunt.

“Well, that might be the one retribution.”

The remarks quickly circulated online and were seized upon by Democrats as proof that Trump’s critics are being targeted for political reasons, despite the absence of new indictments.

Swalwell Escalates With Threat of Investigations

Swalwell framed Wiles’ comments as an admission that undermines claims that the referrals are routine or apolitical. He said his office has already sent a letter to Wiles demanding the preservation of records.

“So we just sent a letter to Susie Wiles telling her, save your sh*t: your emails, your text messages, everything that records or documents Donald Trump going after his political enemies,” Swalwell said. “Save it because we’re coming for it because we want the truth.”

He vowed to pursue inquiries into Trump’s decision-making process and the actions of his administration.

Watch:

“What did Trump know? What did he order? What do others do on his behalf?” Swalwell asked. “We’re not going away. And the American people are always going to choose the truth over Trump.”

Marjorie Taylor Greene Explains Her Break With Trump — and Why She’s Leaving Congress

2
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), once among President Donald Trump’s most reliable allies on Capitol Hill, is now openly explaining why that alliance collapsed — and why she has chosen to retire from Congress.

In a wide-ranging New York Times profile published Monday, Greene told reporter Robert Draper that her break with Trump was rooted less in ideology than in conscience, faith, and what she described as a growing discomfort with the political culture she helped sustain during the height of the MAGA movement.

Greene said she now views her earlier years in Washington as marked by what she called a “toxic” environment — one she came to believe conflicted with her Christian faith.

“I was naïve,” Greene said, reflecting on her time as a Trump loyalist. “Our side has been trained by Donald Trump to never apologize and to never admit when you’re wrong. You just keep pummeling your enemies, no matter what. And as a Christian, I don’t believe in doing that.”

A Turning Point After Charlie Kirk’s Death

Greene pointed to the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk as a pivotal moment in her personal reckoning. Watching Kirk’s memorial service, she said she was deeply moved by the grace shown by Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk — particularly in contrast to remarks Trump made shortly thereafter.

At a public appearance, Trump said that unlike Kirk, he chooses to “hate” his political opponents.

“It just shows where his heart is,” Greene later texted Draper. “And that’s the difference, with her having a sincere Christian faith, and proves that he does not have any faith.”

Greene said the moment forced her to confront the confrontational persona she believes Trump normalized — and that she herself had embraced.

“After Charlie died,” she said, “I realized that I’m part of this toxic culture. I really started looking at my faith. I wanted to be more like Christ.”

Epstein Files and the Final Rupture

From Greene’s perspective, however, the decisive break with Trump came over her insistence on releasing investigative material related to Jeffrey Epstein.

“It was Epstein. Epstein was everything,” she told the Times.

Greene argued that the files symbolized a deeper problem she believes cuts across party lines: elite impunity.

“Rich, powerful elites doing horrible things and getting away with it,” she said. “And the women are the victims.”

Her push angered Trump and alienated fellow Republicans, Greene said, leading the president to publicly brand her a “traitor” — a label that, she claimed, had real-world consequences.

“Am I going to get murdered, or one of my kids, because he’s calling me a traitor?” Greene recalled asking herself after receiving a pipe bomb threat and an anonymous email targeting her son.

Retirement From Congress — Not From Her Beliefs

Shortly after these events, Greene announced she would not seek reelection, effectively ending her time in Congress. While critics have framed her departure as ideological abandonment, Greene insists otherwise.

“Everyone’s like, ‘She’s changed,’” she said. “I haven’t changed my views. But I’ve matured. I’ve developed depth.”

She described her decision to leave Washington as the result of hard lessons learned — not a rejection of conservative principles or America First priorities.

“I’ve learned Washington, and I’ve come to understand the brokenness of the place,” Greene said. “If none of us is learning lessons here and we can’t evolve and mature with our lessons, then what kind of people are we?”

MAHA Year One: How Trump & RFK Jr. Are Rebuilding American Health

0
By Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America - Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CC BY-SA 2.0,

For decades, Americans were told a story about their health that no longer matched reality. We were assured that food was safe, that regulators were vigilant, that medical advice was insulated from politics and profit, and that rising chronic disease was an unfortunate but unavoidable byproduct of modern life. Meanwhile, the health of the nation deteriorated in plain sight. Obesity climbed year after year. Childhood chronic disease became common rather than exceptional. Autism rates surged. Cancer diagnoses among children rose. By the time President Trump returned to office, 76.4% of Americans were living with at least one chronic disease. Eight out of 10 children could not qualify for military service. What should have been treated as a civilizational emergency was instead normalized, until that long-running failure of honesty and accountability culminated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when public health leaders abandoned transparency, misled the public, and, under Dr. Fauci’s direction, shattered trust in medical professionals and the institutions meant to serve them.

The collapse of trust that followed COVID did not occur in a vacuum. It was the culmination of years of regulatory capture, scientific arrogance, and a public health establishment that confused authority with truth. Americans were ordered, not persuaded. Dissent was pathologized. Data was selectively presented. Vaccine policy was enforced through mandate rather than transparency. Dr. Fauci became the symbol of an anti-science regime that claimed infallibility while revising its claims in real time. When institutions insist on obedience while refusing accountability, trust does not merely erode; it implodes.

It is against this backdrop that the Make America Healthy Again initiative must be understood. MAHA is not a branding exercise or a partisan slogan. It is a course correction. President Trump’s decision to place Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the helm of HHS was not an appeal to nostalgia or name recognition. It was an explicit rejection of the managerial consensus that presided over the chronic disease explosion. The mandate was simple and radical: identify root causes, dismantle regulatory capture, and tell the truth even when it disrupts powerful interests.

Skeptics ask whether one year can matter. The answer depends on what one expects a first year to do. MAHA was never going to reverse decades of metabolic, environmental, and institutional decay overnight. Its purpose was to reorient the system, establish credibility, and force long-delayed questions back into the open. By that standard, the first year has been historic.

Start with the scope of institutional change. President Trump signed an executive order establishing the MAHA Commission, chaired by Secretary Kennedy, with a singular focus on chronic disease. For the first time in generations, chronic illness was treated not as an actuarial inevitability but as a policy failure demanding investigation. This alone marked a break with orthodoxy. Under previous administrations, chronic disease spending rose to $1.3T annually while prevention remained an afterthought. When Kennedy notes that the federal government once spent essentially nothing on chronic disease, he is not making a rhetorical point. He is diagnosing a structural blind spot.

The results are already visible. Thirty-seven states have enacted legislation advancing MAHA-aligned reforms. Nearly 100 MAHA-related bills have passed nationwide. Eighteen states secured SNAP waivers to restrict taxpayer-funded junk food purchases that directly fuel obesity and diabetes. These are not symbolic victories. They are structural incentives aligned with public health rather than industry convenience.

Food policy has been the most visible arena of reform, and for good reason. The American diet did not become toxic by accident. It was engineered through regulatory loopholes that allowed synthetic additives to enter the food supply under the GRAS standard with minimal oversight. MAHA moved quickly to overhaul this system. Agreements now cover roughly 40% of the food industry, committing to remove petroleum-based synthetic dyes. The dairy industry has pledged to eliminate artificial dyes from ice cream by 2028. These changes matter because they reset norms. Once voluntary reform becomes expected, resistance collapses.

The same logic applies to infant health. Operation Stork Speed was launched to expand access to safe and nutritious infant formula while removing heavy metals that had no business entering baby food in the first place. For parents who watched institutions minimize legitimate safety concerns during COVID, this shift toward precaution and transparency has been decisive in rebuilding trust.

Critics often ask whether MAHA is anti-science. The premise is backward. MAHA is anti-dogma. It insists that science earns authority through openness, replication, and humility. This is why vaccine policy has been reframed around informed consent and gold standard trials rather than mandates. Honesty about uncertainty is not weakness. It is the precondition of credibility. Public trust returns when institutions stop pretending to be omniscient.

This emphasis on trust extends beyond food and vaccines. HHS issued guidance restoring biological truth, recognizing that there are two sexes, male and female. This was not culture war theater. Medicine depends on biological reality. When institutions deny observable facts for ideological reasons, patients notice. Restoring clarity restores confidence.

MAHA’s critics also underestimate the importance of state-level experimentation. Utah’s decision to ban added fluoride in public drinking water did not impose a national mandate. It reopened a conversation that had been closed by bureaucratic inertia. Communities are once again allowed to weigh risks and benefits rather than defer to outdated consensus.

Health care delivery itself has not been ignored. Prior authorization has long functioned as a hidden tax on patients and physicians, delaying care while enriching intermediaries. Secretary Kennedy and CMS Administrator Oz secured industry commitments to streamline this process across health plans. Less paperwork means faster treatment and lower burnout. These are the reforms patients feel immediately.

Drug pricing has followed the same philosophy. President Trump’s most favored nation order is being rapidly implemented to align U.S. prescription drug prices with those paid abroad. This is not price control masquerading as populism. It is a refusal to subsidize global markets at the expense of American patients. Lower prices are a public health intervention.

Physical health has returned to the cultural mainstream as well. The Pete and Bobby Challenge, launched by Secretary Kennedy alongside Defense Secretary Hegseth, did something that countless white papers failed to do. It made fitness visible again. A nation where most children cannot meet basic physical standards is not merely unhealthy. It is vulnerable.

The MAHA Commission’s release of the Make Our Children Healthy Again strategy, outlining more than 120 initiatives, signaled that childhood chronic disease is no longer being treated as a mystery or a taboo. New data linking rising thyroid and kidney cancers among children demands answers. Autism rates demand answers. MAHA has made clear that asking these questions is not forbidden. It is required.

Perhaps the most underestimated achievement of the first year is cultural rather than regulatory. Trust is returning because institutions are speaking plainly. The public understands that special interests once thrived behind closed doors. They know they were sold better cigarettes and sugar smacks with a health halo. What they demanded in 2024 was not perfection. It was honesty.

President Trump and Secretary Kennedy have delivered the first credible attempt in decades to dismantle the alliance between bureaucratic power and corporate profit that hollowed out public health. The appointments at NIH, FDA, and CMS reflect this shift. These are not partisan enforcers. They are reformers tasked with ending capture and restoring the mission.

No serious observer should claim that the work is finished. Chronic disease did not emerge in one year, and it will not be eliminated in one term. But trajectories matter. Incentives matter. Trust matters most of all. After years in which Americans were told to comply and not question, MAHA has reopened the social contract between the public and medicine.

Public health cannot function without consent. Consent requires trust. Trust requires truth. That is the chain MAHA is rebuilding. It is why the first year matters. Not because every problem has been solved, but because the system has finally been pointed in the right direction.

If you enjoy my work, please subscribe: 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.