Home Blog Page 3

Tucker Carlson Reveals Plans To Purchase Home In Qatar

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
1
Tucker Carlson via Gage Skidmore Flickr

DOHA, Qatar — Tucker Carlson told an audience at the Doha Forum on Sunday that he plans to buy real estate in Qatar on Monday, framing the move as a statement of personal independence after months of criticism from fellow conservatives over his foreign-policy views and his media business relationships.

During an on-stage interview with Qatar’s prime minister, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, Carlson addressed allegations that he and his media outlet, the Tucker Carlson Network, have benefited from Qatari-linked money. Carlson denied it — then announced his intended purchase.

“I have been criticized as being a tool of Qatar, and I just want to say, which you already know, which is I have never taken anything from your country and don’t plan to,” Carlson said. “I am, however, tomorrow buying a place in Qatar.”

He continued: “I like the city, I think it’s beautiful, but also to make a statement that I’m an American and a free man and I’ll be wherever I want to be.”

Carlson’s remarks drew a brief round of applause from the crowd.

Why it’s causing heartburn on the Right

For many Republican voters — especially those who view Qatar primarily through the lens of Hamas, Iran, and Middle East conflict — the announcement landed like a political grenade. Some prominent conservatives have long labeled Qatar a bad actor because it maintains ties to Hamas and has hosted some Hamas leaders. Carlson raised that criticism directly, referencing Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) describing Qatar as a “terror state,” and asked the prime minister to respond.

Al Thani defended Qatar’s posture by arguing it had been asked by the U.S. and Israel “more than a decade ago” to maintain channels to Hamas, claiming those channels were useful in negotiations. Carlson presented the exchange as a case for diplomacy and communication — but critics argue it blurs moral lines and underplays the danger of legitimizing terror-linked organizations.

The Gaza exchange: what Qatar said on stage

In the interview, Al Thani rejected the idea that Qatar should bankroll reconstruction in Gaza, saying:

“We are not the ones who are going to write the check to rebuild what others destroyed.”

He added: “When you are talking about Gaza, Israel flattened this land.”

Those comments come as Qatar continues to present itself as a central player in negotiations surrounding Gaza, even as the region remains volatile.

Doha Forum’s unusual mix of speakers

Carlson wasn’t the only headline name in Doha. The forum featured a wide-ranging lineup that included Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr., and Bill Gates, along with journalists from major outlets spanning left and right.

Carlson’s growing fractures with the GOP — and the Nick Fuentes backlash

Carlson’s Qatar appearance is also landing amid a broader tension between Carlson and parts of the Republican coalition. In recent months, he has drawn increasing criticism from elected Republicans and conservative institutions who say his platform has drifted from defending core U.S. interests and has instead amplified figures and arguments that divide the party.

One flashpoint: Carlson’s recent interview with Nick Fuentes, a far-right influencer widely denounced for antisemitic rhetoric. The decision to give Fuentes a high-profile platform triggered condemnation from within the party — including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who reportedly called the interview a “big mistake” and described Fuentes as “vile.”

That controversy has widened a fault line on the Right: between voters who want a harder line against antisemitism and extremist activism, and voices in the “populist” media sphere who argue they’re simply questioning establishment taboos. The dispute has spilled into open feuds among prominent conservatives — and Carlson’s Qatar announcement only added fuel.

LAST CHANCE: Upgrade to GOLD MAGA Membership. Your upgrade info is due by 9 PM TONIGHT — or your account may be permanently deleted. CLAIM YOUR COMPLIMENTARY MAGA GOLD NOW.

Democrat Senator Claims Uniformed Military Is Planning Coup Against Trump

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
7
President Donald J. Trump is presented with a 10th Combat Aviation Brigade challenge coin following an air assault and gun rain demonstration at Fort Drum, New York, on August 13. The demonstration was part of President Trump's visit to the 10th Mountain Division (LI) to sign the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019, which increases the Army's authorized active-duty end strength by 4,000 enabling us to field critical capabilities in support of the National Defense Strategy. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Thomas Scaggs) 180813-A-TZ475-010

This week, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said that he believes the U.S. military could serve as a constraint on President Donald Trump’s administration, arguing that senior uniformed leaders remain primarily loyal to the Constitution rather than any individual political figure.

Speaking during an appearance on “MS NOW” Wednesday morning, Warner previewed questions he said he plans to ask U.S. Navy Adm. Frank M. Bradley when Bradley testifies Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Warner serves as the committee’s vice chair.

Warner said his questions will focus in part on concerns surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the administration’s recent military actions, including strikes in the Caribbean. Warner said he trusts Bradley, but raised doubts about Hegseth’s public statements.

“Remember, this is an administration that has treated the uniformed military with unprecedented disrespect when they were all brought to get a pep rally in front of Hegseth and Trump,” Warner said. “This is an administration that’s fired uniform generals from the head of the NSA, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.”

He added: “And I think in many ways, the uniformed military may help save us from this president and his lame people like Hegseth, because I think their commitment is to the Constitution and obviously not to Trump. And I expect Bradley to adhere to that.”

Warner’s comments follow similar remarks from other Democrats who have suggested service members could resist unlawful directives. Earlier this year, six Democratic lawmakers urged members of the military to resist “illegal” orders.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) made a related argument in an interview last month with Don Lemon, saying he has spoken with service members who view their oath as a safeguard.

“What gives me hope, and I talk to service members all the time. They tell me that I don’t appreciate enough and the public doesn’t appreciate enough that while Congress is not a check on the president anymore, and the judiciary at the Supreme Court is hardly a check, military members have told me, ‘We can be a check,’” Swalwell said.

He continued: “They’re essentially saying, ‘We’re not going to betray our oath to the Constitution because this guy tells us to.’ While it’s not codified that way — they’re not a branch of government on their own— their honor and integrity might just save us.”

Former President Barack Obama also addressed the issue Monday, saying he has seen signs of “resistance” within the military to what he described as politicization, while adding he does not believe that politicization has fully taken hold.

“I would not expect the politicization of the Justice Department or our military,” Obama said. “And I don’t think that’s happened. I think there’s been resistance, particularly in the military, to that, but the degree to which that has been encouraged, you know, that used to be something that I would lecture other countries not to do.”

Hanging on by a thread: Republicans hold the slimmest majority in 100 years! The GOP needs YOUR help to defeat the Democrats. Help save the House!

Trump Signs Law Delivering First Medal Of Honor Pension Increase In 25 Years

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    0
    President Donald Trump participates in a welcome ceremony with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Al Saud at the Royal Court Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tuesday, May 13, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

    President Trump has signed the Medal of Honor Act, a bipartisan measure that delivers the first pension increase for Medal of Honor recipients in a quarter-century. The law lifts annual compensation from $16,880 to $67,500, a major boost aimed at honoring the 61 living Americans who earned the nation’s highest award for valor.

    A Rare Moment of Unanimous Support

    The bill, led by Rep. Troy Nehls and Sen. Ted Cruz, cleared the Senate unanimously last month. Lawmakers from both parties backed the increase, calling it a long-overdue adjustment for service members who put everything on the line in combat.

    What the New Law Does

    • Raises the annual Medal of Honor pension to $67,500
    • Quadruples current yearly compensation
    • Applies to all living recipients
    • Marks the first update to Medal of Honor pensions in 25 years

    Why It Matters

    Supporters say the upgrade brings the benefit in line with the significance of the medal itself. Medal of Honor recipients have long carried symbolic weight in American culture, yet their compensation has not kept pace with inflation or the modern cost of living.

    After the bill passed, Sen. Ted Cruz’s office put out a statement saying: “Medal of Honor recipients are often not retired from the U.S. military and often receive no compensation for the costs of their public engagements. Through these appearances, they share stories of heroism that inspire Americans, strengthen national pride, and support military recruiting and retention. Increasing their monthly pensions is essential to easing the financial burden on their families and ensuring they can continue representing the best of our nation’s values.”

    Looking Ahead

    With the new law in place, recipients will see the higher rate take effect immediately. For veterans groups, this represents a major win and a signal that Congress and the White House can still unite behind issues tied to military service and national honor.

    Vivek Ramaswamy needs 10,000 grassroots endorsements by the end of 2025! He can’t do it alone. Ohio NEEDS your help. [ADD YOUR NAME HERE]

    Federal Grand Jury Declines To Re-Indict New York AG Letitia James

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3

    A federal grand jury declined Thursday to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James after the Justice Department presented an alleged mortgage-fraud-related case to the panel for a second time.

    Another source familiar with the matter cautioned against celebrating too soon, noting the Justice Department could attempt to seek an indictment a third time.

    James welcomed the decision and again denied wrongdoing.

    “As I have said from the start, the charges against me are baseless. It is time for this unchecked weaponization of our justice system to stop,” James said in a statement Thursday.

    “I am grateful to the members of the grand jury and humbled by the support I have received from across the country. Now, I will continue to do my job standing up for the rule of law and the people of New York.”

    Alec Perkins from Hoboken, USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    The decision comes amid intensifying national debate over whether federal law enforcement is being used for political ends, a concern frequently raised by Republican voters and officials in recent years. James, a prominent Democratic officeholder and a frequent political target of former President Donald Trump, had faced allegations that prosecutors said involved false statements to a financial institution and bank fraud. She previously pleaded not guilty to one count of making false statements to a financial institution and one count of bank fraud.

    Late last month, a federal judge threw out the initial charges, ruling that the prosecutor leading the cases had not been properly appointed.

    In that decision, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie said Lindsey Halligan, described as Trump’s handpicked prosecutor, was unlawfully appointed as an interim U.S. attorney and that the cases against James and another Trump political opponent, former FBI Director James Comey, had to be dismissed.

    “All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” including the indictments against Comey and James “were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside,” Currie ruled.

    The judge dismissed the cases “without prejudice,” leaving open the possibility that prosecutors could bring the same allegations again under a properly appointed official. That legal posture created a pathway for the Justice Department’s rapid return to the grand jury, underscoring the government’s determination to keep the matter alive even after the initial dismissal.

    At the same time, James’ legal team and allies have continued to argue that the prosecution itself is politically motivated. Before the judge tossed the case, James raised claims that she was being singled out and targeted for selective and vindictive prosecution—arguments that could resurface if prosecutors attempt to refile.

    James and Comey have pointed to public statements by Trump calling for investigations and prosecutions of political adversaries, and James has accused the government of “transforming the Department of Justice into the President’s personal agents of revenge.”

    Their attorneys cited one of Trump’s Truth Social posts, directed at Attorney General Pam Bondi in September.

    “Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, ‘same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,’” Trump wrote, referring to Comey, James, and Sen. Adam Schiff of California.

    Hanging on by a thread: Republicans hold the slimmest majority in 100 years! The GOP needs YOUR help to defeat the Democrats. Help save the House!

    House Democrat Announces Articles Of Impeachment Against Hegseth

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    4
    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) said Thursday he plans to file articles of impeachment targeting Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, arguing the Pentagon chief should be removed over what he described as two separate controversies inside the Defense Department.

    “This secretary has to go,” Thanedar told Fox News host Josh Breslow. “He’s incompetent. He’s, you know, violated — he has committed war crimes. He must go.”

    He added, “And if both parties, if Republicans are willing to look at this for the merit of this case and not just their loyalty to President Trump, this can be done.”

    Thanedar pointed first to Hegseth’s use of the encrypted messaging app Signal to discuss a pending strike on Houthi targets in Yemen. A Pentagon inspector general report made public this week faulted Hegseth for using an unapproved channel to share sensitive strike-related information and warned the practice could have endangered U.S. personnel if intercepted.

    The Signal thread drew additional scrutiny after The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently included in the chat, alongside senior administration officials. Investigators said that exposure of operational details—such as timing and other strike specifics—could have put U.S. forces at risk.

    Thanedar also cited reporting around a separate episode involving a Sept. 2 strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean. According to that reporting, Hegseth ordered military leaders to “kill everybody,” and a follow-up strike occurred even after survivors were seen in the water—raising questions about targeting decisions and command accountability.

    What are the “two scandals” Hegseth is facing?

    1) The Signal/Yemen strike controversy

    • The Pentagon inspector general concluded Hegseth violated DoD policy by using Signal on a personal device to share sensitive information about impending Yemen strikes, warning it could have jeopardized service members and the mission.
    • Reporting also noted limits to what investigators could directly review from Signal and that Hegseth declined an interview with the inspector general, while denying wrongdoing.

    2) The Caribbean “drug boat” strike controversy

    • Reporting has centered on whether a second strike was ordered or permitted after survivors were apparent, and whether the rules/protocols around such engagements were properly followed; Hegseth has said he did not “stick around” after giving the order for the first strike and learned of the later events afterward.

    Other attempts to impeach Cabinet officials

    Impeaching Cabinet members is rare historically—only a small number of federal officials have ever been impeached by the House, and Cabinet officials are a tiny subset of that list.

    A few notable modern-era examples or efforts:

    • Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security): The House impeached Mayorkas in 2024; the Senate later dismissed the articles, ending the case.
    • Donald Rumsfeld (Defense): In 2004, a House resolution (H.Res. 629) sought to impeach Rumsfeld; it was referred to committee and went nowhere.
    • Merrick Garland (Attorney General): Multiple impeachment resolutions were introduced against Garland in the 117th Congress (including H.Res. 743 and H.Res. 1318).
    • Antony Blinken (Secretary of State): An impeachment resolution (H.Res. 608) was introduced in the 117th Congress.
    The clock is ticking and every second counts. VP Vance is working tirelessly to fulfill Trump’s America First agenda but he needs your help. Leave a special message for JD Vance HERE.

    Superstar Elton John Shares What Would Make Trump One Of The ‘Greatest Presidents In History’

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2

    Elton John told Variety last week that if President Donald Trump helps deliver on the long-standing goal of ending AIDS, it would cement a historic legacy—an appeal that comes as scientific breakthroughs and policy debates converge around HIV prevention and global aid.

    Speaking Tuesday with Variety about the work of his namesake Elton John AIDS Foundation, the “Tiny Dancer” singer emphasized the value of bipartisan cooperation. He noted past support from Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and urged the Trump administration to keep pushing toward eradication.

    “The bipartisan thing makes common sense,” John said. “To see us come so far with the medical and scientific advances, and to think this is the only disease that can be completely cured in one’s lifetime. President Trump has maybe solved the peace problem. If he wants to go down as one of the greatest presidents in history… if he ended AIDS, that would really be a feather in his cap.”

    John’s remarks come as new medical advances have added momentum to HIV prevention. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in June a new, twice-yearly shot from Gilead Sciences, a U.S. private sector biopharmaceutical company, to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. In clinical trials, the shot was nearly 100% effective at preventing HIV transmission and performed better than prior prevention options.

    Trump has also previously stated a goal of eradicating the disease by 2030, announcing an initiative to end HIV during his first term in 2019.

    Even so, the politics of global health funding remain contentious. The Trump administration sought to cut funding from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in the president’s original rescissions package in July, though Senate Republicans later agreed to preserve PEPFAR funding.

    John said he is frustrated when governments scale back support—whether through budget decisions or legal restrictions—despite the availability of effective tools.

    “I just am enraged by it,” John told Variety. “It’s very frustrating when you’ve got the tools in your hand to end it, and then you find that countries won’t help.”

    In a comment to Fox News Digital, White House spokesman Kush Desai said the administration is continuing its efforts domestically and internationally.

    “Elton John can rest assured that the Trump administration is robustly tackling the HIV/AIDS epidemic both at home and abroad,” Desai said. “The State Department is working directly with foreign governments to implement a global health strategy to streamline America’s foreign assistance and modernize our approach to countering infectious diseases like HIV.”

    He added, “HHS, meanwhile, is advancing next-generation HIV prevention and treatment options, strengthening viral suppression nationwide via HRSA’s Ryan White program, supporting emergency preparedness, and expanding access to trusted HIV information.”

    John’s comments also reflect a long-running, sometimes surprising, cordiality toward Trump. He has spoken positively about the president before—including reacting to Trump’s “Little Rocket Man” nickname for North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, a reference to John’s music.

    “I laughed, I thought that was brilliant,” John said in 2024. “I just thought, ‘Good on you, Donald’… Donald’s always been a fan of mine, and he’s been to my concerts many, many times. So, I mean, I’ve always been friendly toward him, and I thank him for his support. When he did that, I just thought it was hilarious. It made me laugh.”

    Hillsdale College’s new free online course, “American Paintings,” takes you on a guided tour of our story through art. If you love this country and want to rediscover the spirit that built it, this course is for you. Be among the first to enroll — SIGN UP NOW and start “American Paintings” today.

    CNN Inks Deal With Major Prediction Market Backed by Trump Jr.

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    CNN Headquarters via Wikimedia Commons

    CNN is reportedly entering a new partnership with prediction-market company Kalshi that would weave Kalshi’s real-time odds and forecasts into CNN’s on-air and digital coverage—an alliance that also has the effect of placing the network in a business relationship with Donald Trump Jr.

    Axios first reported the deal Tuesday, citing sources who said Kalshi will appear “across its television, digital, and social channels.” Under the arrangement, Kalshi’s prediction data would be featured on CNN programming as a live “real-time data ticker,” with additional segments built around prediction-market oriented content touching politics, news, culture, and weather. CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten is also expected to incorporate Kalshi’s numbers into his data-driven analysis, according to the report.

    The collaboration would represent Kalshi’s first major partnership with a national news organization—an important milestone for a company that has sought to position itself as a go-to source for fast-moving probability estimates about cultural and political events. In practice, prediction markets function like real-time sentiment gauges: prices (or implied probabilities) move up and down as participants buy and sell contracts tied to specific outcomes, translating collective bets into a snapshot of what the market thinks is most likely at a given moment. For a television newsroom, that kind of constantly updating “odds board” can be a compelling visual—especially during election cycles and major breaking-news moments—because it packages uncertainty into an easy-to-read number.

    But the most politically sensitive dimension of the reported partnership is who else is tied to Kalshi.

    As Media Matters’ Matthew Gertz noted, Donald Trump Jr. announced in January 2025 that he had joined Kalshi as a “strategic advisor.” Trump Jr. framed the company as a disruptive force in the U.S. market for event-based trading, touting Kalshi’s legal fights and its efforts to build mainstream legitimacy. “I’m excited to be part of what they’re building,” he said at the time, casting Kalshi as a pioneering player in an industry that has long operated in a gray area in the United States.

    That makes CNN’s reported move notable for more than its graphics package. If Kalshi data becomes a recurring on-air feature—particularly in political coverage—CNN would be elevating a product linked to a prominent partisan figure: the son of a president and a central surrogate in Republican politics. Even if Trump Jr. has no day-to-day role in editorial decisions at CNN, his publicly announced advisory position creates an unavoidable headline: a major news network integrating a data feed from a company whose strategic advisor is one of the most recognizable names in national GOP politics.

    The questions are as much about perception as they are about logistics. Prediction-market numbers can be useful as one input among many—alongside polling, modeling, and reporting—but they can also be misunderstood by audiences as “what will happen” rather than “what traders think might happen,” especially when those percentages are presented like sports odds. And with Trump Jr. connected to the company supplying the data, critics are likely to scrutinize when and how CNN uses the ticker, whether the network discloses the advisory relationship on-air, and how often the data appears in politically charged segments.

    For Kalshi, the upside is obvious: a prominent distribution channel that could normalize prediction markets and introduce the brand to a much larger audience. For CNN, the draw is fresh, visually dynamic data—something that fits modern broadcast pacing and could complement its analytics-heavy style, particularly in elections and major news events. But the addition of Donald Trump Jr. to the equation ensures the partnership won’t be viewed as just another data collaboration.

    Hillsdale College’s new free online course, “American Paintings,” takes you on a guided tour of our story through art. If you love this country and want to rediscover the spirit that built it, this course is for you. Be among the first to enroll — SIGN UP NOW and start “American Paintings” today.

    Boasberg Changes Course On Jan. 6 Defendants Pardoned By President Trump

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    5
    Tyler Merbler, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    A move with far-reaching implications…

    U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Wednesday ordered the federal government to refund two Jan. 6 defendants—both pardoned by President Donald Trump—for restitution payments and fines they paid in their earlier criminal cases, marking a reversal from the judge’s decision just months ago.

    In a memo order, Boasberg detailed the legal path that led to the outcome for Cynthia Ballenger and her husband, Christopher Price. The couple was tried and convicted on misdemeanor charges tied to the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and ordered to pay hundreds of dollars in assessment fees and restitution. Boasberg’s order “clears the way” for both to be refunded in full.

    The shift, Boasberg wrote, stems from a key procedural development: an appeals-court decision and the timing of Trump’s pardon, which was issued while their case was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

    “Having viewed the question afresh, the court now agrees with the defendants,” Boasberg said.

    A pardon wasn’t the whole story

    Ballenger and Price were actively appealing their convictions when Trump returned to office for a second term and issued a sweeping pardon covering roughly 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants. After the pardon, they sought to recover the $570 each they had already paid in restitution and fees.

    In July, Boasberg denied that request, relying on precedent that a pardon alone does not automatically entitle a defendant to recover money or property lost because of a conviction. He reiterated that point again in Wednesday’s order:

    “By itself, defendants’ pardon therefore cannot unlock the retroactive return of their payments that they ask for here,” he wrote, emphasizing that his earlier reasoning on this question “remains unchanged.”

    Instead, he explained, the decisive factor was what happened next at the appellate level. Because the cases were pending when Trump granted the pardon, the pardon effectively mooted their appeals and led the D.C. Circuit to vacate their convictions altogether—meaning the convictions were treated as void.

    “So even if defendants’ pardon does not entitle them to refunds, the resulting vacatur of their convictions might,” Boasberg wrote. “In plain English, vacatur — unlike a pardon — ‘wholly nullifie[s]’ the vacated order and ‘wipes the slate clean.’”

    Why the refund question still mattered legally

    Boasberg went beyond the basic “refund or not” question and addressed two issues often raised when courts order the federal government to pay money: the Appropriations Clause (which generally requires congressional authorization before money is paid out) and sovereign immunity (the principle that the government cannot be sued without consent).

    He concluded the court still has the authority to reverse the payments in these circumstances.

    “Because the court could order defendants to pay assessments and restitution, it can order those payments reversed,” he said. “Those are two sides of the same action, and sovereign immunity does not stand in the way.”

    He summed up the principle this way: “When a conviction is vacated, the government must return any payments exacted because of it.”

    Political and public reaction

    The order is likely to resonate beyond the courtroom. Many Trump allies have argued that the Justice Department’s Jan. 6 prosecutions were overbroad, particularly for misdemeanor cases, and that defendants should not continue to bear financial penalties once their convictions are wiped away.

    At the same time, Democrats have sharply criticized Trump’s pardons. Earlier this year, the late ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Gerald Connolly, argued in a letter that the pardons let Jan. 6 participants “off the hook” for an estimated $2.7 billion in estimated damages to the U.S. Capitol.

    Hillsdale College’s new free online course, “American Paintings,” takes you on a guided tour of our story through art. If you love this country and want to rediscover the spirit that built it, this course is for you. Be among the first to enroll — SIGN UP NOW and start “American Paintings” today.

    Trump Says Americans May Soon Pay ‘No Income Tax’

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1

    President Donald Trump on Tuesday floated the idea that Americans could see their federal income taxes drastically reduced—or potentially eliminated—if tariff revenue continues to rise, calling the amounts collected under his administration “so great… so enormous” that the government may be able to abandon the current system.

    Speaking to reporters in a post–cabinet meeting press gaggle, Trump said, “at some point in the not too distant future you won’t even have income tax to pay,” arguing that tariff-driven revenue could eventually replace money now raised through taxes on wages and personal income.

    “Whether you get rid of it or just keep it around for fun or have it really low, much lower than it is now, but you won’t be paying income tax,” Trump added.

    If pursued, the proposal would amount to one of the biggest shifts in the U.S. tax structure in generations. The federal income tax is a central funding source for Washington, while tariffs—taxes on imported goods—have historically played a smaller role in modern federal budgeting. Trump, however, has repeatedly praised an older era of American finance, when the federal government relied more heavily on customs duties and other consumption-style taxes.

    “It’s time for the United States to return to the system that made us richer and more powerful than ever before,” the president said in January. “Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich foreign nations, we should be tariffing and taxing foreign nations to enrich our citizens.”

    Trump has previously previewed narrower versions of the same concept. Earlier in his second administration, he floated eliminating income tax for individuals earning under $150,000, again describing tariffs as the replacement revenue stream. That idea—like full repeal—would still require major legislative action and raise large questions about how the federal government would maintain funding levels for defense, Social Security and Medicare administration, interest payments on the national debt, and other functions now supported by income-tax receipts.

    The president has also framed the idea as a common-sense bargain rather than a technical redesign of federal finance. Asked by podcaster Joe Rogan whether he was serious about eliminating personal income taxes, then-candidate Trump replied, “Yeah, sure, why not?” and suggested tariffs could fund government operations “instead of wage taxes.”

    Even if the White House embraces the concept, the path to implementation is steep. Eliminating or dramatically shrinking the income tax would require rewriting large sections of the tax code—changes that must pass Congress and withstand scrutiny from budget scorekeepers and lawmakers concerned about deficits, household costs, and the economic consequences of sharply expanding tariffs. Those hurdles could be especially high amid tight margins in the House, where leadership often struggles to keep large coalitions together on complex fiscal votes.

    Trump’s views on taxation have also shifted over time. During his brief exploration of a 1999 presidential run under the Reform Party banner, Trump considered a one-time “net worth” tax for people with wealth over $10 million—an approach that contrasts with his current push to shift more of the federal tax burden toward imports.

    While outright abolition of the income tax has traditionally been a fringe policy idea, Trump’s increasingly explicit endorsement has pushed it closer to mainstream political debate—especially as tariffs become a larger and more central feature of his economic message.

    The clock is ticking and every second counts. VP Vance is working tirelessly to fulfill Trump’s America First agenda but he needs your help. Leave a special message for JD Vance HERE.

    House Democrat Launches Investigation Into Trump’s ’60 Minutes’ Interview Edit

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) is pressing CBS and its parent company, Paramount, to explain how the network handled edits to a President Trump interview that aired on “60 Minutes” on Nov. 2 — raising new questions about media transparency, newsroom accountability, and whether political pressure is being applied behind the scenes.

    In a letter to newly appointed CBS News ombudsperson Ken Weinstein, first shared with The Hill, Raskin accused the network of yielding to what he called the “improper influence President Donald Trump wielded over CBS News’s editorial decisions” in recent weeks.

    “President Trump increasingly appears to be exercising direct control over CBS’s editorial decisions, destroying CBS’s ‘journalistic integrity’ while violating its right to be free from governmental coercion and manipulation,” Raskin wrote.

    At the center of the dispute is CBS’s decision not to include a portion of Trump’s on-camera remarks to journalist Norah O’Donnell in which he referenced a past settlement involving Paramount and his presidential foundation. That omission, Raskin argued, undercuts the network’s responsibility to air relevant context — especially at a moment when many conservatives have long criticized legacy media for selective editing and narrative framing.

    In the transcript CBS posted online after the broadcast, Trump’s comments appeared, even though they weren’t included during the televised segment:

    “And, actually, ’60 Minutes’ paid me a lot of money,” Trump said. “And you don’t have to put this on, because I don’t want to embarrass you, and I’m sure you’re not … I think you have a great, new leader, frankly, who’s — the young woman that’s leading your whole enterprise is a great, from what I know.”

    Raskin’s complaint comes against the backdrop of a separate editing fight involving CBS and a “similar interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 election,” which drew heavy criticism from Trump allies and prompted CBS to change its approach. After that blowback, CBS pledged to publish full transcripts of “60 Minutes” interviews with presidents and presidential candidates — a move some conservatives applauded as a step toward transparency.

    The letter also points to a major leadership shakeup inside Paramount and CBS. The transcript indicates Trump’s reference to a “new leader” was aimed at Bari Weiss, described as “the former New York Times columnist and a controversial figure in media,” who was installed as CBS’s editor in chief under new CEO David Ellison — son of tech billionaire Larry Ellison.

    Raskin’s letter further notes broader corporate and regulatory developments surrounding Paramount, including federal approval for its merger with Skydance and reported plans for additional media deals. He also claimed CBS News “is just one victim in President Trump’s systematic campaign of intimidation against media organizations,” and referenced Trump’s reported threats involving the BBC over editing in a Jan. 6 documentary.

    In practical terms, Raskin is asking for internal detail on how CBS handles complaints and how editorial choices get made. He is requesting a written explanation of CBS’s complaint-review standards, an assessment of whether “Trump’s requests to CBS to omit portions of his interview violates CBS News’s editorial independence standards,” and “all documents, communications, and editorial guidance provided to ‘60 Minutes’ producers regarding the Trump interview.”

    In his message to Weinstein, Raskin framed the ombudsman’s role as a check on management and outside influence:

    “Mr. Weinstein: news ombudsmen serve as independent advocates for the public, investigating complaints and publicly critiquing their organizations when those organizations fall short,” Raskin wrote. “You have a duty to defend CBS’s editorial independence, rather than ratify President Trump’s influence over the organization’s coverage.”

    Hanging on by a thread: Republicans hold the slimmest majority in 100 years! The GOP needs YOUR help to defeat the Democrats. Help save the House!
    1234...289Page 3 of 289
    © Great America News Desk 2022