Home Blog Page 3

Judge Dismisses Trump’s Wall Street Journal Defamation Suit

2

A federal judge on Monday dismissed President Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over a report detailing a letter Trump allegedly sent to disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday.

Trump has denied writing the letter and claims it was fabricated. But U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles ruled that the president failed to meet the high legal standard required for public figures to pursue defamation claims—specifically, showing “actual malice.”

“The Complaint comes nowhere close to this standard. Quite the opposite,” Gayles wrote.

Gayles, who sits on the federal bench in Miami and was appointed by former President Obama, said Trump may attempt to amend and refile the lawsuit.

The suit stems from a July filing after The Wall Street Journal published a report about a 2003 letter Trump allegedly sent to Epstein. The letter reportedly included several lines of text “framed by the outline of a naked woman” and ended with the message, “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

Trump has said he warned the Journal the letter was fake before publication and argued the outlet should have known the story was false. The Journal has stood by its reporting.

In his ruling, Gayles emphasized that the court was not deciding whether Trump actually wrote the letter.

“Because the Court finds that the Complaint fails to adequately allege actual malice, it declines to address these issues at this juncture,” Gayles wrote. “Moreover, whether President Trump was the author of the Letter or Epstein’s friend are questions of fact that cannot be determined at this stage of the litigation.”

The judge also noted that even if Trump had successfully alleged actual malice, his claims for special damages would still fail.

A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said the president plans to continue pursuing the case.

“President Trump will follow Judge Gayles’s ruling and guidance to refile this powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other Defendants,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “The President will continue to hold accountable those who traffic in Fake News to mislead the American People.”

The lawsuit names The Wall Street Journal, the two reporters who wrote the story, News Corp, its CEO, Dow Jones, and Rupert Murdoch as defendants.

The case comes amid renewed attention on Epstein and his past associations. Trump has denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein and has said the two had a falling out years ago.

Last week, First Lady Melania Trump also addressed the issue from the White House, denying any connection to Epstein and claiming she was being defamed.

“The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility and respect,” she said from the Grand Foyer. “I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.”

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

Pope Leo Sends Bold Response After Trump Ramps Up Attacks Against The Pontiff

    6
    President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

    Pope Leo XIV pushed back Monday against criticism from President Donald Trump, framing his remarks on peace as rooted in religious teaching rather than politics.

    Speaking to reporters aboard the papal plane en route to Algeria, the pope dismissed the notion that his message should be interpreted as a political challenge to the White House.

    “I have no fear of the Trump administration,” the pope said.

    “The message of the church, my message, the message of the Gospel: Blessed are the Peacemakers. I do not look at my role as being political, a politician,” he added.

    The exchange follows a sharp escalation from Trump, who on Sunday used his Truth Social platform to attack the pope’s positions on global security, crime, and diplomacy. In a lengthy post, Trump accused Leo of undermining strong foreign policy and aligning with left-wing priorities.

    “Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy,” Trump wrote.

    “Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician. It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church,” he continued.

    Trump later expanded on those criticisms while speaking to reporters on the tarmac after arriving on Air Force One, suggesting the pope’s rhetoric was dangerously out of step with global threats.

    “We don’t like a pope that’s going to say that it’s okay to have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said. “We don’t want a pope that says crime is okay in our cities. I don’t like it.”

    “I’m not a big fan of Pope Leo. He’s a very liberal person, and he’s a man that doesn’t believe in stopping crime,” he added. “He’s a man that doesn’t think that we should be toying with a country that wants a nuclear weapon so they can blow up the world.”

    Trump also made the claim that his presidency played a role in Leo’s rise, pointing to the pope’s American background.

    “I like his brother Louis much better than I like him, because Louis is all MAGA,” Trump wrote. “He gets it, and Leo doesn’t.”

    “If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican,” Trump said.

    Responding Monday, Leo declined to engage directly in a political back-and-forth but made clear he viewed Trump’s criticisms as a misunderstanding of the church’s mission.

    “The things that I say are certainly not meant as attacks on anyone,” he said, speaking in English. “I don’t think that the message of the Gospel is meant to be abused in the way that some people are doing.”

    He also took a subtle swipe at Trump’s preferred platform, adding, “it’s ironic, the name of the site itself; say no more,” while insisting, “I will not enter into debate.”

    The pope emphasized that his comments on war, nuclear risk, and international cooperation are grounded in longstanding church teaching, not support for any government or adversary.

    “To put my message on the same plane as what the president has attempted to do here, I think is not understanding what the message of the Gospel is,” Leo said. “And I’m sorry to hear that but I will continue on what I believe is the mission of the church in the world today.”

    “I will continue to speak out loudly against war, looking to promote peace, promoting dialogue and multilateral relationships among the states to look for just solutions to problems,” he added.

    Framing his position as a moral imperative rather than a geopolitical stance, Leo pointed to the human cost of ongoing conflicts.

    “Too many people are suffering in the world today,” he said. “Too many innocent people are being killed. And I think someone has to stand up and say there’s a better way.”

    Leo also rejected Trump’s suggestion that his comments were aligned with Iran or any specific government.

    “Leo claimed he was speaking for the church and not himself or Iran.”

    The clash highlights a broader divide between the Vatican’s emphasis on diplomacy and moral authority and Trump’s more confrontational approach to foreign policy and domestic security—a divide now playing out publicly between two of the world’s most prominent figures.

    Vice President Vance downplayed concerns about President Trump’s ongoing feud with Pope Leo XIV late Monday.

    Vance, who is promoting his upcoming book about his conversion to Catholicism, dismissed the backlash over the exchange in an interview with Fox News.

    “I don’t think that it’s particularly newsworthy, but I certainly think that in some cases it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality, to stick to matters of what’s going on in the Catholic Church and let the president of the United States stick to dictating American public policy,” he said.

    Trump Rival Eric Swalwell Suspends Campaign

    3
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) announced Sunday that he is suspending his campaign for governor of California, just over 48 hours after multiple reports surfaced alleging sexual assault and misconduct involving a former aide and other women.

    “I am suspending my campaign for Governor,” Swalwell wrote in a post on the social platform X. “To my family, staff, friends, and supporters, I am deeply sorry for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past. I will fight the serious, false allegations that have been made — but that’s my fight, not a campaign’s.”

    The San Francisco Chronicle first reported Friday that Swalwell allegedly sexually assaulted a former aide in 2019 and 2024, incidents in which the woman was said to be too intoxicated to give consent. CNN later reported that four women had accused Swalwell of sexual misconduct, including one who alleged rape.

    Swalwell forcefully denied the claims.

    “They are absolutely false. They did not happen,” Swalwell said in a video posted on X on Friday. “They have never happened, and I will fight them with everything that I have. They also come on the eve of an election where I have been the frontrunner candidate for governor in California.”

    His attorney has also sent cease-and-desist letters to several of the accusers, according to CNN.

    Despite those denials, political support for Swalwell unraveled rapidly. Within hours of the initial reports, his campaign co-chairs — Reps. Adam Gray (D-Calif.) and Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) — publicly urged him to exit the race. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime power broker in California politics, also called for him to drop out and said the allegations should be “appropriately investigated with full transparency and accountability.”

    An unsigned letter from members of Swalwell’s congressional office and campaign described the allegations as “abhorrent, beneath the dignity of those serving in public office and betrays the trust of all Californians,” according to Politico.

    Calls for his resignation from Congress have also grown, spanning both parties.

    Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) said she plans to file a motion to expel Swalwell from the House. Expulsion would require a two-thirds vote, meaning significant Democratic support would be necessary. Some Democrats have already indicated they would back such a move if Swalwell does not step down.

    Separate investigations may further complicate his situation. The Department of Homeland Security said Sunday it is probing allegations that Swalwell illegally employed a nanny, while Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office confirmed it is reviewing the sexual assault claims.

    Before the allegations emerged, Swalwell had been widely viewed as a leading contender in the Democratic gubernatorial primary. He had secured endorsements from major groups, including the California Teachers Association and the California Medical Association — both of which have since rescinded their support.

    “CTA’s democratically elected board has voted unanimously to rescind our endorsement of Representative Eric Swalwell in his campaign for Governor of California. We withdraw all support,” the California Teachers Association wrote on X.

    The race is now far more uncertain. Democratic strategists say candidates such as billionaire Tom Steyer and former Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) could gain traction as voters reassess their options ahead of the June 2 primary.

    Swalwell’s political downfall marks a dramatic turn for a congressman who rose to national prominence as one of former President Donald Trump’s most outspoken critics. A frequent presence on cable news, Swalwell served as an impeachment manager during Trump’s first Senate trial and was a vocal advocate for investigations into Trump’s conduct and associates.

    The two have traded barbs for years, with Trump repeatedly targeting Swalwell in speeches and on social media, often mocking him personally and politically. Swalwell, in turn, built a national profile by positioning himself as a leading Democratic counterweight to Trump, including during his brief and unsuccessful 2020 presidential campaign.

    Trump Announces Blockade On Ships Going In or Out of Strait After Talks Collapse

    3
    President Donald J. Trump visits the El Arepazo Doral restaurant, Monday, March 9, 2026, in Miami, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

    Vice President JD Vance emerged early Sunday morning from an extended round of high-stakes negotiations with Iranian officials in Islamabad, Pakistan, acknowledging that the two sides failed to reach an agreement to end the ongoing conflict—while signaling that the impasse could carry serious consequences for Tehran.

    Speaking to reporters around 6:30 a.m. after what he described as a roughly 21-hour session, Vance said the talks were substantive but ultimately unsuccessful.

    “The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement,” Vance said. “And I think that’s bad news for Iran, much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America.”

    Flanked by special envoy Steve Witkoff and senior adviser Jared Kushner, Vance emphasized that the U.S. delegation had entered the talks prepared to negotiate in good faith and with flexibility—but that Iran refused to meet core American demands.

    “We’ve made very clear what our redlines are, what things we’re willing to accommodate them on, and what things we’re not willing to accommodate them on — and we’ve made that as clear as we possibly could,” he said. “And they have chosen not to accept our terms.”

    At the center of the deadlock was Iran’s nuclear program. Vance said the United States required an “affirmative commitment” that Iran would not pursue a nuclear weapon—something Iranian officials declined to provide.

    “The president told us, you need to come here in good faith and make your best effort to get a deal,” Vance added. “We did that, and unfortunately, we weren’t able to make any headway.”

    The talks—hosted by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir—marked a rare direct engagement between senior U.S. and Iranian officials. Vance became the highest-ranking American official to meet face-to-face with leaders of Iran’s theocratic regime since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. He praised Pakistan’s leadership, noting that “whatever shortcomings” in the meeting were not due to the hosts.

    The American delegation met with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. A major sticking point remained Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz—a critical global oil chokepoint through which a significant portion of the world’s energy supply flows.

    The negotiations followed a fragile two-week ceasefire agreement reached days earlier, after President Donald Trump halted planned U.S. strikes on Iranian infrastructure roughly 90 minutes before a self-imposed deadline. Trump had expressed cautious optimism heading into the weekend.

    “We’ll see what happens,” Trump said Saturday. “Look, regardless, we win. Regardless what happens, we win. We’ve totally defeated that country, and so let’s see what happens. Maybe they make a deal, maybe they don’t. It doesn’t matter. From the standpoint of America, we win.”

    But by Sunday morning, the president’s tone had shifted dramatically.

    In a series of lengthy posts on Truth Social, Trump confirmed the collapse of negotiations and announced a sweeping escalation: a U.S.-led naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

    “Iran is UNWILLING TO GIVE UP ITS NUCLEAR AMBITIONS,” Trump wrote, calling the negotiations productive in many respects but ultimately unacceptable due to Tehran’s stance on nuclear weapons.

    “The meeting with Iran began early in the morning, and lasted throughout the night — Close to 20 hours,” he said. “I could go into great detail, and talk about much that has been gotten but, there is only one thing that matters — IRAN IS UNWILLING TO GIVE UP ITS NUCLEAR AMBITIONS!”

    Trump also accused Iran of failing to uphold commitments to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, alleging the regime had created uncertainty by suggesting the presence of naval mines.

    “They say they put mines in the water… but what ship owner would want to take the chance?” he wrote. “THIS IS WORLD EXTORTION, and Leaders of Countries… will never be extorted.”

    Declaring immediate action, Trump announced: “Effective immediately, the United States Navy… will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz.”

    He added that U.S. forces would interdict vessels that paid tolls to Iran and begin clearing any mines in the waterway, while warning of severe military retaliation for any Iranian aggression.

    “Any Iranian who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL!” Trump wrote.

    The president framed the escalation as both a defensive measure and a continuation of broader U.S. military pressure in the region, claiming Iran’s capabilities had already been significantly degraded.

    “Their Navy is gone, their Air Force is gone, their Anti Aircraft and Radar are useless,” he said, reiterating his longstanding position that “IRAN WILL NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!”

    Despite the collapse of talks, Trump insisted progress had been made on other fronts—but emphasized that none of it mattered without resolution on the nuclear issue.

    “In many ways, the points that were agreed to are better than us continuing our Military Operations to conclusion,” he wrote. “But all of those points don’t matter compared to allowing Nuclear Power to be in the hands of such volatile, difficult, unpredictable people.”

    The developments leave the region at a precarious crossroads, with diplomacy stalled, military pressure increasing, and one of the world’s most critical shipping lanes now at the center of a rapidly escalating standoff.

    Supreme Court Shuts Down ‘Progressive’ Candidate’s GOP Primary Play

    2
    Missvain, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    The Supreme Court just put a hard stop to a political stunt in Ohio.

    A self-described progressive candidate tried to game the system — running as a Republican in a deep-red congressional district — and it didn’t work.

    Samuel Ronan, a former Democratic candidate, filed to run in the GOP primary against Rep. Mike Carey. To get on the ballot, he signed a legal declaration swearing he was a Republican.

    Problem: he’d already said publicly that the whole thing was a strategy — running Democrats as Republicans in “deep red districts” to “get a foot in the door.”

    That didn’t sit well with actual Republican voters.

    One of them filed a formal protest, pointing to Ronan’s own words as proof he was trying to mislead voters. The local elections board split along party lines, and Ohio’s Secretary of State stepped in to break the tie — kicking Ronan off the ballot.

    Ronan sued, claiming the state violated his First Amendment rights by using his political speech against him.

    A federal judge wasn’t buying it.

    You can change parties, the court said. You can say whatever you want politically. But you can’t sign a legal document under penalty of fraud and expect the state to ignore clear evidence you didn’t mean it.

    Or, as the judge put it: the First Amendment doesn’t give you a free pass to lie on official paperwork.

    Ronan made a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court.

    The justices declined — no explanation, no lifeline.

    Bottom line: if you’re going to run in a party’s primary, you actually have to belong to it — at least on paper and in practice.

    Historians Sue Trump After DOJ Scraps Records Rule

    2
    By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54581054338/, Public Domain,

    The country’s largest group of historians is suing the Trump administration after the Justice Department declared the president doesn’t have to follow the law requiring him to turn over his records.

    The American Historical Association and American Oversight filed the lawsuit Monday in federal court, warning the administration is putting the public record at risk.

    They called the case an effort to “preserve the historical record that belongs to the American people, before it is forever lost.”

    “This case is about the preservation of records that document our nation’s history, and whether the American people are able to access and learn from that history,” the complaint states.

    The lawsuit comes days after the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel said Trump “need not further comply” with the Presidential Records Act — a post-Watergate law that made presidential records public property.

    The groups are asking a judge to step in, declare the law constitutional, and block Trump from using the opinion to keep official records.

    “The Administration’s actions nullifying a law duly enacted by Congress, based on a legal determination that contravenes a decision of the Supreme Court, violate the separation of powers twice over,” the complaint states.

    The Presidential Records Act requires materials like emails, call logs, and internal documents to be turned over to the National Archives after a president leaves office.

    Trump previously faced scrutiny for keeping sensitive records at Mar-a-Lago after his first term and was later indicted on charges related to retaining classified information and obstruction. The case was dismissed after a judge questioned the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith.

    Judge Rebuked Twice By Supreme Court Deals New Blow To Trump Immigration Agenda

    A federal judge already twice rebuked by the Supreme Court is back at it—this time blocking the Trump administration from ending legal protections for thousands of Ethiopian migrants.

    Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts, temporarily halted the administration’s plan to strip temporary protected status (TPS) from more than 5,000 Ethiopians—a move that would have made them deportable within 60 days.

    Murphy said the Department of Homeland Security didn’t follow the law when it pulled the plug on the program.

    That ruling lands right in the middle of the administration’s broader push to shrink TPS and tighten immigration enforcement.

    But it also lands on a judge with a track record.

    Murphy has repeatedly tried to block Trump-era deportation policies—especially efforts to send migrants to third countries. The Supreme Court has stepped in twice to reverse him, even issuing a rare 7–2 clarification saying he ignored its orders. An appeals court also shut down one of his more recent rulings just last month.

    Critics say this is more of the same.

    “This rogue judge lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to issue this order,” Sen. Eric Schmitt said. “The assault on the rule of law continues.”

    Legal analyst Jonathan Turley piled on, warning that “this system cannot function with such rogue operators at the trial level.”

    Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan pointed to what he sees as a fundamental problem: the law itself.

    “One big problem for Murphy is the statute: It explains TPS determinations aren’t reviewable. Another is the Supreme Court, which has stopped similar orders twice,” Wessan said. “He finds neither statute nor SCOTUS stops him. I’m unconvinced.”

    Murphy, for his part, insists he’s not defying the high court. He noted that the Supreme Court hasn’t fully explained its recent TPS-related rulings—and hasn’t stepped in on every similar case.

    “There is no reason to assume” the justices have settled the issue, he wrote.

    The lawsuit behind the ruling claims the administration’s TPS rollback isn’t just procedural—it’s discriminatory. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue the policy is aimed at reducing non-white immigration, writing that the effort targets “the nationals of majority Black countries” in particular.

    The Justice Department is expected to appeal, setting up yet another round in a growing legal fight between the Trump administration and a judge who keeps standing in its way.

    Democrat Candidate Calls For Banning MAGA From Internet

      4
      Gage Skidmore Flickr

      A Democratic candidate for the Georgia House is under fire after proposing a sweeping—and controversial—“punishment” for Trump supporters: kicking them off social media for four years.

      Suzanna Karatassos, a self-described “progressive fighter” running for a seat held by Republican state Rep. Houston Gaines, made the remark in a now-deleted video that quickly spread online.

      “When this is all over and Trump’s gone and Democrats are back in charge and we’re rebuilding everything, the punishment for MAGA for voting for Trump three times needs to be they remove their internet access for four years,” Karatassos said.

      “That they cannot post videos or comments on social media for four straight years, so that none of us are subjected to their lies and misinformation while we are rebuilding the chaos that they caused the whole world and America gets to be without their BS online for 4 straight years.”

      “Can we all agree to this?” she added.

      Karatassos later deleted the video—but not before it was captured and widely shared by critics.

      Her comments land in the middle of a heated national fight over free speech, censorship, and Big Tech’s role in policing online content.

      In 2023, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a sweeping injunction blocking federal agencies—including the FBI and Department of Health and Human Services—from pressuring social media companies to suppress “protected free speech.”

      Doughty pointed to 25 instances of alleged government pressure on tech platforms, according to reporting tied to a thread by Substack writer Justin Hart.

      But the Supreme Court later struck down that ruling in a 6–3 decision, saying the states and individuals who brought the case lacked legal standing. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

      Separate emails from April 2021 also showed the Biden White House pushing Facebook over content, including a Tucker Carlson video on COVID-19 vaccines.

      Meanwhile, Karatassos’ remarks are already fueling backlash—raising fresh questions about how far some candidates are willing to go when it comes to policing political speech online and Donald Trump.

      Trump Asks Court To Throw Out Remnants of ‘Legally Unsound’ Fraud Case

      1
      Alec Perkins from Hoboken, USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

      President Trump has asked New York’s highest court to dismiss the remaining findings and penalties in the state’s civil fraud case against him, arguing that the lawsuit brought by Attorney General Letitia James was legally flawed and politically motivated.

      In a 119-page filing submitted Wednesday to the New York Court of Appeals, Trump’s attorneys described the case as an “unprecedented” use of the attorney general’s authority and urged the court to fully overturn it.

      “This Court should put an end to this politically motivated action,” his lawyers wrote.

      James filed the civil lawsuit in 2022, accusing Trump and his family business of inflating the value of their assets to secure more favorable loan and insurance terms. The case became one of the most significant legal challenges Trump has faced, threatening both his public image as a successful real estate developer and the future of the Trump Organization. It also elevated James as one of Trump’s most prominent political and legal adversaries.

      The case has taken a complex path through the courts. After a bench trial, Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump liable for fraud and imposed a $464 million judgment, which grew to more than $500 million with interest. Engoron also barred Trump from serving in top roles at New York companies for three years, imposed two-year bans on his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and appointed an independent monitor to oversee the Trump Organization’s business practices.

      However, a mid-level appellate court later struck down the financial penalty as excessive, removing the largest monetary consequence while leaving the liability finding and other restrictions in place. The appellate judges were sharply divided in their ruling.

      Despite that partial victory, Trump’s legal team is now seeking to eliminate the remaining penalties and the underlying liability determination. His lawyers acknowledged the “unusual posture” of the appeal, since the prior ruling largely benefited him, but argued that the decision still rests on an “erroneous finding” that must be reversed.

      “This unprecedented and legally unsound case is about far more than President Trump,” his lawyers said, arguing that James stretched a New York law targeting “persistent fraud or illegality” beyond its intended use.

      “If left on the books, the mistaken legal rulings below threaten New York’s position as the Nation’s financial capital, as well as the State’s commercial real-estate industry,” they added.

      The New York attorney general’s office, which has also appealed aspects of the appellate ruling, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

      The appeal comes amid a broader and highly contentious legal and political battle between Trump and James. During the period between Trump’s presidential terms, James secured a major civil fraud ruling against him, while Trump and his allies have repeatedly accused her of pursuing politically motivated cases.

      More recently, Trump administration officials have sought to pursue criminal cases against James. She was indicted last fall on mortgage fraud allegations, but a federal judge dismissed the charges, finding that the prosecutor who brought the case had been unlawfully appointed. Prosecutors later sought two additional indictments, but grand juries declined to bring charges.

      Trump’s latest appeal now asks the state’s highest court to bring the long-running civil case to a close by wiping out the remaining findings and penalties that continue to affect him and his business.

      Trump Calls For Fox News To Take ‘Loser’ Host Off The Air

        5

        President Donald Trump criticized two Fox News hosts in a Truth Social post, calling on network executives to remove one of them from the air.

        Trump first responded to a “Fox News Sunday” interview with Democratic Rep. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, accusing anchor Shannon Bream of failing to challenge what he described as false claims made by Democrats on her program. He also targeted Jessica Tarlov, a co-host of “The Five” and a liberal panelist who appears on the Sunday show, urging that she be taken off the air.

        “Tell Shannon Bream of FoxNews that it’s not the Save Act, it’s the Save America Act, a big difference! Also, when she insists on having lightweight Democrat Congressmen, such as Jake Auchincloss, on her not very hard hitting show, she should correct them when they spew out Democrat propaganda and lies. She never does! I always close deals, unlike the Dems, and did great with China in every way, also, unlike the Dems!” Trump said.

        “For Fox executives only, take Jessica Tarlov off the air. She is, from her voice, to her lies, and everything else about her, one of the worst “personalities” on television, a real loser! People cannot stand watching her. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump continued.

        During the “Fox News Sunday” segment, Auchincloss said the war in Iran has been a “failure” and argued that it has given Iran leverage through its control of the Strait of Hormuz.

        Trump has previously criticized Fox News, particularly after the network’s early projection that former President Joe Biden would win Arizona in the 2020 election. In a March appearance on “The Five,” Trump said he was not a fan of Tarlov, who frequently criticizes him on-air, and suggested the show would be better without her.

        “I watch Jessica, and I’m not a fan,” Trump said. “And she uses fake numbers. She’ll give, ‘Well, he’s only polling 42%.’ That’s not right. Polling very high, actually.” He added criticism of “bad journalists” who write “fake stories,” before saying, “I’m sure I’d like her. I’m sure she’s a lovely person.”