President Trump pushed back Sunday evening against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) warnings about her personal safety, escalating an already tense dispute within the GOP over the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Speaking to reporters on the tarmac before departing Palm Beach, Fla., the president reiterated his criticism of Greene, again referring to the outspoken conservative as a “traitor” when asked about her claim that Trump’s rhetoric could endanger her life.
“Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Greene,” Trump said, correcting a reporter who used the congresswoman’s actual name. “I don’t think her life is in danger. I don’t think — frankly, I don’t think anybody cares about her.”
A short time later, Trump doubled down on Truth Social, taking aim at Greene as tensions continue to rise over her calls for the full release of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “Wacky Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Brown (Remember, Green turns to Brown where there is ROT involved!) is working overtime to try and portray herself as a victim when, in actuality, she is the cause of all of her own problems,” Trump wrote. “The fact is, nobody cares about this Traitor to our Country!”
Greene, who has long portrayed herself as one of Trump’s staunchest allies, had posted earlier on X that “the hoax pizza deliveries have started now, to my house and family members,” and said her family’s construction business had received a pipe bomb threat. She argued that Trump’s attacks on her were “a dog whistle to dangerous radicals that could lead to serious attacks on me and my family.”
Responding to Trump labeling her a traitor, Greene wrote that the accusation is “absolutely untrue and horrific” and said such language “puts blood in the water and creates a feeding frenzy. And it could ultimately lead to a harmful or even deadly outcome.”
“I am not a traitor,” she insisted. “However, when the President of the United States irresponsibly calls a Member of Congress of his own party, traitor, he is signaling what must be done to a traitor.”
Watch:
I stood with President Trump when almost no one else would. I campaigned for him all over this country and spent millions of my own dollars helping him get elected.
That’s why being called a “traitor” isn’t just hurtful, it puts a target on my back and puts my life in danger.… pic.twitter.com/LPDjpldExn
Greene defended her record and her long-standing loyalty to Trump. “I fought harder than anyone to help President Trump get elected and I support his administration and the promises we made on the campaign,” she wrote. “My voting record is one of the most conservative voting records in Congress and I’m very proud of that. The toxic and dangerous rhetoric in politics must end and we need healing in this country for all Americans.”
The dispute comes as Greene has intensified her criticism of Trump’s earlier reluctance to endorse the full release of the Epstein files—documents many Republicans argue should be made public to expose potential wrongdoing and eliminate politically motivated speculation. The House is expected to vote this week on a measure compelling the Department of Justice to release those records. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who initiated the discharge petition to force the vote, said he expects significant Republican support.
By Ralph Alswang, White House photographer – https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-epstein-maxwell/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=143417695
Republican pressure on Trump increased last week after Democrats selectively released new emails, including one allegedly written by Epstein claiming Trump “knew about the girls.” Many conservatives view the move as a partisan attempt to smear Trump and distract from Democratic figures who were associated with Epstein. In response, and just minutes before his latest Truth Social post criticizing Greene, Trump urged House Republicans to back full transparency.
Lawmakers “should vote to release the Epstein files,” Trump said, arguing, “we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party.”
Still, Massie cautioned that the Justice Department—now conducting new probes into Epstein’s alleged connections to Democrats—might use those investigations to justify withholding certain materials even after Congress acts. Republicans warn that bureaucratic resistance could undermine the effort for full disclosure, a point fueling frustration both inside and outside the party.
The British broadcaster BBC has formally apologized to the White House for the way it edited a clip of President Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021 — the day before the Capitol attack. The apology comes just days after President Trump’s legal team threatened the BBC with a $1 billion lawsuit over the segment, which appeared in a documentary.
According to a BBC spokesperson, “Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Trump’s legal team in response to a letter received on Sunday.” The BBC added: “Chair [Samir Shah] has separately sent a personal letter to the White House making clear to President Trump that he and the Corporation are sorry for the edit of the President’s speech on 6 January 2021, which featured in the programme.” The BBC also confirmed that there are no plans to rebroadcast the documentary Trump: A Second Chance? on any of its platforms.
The broadcaster acknowledged that “the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action,” and referred to it as “an error in judgement.” The BBC nonetheless stated that it strongly disagrees there is a valid defamation claim.
The specific clip in question showed Trump saying to his rally crowd: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.” A fuller official transcript and video, however, show that Trump also told his supporters to march “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol.
President Trump’s lawsuit accuses the BBC of defamation, alleging the broadcaster caused “overwhelming financial and reputational harm” with the editing. With this apology, the BBC has taken a step toward mollifying the matter — but the threat of litigation remains.
NEW: BBC to apologize for deceptively editing President Trump’s January 6 speech in an effort to make it look like he encouraged violence at the Capitol.
The apology letter is reportedly expected to come early next week.
President Trump has a well-documented history of filing lawsuits (or threatening them) against major media outlets. Here are a few notable examples:
Trump’s legal team recently filed a $15 billion defamation and libel lawsuit against The New York Times, four of its journalists, and publisher Penguin Random House. He accuses them of publishing false allegations about his business and political career, saying they harmed his brand and business interests.
Earlier in 2025 he filed a $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and its owner (including Rupert Murdoch) over an article about alleged ties between Trump and the financier Jeffrey Epstein.
In 2024, a settlement was reached when parent company Paramount Global (of CBS) paid $16 million to resolve a suit Trump brought over purportedly misleading editing of a 2024 interview on 60 Minutes.
Legal-watchers note that by mid-2025 Trump was involved in as many new media and defamation lawsuits as he was in all of 2024 — reflecting a significant escalation of his willingness to use litigation in his media disputes
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)
A new twist has emerged in the Fulton County election interference case against President Donald Trump. On Friday, a special prosecutor was appointed to replace embattled District Attorney Fani Willis (D), who was disqualified after a court found her romantic relationship with a top prosecutor created an appearance of impropriety.
Peter Skandalakis, executive director of Georgia’s Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council (PAC), announced that after failing to find another willing candidate, he would step in personally to oversee the case.
“Several prosecutors were contacted and, while all were respectful and professional, each declined the appointment,” Skandalakis said in a statement. “Out of respect for their privacy and professional discretion, I will not identify those prosecutors or disclose their reasons for declining.”
The move came just as a judge-imposed deadline loomed for PAC to name a new prosecutor—or risk seeing the entire case dismissed.
Skandalakis explained that while “it would have been simple” to let the deadline expire, he believed “that was not the right course of action,” citing the public’s interest in ensuring the matter is resolved properly.
The Georgia court’s decision to remove Willis cast major doubt on the future of the case, which accuses Trump and several allies of racketeering and other charges related to challenging the 2020 election results. Trump and most of his co-defendants have pleaded not guilty, maintaining that they did nothing wrong in questioning the outcome of the election. Four others accepted plea deals.
With Willis out, Skandalakis now has full discretion over whether to continue pursuing the case or to drop the charges entirely.
“My only objective is to ensure that this case is handled properly, fairly, and with full transparency—discharging my duties without fear, favor, or affection,” he said.
This isn’t the first time Skandalakis has been involved in a high-profile matter stemming from Willis’s conduct. After she was previously barred from investigating Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones (R) due to her involvement in a political fundraiser against him, Skandalakis also took over—and ultimately declined to bring charges.
Citing that past experience, he said his familiarity with similar issues makes him the best candidate to take over the Trump case.
The original indictment accused Trump and more than a dozen associates of an “unlawful conspiracy” to challenge President Biden’s 2020 victory in Georgia. The case is one of several politically charged prosecutions targeting Trump during his campaign to return to the White House—the first criminal cases ever brought against a then-former U.S. president.
Trump was previously convicted in New York on business record charges tied to a 2016 hush money payment. Meanwhile, his two federal prosecutions—for alleged election interference and mishandling classified documents—were dismissed following his reelection to a second term.
PAC officials had confirmed as late as Thursday that no replacement had been found, suggesting the decision came together quickly.
On Monday, Skandalakis addressed Trump’s recent presidential pardons for several allies charged in the Georgia case, saying his office had “diligently” worked on the matter since Willis’s removal and would continue to do so “without being influenced by matters outside the scope of our assigned task.”
He also clarified that Trump’s pardons apply only to federal charges, not state cases.
“Therefore, the task before my office remains unchanged,” Skandalakis said.
Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer attend medal ceremony via Wikimedia Commons
As Democrats face growing internal turmoil, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is under fire from members of his own party — and some say the unrest may soon spread to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).
During Thursday’s segment of Fox & Friends, host Lawrence Jones offered a pointed prediction about who might be the next Democrat to fall out of favor with the party’s increasingly fractured base.
“Quick prediction: Jeffries is next,” Jones told co-hosts Brian Kilmeade and Ainsley Earhardt. “They’re gonna get rid of him next. First, it was Schumer. They’re not happy with Jeffries either. They don’t like his alignment with AIPAC and have been very critical of how he operates.”
Jones added that many progressives in the Democratic Party “don’t respect” Jeffries and that his position had been shielded for years by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
“Nancy Pelosi kind of protected him,” Jones said. “But now that she’s retiring, I believe he’s going to be the next target.”
Democrats in Disarray
The Democratic Party’s internal divisions have been on full display amid the historic 43-day government shutdown, the longest in U.S. history. Schumer, struggling to hold his caucus together, lost seven Democrats and one Independent who sided with Republicans to support a short-term continuing resolution that ultimately reopened the government.
That rebellion has led several prominent progressives — including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) — to openly question Schumer’s leadership and even call for his ouster. Although no formal challenge has yet materialized, the discontent is unmistakable.
Pressure Mounts on Party Leadership
Many Democrats are torn between the party’s traditional pro-Israel establishment figures like Schumer and Jeffries, and the ascendant left-wing faction that has become increasingly critical of Israel and of AIPAC’s influence in Washington.
Jones’s comments reflect a broader sense that Democratic leadership is losing control of its own base — particularly among younger, more progressive voters frustrated by what they see as political compromise and a lack of clear vision.
A Growing Divide
The potential downfall of two of the party’s most powerful figures — Schumer in the Senate and Jeffries in the House — would mark a stunning shift within Democratic ranks.
Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson says he was the victim of what he describes as a “demonic attack,” an incident he claims left him with bleeding claw marks and struggling to breathe. The account, shared publicly for the first time during a Megyn Kelly Live Tour event in New York, has prompted concerns about his mental health and overall fitness for leadership.
Tucker: There are witnesses to my demon attack. Just ask the four hunting dogs I sleep with.
The man should not be a leading figure in the conservative movement.
Carlson said the episode occurred about 18 months ago, around 2:30 a.m., while he and his wife were asleep with their four hunting dogs. He said he woke up unable to breathe and felt as though he was “graying out.” Moments later, he experienced sharp pain under his arms and along his ribs, “as if ripped with a knife.”
When he turned on the light, Carlson said, he saw bleeding claw marks on both sides of his chest. His wife awoke and, according to Carlson, immediately concluded that “something attacked you.” None of the dogs stirred during the incident, a detail he said made it even more unsettling.
Aftermath and Reflection
Carlson described feeling an overwhelming urge to read the Bible before falling asleep for a few minutes and waking to believe it had been a dream — until he discovered blood on the bedsheets and noticed the same marks again.
He told Kelly that an assistant later suggested the incident was a form of “spiritual warfare,” echoing his wife’s interpretation. Carlson said he does not expect skeptics to believe him but remains convinced that “something real” took place.
“I can’t explain it, but it was not a dream,” he told Megyn Kelly. “It was something that happened in the physical world.”
Reaction and Ridicule
Critics, including Project 2025 contributor and The Origins of Woke author Richard Hanania, questioned Carlson’s mental state and credibility. “This is not the kind of thing a stable person says publicly,” Hanania wrote on X.
Observers suggested the incident described by Carlson is consistent with a “nocturnal panic attack,” a phenomenon that occurs during deep sleep and can cause sudden awakenings marked by intense fear and physical distress. Unlike nightmares, these episodes are not typically tied to a specific dream or outside stimulus.
Medical experts note that while panic attacks do not usually cause self-harm, people may inadvertently injure themselves if they move violently or attempt to “escape” a perceived threat while half-awake and disoriented.
Other scientific explanations for self-inflicted marks during sleep include severe anxiety, night terrors, and REM behavior disorder — in which people act out dreams — and coexisting mental health conditions such as obsessive-compulsive or trauma-related disorders.
Other conservative critics were equally bemused, relying on the principle of Ockham’s Razor — the idea that the simplest explanation is usually correct.
Supporters, many of them evangelical Christians, framed Carlson’s experience as evidence of the spiritual conflict they believe lies at the heart of America’s cultural and political divide. They praised his willingness to speak openly about faith, calling it a sign of moral courage.
Look, I had my bitter dispute lately with Tucker over Fuentes, but he told me this demon story right after it happened, a year before he went public with it. That doesn’t prove it, but hard to see how he benefits from speaking publicly of it, given that many are mocking him. https://t.co/NyBaACQdXN
It is insane to mock Tucker Carlson about the demonic attack he suffered. The spiritual world is absolutely real. I am deeply grieved he platformed Nick Fuentes, but that only confirms to me that he is in a serious spiritual battle. We should pray for him.https://t.co/99hmC8hY3e
Even after the controversy surrounding his friendly interview with white nationalist Nick Fuentes, Carlson remains one of the most influential figures in digital media, commanding a broad following across multiple platforms. However, critics argue that promoting claims of a demonic attack risks alienating mainstream voters and undermining the credibility of both the conservative movement and conservative journalism.
Carlson also claimed in an interview during the final day before the 2024 election that demonic forces created nuclear technology, linking the dropping of the atomic bomb that forced Japan’s unconditional surrender to the rise of secularism.
Tucker Carlson says that demons created nuclear technology.
Tucker has been losing it and he should be kept away from Trump and MAGA. The other day he claimed he was attacked by a demon and before that he had a Holocaust denier on his podcast. pic.twitter.com/wvuSfJhFkQ
Carlson did not address how the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — combined with Russia’s declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria — eliminated the need for a costly invasion of Japan’s home islands (Operations Olympic and Coronet) or a prolonged blockade, actions that historians widely agree would have caused millions of additional deaths.
He also did not mention that in the early 1900s, church membership and attendance were relatively modest. In 1890, the census found that 33% of Americans identified as belonging to a church.
After World War II, however, the United States experienced a remarkable religious revival. Church membership grew from ~43% attended church before the war to “more than 55%” by 1950, rising to 69% by the end of the 1950s. Gallup polls from the era show about 45% of adults reported attending church or synagogue weekly, a sharp increase from earlier decades.
The revival spanned denominations: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish congregations all saw dramatic growth. Many Americans tied this renewed faith to national identity — a Cold War-era contrast with “godless communism.”
Despite the backlash, Tucker Carlson’s fans aren’t backing down. They say his openness about faith isn’t weakness — it’s courage.
To them, his honesty reflects humility and conviction — the very traits America needs in an age that has grown increasingly secular in recent decades.
What’s Next
Carlson has not provided photos or medical documentation of the alleged injuries, and there is no verifiable evidence to support his account.
Whether the story ultimately strengthens or weakens his influence may depend less on the broader electorate than on how conservative audiences interpret it — as a test of faith or a question of credibility.
By Ralph Alswang, White House photographer - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-epstein-maxwell/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=143417695
Just hours after the White House publicly accused congressional Democrats of selectively leaking emails related to Jeffrey Epstein on Wednesday, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee released tens of thousands of additional pages of documents. These include email exchanges between Epstein and prominent journalists.
A significant portion of the new material shows correspondence between Epstein and writer-turned-biographer Michael Wolff. Wolff reached out to Epstein multiple times, discussing not only Epstein’s public image but how to leverage criticism of Donald Trump for strategic benefit.
In February 2016, Wolff wrote to Epstein:
“NYT called me about you and Trump,” “Also, Hillary campaign digging deeply. Again, you should consider preempting.”
A month later they discussed plans ahead of the release of Filthy Rich — a true-crime book by James Patterson about Epstein, who was Patterson’s neighbor in Palm Beach. Wolff suggested to Epstein:
“Becoming an anti-Trump voice gives you a certain political cover which you decidedly don’t have now.” And he added: “Patterson can be counted on to produce a bestseller, and while he isn’t regarded as a serious writer, he’ll surely be unloading a lot of tabloid copy … Because this will be tied to the election, the Trump-Clinton angle will amp up the attention 10-fold, in fact, possibly, a hundred fold. Possibly more than anything you’ve encountered before.”
When Epstein asked Wolff what he should say publicly about his relationship with Trump, Wolff’s advice was pointed:
“If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency,” “You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.”
In further correspondence, Wolff requested introductions for Epstein to two figures close to Trump: business leader and inaugural-committee chair Tom Barrack and former federal prosecutor Kathy Ruemmler. He told Epstein he sought “an off-the-record perspective on White House procedures,” while researching his book about Trump’s first 100 days in office. He also asked whether former President Bill Clinton would confirm he had never been to Epstein’s private U.S. Virgin Islands island, Little St. John — a place Clinton has publicly denied visiting. Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell has also denied seeing Clinton there.
The documents show that Epstein and Wolff planned to meet as recently as May 2019 — months before Epstein died in a federal jail cell while awaiting trial.
Some of the newly released material included a short video of a dog and what appear to be chew toys modeled after Trump and the 2016 presidential rival Hillary Clinton. Others appear to be slides from an adviser working to generate positive search-engine results for Epstein following his 2008 conviction for child-sex crimes.
Earlier, Democrats had released documents that included an especially cryptic email from Epstein to Maxwell — one that mentions Trump by name, and refers to an unnamed victim of Epstein’s trafficking network. The email read:
“I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is Trump,” Epstein wrote on April 2, 2011. “[VICTIM] spent hours at my house with him…he has never once been mentioned. Police chief. etc. I’m 75% there.”
Officials later identified the “unnamed victim” as well-known Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide earlier this year. Giuffre repeatedly stated that Trump was not involved in wrongdoing and “couldn’t have been friendlier” to her in their limited interactions. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, responded:
“The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club decades ago for being a creep to his female employees, including Giuffre.”
In his own post on Truth Social, Trump weighed in:
“The Democrats cost our Country $1.5 Trillion Dollars with their recent antics of viciously closing our Country, while at the same time putting many at risk — and they should pay a fair price,” he wrote. “There should be no deflections to Epstein or anything else, and any Republicans involved should be focused only on opening up our Country, and fixing the massive damage caused by the Democrats!”
As a reminder: Epstein secured a highly-controversial so-called “sweetheart” deal in 2008 for child-sex crimes. He was arrested again in 2019 on more serious trafficking charges — but died before the case went to trial. Maxwell was convicted of grooming and procuring girls and young women for Epstein; she is appealing and continues to assert her innocence.
Key Takeaways for a Republican Audience
The timing of the document releases and allegations of selective leaking by Democrats raises questions about political motive and media stratagem.
The correspondence shows efforts to frame Epstein’s narrative around Trump — part of a broader attempt to tie the story to the 2016 presidential election and cast Trump in a negative light.
Trump’s defenders argue the documents reinforce his long-standing disassociation from Epstein, as well as serve to remind voters of Democrats’ role in political maneuvering, rather than holding criminals accountable.
For Republicans focused on institutional integrity and media accountability, the episode reinforces concerns about selective exposure of documents, agenda-driven leaks, and manipulation of public perception.
President Donald Trump has signed legislation to reopen the federal government, ending the longest shutdown in U.S. history and ensuring federal workers return to their jobs with full pay.
The measure, approved by Congress with bipartisan support, funds the government through January 30, 2025, maintaining current spending levels while lawmakers negotiate a longer-term appropriations package for fiscal year 2026.
Funding Key Programs and Federal Workers
The bill also extends funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) through September, supporting more than 42 million Americans who depend on the program for groceries. It additionally restores pay to government employees affected by the shutdown and reverses layoffs initiated earlier in October.
Shutdown Impact and Resolution
The 40-day lapse in funding began October 1, as Republicans and Democrats clashed over healthcare policy provisions. The Senate voted 60–40 to pass the funding measure late Monday night, with eight Democrats joining Republicans in support. The House followed suit Wednesday, sending the bill to the President’s desk.
The shutdown had caused growing ripple effects, including delayed air travel due to air traffic controller and TSA staffing shortages, as many employees were forced to work without pay or take on second jobs.
President Trump signaled earlier this week that a deal was close, saying he wanted to “get America back to work” and ensure vital services continued while protecting taxpayers from bloated spending proposals.
Partisan Dispute Over Healthcare
At the heart of the stalemate were disagreements over healthcare spending. Republicans, led by President Trump, opposed Democratic proposals they said would extend benefits to illegal immigrants and unwind parts of the President’s signature tax and domestic policy package—his so-called “big, beautiful bill.” That legislation had reduced Medicaid eligibility for non-citizens and was credited by Republicans with strengthening the economy and restoring fiscal discipline.
Democrats countered that they sought to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies set to expire in 2025. While the short-term spending bill does not include those extensions, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R–S.D.) agreed to hold a separate vote in December on whether to continue those subsidies.
A Step Toward Stability
With the government back open, federal employees are being paid retroactively, and critical operations are resuming across the country. The White House described the bill as a “temporary but responsible solution” while broader negotiations continue.
President Donald Trump is threatening to sue the BBC for at least $1 billion, accusing the British broadcaster of defamation after it aired a misleadingly edited clip in its pre-election documentary, “Trump: A Second Chance?”
The film, which aired ahead of the November 2024 election, includes footage from Trump’s January 6, 2021 “Stop the Steal” rally, just before Congress certified Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. The BBC’s version of Trump’s remarks spliced together two separate parts of his speech to make it appear more inflammatory.
The documentary quoted Trump as saying:
“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”
However, in reality, Trump’s words were more measured. He told supporters:
“We’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness.”
He continued:
“You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.”
Trump also explicitly called for peaceful protest, adding:
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
It wasn’t until about an hour later in his remarks that Trump said the second part of the BBC’s edited clip:
“And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
BBC Leaders Step Down Amid Backlash
The controversy was first exposed by The Daily Telegraph, which published an internal BBC memo acknowledging the editing issue. Following the uproar, BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News CEO Deborah Turness both resigned.
In a message to staff, Turness admitted that “mistakes have been made” but denied claims that the BBC is “institutionally biased.”
Trump’s Legal Response
Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Britt, sent the BBC a legal letter demanding a full apology and retraction. The letter accuses the broadcaster of “defrauding the public” and misrepresenting Trump’s words to paint him in a negative light.
“Well, I guess I have to,” Trump told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham on Tuesday, confirming his intent to sue. “Why not? Because they defrauded the public, and they’ve admitted it.”
A Pattern of Media Accountability
This is not the first time the President has successfully taken on major media outlets.
Last year, ABC News settled with Trump for $15 million after anchor George Stephanopoulos falsely claimed on-air that Trump was found civilly liable for rape in the E. Jean Carroll case. The jury had, in fact, found him liable only for sexual abuse.
In July 2024, Trump won another $16 million settlement from Paramount, following claims that a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris was heavily edited to favor her during the election season.
Trump also has an ongoing $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, accusing it of defamation after it published a supposed birthday note he allegedly wrote to Jeffrey Epstein—a note Trump denies ever writing.
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
LONDON — The BBC’s top two executives are stepping down amid mounting pressure over editorial credibility, shaking confidence in the U.K.’s national broadcaster just as it faces critical decisions on funding and governance.
On Sunday, BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News chief Deborah Turness announced their resignations. The dual departure follows weeks of mounting backlash over allegations of systemic bias in the network’s coverage — from President Donald Trump and the war in Gaza to debates over transgender rights.
Pressure Built After Leaked Memo
The tipping point came with a leaked internal memo from former BBC adviser Michael Prescott. The memo accused the broadcaster of “serious and systemic bias” across a range of politically charged topics.
Chief among them: an episode of Panorama that aired selectively edited footage of Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech. Critics said the edits gave the false impression that Trump directly called on supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol. The full version of the speech did not support that claim.
Controversy also surrounded the BBC’s coverage of the Gaza conflict. Accusations included overreliance on anti-Israel voices, sourcing from extremists on its Arabic service, and distorted portrayals of children and wartime suffering.
In a separate thread of concern, BBC staff raised red flags over the network’s handling of trans-related issues, arguing its reporting often lacked balance and downplayed the contested nature of the debates.
Davie and Turness Respond
In a message to BBC staff, Davie acknowledged the broadcaster’s imperfections.
“Like all public organisations, the BBC is not perfect,” he wrote. “While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision.”
Turness, while taking responsibility for the news division, rejected claims of structural bias.
“While mistakes have been made,” she wrote, “I want to be absolutely clear: recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.”
BBC Chairman Samir Shah called it a “sad day,” affirming the board’s support for Davie but conceding the strain he had been under.
A Deeper Governance Crisis
The BBC, funded by the public through license fees, is required by charter to deliver impartial journalism. The resignations expose a deeper institutional crisis at a time when the broadcaster’s mandate and funding model are under review.
The current Royal Charter is set to expire in 2027. Debates about the future of the license fee, the role of public media, and political interference are already in motion. The timing of this leadership vacuum could have significant downstream effects.
What Comes Next
The BBC board now faces the task of finding replacements for two of its most senior posts. The outcome will shape the editorial tone and strategic direction of the broadcaster for years to come.
Internal reviews are expected, especially around how the Panorama episode was handled and whether internal warnings were ignored. Broader investigations may follow, probing the extent of bias across the BBC’s output.
In the near term, the corporation faces reputational damage. With over 100 BBC employees and 200 industry professionals having signed an open letter last year criticizing Gaza coverage, pressure is mounting not just from the public but also from within.
Regulators and government officials may push for increased oversight, new editorial controls, or funding reforms as part of the charter renewal debate.
Looking Ahead
Davie, who took over in 2020, exits during one of the BBC’s most fraught moments in recent history. His successor will inherit a broadcaster under siege — from all sides — and with a shrinking window to restore public trust before the next charter review begins in earnest.
What happens next at the BBC won’t just shape a news organization — it will help define the future of public broadcasting in a divided media landscape.
By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54581054338/, Public Domain,
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday released a new batch of emails connected to Jeffrey Epstein that reference President Donald Trump.
The correspondence, which includes messages between Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and author Michael Wolff, was reportedly obtained from Epstein’s estate as part of an ongoing congressional review of more than 23,000 documents.
By Ralph Alswang, White House photographer – https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-epstein-maxwell/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=143417695
In a 2011 email to Maxwell, Epstein wrote that Mr. Trump “spent hours at my house” with one of Epstein’s alleged victims, whose name was redacted. “I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is Trump. [Victim 1] spent hours at my house with him, he has never once been mentioned,” Epstein wrote. Maxwell responded, “I have been thinking about that…”
Another message, dated January 31, 2019, appears to show Epstein corresponding with Wolff about Mr. Trump and Mar-a-Lago. “Trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever. of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop,” Epstein wrote.
A third exchange between Epstein and Wolff, dated December 15, 2015, discusses how then-candidate Trump might respond to media questions about his connection to Epstein. Wolff wrote, “I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you—either on air or in scrum afterwards.” Epstein replied, “if we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?” Wolff responded, “I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency… Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.”
Mr. Trump announced his first presidential campaign in June 2015. Wolff later wrote Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, published in 2018.
Epstein and Mr. Trump were social acquaintances in New York and Florida from the late 1980s through the early 2000s. The President has said he cut ties with Epstein in 2004, long before Epstein’s 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges. Mr. Trump has not been accused of wrongdoing.
Epstein died by suicide in a Manhattan federal jail in 2019 while awaiting trial. Maxwell was later convicted of conspiring in Epstein’s sex trafficking operation and is serving a 20-year sentence.
Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, said in a statement that the Justice Department should release its full Epstein files “immediately.”
He added, “The more Donald Trump tries to cover up the Epstein files, the more we uncover. These latest emails and correspondence raise glaring questions about what else the White House is hiding and the nature of the relationship between Epstein and the President.”
The email release coincides with a broader congressional push for transparency in the Epstein case. Lawmakers are reviewing materials from Epstein’s estate and have sought information from former officials, including past attorneys general and FBI directors. The committee has also questioned Alex Acosta, the former U.S. attorney who oversaw Epstein’s controversial plea deal in Florida and later served as Labor Secretary under Mr. Trump. Acosta resigned in 2019 amid scrutiny over his handling of the Epstein case.
The House returned to session Wednesday for the first time since mid-September, with Democrats expected to advance a discharge petition to compel the Justice Department to make public its Epstein investigation files. A vote on the measure is not expected until next month.
