Home Blog Page 7

USA Strikes ‘Big Facility’ In Campaign Against Venezuela

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

President Donald Trump suggested this week that U.S. forces may have carried out a direct strike on a major drug-related facility inside Venezuela, a development that—if confirmed—would represent a significant escalation in his administration’s campaign against narco-trafficking and the Maduro regime.

In an interview Friday with radio host John Catsimatidis on The Cats & Cosby Show, the president discussed ongoing U.S. military operations targeting suspected drug-smuggling vessels operating off the Venezuelan coast. During that conversation, Trump appeared to reference a successful strike on a fixed facility connected to those operations.

“They have a big plant or a big facility where the ships come from,” the president said. “Two nights ago, we knocked that out.”

While Trump did not publicly identify the location of the facility, U.S. officials later told The New York Times that the president was referring to a drug facility located inside Venezuela that had been destroyed. At this time, the president’s comments remain the only public indication such a strike occurred. Neither the Venezuelan government nor other Latin American governments have acknowledged or confirmed an attack of this kind.

If U.S. forces did strike a facility on Venezuelan soil, it would mark the first known land-based military action in Trump’s broader effort to disrupt drug trafficking networks tied to the regime of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro. That effort has intensified since September, when the administration began authorizing military strikes on vessels believed to be transporting narcotics in international waters near Venezuela.

According to public reporting, more than 100 people have been killed since those maritime strikes began. The administration has defended the operations as necessary to combat transnational criminal organizations that U.S. officials say operate with the protection—or direct involvement—of the Maduro government. The Trump administration has repeatedly labeled Venezuela a “narco-state,” accusing senior regime figures of facilitating cocaine trafficking into the United States.

In October, The New York Times reported that the president had “secretly authorized the C.I.A. to conduct covert action in Venezuela,” a claim Trump later confirmed publicly. The authorization reportedly expanded U.S. intelligence and operational capabilities aimed at undermining drug cartels and weakening Maduro’s grip on power.

Beyond military operations, the administration has steadily increased pressure on Caracas through economic and strategic measures. Trump ordered the shutdown of Venezuelan airspace, citing security concerns, and earlier this month the U.S. began seizing oil tankers near Venezuelan shores as part of what officials describe as an enforcement action against illicit oil shipments funding the regime. Supporters of the policy argue these moves are designed to cut off revenue streams used to prop up corruption and criminal networks.

The president has previously made clear that land-based options were under consideration.

“What’s the next step in this war on cartels, and are you considering options? Are you considering strikes on land?” an off-camera reporter asked Trump in the Oval Office in October.

“Well, I don’t want to tell you exactly, but we are certainly looking at land now because we’ve got the sea very well under control,” Trump replied.

That comment, combined with Trump’s remarks during Friday’s radio interview, has fueled speculation that the administration may already be acting on those plans.

Despite the president’s statements, military officials told The New York Times they had no information to share regarding the reported destruction of a “big facility.” Both the CIA and the White House declined to comment, a response consistent with the administration’s approach to sensitive national security operations.

Supporters of the president argue that Trump’s aggressive posture reflects a long-overdue willingness to confront drug cartels and hostile regimes head-on, rather than relying solely on diplomatic pressure. Critics, meanwhile, warn that direct military action inside Venezuela could escalate tensions in the region.

For now, the administration has offered no further details—but Trump’s remarks make clear that his campaign against drug trafficking and the Maduro regime is far from over.

CNN Contributor Says MTG ‘Went Off The Deep End’ After Break with Trump

3

CNN contributor and veteran Republican strategist Scott Jennings delivered a blunt assessment of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) during a rare appearance on ABC’s This Week, arguing that Greene’s recent attacks on President Donald Trump stem more from personal frustration than from any serious ideological break within the MAGA movement.

Jennings appeared on the program to promote his new book when anchor Jonathan Karl asked him about what Karl described as a “burgeoning split” inside MAGA-world — a narrative increasingly pushed by legacy media outlets eager to frame Republican politics as unstable heading into a pivotal election year.

“The, kind of, divide in MAGA,” Karl said. “Which is a relatively new phenomenon — I mean, there was always a little bit there, but …if I were to say what the most surprising story [of the year] was, I would say Marjorie Taylor Greene becomes not just a Trump critic, but a—”

Jennings interrupted with a jab that immediately cut through the premise.

“MTG becomes a lib!” Jennings said.

While clearly tongue-in-cheek, the comment underscored what many Republicans see as an overreaction to Greene’s recent criticisms of Trump and the party leadership. In recent months, Greene has publicly complained about what she characterizes as broken promises from Republican leadership, lack of follow-through on conservative priorities, and Trump’s decision not to endorse her for a potential statewide run in Georgia.

Jennings suggested that the dispute is less about policy and more about political disappointment.

“She got a little bent out of shape because the president wouldn’t support her for a statewide office in Georgia — which she was going to lose if she had gotten into it, by the way,” Jennings said. “And so she goes off the deep end.”

Greene’s criticism of Trump has surprised many grassroots conservatives, given her long history as one of his most vocal and reliable defenders in Congress. Her sharp turn has included public complaints about Republican leadership, warnings about “uniparty” influence, and suggestions that the party has failed to fully deliver on the America First agenda — rhetoric that has resonated with some activists but raised eyebrows among party strategists.

That unease only deepened following Greene’s unexpected announcement that she would resign from Congress, a move that stunned allies and critics alike. While Greene framed her departure as a rejection of what she called a broken institution, many Republicans interpreted it as a sign of frustration rather than a serious realignment within the conservative movement.

Jennings, for his part, rejected the idea that Greene’s break signals meaningful fractures within MAGA or the Republican base more broadly.

“Look, I don’t think these divisions and all this fraying are as big a deal as some people make it out to be,” Jennings said. “Trump is still extraordinarily popular among Republicans. He’s the strongest party boss in the modern era. And he can get his allies in Congress to do most anything he wants them to do — which is why I think in the coming year they really ought to spend some time trying to codify … his executive orders and some of the other initiatives that he’s had, really try to make it stick and really fight it out.”

Jennings argued that Republicans would be better served focusing on governing and locking in Trump-era policies rather than amplifying internal disagreements that the media is eager to exploit.

“Because I think a lot of the things he did would actually be pretty popular political debates to have,” he added.

Karoline Leavitt Shares She Is Expecting Baby Girl In May 2026

0

The White House announced joyful personal news this week as Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt shared that she and her husband, Nick, are expecting a baby girl. The couple’s second child is due in May 2026, joining big brother Niko, who was born in July 2024.

“My husband and I are thrilled to grow our family and can’t wait to watch our son become a big brother,” Leavitt told Fox News Digital. “My heart is overflowing with gratitude to God for the blessing of motherhood, which I truly believe is the closest thing to Heaven on Earth.”

Leavitt also expressed appreciation for the supportive culture inside President Trump’s White House. She thanked President Trump and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles for fostering what she described as a pro-family environment, noting that many West Wing colleagues are also raising young children while serving the country.

“Nearly all of my West Wing colleagues have babies and young children, so we all really support one another as we tackle raising our families while working for the greatest president ever,” Leavitt said. “2026 is going to be an amazing year for the President and our country, and personally, I am beyond excited to become a girl mom.”

A senior White House official confirmed that Leavitt will remain in her post as press secretary throughout her pregnancy.

A Historic and Groundbreaking Moment

Leavitt will make history as the first pregnant White House press secretary in U.S. history—another milestone in a career that has already broken barriers.

At just 36 years old, Karoline Leavitt is the youngest press secretary ever to serve in the role. A New Hampshire native, she rose quickly through Republican politics, becoming known for her sharp messaging, unflinching defense of conservative values, and ability to take on a hostile press corps with confidence and clarity.

Before assuming her role at the White House, Leavitt served as a Trump campaign national press secretary and previously worked in the first Trump administration as an assistant press secretary. She also ran for Congress in New Hampshire, earning national attention for her grassroots campaign and strong America First platform.

Leavitt is widely admired on the Right for unapologetically championing faith, family, and freedom, while excelling in one of the most demanding communications jobs in Washington. Her pregnancy—and the administration’s full support—stands in sharp contrast to the left’s hostility toward working mothers and traditional family values.

As Republicans continue to highlight the importance of strong families and a culture that supports life, Karoline Leavitt’s story is a powerful reminder that you can serve your country at the highest levels without sacrificing faith or family.

Congratulations to Karoline, Nick, and the growing Leavitt family.

‘Golden Fleet’: Trump Announces New Class Of Navy Battleships

2

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday announced plans for a new class of U.S. Navy warships, reviving the battleship concept roughly 85 years after it was eclipsed by the aircraft carrier as the world’s dominant naval platform.

The proposal is part of a broader shipbuilding initiative Trump has branded the “Golden Fleet.”

Trump made the announcement from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, flanked by senior national security officials, including War Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Navy Secretary John Phelan.

A New Naval Push

Under the proposal, the Navy would begin construction on two so-called “Trump-class” battleships, with the potential to expand the fleet to as many as 20 to 25 ships over time.

“These will be the largest battleships in the history of our country — the largest in the history of the world,” Trump said, arguing that the United States needs a stronger and more visible naval presence to deter adversaries.

Trump described the ships as larger, faster, and more powerful than any previous U.S. warship, though few technical details were released during the announcement.

What These Ships Would Likely Be

The idea of building new battleships — a vessel type largely phased out after World War II — immediately raised questions within defense circles.

Traditional battleships, such as the Iowa-class, were centered on heavy guns and thick armor. They fell out of favor as aircraft carriers, submarines, and missile-equipped surface combatants proved more effective in modern warfare.

Retired naval officers familiar with early discussions say the proposed vessels would likely resemble oversized surface combatants rather than classic battleships. Instead of large-caliber guns, they would predominantly feature advanced missile systems, air defense capabilities, and modern sensors.

The Hill continues:

The new vessels will mark an upgrade to the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. 

The first ship in the so-called Trump-class will be the USS Defiant, which will carry the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, according to Phelan. 

The Navy secretary said the Defiant will be the “largest, deadliest and most versatile and best looking warship anywhere on the world’s oceans.” 

As outlined by Navy officials, the Golden Fleet concept could also include up to 50 support and auxiliary ships to sustain the larger force.

Trump said one of the proposed new warships could be completed in about 2.5 years.

Cost and Capacity Concerns

Defense analysts caution that building a new class of large U.S. Navy warships would present significant industrial and budgetary challenges.

Preliminary estimates suggest the vessels could displace between 15,000 and 20,000 tons and cost billions of dollars per ship. Meeting those requirements would likely force U.S. shipyards to expand facilities and hire additional workers capable of handling construction at that scale.

Shipbuilding capacity is already under strain from ongoing submarine and aircraft carrier programs, raising concerns that adding another major initiative could lead to delays or cost overruns.

The U.S. Navy has not built a battleship since the 1940s and decommissioned its last battleship in 1992. Critics note that many of the missions once assigned to battleships are now fulfilled by other platforms without the need to construct massive surface combatants.

Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers and cruisers, for example, perform air defense, anti-submarine warfare, and land-attack missions using Tomahawk cruise missiles. These ships feature modern designs that proponents argue offer greater survivability than a large, highly visible battleship.

Aircraft carriers remain the Navy’s primary power-projection assets, capable of launching aircraft to strike targets hundreds of miles inland, a reach that far exceeds the range of naval guns — including railguns.

Analysts also point to advances in precision-guided missile technology, which allow a variety of platforms to deliver long-range firepower without the risks associated with deploying a single, large vessel.

Strategic Backdrop

The announcement comes as the U.S. military adjusts its global posture amid rising tensions with Venezuela and other regions, and as China continues to expand its navy at a rapid pace.

Critics argue that resources would be better spent on carrier strike groups, submarines, and dispersed missile platforms rather than reviving the battleship concept. Supporters counter that a larger and more formidable surface fleet could strengthen deterrence and signal U.S. resolve.

For now, key questions about design, cost, and strategy are still unresolved.

Fox News Host Defies Conservative Line On Trump’s Christmastime Move

8

Brian Kilmeade isn’t on board.

The Fox & Friends co-host recently broke with several conservative allies after blasting President Trump’s newly unveiled “Presidential Walk of Fame” plaques at the White House, warning the displays go too far — and could come back to haunt Republicans.

Installed along the White House Colonnade, the plaques feature blunt and often mocking descriptions of former presidents. While some on the right have praised the move as funny and overdue, Kilmeade says it crosses a line.

“I’m not for this at all,” he said.

What’s on the plaques

The displays take direct aim at multiple Trump predecessors:

  • Joe Biden: Replaced with an autopen image and labeled “by far, the worst President in American history.”
  • Barack Obama: Called “one of the most divisive political figures in American history.”
  • Bill Clinton: Noted mainly for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Trump.
  • George W. Bush: Also targeted with critical commentary.

The plaques first sparked debate on The Five, where Jessica Tarlov called them “repulsive behavior.”

Why Kilmeade objects

Kilmeade warned that today’s trolling could become tomorrow’s problem.

“They’re just going to mock President Trump or put something on his plaque,” he said, arguing the displays could fuel endless political payback as power shifts.

He was especially critical of the autopen image used for Biden.

“I am not for the autopen,” Kilmeade said, calling it juvenile and unfit for a historic setting.

“If you’re going to do it,” he added, “just put the profiles up there.”

History — and consequences

Kilmeade also noted that presidential reputations often change, pointing to Ulysses S. Grant as a leader once derided but later reassessed.

Even so, he made clear he opposes using the White House for political trolling.

“I don’t think it’s going to happen with Joe Biden,” he said, “but I am not for the trolling.”

Conservatives divided

Kilmeade’s stance puts him at odds with Fox colleagues Jesse Watters and Greg Gutfeld, who defended the plaques as entertaining and brushed off concerns about decorum or future blowback.

What do you think? Is this harmless trolling that is long overdue in response to the left’s taunts, or is it inappropriate for the president to display on the side of the White House? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Obama Presidential Center Breaks Silence Over Controversial Building Plan

    1
    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    The Obama Presidential Center is responding publicly after years of criticism over its controversial design and rising costs, with a senior Obama Foundation official now attempting to justify the project to skeptics.

    Construction on the center began in 2021, but many Chicago residents have remained openly critical of the 225-foot-tall structure rising on the city’s South Side. The gray, largely windowless tower will house President Barack Obama’s presidential library and museum, departing sharply from the traditional design of most presidential libraries.

    Obama Foundation Deputy Director Kim Patterson said the building’s appearance — including its lack of windows — was intentional.

    “There are not a lot of windows on the building, but that’s intentional, because sunlight is just not a friend to the artwork and the artifacts that are going inside of the building,” Patterson told CBS News during a tour of the site.

    Patterson also defended the building’s symbolism, which critics have widely questioned.

    “The shape of the building was actually meant to mimic four hands coming together to show the importance of our collective action,” she said.

    Despite those explanations, the project has faced sustained backlash from local residents, architects, and fiscal watchdogs. Critics argue the design clashes with Chicago’s architectural heritage and resembles brutalist government structures. Some locals, quoted by the New York Post, have nicknamed the building “The Obamalisk,” a jab at its stark, monolithic appearance.

    The controversy has gone beyond aesthetics. In 2018, a lawsuit accused the City of Chicago of illegally transferring public parkland to the Obama Foundation, raising concerns about favoritism and misuse of public assets. That legal challenge was not resolved until 2022, fueling broader concerns about transparency and governance.

    Protests have also occurred at the construction site, with residents objecting to both the project’s footprint and its impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Patterson acknowledged that community resistance forced at least one major design change — the relocation of a parking garage.

    “If the parking garage was here, it could possibly block sunlight coming to their area, their gardens,” Patterson said.

    She noted that the foundation ultimately decided to place the garage underground.

    Fiscal concerns remain a major point of contention. When announced in 2017, the Obama Presidential Center was projected to cost $500 million. As of 2025, that figure has ballooned to approximately $850 million — an increase critics say reflects a pattern of cost overruns associated with Obama-era initiatives. While the foundation insists private donations are covering expenses, skeptics question whether additional public infrastructure and security costs will ultimately fall on taxpayers.

    The center is currently scheduled to open in June 2026.

    The criticism surrounding the Obama library stands in contrast to proposals discussed by President Donald Trump regarding his own future presidential library. Trump has floated plans to locate his library in Florida, potentially near Mar-a-Lago, emphasizing accessibility, private funding, and minimal disruption to public land. Supporters argue such an approach reflects Trump’s broader philosophy of limiting government entanglement and avoiding taxpayer burden.

    As debates over presidential legacies increasingly play out through massive construction projects, the Obama Presidential Center has become a flashpoint

    Pelosi Slams Trump’s Mental Fitness—Admits She Didn’t Watch the Speech

    6
    Nancy Pelosi via Gage Skidmore flickr

    Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., accused President Donald Trump of “mental incapacity” during a recent interview with ABC News—despite admitting she did not actually watch his speech to the nation.

    “I didn’t even think about his speech, but I did see some of it in the news afterward, and I think it was a demonstration of his mental incapacity,” Pelosi told ABC’s Jonathan Karl in a clip that aired Sunday on This Week.

    Pelosi said she chose not to watch the address, explaining that she had “had enough” of the president. Still, she did not hesitate to publicly criticize Trump, continuing a pattern of weighing in on his presidency even when acknowledging she lacked firsthand exposure to the event in question.

    When pressed by Karl to explain her remarks, Pelosi added, “Well, that was a ridiculous speech. Of course, we were all offended because of what he said about Rob Reiner… and Michele just a few days before, after the tragedy. Something’s wrong there, and something’s wrong with the people around him that they don’t stop him from his ridiculousness.”

    During the speech, Trump said he had brought the nation back from “the brink of ruin” in less than a year back in office, sharply criticized Democrats, and touted that he had made America the “hottest country” in the world. As expected, reactions to the politically charged address largely fell along partisan lines, as Trump continues to face negative polling on the nation’s economic outlook.

    Pelosi’s attack on Trump’s mental capacity comes with notable irony, given her role in 2024 in pressuring President Joe Biden to step aside as the Democratic nominee—a move that fractured their long-standing political relationship.

    Before Biden’s disastrous debate performance against Trump last June, Pelosi had been one of the most vocal defenders of Biden’s mental sharpness. She publicly dismissed concerns about his cognitive decline and criticized a Wall Street Journal report detailing issues behind the scenes.

    Earlier that year, Pelosi praised Biden as “very sharp” and “always on the ball.”

    However, according to a book by Chris Whipple, Pelosi privately told a friend that Biden had “lost a step” last year. After Biden’s debate struggles became impossible to ignore, Pelosi’s carefully worded comments on Morning Joe—which avoided endorsing his insistence on staying in the race—signaled that her confidence had waned.

    Biden ultimately dropped out of the race, but the fallout with Pelosi has lingered. The two longtime allies have not spoken since.

    Pelosi has consistently maintained that she did not push Biden to withdraw, claiming instead that she merely urged him to look honestly at polling data showing the steep odds he faced.

    Still, her latest remarks underscore a familiar dynamic: Pelosi distancing herself from accountability for her years of Democratic leadership failures while remaining eager to criticize President Trump—this time without even watching the speech she condemned.

    Read: Republican Presidents’ Best Christmas Messages

      0
      Office of Congressman Tom Osborne, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

      Over the years, Republican presidents have shared Christmas messages that reflect their administrations’ values and the spirit of the holiday season.

      Here are four notable Christmas messages from past Republican presidents:

      George W. Bush (2001-2009):

      In his first Christmas address after the September 11 attacks, President Bush spoke about the nation’s resilience and the importance of faith during challenging times.

      “This year in the midst of extraordinary times, our Nation has shown the world that though there is great evil, there is a greater good.”

      He emphasized the importance of love and sharing, noting: “Americans have given of themselves, sacrificing to help others and showing the spirit of love and sharing that is so much a part of the Christmas season.”

      Listen:

      George H.W. Bush (1989-1993):

      December 11, 1991

      At Christmas, we celebrate the promise of salvation that God gave to mankind almost 2,000 years ago. The birth of Christ changed the course of history, and His life changed the soul of man. Christ taught that giving is the greatest of all aspirations and that the redemptive power of love and sacrifice is stronger than any force of arms. It is testimony to the wisdom and the truth of these teachings that they have not only endured but also flourished over two millennia.

      Blessed with an unparalleled degree of freedom and security, generations of Americans have been able to celebrate Christmas with open joy. Tragically, that has not always been the case in other nations, but we look to the future with optimism, and we celebrate the holidays with special gladness as courageous peoples around the world continue to claim the civil and religious liberty to which all people are heirs. The triumph of democratic ideals and the lessening of global tensions give us added reason for celebration this Christmas season, and as the world community draws closer together, the wisdom of Christ’s counsel to “love thy neighbor as thyself” grows clearer.

      By His words and by His example, Christ has called us to share our many blessings with others. As individuals and as a Nation, in our homes and in our communities, there are countless ways that we can extend to others the same love and mercy that God showed humankind when He gave us His only Son. During this holy season and throughout the year, let us look to the selfless spirit of giving that Jesus embodied as inspiration in our own lives — giving thanks for what God has done for us and abiding by Christ’s teaching to do for others as we would do for ourselves.

      Ronald Reagan (1981-1989):

      Gerald R. Ford (1974-1977):

      December 24, 1975

      MERRY CHRISTMAS! These two words conjure up all of the good feelings that mankind has ever held for itself and its creator: reverence, tenderness, humility, generosity, tolerance–love. These are the stars we try to follow. These are the most enduring treasures we can bring to our world. I can remember a few Christmases in my own youth when just about the only thing we had to offer each other as a family was the love we shared, and the faith that together we could see things through to a better future. And it did. It made us work harder, study harder, try harder–and it brought out qualities and depths of strength and character that none of us in those days thought we had.

      The spirit of Christmas is ageless, irresistible and knows no barriers. It reaches out to add a glow to the humblest of homes and the stateliest of mansions. It catches up saint and sinner alike in its warm embrace. It is the season to be jolly–but to be silent and prayerful as well.

      I know this will be a particularly happy Christmas for me. I celebrate it surrounded by those I love and who love me. I celebrate it by joining with all of our citizens in observing a Christmas when Americans can honor the Prince of Peace in a nation at peace.

      The Ford family wishes you and your family a Christmas that brings all of the joy, the fulfillment, and the inspiration of this most precious of seasons. May God’s blessings be with you all.

      Ohio Democrat Sues To Remove Trump’s Name From Kennedy Center

        3
        Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

        Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) filed a lawsuit Monday attempting to prevent President Trump’s name from appearing on the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

        Beatty, an ex-officio member of the Kennedy Center board, alleges in her complaint that adding Trump’s name to the building constitutes a “flagrant violation” of the Constitution.

        “Congress intended the Center to be a living memorial to President Kennedy and a crown jewel of the arts for all Americans, irrespective of party. Unless and until this Court intervenes, Defendants will continue to defy Congress and thwart the law for improper ends,” the filing states.

        Beatty is represented by Norman Eisen, a former Obama White House ethics adviser, along with attorney Nathaniel Zelinsky of the Washington Litigation Group, according to The New York Times.

        The Ohio Democrat also claims that the administration mischaracterized a recent board call, asserting that officials falsely stated board members “unanimously” supported the change. Beatty alleges participants’ microphones were muted, preventing members from raising objections.

        The Kennedy Center updated its exterior signage on Friday to reflect the inclusion of President Trump’s name, a step that follows broader reforms initiated earlier this year. The administration’s overhaul has focused on reorienting programming and tightening standards around performances considered inappropriate for the venue’s mission.

        House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and other critics have argued the renaming effort is unlawful. But the center’s interim president, Richard Grenell, defended the decision.

        “It’s now a bipartisan space reflecting the new era. Donald Trump saved it,” Grenell wrote on X, pointing to Trump-era initiatives that stabilized the center’s financial footing.

        Beatty’s lawsuit characterizes the updates—including the name change—as “more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than the American republic—the sitting President and his handpicked loyalists renamed this storied center after President Trump.”

        The dispute now heads to federal court, where judges will determine whether the Kennedy Center’s board acted within its authority or whether Beatty’s challenge can block the newly installed signage.

        Trump Family Christmas Cards Over The Years

        1
        By The White House from Washington, DC - 2019 National Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony, Public Domain,

        The Trump family has shared various Christmas cards over the years, each reflecting their personal style and the spirit of the holiday season. Here are some notable examples: