The news broke early this morning from the War Department, signaling the formal end of the U.S. mission in Iraq, closing one of the longest and most disastrous chapters of America’s post-9/11 foreign policy.

The war began in 2003 under President George W. Bush, but more than two decades later, President Donald Trump is the one overseeing the final withdrawal of the last remaining American forces from the country.

He’s bringing them all home. It was finally happening.

Nearly 4,500 U.S. service members lost their lives during the Iraq War.

Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell released a lengthy statement outlining exactly what was happening and what the end of the mission means for the future relationship between the United States and Iraq.

PARNELL: “Today, the United States and our Coalition partners formally concluded Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq, consistent with the September 2024 U.S.-Iraq joint statement and U.S. national interests.”

The immediate military mission has now come to an end, with Coalition forces and equipment departing Erbil Air Base.

“The orderly departure of Coalition forces and equipment from Erbil Air Base marks the successful conclusion of the military mission that defeated ISIS in Iraq.”

“This milestone reflects the success of a 12-year campaign that defeated ISIS as an organized military threat in Iraq and across the region. It also marks a transition from a wartime coalition mission to an Iraqi-led security effort supported by a more normal bilateral security relationship.”

Later, President Trump announced the withdrawal himself during an event for Hispanic Americans at the White House.

And judging by the reaction in the room, the announcement was exactly the kind of news his audience wanted to hear.

TRUMP: “I wanted to announce something that I’m also very proud of. Today I am pleased to announce that the last American forces are leaving Iraq.”

[Crowd erupts into cheers and applause]

Trump didn’t hold back at all, describing the Iraq War in much harsher terms, calling the decades-long conflict a “quagmire” and exposing how America’s involvement stemmed from years of bad decision-making.

“It’s been a long time with very bad decision making that got us involved in this quagmire in the first place. It was a quagmire.”

“Many, many years it lasted, but soon that part of history will be over.”

Trump then pointed to the political future of Iraq, praising the country’s new prime minister, Ali al-Zaidi, whom Trump said he had supported from the beginning.

“This is a great day for America and importantly we leave with Iraq having a wonderful new prime minister, Ali al-Zaidi. Fantastic guy, a friend of mine.”

“And somebody I supported from the very beginning and I fully endorsed. He was running for election. He wasn’t given even a chance and I endorsed him, politicked for him a little bit and he ended up winning in a virtual landslide, beating somebody that was not a good person in my opinion.”

“So I’m very proud of him and hopefully he’s going to do a fantastic job.”

After 23 years, the U.S. military mission in Iraq is now officially over.

Scott Jennings, the lone conservative voice on CNN, took a victory lap for President Trump on the air last night over his new Greenland Deal and it was a thing of beauty.

All of the other panelists had to just sit there and listen, as Scott reminded them of how the left screeched and sneered for months, claiming that Trump was undermining American foreign policy and endangering our relationship with Denmark.

He pointed out correctly, that the remarks from the Danish prime minister yesterday were completely pro-America and pro-Trump.

Jennings forced the CNN panel to acknowledge the fact that despite all of their hysteria over President Trump’s vision for Greenland, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen herself heaped praise on both Trump and the United States.

These were the same doomers who said a deal between the U.S. and Greenland would NEVER happen.

As per usual, they were wrong.

JENNINGS: “It was a momentous thing.”

“And for a year and a half or almost two years now, I’ve been listening to everyone have a complete and total hysterical meltdown about this, about how we’ve ruined our relationship with Denmark, about how this has weakened Europe and weakened NATO, blah, blah, blah.”

“If you listen to her speech today, it could not have been more pro-American and pro-Trump and pro national security, and it was perfect!”

“And it got done despite all of the hysteria.”

“So when I hear the same hysteria, people coming out here and claiming somehow we’ve decimated the entire Iranian military, and that means they’re winning…I somehow feel like maybe, just maybe, we’re on the right track!”

It was a bang on take from Jennings.

Judging by the looks on their faces, they knew he had a point.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

As the elites in Hollywood continue to freak out over the possibility of Paramount leaving California, the UFC president made it pretty clear that he couldn’t care less where the company decides to set up shop.

During his post-fight press conference on Saturday, White said Paramount has been the “best television partner” he’s ever worked with, despite only being in business with them for 8–9 months.

Then a reporter asked whether Paramount potentially leaving California could have any “trickle-down” effect on the UFC.

The answer was classic Dana.

REPORTER: “And so a big talk in LA this week is that Paramount may be leaving California.”

“Has that had any trickle-down into the UFC sector the relationship?”

WHITE: “In what way?”

REPORTER: “Well, they…”

WHITE: “These guys can be in f*cking Aruba! I mean, we’re still going to do what we do.”

[Silence]

“Yeah, that’s their business, not mine.”

Couldn’t have said it better. Sometimes all it takes is a little bit of brutal honesty.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

White said the situation escalated quickly after, as armed officers rushed in triggered confusion in the room.

White said the atmosphere shifted suddenly as guests reacted to uncertainty about what was happening.

WHITE: “All the sudden it just started getting noisy.”

He recalled people moving quickly and security personnel responding.

“Tables getting flipped over, guys running in with guns.”

“And they were screaming; ‘Get down!’”

White said he did not immediately take cover and instead wanted to take in everything that was unfolding.

“I didn’t get down, it was f*cking awesome!”

“I literally took every minute of in and it was a pretty crazy, unique experience.”

He added that he watched it all unfold from close to where President Trump and other leaders were seated.

“We were sitting right in front of the table, right in front of where the president was.”

White described security personnel moving through the area searching for a possible threat. At the time, he said there was uncertainty about where the threat was coming from.

“Guys came in looking for shooters and they came towards our table!”

“I thought the shooter was over by us or something!”

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

You could feel where it was going within seconds.

Tapper tried to box her into a headline, framing Donald Trump’s comments about the Iranian regime as some kind of call for genocide.

Stefanik defended the president and completely dismantled Tapper’s “genocide” narrative.

Tapper pressed hard, trying to frame the remarks in the most extreme terms possible.

TAPPER: “Is calling for wiping out an entire civilization bad or good?”

Stefanik immediately rejected the premise outright.

STEFANIK: “Of course it’s bad! That is not what he is calling for. He wasn’t calling for genocide.”

Tapper doubled down, trying to pin her to the wording itself.

TAPPER: “You’re entire civilization will die?”

But Stefanik reframed it, arguing the comments were directed at a regime — not an entire group of people.

STEFANIK: “It was targeted toward the Iranian terrorist regime!”

When Tapper tried to move on with a dismissive “agree to disagree,” Stefanik didn’t let it slide. It was a smarmy move that Tapper constantly does with guests on his show, but this time it backfired.

She used the moment to call out the network itself for the continued attempts to dispel narratives that didn’t exist.

Stefanik then flipped the comparison back on Tapper, bringing up past controversies involving university leaders and their responses to calls for genocide.

“If you want to compare the president of the United States to the university presidents who failed to call for the condemnation of calling for the genocide of Jews, that’s on you, Jake.”

“The world saw how morally equivocating those university presidents were.”

“If you want to make that comparison, that’s on CNN.”

Tapper tried to steer it back to consistency in standards.

TAPPER: “I’m just asking you if you have the same standard for somebody…?”

But Stefanik closed the loop, making her position clear while pivoting back to policy outcomes of Trump’s harsh words for the regime.

STEFANIK: “Of course, genocide is bad across the board, Jake.”

“President Trump effectively brought the Iranians to the table.”

“He effectively delivered a ceasefire.”

“And he is going to effectively deliver peace to the Middle East to stop, frankly, the killing [from] the Iranian terrorist regime, which kills their own people and has created havoc across the Middle East.”

By the end of the segment, it was pretty obvious what had just played out.

Tapper was trying to guide the conversation into a very specific framing, a CNN narrative that would lock Trump’s comments into the harshest possible interpretation, thus, “a genocide.”

It had that familiar feel of a line of questioning where the destination is basically set before the answer is even given.

However, this time, Stefanik didn’t take it where he wanted it to go.

She caught the framing immediately, pushed back on the premise itself, and refused to let the exchange stay boxed into CNN’s narrative.

Instead of reacting inside it, she stepped outside of it — and started talking about what she said the words actually meant, not what they were being turned into.

And once that happened, the segment stopped going in Tapper’s direction entirely.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

What he witnessed stuck with him, but not in a good way.

In an interview last night alongside Chris Cuomo, O’Reilly didn’t hold anything back.

O’Reilly painted a grim picture of a third-world dystopia filled with drugs, illegal aliens, violent crime and what he described as a total breakdown of order in parts of the city.

But more than that, he argued that Democrat leaders have known about it — and failed to act. He said they’re actively covering it up.

He didn’t ease into it.

O’REILLY: “You know who sells a narcotics down there in San Francisco and in Oakland?”

“Honduran drug gangs who are here illegally.”

O’Reilly pointed directly at Democrat sanctuary policies, arguing they’ve created an environment where criminal networks can operate without fear of federal enforcement. If anything they are emboldened.

“You know, protects them? The sanctuary laws of San Francisco and California.”

“They strut around armed to the teeth, okay, knowing that no one on the federal level can bother them, okay?”

“Because the state and the city won’t cooperate as almost every state does with joint task force, California won’t do it.”

According to O’Reilly, the consequences have been severe — particularly when it comes to the fentanyl crisis, which is killing and destroying the lives of countless Americans.

“So Honduran drug gangs in this country illegally are fueling a MASSIVE fentanyl crisis that has destroyed the city of San Francisco.”

Then he named names. Every one of them a Democrat elite who have allowed this violence to continue.

CUOMO: “Well, I think it’s a damning headline and that’s why San Francisco has been getting crushed and Newsom has such a big burden to try to make it as the Democratic nominee.”

O’Reilly then contrasted the city’s current condition with what he says it used to be — one of the most iconic and admired places in the country.

O’REILLY: “It was once the most beautiful city in the country. I used to love to go there.”

But the most disturbing images he brought back centered on what he described as the day-to-day reality now unfolding in certain neighborhoods of the city.

“Now, little children watch drug addicts inject themselves with needles in their neck as they walked to school.”

“Now, Hondurans here illegally cut off people’s hands with machetes if they don’t pay their drug debts.”

“This isn’t about narcotics. This is about massive violence.”

He ended by drawing a stunning juxtaposition between those hellish conditions and the lives of elite Democrat leaders he says are insulated from them — the same people who allowed the carnage to fester.

“Meanwhile, two miles away, Nancy Pelosi is living in an $8 million house guarded by security.”

“So she doesn’t have to experience any of it.”

That’s really the core of his argument.

Not just that things are bad — but that the people in charge don’t have to live with the consequences. They don’t care.

It’s a harsh portrayal, and not everyone will see it the same way.

But the picture O’Reilly is painting is obvious; a city that, in his eyes, has gone from iconic to unrecognizable — a decline he believes Democrats allowed to happen and continue to ignore to this day.

O’Reilly’s special; ‘The Decline and Fall of San Francisco’ will premiere tonight, Thursday March 26th at 9PM ET on NewsNation.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

The Early Vote Action founder has been at the forefront of the push to pass the SAVE America Act to secure American elections — and now he’s taking that fight directly to Washington with a simple but unmistakeable message:

During an appearance this morning on Fox News, Presler delivered a direct and personal appeal to Republican Senators, urging them to cancel their upcoming recess and stay in Washington to finish the job.

With Congress set to break from March 30th through April 10th, Presler framed the moment as a real test of leadership — arguing that the country doesn’t have the luxury of waiting, and neither do the American people.

PRESLER: “I have a very nice, peaceful but stern message to our Republican Senate.”

“I have a pitch for you.”

“The Senate is supposed to go on recess from March 30th until April 10th.”

What made the moment resonate wasn’t just the ask — it was how clearly he laid out the stakes. Presler wasn’t talking in generalities. He was calling for a visible show of unity and urgency from a party that — for now — holds power.

He pointed specifically to unfinished business, urging lawmakers to remain in session until key priorities are completed — including full funding for the Department of Homeland Security and passage of the SAVE America Act.

“Stay in Washington, D.C. until the Department of Homeland Security is fully funded and until the SAVE America Act is passed and signed into law by President Donald J. Trump.”

The reaction in the room was immediate.

[Cheers]

But Presler didn’t let the moment pass, he knew how powerful this message was.

He leaned into it, turning his message into a broader challenge about why Republicans were given the majority in the first place. Do not waste this moment, this is your chance.

“This is your opportunity to lead.”

[Audience erupts into U-S-A chants]

“This is your opportunity to show why we the American people gave you the majority and this is your chance — a defining moment in history.”

“So don’t let this squander.”

With all of the noise out there about voter ID, the DHS shutdown, the long lines at the airport, the media narratives — Presler’s message cut through all of it with a simple demand: stay, work, and deliver.

He spoke as the voice of the American people, directly to the establishment.

Whether lawmakers take that advice remains to be seen — but the moment itself landed, and it resonated with the majority of Americans who are sick and tired of the political games.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

During a discussion about the 2028 presidential race on Sean Hannity’s new podcast, “Hang Out with Hannity,” he asked sports commentator and media personality Stephen A. Smith a straightforward question: if the election were held today, who would he vote for?

The answer was not what Hannity — or most viewers — expected.

HANNITY: “Names of three people in your head right now that you’d vote for, for president.”

Smith paused before answering, already hinting that his response might surprise people.

SMITH: “You won’t like it.”

“I’d vote for Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland. I’d vote for Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania. I’d vote for Marco Rubio.”

The mention of Marco Rubio immediately prompted Hannity to ask for an explanation.

He wanted to understand why someone who has long been associated with supporting Democrats would cross the aisle and name a Republican.

HANNITY: “Okay. Talk about what is it about Marco?”

Smith didn’t hesitate in his reasoning.

SMITH: “He’s an adult in the room. There is no questioning his qualifications for the job.”

That answer led Hannity to test just how far Smith was willing to take the argument.

What followed turned into a rapid-fire stress test of Rubio’s standing against top Democratic names.

HANNITY: “If it’s Marco and anyone other than Wes and Josh, you vote for Marco over the Democrat?”

SMITH: “Yes.”

Hannity then started listing some of the most prominent figures in Democratic politics.

HANNITY: “Over Newsom?”

SMITH: “Yes.”

HANNITY: “Over Kamala?”

SMITH: “Yes.”

Smith doubled down on the point to make it unmistakably clear.

He then went a step further, praising Rubio’s experience and role on the world stage.

For a commentator widely associated with supporting Democrat politicians, the moment stood out.

In a conversation about the future of the presidency, Smith openly elevating a Republican above nearly the entire Democratic field was not something many viewers expected to hear.

And it suggests that if Rubio were to run in 2028, he could potentially pull support from some voters outside the traditional Republican base.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

This was a story which the media completely glossed over.

He made it known on CNN last night that the SCOTUS decision did more than resolve a policy dispute — it dismantled one of the most repeated Democratic talking points of the past several years.

“And I’ll tell you one more thing,” Jennings began, signaling he wasn’t done.

He then addressed the long-running claim that the Supreme Court operates as an extension of Trump’s political will.

JENNINGS: “For every Democrat and every media person that has gone on for the last year or two about how this Supreme Court is a wholly owned subsidiary of Donald Trump, that it’s not independent, that it does whatever he says to do…”

Jennings didn’t hesitate to connect the dots.

The ruling, which went against Trump’s immediate position, became — in Jennings’ telling — proof that the Court remains independent, even with a conservative majority.

Rather than lash out at the Court, Jennings noted that the president has legal avenues to pursue moving forward.

This was how a constitutional republic should operate.

“So to me, I thought this was actually…I thought the ruling was sound.”

“I think the president is sound to try other statutes.”

And finally, he argued that both critics of the Court and critics of Trump’s willingness to follow it were proven wrong at the same time.

“And I think the narratives about the court not being independent and the president not obeying the court were TOTALLY blown up today.”

In other words, the decision may have been a setback on tariffs — but according to Jennings, it delivered something far bigger: a direct rebuke of the claim that the judiciary answers to one man.

For a narrative that dominated headlines for years, Jennings says yesterday’s ruling spoke louder than any panel debate ever could.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

It came from a sitting Democrat senator.

During an exchange last night with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Senator John Fetterman openly admitted on national television that his long-held stance on sanctuary cities is no longer defensible.

Worse for CNN’s narrative, he didn’t dodge or pivot. He owned it.

Collins confronted Fetterman with his own words from 2016, when he argued that sanctuary city policies made communities safer.

COLLINS: “2016, when you were the lieutenant governor you said that you believe sanctuary cities make everybody safer.”

She then pressed him directly, tying the question to the ongoing fallout in Minneapolis.

COLLINS: “Given that has been the administration’s argument against what’s happening in Minneapolis, is do you still agree with that tonight? Is that still your position that sanctuary cities make people safer?”

Instead of deflecting, Fetterman did something rarely seen from a Democrat on cable news: he disowned his old position.

FETTERMAN: “I think at that time, the dynamic has changed much differently, and the border has become more and more increasingly more difficult.”

“So for me now, I think it’s entirely appropriate, to make the adjustments.”

That alone would have been a notable moment. But Fetterman didn’t stop there.

He went further — far enough that Collins appeared visibly caught off guard.

FETTERMAN: “And, I do think at this point we should be turning over all the criminals that are in custody in all these jurisdictions.”

Sensing the gravity of what he’d just said, Collins quickly tried to narrow the scope, bringing the discussion back to Minneapolis and Democratic leadership there.

COLLINS: “Does that mean for Minneapolis? Obviously, you’re the senator from Pennsylvania, but in Minnesota, Jacob Frey the mayor says he he doesn’t believe that they should cooperate with those federal enforcement laws.”

She pressed again, tying cooperation directly to the Trump administration.

COLLINS: “So you do believe that they should be cooperating more with the Trump administration?”

Fetterman didn’t walk it back.

FETTERMAN: “What I do, what I do believe is that if there are local law enforcement that have these people in custody, you know, that are behaving in criminal behavior, then yes, they should they should cooperate with that.”

He made his position unmistakably clear.

FETTERMAN: “And those individuals, if they’re convicted, should be deported.”

At that point, the moment had landed. Collins appeared stunned.

Still, she tried one last time — perhaps hoping he’d soften or retreat from the implications.

COLLINS: “And so your stance on on sanctuary cities has changed then. Is that right, senator?”

Fetterman didn’t hesitate.

FETTERMAN: “I think it’s yes, I think it’s evolved because the dynamics and the circumstances, with respects to our border has.”

That was it.

A Democrat senator, on CNN, acknowledging what many voters already believe — that the sanctuary city experiment had failed

under the weight of real-world consequences.

For a network that has spent years defending these policies as untouchable moral necessities, the moment was jarring. The frame cracked live on air — and Collins had no way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support!

The exchange quickly escalated after Tapper attempted to challenge the administration’s seizure of Venezuelan narco-terrorist Nicolás Maduro.

Rather than debate the substance of Miller’s argument, Tapper appeared to dismiss it outright.

TAPPER: “I don’t even know, honestly, what you’re talking about right now.”

Miller immediately fired back, accusing the CNN host of avoiding the issue rather than engaging it.

MILLER: “You love doing that smarmy thing, Jake, and I was hoping you’d be better than that this time.”

Sensing the moment slipping, Tapper tried to narrow the scope of the discussion back to elections and legitimacy inside Venezuela.

TAPPER: “I asked you if there would be an election in Venezuela. That’s what I asked. I said, why was the president so quick to dismiss Machado? You answered that question…”

But Miller rejected the premise of Tapper’s approach, arguing that Washington’s responsibility is not to impose political checklists but to stabilize a country devastated by dictatorship and cartel rule.

MILLER: “Because the objective, Jake, is the security and stability for the people of Venezuela. With our help and leadership, that country will become more prosperous than it has ever been in his whole history.”

Tapper pressed again, pointing out that those currently positioned to lead Venezuela still emerged from the Maduro system.

TAPPER: “But the woman running Venezuela right now is part of the Maduro regime.”

Miller acknowledged that transitional realities exist, but said Tapper was still missing the broader point.

MILLER: “There will be there will be conversations, Jake, about all of these guideposts along the way. The reason why I was giving you that speech, which I know you didn’t want to hear, is because you’re approaching this from the wrong frame.”

He then identified what he described as the ideological blind spot that dominates much of the media’s coverage of U.S. foreign intervention.

“This neoliberal frame that the United States job is to go around the world and and demanding immediate elections to be held everywhere immediately, all the time, right away. To create these vacuums.”

Tapper bristled at the characterization and interrupted with a blunt retort.

TAPPER: “That’s not what I think. But you invaded the country. We went into the country and we seized the leader of Venezuela!”

That accusation became the turning point of the interview. Instead of retreating, Miller embraced it without hesitation.

He then laid out the administration’s justification in stark terms, framing the action as a matter of national security rather than diplomatic niceties.

“The point Jake is that we’re not going to let tinpot communist dictators send rapists into our country, send drugs into our country, send weapons into our country, and we’re not going to let a country fall into the hands of our adversaries.”

From that moment on, the debate was effectively over.

Tapper had focused on procedural legitimacy and optics; Miller reframed the issue around sovereignty, security, and consequences — and refused to apologize for it.

It was a rare moment of honesty seldomly seen on cable news.

Appearing on Newmsax last night, the Minnesota U.S. Senate candidate tore straight through the media’s preferred euphemisms and drew a hard line on the exploding Somali fraud scandal — calling out what he says is a blatant double standard enforced by the political class and legacy media.

As corporate media scrambles to brand any mention of Somalis in the Minnesota scandal as “racist” or “scapegoating” — White fired back with both barrels.

According to White, labeling the fraud honestly isn’t racism. It’s accountability.

Subscribe now

WHITE: “It’s not racism.”

He rejected the media’s habit of branding any criticism as “far-right,” saying the label has lost all meaning.

“And we’re not the far-right either. We’re just right. We were just right about President Trump. We were just right about a bunch of other things. We’re right about the Somali fraud, and we’re right to say that it’s Somali fraud.”

White then dismantled what he called the media’s selective use of identity — praising it when convenient and weaponizing it when failures surface.

“You know, the greatest double standard here, in contradiction of the MSNBC’s of the world, they hold up an identity when they’re a success, they say black excellence, immigrant excellence when they talk about Ilhan Omar.”

“But in failures, all of a sudden it’s racism or bigotry.”

His message was blunt: identity politics cannot be a one-way street.

“You can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to hold up an identity or a group in their success, you have to take accountability with the failures as well.”

White closed without apology — and without backing down.

No euphemisms and no concern for media outrage. Just a warning shot to a political establishment that, in his view, has grown comfortable confusing honesty with hate.

KIRK: “Why now have you been involved with speaking about politics? What was kind of the turning point for you?”

MINAJ: “Well…I just got tired of being pushed around…sometimes you just get tired of it and then you realize, wait a minute, I have something inside of me that’s stronger than what’s out there.”

She explained the moment she decided to stop letting others dictate her voice:

“So, when you’ve had enough, you realize, wait a minute, this…why do I even care about these people and what they think? Who are they? They don’t even know who they are.”

“And so I’m not going to back down anymore, I’m not going to back down EVER again.”

[The audience erupted into applause for the music mogul]

It was a firm declaration from Minaj.

Unlike many in her industry, Minaj was willing to speak boldly on issues she believes matter — no matter the pushback.

Standing before the cameras with FBI Director Kash Patel, she delivered a no-holds-barred indictment of the Afghan national who attacked two National Guard troops near the White House — and of the system that allowed him into the country in the first place.

From the podium, Pirro made clear that this attack was a wake-up call.

Pirro reminded reporters that the attacker had arrived in the U.S. through what she described as an “absurd” pipeline — one that waved through individuals with little to no meaningful vetting.

She said this wasn’t some shocking twist; it was the plain, predictable result of letting policy take precedence over public safety.

“We should not have to live in fear in the nation’s capital, especially by one who came here from a foreign country through a process that was so absurd that he came through and released into this country, as many were knowing virtually nothing about his vetting.”

“This is what happens in this country when people are allowed in, who are not properly vetted.”

According to Pirro, the two Guardsmen who were targeted aren’t just service members — they’re symbolic of the fragile barrier protecting civilized society from the chaos that poor border policies unleash.

“These guardsmen and all who are here to protect the district are the line that separates a civilized society from a barbaric one.”

“They are the ones who stand for law and order. This was not just an attack, it was a direct challenge to law and order in our nation’s capital. And they, the individual, will be made fully accountable.”

She stressed that under the current administration, there will be no repeat of past eras where politically motivated violence was shrugged off or normalized.

“And though it seems that we have been here before under President Trump, make no mistake, and the Attorney General, we will not allow this to be normalized.”

“It will be confronted, condemned and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

Pirro issued her final warning directly to the attacker, underlining the gravity of what comes next.

“Now, my message to the individual who committed these acts is you pick the wrong target, the wrong city and the wrong country, and you will be sorry for the violence and the evil that you perpetrated in our nation’s capital.”

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.

In front of the United Nations, with cameras rolling and elites watching, Minaj sounded the alarm on the genocide of Christians in Nigeria.

Minaj was invited to speak by Mike Waltz and the Trump administration, so she knew the backlash would be vicious from her left-wing circle. She did it anyway.

With each word spoken, you could feel how important this issue was to her.

She opened by directly thanking President Trump for shining a light on the crisis on the world stage, saying:

“I would like to thank President Trump for prioritizing this issue and for his leadership on the global stage in calling for urgent action to defend Christians in Nigeria, to combat extremism and to bring a stop to violence against those who simply want to exercise their natural right to freedom of religion or belief.”

She spoke as an American who understands the blessing of religious freedom.

“I stand here as a proud New Yorker, with a deep sense of gratitude that we live in a country where we can freely and safely worship God, regardless of one’s creed, background or politics.”

She reminded the audience that this wasn’t about ideology — it was about basic human dignity:

“No group should ever be persecuted for practicing their religion, like I recently stated on social media.”

“And we don’t have to share the same beliefs in order for us to respect each other.”

“We’re beyond that, that’s ridiculous.”

Then she turned to the heart of the crisis — the brutal reality facing Christians in Nigeria. Her voice trembled slightly as she described the horrors of what international leaders have been ignoring.

“In Nigeria, Christians are being targeted, driven from their homes and killed.”

“Churches have been burned.”

“Families have been torn apart.”

“And entire communities live in fear, constantly, simply because of how they pray.”

“It demands urgent action.”

And to those who would twist her message, she shut the door completely:

“And I want to be clear; protecting Christians in Nigeria is not about taking sides or dividing people.”

“It is about UNITING humanity.”

At a time when most celebrities run from controversy, Nicki Minaj walked straight into the fire. And she did it on behalf of people who have no global platform, no political strength, and no cultural defenders.

Fearless is the only word for it.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.

Appearing on Fox this afternoon, he said the incentives quietly layered onto the program in 2021 created a system overflowing with waste, fraud, and “phantom” beneficiaries.

“During Covid, there was an additional layer of incentives, money thrown at the problem, which has historically been how, unfortunately, Democrats deal with these issues.”

“In this case, some of that money got pocketed, but I’m going to share with you numbers that will blow your mind. These are the actual numbers from CMS.”

Then came the headline figure:

“We believe 4.4 million people are not appropriately enrolled in Obamacare.”

“Which means, they’re phantoms. They don’t know they have the insurance, they don’t want the insurance, they didn’t need the insurance.”

“We as taxpayers are paying for 4.4 million people to have full benefits for no good reason.”

Oz said this explosion of “ghost enrollments” tracks directly with the enhanced Covid-era subsidies Democrats pushed through in 2021.

“When the Obamacare additional Covid credits were added in 2021—there were about 3 1/2, 4 million people that were never using their policies. That’s normal. Sometimes people don’t use their insurance policy.”

“Today, it’s over 11 million people who have Obamacare, never use their policies.”

“They don’t buy medications, they don’t see doctors and use it, which means they often don’t know that they have it. Yet we’re stuck with the bill.”

According to Oz, Trump wants the waste stripped out immediately.

And the imbalance is staggering.

“When Obamacare was created—50% of the people were supposed to be paid for by the government. 50% were supposed to be spending their own money.”

“Now it’s 95% government funded.”

A system built on “shared responsibility” is now almost entirely taxpayer-funded and, as Oz revealed, millions of the people being funded may not even know they’re on the rolls.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.

Sen. Angus King told reporters he backed the compromise funding deal for one blunt reason — “it wasn’t working.”

He acknowledged Democrats went from having “zero chance” of getting their ACA subsidy demands to maybe “50/50,” and only after abandoning their shutdown pressure campaign.

A reporter pressed him on the fallout:

SEN. KING:

“Because it wasn’t working. How long would it take to not get a response to say it isn’t working?”

He admitted Republicans never budged.

“In other words, it’s been six weeks. The Republicans made it clear they weren’t going to discuss the health care issue. The Affordable Care Act, tax credits until until the shutdown was over.”

“We tried to keep working that for six weeks. It didn’t happen. The vote that we have is not a guarantee for sure.”

“Here’s the way I would put it. As I assessed it, there was zero chance of dealing with the ACA issue as long as the shutdown continued.”

King was blunt about the reality Democrats faced:

“Now, I don’t know, 50/50, but there’s a lot better chance now than there was this morning because the nothing was happening and there was no evidence that another week or another two weeks or Thanksgiving or Christmas was suddenly the Republicans want to come to us and say, oh, we want to now talk about the ACA.”

In the end, it was all just theater.

However, Senator King delivered a rare moment of honesty — and a devastating indictment of his own party’s strategy.

A brutal confession that the Democrats’ shutdown leverage is gone.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.

The Senate voted 60–40 on Sunday night to advance bipartisan legislation that would end the record-long shutdown — and it only moved because eight Democrats jumped ship.

Catherine Cortez Masto, Dick Durbin, John Fetterman, Maggie Hassan, Tim Kaine, Angus King, Jeanne Shaheen, and Jacky Rosen crossed the aisle, joining nearly every Republican to push the bill over the 60-vote threshold.

Rand Paul was the lone GOP holdout.

The move places the Senate onto the House-passed continuing resolution, now serving as the vehicle for a broader agreement crafted during a rare weekend session Republicans forced into motion.

The deal creates a three-bill “minibus” fully funding Agriculture and the FDA, Veterans Affairs and military construction, and the legislative branch.

Every other agency will stay funded at current levels through Jan. 30, giving appropriators time to finish the remaining bills.

Democrats’ biggest demand — extending Obamacare subsidies — didn’t survive intact.

Leader John Thune agreed only to hold a vote in December, with zero guarantee the measure will pass the Senate, clear the House, or ever reach President Trump’s desk.

In the end, Republicans secured the funding path. Democrats walked away with a promise, and nothing more.

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.

But when Tish Hyman made that case on national television, Laura Ingraham refused to let her separate the incident from the ideology driving it.

HYMAN:

“There are laws that need to change. There is terminology that needs to change. We need to get things completely rooted in honesty.”

“Right now the whole entire ideology is rooted in lies and that’s why we can’t come to anything. We have to understand that this is not a red and blue issue. This is a pink and blue issue for anyone else who doesn’t understand what I’m saying, this is a nonpartisan issue.”

“This is a women’s safety issue.”

That’s when Ingraham cut straight through the framing.

INGRAHAM:

“But Tish, you live in California. Tish, sorry to interrupt, but you live in California.”

“So Gavin Newsom is your governor. You know, you are represented by a supermajority of Democrats in the state who line up behind trans rights and the right of biological men to compete against women and girls and go into these spaces.”

“So this is the state in which you you live! That’s the Democrat Party today.”

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.

From Reagan Airport in Washington, he slammed Congress for leaving the country stranded in the middle of a government shutdown.

He targeted Democrat Senators who have voted 14 times to keep the government closed.

Duffy contrasted his own service in Congress with the current gridlock.

“And by the way, when I was in Congress, we had shutdowns, I stayed here for a month. I didn’t fly home. I sat in my office working on deals, working on solutions.”

“Why are Senators going home?! If you can vote 14 times to keep the government shut down and create this gridlock in our airports, and you’re going to go home?!”

“They should sit here. Like Americans sit in airports, they should sit in their offices. They should sit in the Senate and figure out how they’re going to come up with a deal to open this back up and not use the American people as leverage.”

Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.