Month: January 2025
Trump fires 17 government watchdogs at various federal agencies
President Donald Trump fired 17 independent watchdogs at various federal agencies late Friday, a Trump administration official confirmed to Fox News, as he continues to reshape the government at a blistering pace.
Trump dismissed inspector generals at agencies within the Defense Department, State Department, Energy Department, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Department of Veterans Affairs and more, notifying them by email from the White House Presidential Personnel Office, the Washington Post first reported.
"It’s a widespread massacre," one of the terminated inspector generals told the Post. "Whoever Trump puts in now will be viewed as loyalists, and that undermines the entire system."
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that Trump's action may violate federal law that requires the president to give 30 days' notice to Congress of his intent to fire any independent watchdog, the Associated Press reported.
‘FLOODING THE ZONE’ TRUMP HITS WARP SPEED IN FIRST WEEK BACK IN OFFICE
"There may be good reason the IGs were fired. We need to know that if so," Grassley said in a statement. "I’d like further explanation from President Trump. Regardless, the 30 day detailed notice of removal that the law demands was not provided to Congress."
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Inspector generals at federal agencies are called on to investigate government waste, fraud and abuse. They operate independently and can serve in multiple administrations.
The mass firing is Trump's latest attempt to force the federal bureaucracy into submission after he shut down diversity, equity and inclusion programs, rescinded job offers and sidelined more than 150 national security and foreign policy officials. Trump began his second term with the intent of purging any opponents of his agenda from the government and replacing them with officials who would execute his orders without hesitation.
Among those spared from Trump's wrath was Department of Justice inspector general Michael Horowitz, the New York Times reported. Horowitz led the investigation of the FBI's Russian collusion probe, which exposed at least 17 "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the FBI's application for a FISA warrant in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., slammed Trump's firings, calling them a "purge of independent watchdogs in the middle of the night."
"President Trump is dismantling checks on his power and paving the way for widespread corruption," Warren posted on X.
During his first term, Trump fired five inspectors general in less than two months in 2020. This included the State Department, whose inspector general had played a role in the president's impeachment proceedings.
Last year, Trump's predecessor Joe Biden fired the inspector general of the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, after an investigation found the official had created a hostile work environment.
In 2022, Congress passed reforms that strengthened protections for inspectors general and made it harder to replace them with political appointees, requiring the president to explain their removal.
Who is John Fleming, the Freedom Caucus founding member challenging GOP Sen Bill Cassidy?
Louisiana State Treasurer John Fleming, who aims to unseat Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., during the Bayou State's 2026 U.S. Senate contest, assailed the incumbent as a "RINO Republican" during an interview with Fox News Digital, using the acronym that abbreviates the phrase "Republican in name only."
Fleming, who served as a U.S. House lawmaker from early 2009 through early 2017, was one of the founding members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.
He ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in 2016 and held several posts during the first President Donald Trump administration. In 2023, with Trump's endorsement, he won election to serve as the Pelican State's treasurer.
When asked by Fox News Digital to name some lawmakers he largely aligns with ideologically, Fleming mentioned GOP Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris of Maryland, as well as Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah.
RFK JR. ‘WRONG’ ABOUT VACCINATIONS, GOP SENATOR SAYS
When asked whether there are any federal departments or entities that he would like to see fully abolished, Fleming replied that if there are any federal entities he thinks should be eliminated, he said, "First on my list would be the Department of Education."
Regarding the debt ceiling, he said if he were in office, he would seek to "leverage" debt ceiling increases to lower spending, adding, "I don't think we should raise the debt ceiling."
Fleming indicated that he supports foreign aid in some cases.
"I do believe in some level of foreign aid, particularly military foreign aid, when it's in the best interest of the people of the United States," he noted, suggesting that the U.S. should assist Taiwan and Israel.
Fleming said that America must "be careful about" involving itself in affairs abroad. Pointing to Afghanistan and Iraq, he said, "We seem to win the wars but lose the peace."
Fleming indicated that he is supportive of the TikTok ban that passed last year, because he does not believe it is "wise for us to allow the Chinese or any other foreign power, or even our own government, to spy on us through our social media." He opined that the social media platform should be banned until it is no longer under the influence of the Communist Chinese Party government of China.
In Louisiana's jungle primary system, candidates of various parties run against each other, and if any candidate wins the majority, they win election to the role — but if no candidate gets the majority, the top two finishers compete in a runoff.
When Cassidy ran in 2014, he placed second in a field that included seven other candidates, advancing along with incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu to a runoff, which Cassidy won.
When Cassidy was re-elected in 2020, he won the majority and avoided a runoff, defeating a field of more than a dozen other candidates.
Cassidy was one of the seven GOP senators who voted to convict President Trump after the 2021 House impeachment in the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Trump had already departed from office by the time of the February Senate vote, and the number of senators who voted to convict ultimately fell short of the threshold necessary for conviction.
During a CNN appearance that the outlet shared on social media in 2023, Cassidy said he thought Trump should drop out of the presidential contest, though the lawmaker noted that the decision was up to Trump, who he said would lose to President Joe Biden based on the polls at the time.
HEGSETH BACKED BY LOUISIANA SEN. BILL CASSIDY TO LEAD THE PENTAGON UNDER TRUMP
After Trump had become the presumptive GOP presidential nominee last year, Kristin Welker asked Cassidy on "Meet the Press" whether he would endorse Trump. The senator responded by saying that he planned to vote for a Republican for president.
Cassidy in June pledged to work with Trump if the candidate returned to the White House.
"Just met with my colleagues and President Trump. I was elected to work for Louisiana and the United States of America. I commit to working with President Trump if he is the next president—and it appears he is going to be—to make things better for all," the senator said in a statement at the time.
He congratulated Trump and Vice President JD Vance on their inaugurations earlier this week.
"Today, the American people start winning again. Republicans are going to secure the border, unleash American energy, and protect American manufacturing," he noted in the statement. "Congratulations to President Trump and Vice President Vance. Let’s get to work!"
The lawmaker, who has served in the U.S. Senate for just over a decade, previously served in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Trump endorsed Cassidy when the senator sought re-election in 2020, thanking him for supporting the Make America Great Again agenda, and praising his "outstanding" work representing Louisianans and Americans at large.
"THANK YOU @BillCassidy for all of your support with our #MAGA Agenda. You are doing an outstanding job representing the people of Louisiana & the U.S.A. You have my Complete and Total Endorsement!" Trump declared in a post.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, a Cassidy campaign spokesman said of Fleming, "He came in 5th place last time he ran for Senate in 2016 and currently has $500k in campaign debt."
According to a Cassidy campaign press release, the senator "raised another $1 million across his reelection, leadership, and joint fundraising committees in the fourth quarter of 2024, bringing his campaign cash-on-hand to over $6.5 million."
The Fleming campaign responded to the Cassidy spokesperson's comment in a statement to Fox News Digital.
"The senate campaign loan is 100% owed to Treasurer Fleming, personally," Fleming's campaign noted. "With regard to placement, Sen Cassidy ran against a weak Republican and a politically-wounded Democrat who had voted for Obamacare among other things. And, he had the backing of the entire Republican Party."
"Treasurer Fleming ran in an open seat against 23 opponents of all parties, some of whom divided his political base geographically as well as ideologically," the statement continued. "Sen. John Kennedy ultimately won Fleming's senate race as he was also the Louisiana State Treasurer and had run for the Senate before as Fleming is currently. What truly matters at this time is that Senator Cassidy voted to convict President Trump in the second impeachment trial during Trump's first term. Had Trump been convicted, it would have foreclosed any possibility to reelect Trump leading to either a second Biden term or a Kamala Harris Presidency."
Why is Trump being so hard on his former pal Putin?
Donald Trump is a Russian asset, whether willing or unwilling. His obsequiousness toward Russian strongman Vladimir Putin during his first term wasn’t just embarrassing—it became a grave national security threat.
Trump literally sided with Putin over his own intelligence agencies. And why wouldn’t he? Russia was a major factor in his 2016 election victory.
Meanwhile, Trump’s first impeachment was literally centered on his effort to blackmail Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, drumming up a fake Hunter Biden investigation in exchange for anti-tank weapons to try to stave off a looming Russian invasion.
Last year, Trump repeatedly promised to end Russia’s war in Ukraine within “24 hours” of taking office, which many took to mean pulling U.S. support for Ukraine and freezing the conflict in its current state—something Russia desperately needs.
Yet a funny thing has happened. Trump slobbered over Putin, believing that he and Russia are strong and mighty, serving as an example for his own imperialist and undemocratic designs. But Russia is not strong and mighty. In fact, Russia has run out of tools to prop up its failing economy. And out-of-control inflation, sky-high interest rates, and lower global energy prices have put Putin in a precarious position.
Somehow, Trump noticed this, and his disdain couldn’t be clearer. We just might have somehow lucked into a pro-Ukraine Trump presidency.
Trump shared his thoughts about Russia’s war in Ukraine on Truth Social Wednesday morning.
I’m not looking to hurt Russia. I love the Russian people, and always had a very good relationship with President Putin - and this despite the Radical Left’s Russia, Russia, Russia HOAX. We must never forget that Russia helped us win the Second World War, losing almost 60,000,000 lives in the process. All of that being said, I’m going to do Russia, whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR. Settle now, and STOP this ridiculous War! IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE. If we don’t make a “deal,” and soon, I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries. Let’s get this war, which never would have started if I were President, over with! We can do it the easy way, or the hard way - and the easy way is always better. It’s time to “MAKE A DEAL.” NO MORE LIVES SHOULD BE LOST!!!
How does Trump always manage to get so much wrong?
Russia didn’t lose 60 million lives in World War II; it lost 27 million. And, really, seven million of those were Ukrainian, as that total is for the Soviet Union, not Russia. That’s a lot, so why the need to exaggerate it? Probably because the total number of people killed in World War II is around 60 million, and Trump is just too stupid to know the difference—or to fact check.
Furthermore, tariffs don’t mean shit to Russia, since the U.S. doesn’t really trade with them. In 2022, the United States imported just $15 billion in Russian goods and services. Thanks to deep sanctions, what little we exported, like intellectual property (movies and such), was either appropriated by Moscow or just stolen.
But sanctions are something that could be hiked up, which would be a welcome response from the Trump administration.
If Trump really wants the war to end (and to take credit and have statues raised all over Ukraine in his honor), then he needs to do what former President Joe Biden was loath to do: open up the arms spigot and remove all restrictions on their usage.
More specifically, he needs to flood Ukraine with aircrafts—Ukraine now flies F-16s—and long-range missiles.

Russia has endless manpower to incrementally take ground in Ukraine. In October 2024, U.S. intelligence agencies estimated Russian casualties for the entire war at more than 600,000, including those killed and wounded. And that pace has increased year over year as Russia runs out of armor but continues to send soldiers on foot, motorcycle, and even civilian vehicles.
Yet manpower continues to be sourced from Russia’s poorest, more remote regions, insulating the oligarch elites in Moscow and St. Petersburg from direct consequences.
That economic instability, on the other hand, hits those oligarchs in the only place it matters, and a continued 10% inflation rate is taking a bite out of everyone’s earning power.
How long can the czar remain in power if his people are starving?
Meanwhile, the country’s banking system is on the verge of collapse as Moscow forces them to lend to the military industrial complex—at levels that far exceed their ability to cover the risk. With their inability to access foreign reserves due to sanctions, they are isolated and exposed. Wary of being caught up with retaliatory sanctions from the United States and the European Union, China is steering clear.
While Russia still has significant financial reserves to cover its massive defense-related budget deficits, they are on pace to be depleted by 2030, according to an analysis by Janes—and that’s assuming energy prices don’t crater.
Saudi Arabia has been threatening to open the spigot, and if Trump’s policy to encourage additional domestic drilling pans out, global prices might further tumble to Russia’s great peril. And additional Western sanctions on oil and on countries that help Russia circumvent sanctions (cough, cough, looking at you, India) will further tighten the noose.
Long-range missiles would help accelerate Russia’s economic woes. Ukraine’s biggest war gains the past year came from systematically targeting Russian economic engines like refineries and factories. On the ground, Ukraine needs to merely hold the line, extracting a steep price on Russian advances. But if they want to win the war, it will be with long-range missiles.
Unfortunately, Trump didn’t threaten that, but once Putin ignores Trump’s demands for “A DEAL,” it would be a logical next step to ratchet up the pressure. Someone might even whisper in his ear—with their fingers crossed behind their back—that if he helps end the war, a Nobel Peace Prize is on the table.
Trump’s 180-degree turn on Putin clearly stems from Russia’s weakness not only in Ukraine, but also in Syria following the country’s humiliating defeat.
One Russian Telegram channel claimed that secret negotiations between Russia and Trump representatives in December failed when the Americans made demands that Putin was unwilling to meet.
All media, public authorities and controlled leaks of [Russian] economic data not only abroad, but also inside the country, the main goal was to convince first the ruling group of Biden, and in the last few months of Trump, about the normal state of the Russian economy, its moderate growth, the absence of critical problems, and the ability of the Russian Federation to continue the confrontation as long as necessary.For example, our group had all the real indicators of the Russian Federation – a growing decline in GDP by 1-4%, inflation growth of up to 25% over the last year, etc. The main figures for the public space were carefully adjusted, the emerging holes were quietly filled with reserves from the National Wealth Fund. While there was a high probability of reaching an agreement with the US by demonstrating ‘muscles’, it was much more profitable and cheaper to demonstrate them with hidden doping.
There was a categorical ban not only on discussing serious restrictions and deprivations for the population, but also on actually working out such measures – because of possible leaks and confirmation of the ‘weakness’ of the Russian economy for US analysts.
The main scenario assumed that the newly elected U.S. president, who had his hands ‘untied’ at the beginning of his term, would be convinced of Russia's ability to continue the conflict throughout his presidency would want to resolve the crisis quickly, and that this would be the best time for agreements.
There were tense secret negotiations between Russia and Trump's representatives through almost all of December, but the conditions put forward by the Americans were completely unacceptable for the pro-Chinese elite group in Russia, which at this stage has the greatest weight [...]
China will not allow an agreement with the US (probably, China leaked the real data of the Russian economy to the US, hence such tough conditions from their side), it will not only receive resources below the cost price and supply its products with 200-300% markup but it will also solve its geopolitical task – talking about friendship and partnership of the Russian Federation, Russia's forehead will hit the US and the EU, bargaining for agreements for itself and preventing its open conflict with the US.
That is quite the conspiracy theory.
The United States doesn’t need China to know the state of the Russian economy. Heck, I’ve linked to a bunch of Western media sources and analysts who have had their finger on Russia’s true economic situation throughout the entire war.
But the underlying point is quite interesting. Not only is it against China’s interests for the war to end, but Russia is also reliant on it for just about everything right now. Plus, China loves to see EU and U.S. dollars and assets spent on Putin’s theater rather than on Taiwan.
The end result is a weak Russia and a pathetic Putin, groveling before North Korea for weapons and manpower. And if there’s one thing Trump abhors, it’s weakness.
By aligning himself against China, Republicans’ favorite geopolitical boogeyman du jour, Trump is further susceptible to influence from pro-Ukraine voices inside the GOP and his administration.
If he wants to end the war, Trump needs to give Ukraine the means and permission to further target Russia’s failing economic engine. Long-range missiles are the way to do it.
‘Ultra-right’: Trump budget chief pick Russell Vought faces fire from Dem senators
Democratic lawmakers grilled President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on a series of issues Wednesday, ranging from abortion to the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act.
While Republicans argue that Russell Vought is qualified for the role because he served as Trump’s OMB director during the president's first term, Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have labeled Vought an "ultra-right" ideologue.
Vought appeared before the Senate Budget Committee on Wednesday for a confirmation hearing and defended his previous statements that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional — an issue Democrats claim should disqualify him from leading the Office of Management and Budget.
The law, adopted in 1974, stipulates that Congress may oversee the executive branch’s withholding of budget authority, and affirmed that Congress holds the power of the purse. Ultimately, the law bars the executive branch from circumventing Congress and withholding appropriated funds.
The first Trump administration and Vought have come under fire after the Office of Management and Budget held up $214 million in military aid for Ukraine in 2019, a decision that ultimately led to Trump’s first impeachment.
"You’re quite comfortable assuming that the law doesn’t matter and that you’ll just treat the money for a program as a ceiling… rather than a required amount," Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley said. "Well, the courts have found otherwise."
TRUMP TREASURY PICK: EXTENDING TRUMP TAX CUTS ‘SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ECONOMIC ISSUE’
Additionally, the Supreme Court also ruled in 1975 that the executive branch cannot impound funds without congressional oversight.
In that case, Train v. City of New York, the Supreme Court determined the Environmental Protection Agency must use full funding included in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, even though then-President Richard Nixon issued orders not to use all the funding.
Lawmakers have pointed to this case in Vought's confirmation hearings as further evidence that the executive branch cannot tie up funding Congress has approved.
Even so, Vought told lawmakers in multiple exchanges he believes the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional, because presidents historically could spend less than what Congress had approved prior to the Impoundment Control Act, and that Trump campaigned on that position.
Democrats aren’t the only ones worried about Vought’s views on the Impoundment Control Act. Senate Budget Committee chair Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he also shared some concerns and would disclose them at a markup hearing for Vought’s nomination.
Vought also faced questioning on his views regarding abortion, given his connection as an author of Project 2025, a political initiative The Heritage Foundation released in 2023 that called for policy changes, including instituting a national ban on abortion medication.
Other proposals included in Project 2025 include eliminating the Department of Education, cutting DEI programs, and reducing funding for Medicare and Medicaid.
"You have said that you don’t believe in exceptions for rape, for incest, or the life of the mother," said Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington. "Is that your position?"
"Senator, my views are not important. I’m here on behalf of the president," Vought said.
GET TO KNOW DONALD TRUMP'S CABINET: WHO HAS THE PRESIDENT-ELECT PICKED SO FAR?
Trump has repeatedly stated that he backs abortion in certain instances, and stated that "powerful exceptions" for abortion would remain in place under his administration.
Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., pressed Vought on whether healthcare is a "human right." Sanders has previously introduced legislation called the Medicare for All Act that would establish a federal, national health insurance program.
"Do you think we should join every other major country on Earth and say, ‘You know what? Whether you’re poor, you’re rich, you’re young, you’re old, healthcare is a human right,’" Sanders said. "We have the richest country in the history of the world. Do you think we should do what every other major country on Earth does?"
Vought declined to disclose specifics, but said that he believed it's critical to provide "legitimate, evidence-based outcomes for people within the healthcare system, and to make sure that we tailor all of the dollars that are spent toward that."
After serving as director of the Office of Management and Budget under the first Trump administration, Vought founded the Center for Renewing America in 2021. The organization claims its mission is to "renew a consensus of America as a nation under God," according to its website. Vought also served as the vice president of Heritage Action for America.
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. said his meeting with Vought only exacerbated his concerns about the nomination.
"I walked out of the meeting even more deeply troubled," Schumer said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. "Of all the extremists President Trump could have picked for OMB, he picked the godfather of the ultra-right."
Vought has repeatedly told lawmakers that he would uphold the law and that his personal views aren’t important — carrying out Trump’s vision is what matters.
The OMB is responsible for developing and executing the president’s budget, as well as overseeing and coordinating legislative proposals and priorities aligned with the executive branch.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Republicans are back to playing dumb, as Trump does the unforgivable
Fearing the wrath of Dear Leader, congressional Republicans are either refusing to comment on Donald Trump's disgusting pardons of violent Capitol insurrection convicts, or are flat-out lying about what Trump actually did to avoid having to criticize his behavior.
Hours after being sworn in to his second term, Trump gave unconditional pardons to 1,550 people who either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of crimes related to their actions at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
According to The New York Times:
The pardons and pending dismissals also covered more than 600 rioters were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement officers at the Capitol, nearly 175 of whom were accused of doing so with deadly or dangerous weapons including baseball bats, two-by-fours, crutches, hockey sticks and broken wooden table legs.
Trump also commuted the sentences of members of right-wing militia groups the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their roles in planning and encouraging violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021—leading to the release of those men from prison.
But multiple members of the House and Senate, including Republican congressional leaders, told reporters on Tuesday that they couldn’t make a judgement on the blanket pardons Trump issued because they haven't read up on them yet—the least believable lie on earth.
“I haven’t gone into the detail,” Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said.
“I don't know all the cases. I certainly don't want to pardon any violent actors. But there's a real miscarriage of justice here so I'm totally supportive of it,” Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told Fox News reporter Chad Pergram, apparently unaware that Trump pardoned violent actors.
Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama said he wouldn't be for pardoning the violent insurrectionists, but wouldn't comment because he "didn't see" if Trump did that.
Republican Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota knew that Trump issued pardons, but played dumb about what they entailed.
“My understanding, there was a range of actions that he took. And I guess I want to look and see what those are,” Hoeven said.
Other lawmakers straight-up lied about the pardons, saying Trump issued them on a "case-by-case basis."
“We’re not looking backwards, we’re looking forward,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told CNN’s Manu Raju, adding, “I think they were case-by-case.”
Meanwhile, a number of GOP lawmakers refused to comment at all on the pardons, or tried to shift the conversation to former President Joe Biden’s preemptive pardons of his family members, who were likely to be harassed by the Trump administration.
“Republican senators are physically shrugging when reporters ask them what they think of Trump pardoning January 6 defendants,” Haley Byrd Wilt, a Capitol Hill reporter for the nonprofit news outlet NOTUS, wrote in a post on X.
Former Sen. Marco Rubio, who is now Trump's secretary of state, said he wouldn't comment.
"I'm not going to engage in domestic political debates," Rubio told NBC News.
In another interview with CBS, Rubio refused to comment again, saying “I work for Trump.”
“I assume you're asking me about the Biden pardons of his family,” Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa told Semafor’s Burgess Everett—a ridiculous whataboutism. “I’m just talking about the Biden pardons, because that is so selfish.”
Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Jim Banks of Indiana also tried to pivot to talking about Biden’s pardons.
“You've seen President Biden's preemptive pardons. Pardons of his own family. The power presidential pardons is one granted to a president and there's really no role for the Congress … it's the president's prerogative,” Cornyn said.
The pardons go against what Trump's own vice president said just a few days ago that Trump would do.
“If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned,” JD Vance said in a Jan. 11 appearance on “Fox News Sunday.”
To be sure, a few Republicans criticized Trump.
“I’m disappointed to see that and I do fear the message that is sent to these great men and women that stood by us,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, one of the few Republicans who’s actually stood up to Trump in the past, said.
"Anybody who is convicted of assault on a police officer, I can't get there, at all. I think it was a bad idea," Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, said.
“Well I think I agree with the vice president,” Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told Semafor, referring to Vance’s belief that violent insurrectionists shouldn’t have been pardoned. “No one should excuse violence. And particularly violence against police officers.”
Of course, we don’t want to praise anyone for doing the bare minimum and speaking the truth about Trump’s awful actions.
And McConnell is largely to blame for the fact that these pardons took place at all, as he refused to convict Trump in the impeachment trial in January 2021, allowing Trump to run for president again.
Thank you to the Daily Kos community who continues to fight so hard with Daily Kos. Your reader support means everything. We will continue to have you covered and keep you informed, so please donate just $3 to help support the work we do.
Trump ends Secret Service detail for former ally—in another petty move
Donald Trump has terminated the Secret Service detail assigned to his former national security adviser John Bolton. The move comes at the same time that Trump revoked Bolton and other former national security officials’ security clearances.
“I am disappointed but not surprised that President Trump has made this decision,” Bolton confirmed to CNN. “Notwithstanding my criticisms of President [Joe] Biden’s national-security policies, he nonetheless made the decision to once again extend Secret Service protection to me in 2021.”
In 2022, the Justice Department revealed that Bolton was allegedly the subject of an assassination plot by a member of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “The Justice Department has the solemn duty to defend our citizens from hostile governments who seek to hurt or kill them,” the DOJ explained in a statement at the time.
At the time, the DOJ said that Bolton and other Trump-era officials became a focus of the IRGC after Trump ordered an airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in January 2020. The Biden administration levied sanctions on Iran over the alleged plots to kill Bolton and others in 2023.
Not surprisingly, Bolton was a part of the “enemies list” Trump posted on social media last week. Bolton has publicly criticized Trump, saying his former boss was bewilderingly ignorant about foreign policy, and calling him “unfit to be president” in the runup to the 2024 election.
Bolton is a crummy person who ran into a more powerful crummy person. The concoction that creates a fascist is power, vindictiveness, and pettiness—and it doesn’t hurt to be a little stupid in order to delude yourself. Trump’s got it all.
Barron Trump is all grown up: A look at the first son’s transformation from 2017 to 2025
President Trump's youngest son Barron, 18, stepped into the spotlight at his father's inauguration on Monday.
Standing at a towering 6'9", many attendees and viewers remarked about how mature the younger Trump has become since his father first took office back in January 2017.
At 10 years old, Barron Trump was often the victim of cruel jokes and rumors from his father's critics. His mother, Melania Trump, attempted to shield him from unwanted scrutiny, though sometimes to no avail.
On Monday, the first son commanded respect from onlookers as he stood by his father's side during the inaugural ceremonies. Here's a look at how Barron Trump has grown up since 2017.
DOGE CAUCUS PLANS FOR BIGGEST IMPACT, EYEING KEY TOOLS TO EXPEDITE CUTTING WASTE
At 10 years old, Barron Trump became the first son to reside in the White House since John F. Kennedy, Jr. in 1961.
Barron, who turned 11 in March of 2017, also lived at Trump Tower in New York at the same time, attending Columbia Grammar and Preparatory School on the Upper West Side.
Beginning in 2016, rumors swirled about Barron Trump possibly having autism, which comedian Rosie O'Donnell amplified. In 2024, Melania Trump said that the rumors deeply impacted her son, who was bullied at school.
"I was appalled by such cruelty," Melania Trump wrote in her memoir. "It was clear to me that she was not interested in raising awareness about autism. I felt that she was attacking my son because she didn’t like my husband."
"There is nothing shameful about autism (though O’Donnell’s tweet implied that there was), but Barron is not autistic," she added. "Barron’s experience of being bullied both online and in real life following the incident is a clear indication of the irreparable damage caused."
Barron turned 12 years old in March 2018 and continued to be a common target for Trump's enemies.
Actor Peter Fonda called for officials to "rip Barron Trump from his mother's arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles." He later apologized for the remarks.
"I tweeted something highly inappropriate and vulgar about the president and his family in response to the devastating images I was seeing on television," Fonda said in the statement shortly after. "Like many Americans, I am very impassioned and distraught over the situation with children separated from their families at the border, but I went way too far."
Barron was 13 years old when his family permanently relocated to Mar-a-Lago in 2019. That year, Trump said he would have a "hard time" allowing his son to play football.
"I just don't like the reports that I see coming out having to do with football — I mean, it's a dangerous sport and I think it's really tough," Trump said at the time. "I thought the equipment would get better, and it has. The helmets have gotten far better, but it hasn't solved the problem."
During a 2019 House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing, Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan remarked that then-President Trump could "name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron."
Melania Trump was upset that her young son was mentioned at the hearing.
"A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics," the first lady tweeted at the time. "Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it."
As Trump was fighting for his re-election bid in 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic rocked the United States, Barron Trump continued to attend school and stayed out of the public spotlight. In 2020, "Jeopardy" host Ken Jennings apologized for a joke he told about Barron in 2017.
"Barron saw a very long necktie and a heap of expired deli meat in a dumpster," Jennings tweeted at the time. "He thought it was his dad & his little heart is breaking."
"Hey, I just wanted to own up to the fact that over the years on Twitter, I've definitely tweeted some unartful [sic] and insensitive things," Jennings wrote in 2020. "Sometimes they worked as jokes in my head and I was dismayed to see how they read on screen."
OHIO GOV DEWINE PICKS LT GOV TO FILL VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT JD VANCE'S VACANT SEAT
Barron Trump was 14 years old when his father left office in January. He lived with his mother at Mar-a-Lago full-time and stayed out of the spotlight.
In July 2021, he was seen leaving Trump Tower with Melania Trump.
Barron Trump was 16 when FBI agents raided his father's Florida estate. He kept a low profile during this year, but he was seen in public with both of his parents at the funeral of Ivana Trump, Trump's first wife, in July 2022.
In November 2022, his father announced his bid for the presidency.
As President Trump's campaign kicked up again in 2023, Barron was still absent from the public spotlight. In August of that year, his father's mugshot was released.
Barron Trump matriculated at New York University (NYU) in the fall of 2024. He graduated from Oxbridge Academy in West Palm Beach in May, and was seen attending classes at NYU'S Stern School of Business.
In November, he also voted for the first time, casting a ballot for his father in Florida.
Barron looked sharp as he attended his father's inauguration on Jan. 20. Later during the day, he waved to the crowd after his father mentioned his role in the 2024 campaign.
"I have a very tall son named Barron. Has anyone ever heard of him?" Trump said to cheers, as the first son waved at attendees.
"He knew the youth vote. You know, we won the youth vote by 36 points… He said, ‘Dad, you got to go out, do Joe Rogan, do all these guys,’" Trump recalled. "We did, we did. And Joe Rogan was great."
The 18-year-old also wowed attendees when he shook hands with President Biden and then-Vice President Kamala Harris, with some social media users speculating that he may pursue a political career in the future.
"Barron Trump just shook hands with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris," one X user wrote. "This kid will be our President one day. Bet on it."
"Barron Trump is a natural," another said of Barron. "Totally owned the moment."
Fox News Digital's Brooke Curto and Kyle Schmidbauer contributed to this report.
President Biden pardons his siblings just minutes before leaving office
President Biden pardoned his siblings just minutes before leaving office on Monday.
The pardon applies to James Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John Owens, and Francis Biden, the White House announced. The president argues that his family could be subject to "politically motivated investigations" after he leaves office.
"I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics. But baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families," Biden said in a statement.
"Even when individuals have done nothing wrong and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage their reputations and finances," Biden added.
HUNTER BIDEN PARDON: MEDIA TAKES LATEST BLOW TO CREDIBILITY WITH BOTCHED COVERAGE OF BROKEN PROMISE
The pardons come after House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer requested that Trump's Justice Department investigate and prosecute James Biden for allegedly making false statements to Congress.
House Republicans in June sent criminal referrals for James Biden and Hunter Biden to the Justice Department recommending they be charged with making false statements to Congress about "key aspects" of the impeachment inquiry of President Biden.
HOUSE REPUBLICANS REFER HUNTER BIDEN, JAMES BIDEN FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AMID IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
Biden issued another wave of pre-emptive pardons earlier Monday morning, those going to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley and people associated with the House select committee investigation into January 6.
Biden had teased the possibility of issuing pre-emptive pardons weeks ago in an interview with USA Today. Biden's pardons at the end of his term have proven to be some of his most controversial actions as president, particularly the pardon for his son, Hunter Biden.
Biden had repeatedly vowed that he would not intervene on his son's behalf, but he issued a blanket pardon regardless. The president later claimed that he had broken the promise after finding out Hunter had paid his back taxes.
Biden's pardon of Hunter was defended in some corners as a natural move from someone protecting his own family, but many prominent figures derided it as a craven flip-flop that would damage the White House and the president's legacy.
"Everyone looks stupid," Pod Save America co-host and ex-Obama aide Tommy Vietor said at the time. "Everyone looks like they are full of s---. And Republicans are going to use this to argue it was politics as usual when Democrats warned of Donald Trump's corruption or threat to the rule or the threat to democracy."
This is a developing story. Check back soon for updates.
Trump gets inaugurated Monday; here’s how the Supreme Court swears in new presidents
Top members of the three branches of government will come together in a rare display of national unity and tradition when the presidential and vice-presidential oaths of office are delivered at Monday's inauguration. A swear-in rookie, and perhaps funny hats, will be indispensable parts of the ceremonies.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh will continue a nearly 240-year-old tradition of administering the oaths to President-elect Trump and his No. 2, JD Vance. The other seven members of the high court are expected to attend the event in the Capitol Rotunda, all in their judicial robes.
Whatever political differences exist, they surely will not be on display at this most cordial and dignified of ceremonies. After all, the first person the president thanks will likely be the chief justice. But an undercurrent of tension remains.
During his first run for high office in 2016, candidate Trump took the unusual step of attacking a member of the federal judiciary, labeling Roberts "an absolute disaster" among other personal insults. This will be the "Chief's" fifth presidential swearing-in, his second with Trump.
HOW TO WATCH, STREAM TRUMP'S 2025 INAUGURATION ON JANUARY 20TH
The choice of Kavanaugh is no surprise: incoming second lady Usha Vance clerked for Kavanaugh when he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.
She then went on to a prestigious law clerkship at the Supreme Court with Roberts. Sources say Kavanaugh gave an especially strong job recommendation for Usha Vance to his now bench colleague.
In an August interview with "Fox and Friends," Usha Vance said Kavanaugh was "such a good boss" and "decent person" who "hired people from all over the political spectrum."
"My experience working for him was overwhelmingly positive," she added.
Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas are among recent justices who have performed similar vice-presidential swear-in honors.
While chief justices have normally sworn in the president, a broader mix of officials have handled the vice-presidential duties. Then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert swore in Vice President Dick Cheney in 2005.
Thomas did the honors when Mike Pence was sworn in 2017 as vice president for Trump's first term.
TRUMP SWEARING-IN TO MOVE INDOORS DUE TO COLD WEATHER, SOURCE TELLS FOX NEWS
Article VI of the Constitution requires executive officers, including the president, as well as members of Congress and federal judges, to "be bound by oath or affirmation," but nothing mandates that a Supreme Court justice administer it. When it comes to the presidential inauguration, they just have, most of the time.
There was no Supreme Court yet formed when George Washington took the first oath of office in 1789, so New York's highest ranking judge did the honors at Federal Hall on Wall Street. Four years later, Associate Justice William Cushing swore in Washington for a second term, beginning the Supreme Court tradition.
Early swear-ins were usually conducted in the House or Senate chamber. The 1817 inaugural was held outdoors for the first time when James Monroe took the oath in front of the Old Brick Capitol, where the legislature met temporarily after the original Capitol was burned by invading British troops in the War of 1812. The Monroe swear-in site is now occupied by the Supreme Court, which opened its building in 1935.
The man who handled the duties more than 200 years ago was John Marshall, widely acknowledged as the most influential chief justice in U.S. history. He participated in a record nine swear-ins, from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Jackson. For Roberts, this will be his fifth.
The Constitution lays out the exact language to be used in the 34-word oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Many judges have tacked on four little words, "so help me God." It is not legally or constitutionally required, unlike other federal oaths that invoke the words as standard procedure. Historians have been at odds over whether President Washington established precedent by adding the phrase on his own during his first acceptance, but contemporary accounts mention no such ad-libbing.
Abraham Lincoln was reported to have said it spontaneously in 1861, and other presidents over the years have followed suit. A Bible is traditionally used, with the president placing one hand on it while raising the other during the oath of office.
The 16th president and Chief Justice Roger Taney shared a mutual animosity. When the oath was administered just days before the Civil War erupted, many attending the ceremony noticed the frosty demeanor both men showed each other, befitting the late winter chill. Several historians have said Lincoln later that year secretly issued an arrest warrant for Taney, who tried to block the president's suspension of habeas corpus during the conflict. The warrant was never served.
President Barack Obama used Lincoln's Bible for his two swear-ins.
Trump is expected to again use the Lincoln Bible and a family Bible.
TRUMP, VANCE OFFICIAL PORTRAITS RELEASED AHEAD OF INAUGURATION
Roberts, administering his first presidential oath in 2009, strayed slightly from the text, which prompted its re-administration for protective purposes the following day, in a private White House ceremony.
Those Jan. 20 ceremonies at the Capitol also ran long, so that the presidential oath was not completed until five minutes past noon. Nonetheless, Obama under the 20th Amendment had officially assumed the presidency at noon.
At the time, a California atheist, Michael Newdow, objected and went to federal court to prevent Roberts from prompting Obama to repeat the "so help me God" phrase. Newdow, along with several non-religious groups, argued the words violated the constitutional ban on government "endorsement" of religion.
The high court ultimately rejected the lawsuit, and no such legal challenges are expected this time.
Four years later, Justice Sonia Sotomayor swore in Biden for a second term as vice president in 2013. She was asked by Vice President Harris to do the honors again, with the first female vice president citing the fact both women once served as government prosecutors.
Pence used the family Bible of the late President Ronald Reagan, telling Fox News at the time, "It's just very humbling for me. We are approaching it with prayer, but with deep, deep gratitude to the president-elect for his confidence and deep gratitude to the American people."
Trump also broke tradition by not attending the swear-in of his successor four years ago.
Lyndon Johnson's swear-in from 1965 marked a change from tradition. His wife Claudia – known as Lady Bird – held the Bible, a job previously managed by the high court's clerk. Spouses have since had the honor, and Melania Trump and Usha Vance are expected to continue that role.
Hopefully, nerves won't result in a repeat of the 1941 goof, when then-clerk Elmore Cropley dropped the Bible just after Franklin Roosevelt took the oath to begin his third presidential term.
GET TO KNOW DONALD TRUMP'S CABINET: WHO HAS THE PRESIDENT-ELECT PICKED SO FAR?
It usually is not hard at the inauguration to spot the justices, who are normally shielded from broad public view in the camera-barred court. They are announced as a group, arrive wearing their black robes – usually covering bulky winter coats – and are given prominent seats on the specially built platform on the West Front of the Capitol.
Before Marshall took over the court in 1801, the justices wore red robes with fur trim and white wigs in all public settings. His practice of a simple black silk robe without wig remains the American judicial standard.
And if there is any doubt about their identities, look for some unusual-looking headgear several justices may be sporting. The large black "skullcaps" have no brims and can be made of wool, silk or even nylon. Perhaps to keep them from looking like a Jewish yarmulke, the hats are usually pleated upward, which one federal judge privately told Fox News made him look like he was wearing a dirty napkin.
Given the inauguration ceremony is indoors this year because of expected frigid weather, the skullcaps may be an afterthought.
They have been around in British courts since the 16th century, and at least a century in the United States. Only judges wear them, and only at formal ceremonies, not in court.
Official records are hazy on the hats, but Chief Justice Edward White proudly wore one in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson became president. The "age of the skullcap" peaked in 1961 when seven of the nine justices wore them at the bitterly cold inauguration of President John F. Kennedy.
The last time around, only now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer was brave enough to sport one, though Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and the late Antonin Scalia had worn them previously. None of the six current or former women justices ever used them.
Scalia told an audience a few years ago why he favored skullcaps. "If you've ever seen an inauguration, you will see me wearing the old hats judges used to wear. It's a ridiculous-looking hat, but it's a tradition. Yes, it's silly looking."
Scalia's headgear was a replica of one worn by St. Thomas More, a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia
The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist also sported them, not surprising, given his role as an unofficial historian of court procedure and tradition.
He made one of the most dramatic appearances in inaugural history while suffering from thyroid cancer in 2005. There was speculation he would be too ill to attend, but he assured officials he would be there, and he kept his word.
After three months away from the public eye while he received chemotherapy, the ailing 81-year-old chief was introduced to the audience just before President George W. Bush was to take the oath. Using a cane, Rehnquist walked slowly to the podium without assistance – wearing a dark baseball cap – and did the honors. His voice was clear but raspy, because of a trachea tube in his throat, which was hidden by a scarf.
Afterward, Rehnquist wished Bush good luck, then was quickly escorted out of the cold.
Rehnquist also swore in President Bill Clinton eight years earlier. Unbeknownst to Clinton or the public, the justices days earlier had taken a private vote in Clinton v. Jones. Their ruling said the president could not refuse to testify in an ongoing civil lawsuit against him by Paula Jones, who alleged sexual harassment. That triggered a series of events leading to Clinton's 1999 impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, presided over by Rehnquist himself, without the skullcap.