Federalist Press | Defending Liberty — Informing America

Breaking News and Political Commentary

After the Gunfire: What Comes Next for a Nation on Edge

By Leave a Comment

In the hours following the attempted attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the immediate shock has begun to fade. The headlines have stabilized. The suspect is in custody. Investigations are underway. Democrats are lying about it. Everything has returned to normal, more or less.

But the most important questions are only now beginning to surface. Because what happened that night was not just a security failure—it was a warning. And what comes next will determine whether anyone in power is actually listening.

A System That Was Supposed to Be Impenetrable

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is not an ordinary public event. It is one of the most tightly controlled environments in the country, layered with Secret Service protection, credentialing systems, surveillance, and advance threat assessment.

And yet, a determined man with a manifesto and a plan got close enough to carry out an attack. That fact alone should send shockwaves through Washington.

This was not a random breakdown. It was a breach of a system designed specifically to prevent exactly this kind of scenario. So the question is unavoidable: How did he get that close?

The Questions That Will Not Go Away

In the coming days, officials will release carefully worded statements. There will be reassurances. There will be promises of “review” and “improved protocols.”

But those answers will not be enough. Because the American people—and frankly, anyone paying attention—are already asking far more serious questions:

  • Were there warning signs that were missed—or ignored?
  • Was the suspect known to authorities prior to the attack?
  • Did intelligence agencies flag any behavioral or online indicators?
  • Were security protocols relaxed, even slightly, for the event?
  • And perhaps most troubling of all: Was this preventable?

These are not partisan questions. They are fundamental ones, demanding real answers.

A New Reality for Presidential Security

Regardless of what the investigation ultimately reveals, one thing is already clear: Presidential security is entering a new era.

The threats facing public officials today are not the same as they were a decade ago. They are more decentralized, more unpredictable, and more influenced by the rapid spread of political narratives online. Democratic leaders are actively ginning up their base to take violence to the streets, and to get into the faces of conservatives “everywhere, all the time.”

Constant accusations that President Trump is a fascist, a Nazi, a child rapist, a child murderer are landing on their mark—the distorted minds of many Leftist activists. Democrat leaders understand that the modern threat environment is not just about organized groups, about individuals who absorb, internalize, and act on ideas that are reinforced constantly in their digital world. That makes detection harder. That makes prevention harder. And it raises a difficult but unavoidable question: Can existing security models keep up with this new kind of threat?

The Copycat Risk No One Wants to Talk About

There is another danger that officials are often reluctant to discuss openly: the risk of imitation.

This is the third time a Democrat has attempted to take the life of the president. High-profile attacks—especially those tied to political motives, have a way of inspiring others. Not because they are justified, but because they are seen, and in this case, praised by the leadership.

They dominate headlines. They saturate social media. They become, in the minds of unstable individuals, a template.

History has shown this pattern again and again. Which means this incident is not just about what happened. It’s about what could happen next.

A Nation Already on Edge

This attack did not occur in a vacuum. It comes at a time when political tensions are already elevated, when distrust in institutions is widespread, and when rhetoric on the Left has grown sharper, vitriolic, personal, and more violent.

In that environment, the line between words and actions can begin to blur, especially for those already on the edge. Just yesterday, darling of the Left Former FBI Director James Comey, was indicted on federal charges for threatening the life of the president.

We are operating in a far more volatile climate than many are willing to admit. If a Democrat bullet ever finds its way to our president, a bloody civil war is sure to ensue.

What Comes Next

In the days ahead, there will be investigations, hearings, and policy discussions. There may be new security measures, new surveillance tools, new restrictions.

But none of that will matter if the core questions are not addressed honestly. If this was a failure of intelligence, it must be fixed. If it was a failure of coordination, it must be corrected. If it was a failure to take warning signs seriously, that must never happen again. Because the next time, the outcome may not be the same.

The Bottom Line

What happened at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner was not just an isolated incident. It was a test.

A test of our security systems. A test of our awareness. A test of whether those in power are willing to confront uncomfortable truths. A test of democrat leadership.

Now the real test begins: Will Washington treat this as a wake-up call—or just another headline to move past?

Tens of Billions Lost: Inside the Expanding Web of Dem Government Fraud From Minnesota to California

By Leave a Comment

As federal agents carried out sweeping raids across Minnesota this week, a broader and more troubling picture is coming into focus—one that stretches far beyond a single investigation or a single state.

What investigators are uncovering is not isolated abuse. It is systemic. And it is costing American taxpayers many billions.

Minnesota Raids: A Fraud Network Under Investigation

Federal authorities executed more than 20 search warrants across Minnesota, targeting businesses tied to misuse of public funds, including daycare centers and autism service providers. Officials say the investigation is part of a much larger probe into fraud across multiple taxpayer-funded programs.

The scale is staggering. Prosecutors have suggested that as much as $9 billion may be tied to fraudulent activity in Minnesota programs alone. The investigation spans at least 14 different state and federal benefit programs.

Earlier cases tied to similar schemes have already led to dozens of convictions, including major pandemic-era fraud operations.

Youtuber and independent journalist Nick Shirley posts videos demonstrating empty facilities collecting millions of taxpayer dollars.

In one of the most widely cited scandals, the so-called “Feeding Our Future” case alone involved hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent claims tied to food programs intended for children. More recent investigations have expanded beyond food programs into childcare subsidies, autism treatment billing, housing stabilization services, and Medicaid-funded care programs.

And the numbers continue to climb. Authorities are now examining what some investigators have described as “industrial-scale” fraud, involving coordinated networks, shell businesses, and false billing for services that were never provided.

How the Schemes Worked

Across multiple cases, a pattern has emerged. Businesses were created or repurposed to bill government programs. Claims were submitted for services that were exaggerated, or entirely fictitious. In many cases, facilities billed for more clients than they were licensed to serve.

Money flowed quickly, often before verification systems could catch up. Democratic leaders, from the governor to the office drones, turned a purposefully blind eye to the fraud, taking their share in campaign donations.

In certain cases, authorities have alleged that entire childcare centers operated with little or no actual activity, while Medicaid programs were billed for thousands of services that never occurred. Funds were then redirected for personal use, or moved through complex financial laundering channels.

The result was not just waste, but ‘organized’ exploitation of public systems.

California: A Different Program, the Same M.O.

The issue is not confined to Minnesota. Across the country, similar patterns are emerging in other government-funded systems.

In California, authorities recently charged 21 individuals in a $267 million hospice fraud scheme, alleging that operators enrolled healthy individuals into end-of-life care programs without their knowledge and billed the government for services that were never needed.

The alleged scheme included identity theft, fraudulent enrollment in Medi-Cal, billing for non-existent hospice care, and networks of shell companies used to process claims.

In the wake of Trump Administration crack-downs on Dem fraud, state officials have moved to shut down or revoke licenses for hundreds of suspicious hospice providers, particularly in regions where the number of providers far exceed demand.

California fraudsters have begun to see federal incursions into their operations.

Despite recently launched enforcement efforts, authorities acknowledge that fraud in healthcare programs remains so widespread, it will be difficult to fully eliminate.

A Nationwide Pattern

What connects these cases is not geography—it is structure. Government programs that distribute large amounts of money rely on self-reported billing, and operate with delayed verification systems are inherently vulnerable. And when oversight lags behind funding, bad actors move quickly.

National estimates suggest that fraud across government healthcare and pandemic-related programs has reached into the hundreds of billions of dollars, with tens of billions lost annually across Medicaid, Medicare, and related systems.

Minnesota and California are not exceptions. They are examples.

The Question Moving Forward

The raids in Minnesota are ongoing. The investigations in California continue. More charges are expected in both regions.

But the deeper question is no longer whether fraud exists. It is how long it has been allowed to scale—and how many other programs remain vulnerable.

Because what investigators are now uncovering is not just isolated wrongdoing, it is a system that, in many cases, appears to have been tested, exploited, and expanded over time. Until those structural vulnerabilities are addressed, the risk remains the same: The next case may already be underway.

How Did This Happen? The Security Breakdown That Put the President Within Reach

By Leave a Comment

In the hours following the attempted attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, one question has quickly risen above all others:

How did this happen?

The annual gathering is not just another political event. It is one of the most tightly secured evenings in Washington, bringing together the President of the United States, senior administration officials, members of Congress, and high-profile media figures under a single roof.

Security at an event like this is layered, redundant, and designed with one objective in mind: prevent exactly what nearly occurred.

And yet, by all indications, those layers were tested in ways that are now forcing a hard reexamination of the system itself.

A Venue Under Lockdown—Or So It Seemed

The Washington Hilton, long the host of the Correspondents’ Dinner and the site of the attempted assassination on President Ronald Reagan, is no stranger to high-security operations. In the days leading up to the event, the venue is typically swept, secured, and placed under tight access control.

March 30, 1981: Ronald Reagan Is Shot at he exits the Washington Hilton.

Guest lists are vetted. Credentials are issued. Perimeters are established.

But security at an event like this does not rely on a single checkpoint. It relies on multiple rings of protection—outer, middle, and inner layers—each designed to detect and stop a threat before it can move closer to protected individuals.

What investigators are now examining is how a suspect was able to navigate those layers without being intercepted earlier in the process.

The Problem of Proximity

One of the most troubling aspects of the incident is not simply that an attack was attempted—but how close the suspect was able to get before the situation was neutralized.

Proximity is everything in protective operations.

The closer a threat gets, the fewer options remain. Reaction time shrinks. Risk increases. Outcomes become less predictable.

According to early findings, the suspect’s movements placed him within a zone that should have been tightly controlled. That fact alone is enough to trigger an internal review at the highest levels of federal security.

Because the system is not designed to respond at that stage. It is designed to prevent a threat from ever reaching it.

Screening, Access, and Assumptions

Security failures are rarely the result of a single breakdown. More often, they are the result of small gaps—missed signals, assumptions, or procedural blind spots—that align in ways no one anticipates.

Investigators are now expected to look closely at several key areas:

  • Credentialing and access control: How was entry gained, and under what classification?
  • Screening procedures: Were all standard protocols followed consistently?
  • Movement within the venue: How closely were individuals monitored once inside secured areas?

Each of these layers is designed to function independently. When all are working properly, the system is extraordinarily difficult to breach.

When even one falters, the consequences can escalate quickly.

The Limits of Preparation

Even the most sophisticated security systems operate under constraints.

Events like the Correspondents’ Dinner involve large numbers of attendees, complex logistics, and an environment that blends formality with accessibility. Unlike a military installation, the setting cannot be completely sealed off from human unpredictability.

That tension—between openness and protection—is where vulnerabilities can emerge.

Security planners prepare for known risks. They model scenarios. They anticipate behaviors.

But they cannot eliminate uncertainty. And it is often within that uncertainty that incidents like this take shape.

A Rapid Response—But a Late One

To the credit of the Secret Service and other security personnel, the response to the unfolding situation was immediate and decisive. The suspect was quickly confronted, and protective measures were enacted without hesitation.

That response likely prevented a far worse outcome. But response is not the same as prevention. And the fact that a response was required at all is what now demands scrutiny.

What Comes Next

Federal authorities are expected to conduct a full after-action review, examining every stage of the event—from pre-screening to on-site operations.

These reviews are standard after any security breach, but the stakes here are uniquely high. When the President is present, the margin for error is effectively zero. Any vulnerability—no matter how small—must be identified and addressed. Because the next time, the outcome may not hinge on response alone.

A System Under the Microscope

For now, the investigation continues, and many details remain under review. But the broader implication is already clear:

The system worked—but not where it mattered most.

A threat was identified and stopped. That is the baseline expectation.

The higher standard—the one the public assumes—is that the threat never gets close enough to matter. This time, it did.

And that is why the question is no longer just what happened. It is how.

Inside the Mind of the WHCD Gunman: Confirmed Planning, a Manifesto, and a Nation Asking Why

By Leave a Comment

As more details emerge from federal investigators, what initially appeared to be a chaotic and shocking incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is now taking on a far more deliberate and troubling shape.

According to confirmed reports from law enforcement sources, the suspect did not act on impulse. He planned.

Authorities have now established that the gunman traveled across the country and secured lodging at the Washington Hilton—the very hotel hosting one of the most heavily secured political events in the United States. With the hotel fully booked for the occasion, his presence there was not incidental. It was calculated.

Investigators have also confirmed that the suspect arrived armed and equipped in a manner consistent with premeditation, raising serious questions about how he was able to move within proximity of the event before being stopped.

Even more significant are reports that federal authorities are now reviewing a written document believed to outline the suspect’s thinking.

While officials have not released the full contents publicly, sources indicate that the material may shed light on motive—something that is quickly becoming the central focus of the investigation.

A Target in Plain Sight

Perhaps the most alarming development is the growing indication that the attack may not have been random.

Law enforcement sources have suggested that the suspect’s movements and positioning placed him within potential reach of high-level officials, including the President. Whether the President himself was the intended target has not been formally confirmed, but the circumstances surrounding the incident are already prompting serious questions.

This was not a distant threat. It was close.

Close enough to trigger an immediate and forceful response from the Secret Service, whose agents acted within seconds to neutralize the situation and evacuate key personnel.

The Pattern That Cannot Be Ignored

This incident does not stand alone.

In recent years, there have been multiple attempts or threats directed at President Donald J. Trump and figures associated with him—each different in execution, but increasingly similar in tone.

An individual, often acting alone, driven by a worldview in which political opposition is no longer disagreement, but danger.

That pattern matters.

Because while each case has its own facts, the broader environment in which those facts unfold has become more volatile, more charged, and more unforgiving.

The Role of Rhetoric

For years, the language surrounding Trump and his supporters has escalated beyond policy critique into something more absolute. Opponents are not merely wrong—they are often portrayed as threats to democracy, to the country, even to the future itself.

Most Americans hear that and move on.

But not everyone does.

For some, that kind of framing can transform political conflict into something more urgent—something that demands action rather than debate.

That does not excuse violence. Nothing does.

But it raises a question that cannot be dismissed:

What happens when the line between political opposition and moral emergency begins to blur?

A Culture on Edge

In the days leading up to the incident, public discourse remained as heated as ever. From cable news to late-night television, rhetoric aimed at political figures has continued to intensify—sometimes crossing from criticism into something far more personal and provocative.

That broader tone is now part of the backdrop against which this attack is being understood.

Not as a cause—but as a context.

And context matters.

What Comes Next

Investigators are continuing to review evidence, including digital records, communications, and any written materials connected to the suspect. Officials are expected to release additional details as they confirm what can be made public.

For now, one thing is already clear:

This was not a random act.

It was planned. It was intentional. And it came dangerously close to something far worse.

The remaining question—the one the country is now waiting to have answered—is why.

The Left’s Deadly Rhetoric

By Leave a Comment

When Words Become Weapons: Violence Follows

The attempted attack on President Trump and members of his administration at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner should be a national wake-up call.

Cole Tomas Allen, a 31-year-old teacher from Torrance, California, armed himself, positioned himself near one of the most heavily protected events in America, and moved rapidly within range of the President of the United States with deadly intent. Why did he do it? It is becoming rather clear.

Allen’s handwritten Manifesto tells us why he did it. “And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”

Where did he learn that our president is a pedophile, rapist, and traitor?

Disinformation campaigns from Democrat leaders.

Hakeem Jeffries calls on democrats to wage “Maximum Warfare, Everywhere, all the Time,” the day before Cole Allen attempted the assassination on President Trump.

For years, the political temperature in this country has been turned up to a dangerous level by leaders on the Left. President Donald J. Trump and those associated with him have not simply been criticized—they have been described, repeatedly, as existential threats to the nation, to democracy, even to the future itself. They are daily called fascists, Nazis, racists, and a real threat to American democracy. The Left has recently begun to attack President Trump on charges of being a “pedophile, rapist, and traitor,” as reflected in the shooter’s manifesto.

That kind of language is not ordinary political disagreement. It is escalation. Violent escalation.

And escalation has consequences. Three attempts on the president’s life, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh, and many others, including a democrat who tried to kill many of the republican congressmen as they took the baseball field.

Joe Biden:

“Donald Trump and the MAGA republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic. . . . As I stand here tonight, equality and democracy are under assault. . . . MAGA forses are determined to take this country backwards, backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love. They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat for our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.”

Sen. Chris Murphy:

“We’re at war right now, to save this country. So you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary to save the country.”

Hakeem Jeffries:

“Republican policies are doing violence to the American people.”

Nancy Pelosi:

“He’s such a vile creature. He’s the worst thing on the face of the earth.”

When public figures are portrayed as uniquely dangerous or contemptible, even inhuman, when the message—implicit or explicit—is that the stakes are so high that normal rules no longer apply, it creates a moral gray zone that unstable individuals can step into. In their minds, they are no longer acting recklessly. They are acting with purpose. Unfortunately, high percentages of those on the Left are becoming emotionally and mentally unstable, as a direct result of purposefully ginned-up rhetoric against those not of their party and Marxist ideals and goals.

This should alarm everyone. Because the pattern is becoming harder to ignore. It is in our face, daily.

What’s the problem? This is how civil wars start. Violence begets violence. Those who fail at the ballot box cannot seize power from the winners by arresting and imprisoning them. They cannot gin up their base to take extreme actions, even assassinations as in the case of Trump and Charlie Kirk, without invoking an ‘equal and opposite reaction’ from those are are being hunted like Soviet dissidents.

Trump and his supporters have exercised tremendous self-restraint over the past ten years, as the Left has vilified them, arrested them, imprisoned them, and killed them. The Left cannot expect such restraint to always win the day. Their violence will eventually produce the inevitable reaction, and that will be a very sad day in history.

In the days leading up to the attack, even the entertainment world dipped into rhetoric that, at best, trivializes the idea of violence. Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel drew backlash after referring to Melania Trump as an “expectant widow” in a monologue just two days before the attack.

This is what normalization looks like. This is how widespread violence is born, and transforms into a national crisis.

Kimmel’s violent rhetoric against the president and his supports is typical of the Left. Not a single statement. Not a single joke. But a steady drumbeat of vitriolic language that strips away restraint, that frames political opponents as something more than opponents—something to be feared, rejected, and, in the worst cases, confronted violently.

And when that drumbeat is constant, it only takes one person to hear it the wrong way.

A serious country should be willing to ask a serious question: What kind of climate makes that step easier to justify in someone’s mind?

This is not about silencing criticism. It is about recognizing that words carry weight—especially when repeated, amplified, and stripped of nuance and humanity.

A political culture that thrives on outrage and absolutism does not stay contained in television studios, social media feeds, or campaign speeches. It seeps outward, like a seething plague.

And sometimes, it shows up at the doors of a ballroom where the President of the United States is speaking, or at his golf course, or at a rally, or a college amphitheater.

If the investigation confirms that the suspect was motivated, even in part, by the belief that he was confronting something larger than himself, something described in the Left’s constant drumbeat of hyperbole, then we are not just dealing with an isolated act. We are dealing with a warning. We are dealing with a civil war that is percolating in the bowels of the American Left.

The question now is whether anyone is willing to hear it. Is there anything that we can do to put the brakes on this runaway train?

Another Attempt on the President’s Life—the Manifesto, and Vitriolic Rhetoric We Keep Ignoring

By Leave a Comment

When Words Become Weapons: The Climate That Precedes Actual Violence

The attempted attack on President Trump and members of his administration at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner should be a national wake-up call.

Cole Tomas Allen, a 31-year-old man and teacher from Torrance, California, armed himself, positioned himself near one of the most heavily protected events in America, and moved rapidly within range of the President of the United States with deadly intent. Why did he do it? It is becoming rather clear.

Cole Allen’s Manifesto in part:

“And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.

“I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people chose to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that. . . .

“Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration. . . .

“I need whoever thinks this way to take a couple minutes and realize that the world isn’t about them. Do you think that when I see someone raped or murdered or abused, I should walk on by because it would be “inconvenient” for people who aren’t the victim? . . .

“Oh and if anyone is curious is how doing something like feels: it’s awful. I want to throw up; I want to cry for all the things I wanted to do and never will, for all the people whose trust this betrays; I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done. . . .”

This didn’t happen in a vacuum.

For years, the political temperature in this country has been turned up to a dangerous level by leaders on the Left. President Donald J. Trump and those associated with him have not simply been criticized—they have been described, repeatedly, as existential threats to the nation, to democracy, even to the future itself. They are daily called fascists, Nazis, racists, and a real threat to American democracy. The Left has recently begun to attack President Trump on charges of being a “pedophile, rapist, and traitor,” as reflected in the shooter’s manifesto.

That kind of language is not ordinary political disagreement. It is escalation. Violent escalation.

And escalation has consequences.

When public figures are portrayed as uniquely dangerous or contemptible, even inhuman, when the message—implicit or explicit—is that the stakes are so high that normal rules no longer apply, it creates a moral gray zone that unstable individuals can step into. In their minds, they are no longer acting recklessly. They are acting with purpose. Unfortunately, high percentages of those on the Left are becoming emotionally and mentally unstable, as a direct result of purposefully ginned-up rhetoric against those not of their party and Marxist ideals and goals.

This should alarm everyone. Because the pattern is becoming harder to ignore. It is in our face, daily.

What’s the problem? This is how civil wars start. Violence begets violence. Those who fail at the ballot box cannot seize power from the winners by arresting and imprisoning them. They cannot gin up their base to take extreme actions, even assassinations as in the case of Trump and Charlie Kirk, without invoking an ‘equal and opposite reaction’ from those are are being hunted like Soviet dissidents.

Trump and his supporters have exercised tremendous self-restraint over the past ten years, as the Left has vilified them, arrested them, imprisoned them, and killed them. The Left cannot expect such restraint to always win the day. Their violence will eventually produce the inevitable reaction, and that will be a very sad day in history.

In the days leading up to the attack, even the entertainment world dipped into rhetoric that, at best, trivializes the idea of violence. Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel drew backlash after referring to Melania Trump as an “expectant widow” in a monologue just two days before the attack.

This is what normalization looks like. This is how widespread violence is born, and transforms into a national crisis.

Kimmel’s violent rhetoric against the president and his supports is typical of the Left. Not a single statement. Not a single joke. But a steady drumbeat of vitriolic language that strips away restraint, that frames political opponents as something more than opponents—something to be feared, rejected, and, in the worst cases, confronted violently.

And when that drumbeat is constant, it only takes one person to hear it the wrong way.

A serious country should be willing to ask a serious question: What kind of climate makes that step easier to justify in someone’s mind?

This is not about silencing criticism. It is about recognizing that words carry weight—especially when repeated, amplified, and stripped of nuance and humanity.

A political culture that thrives on outrage and absolutism does not stay contained in television studios, social media feeds, or campaign speeches. It seeps outward, like a seething plague.

And sometimes, it shows up at the doors of a ballroom where the President of the United States is speaking, or at his golf course, or at a rally, or a college amphitheater.

If the investigation confirms that the suspect was motivated, even in part, by the belief that he was confronting something larger than himself, something described in the Left’s constant drumbeat of hyperbole, then we are not just dealing with an isolated act. We are dealing with a warning. We are dealing with a civil war that is percolating in the bowels of the American Left.

The question now is whether anyone is willing to hear it. Is there anything that we can do to put the brakes on this runaway train?

Did AOC Really Say Republicans Want to “Rig Elections” by Allowing Only U.S. Citizens to Vote?

By Leave a Comment

A viral quote circulating widely on social media claims that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared that Republicans are “trying to rig elections by only allowing U.S. citizens to vote.” The statement has sparked outrage, confusion, and debate across political circles.

But did she actually say it?

As of now, there is no verifiable record of Ocasio-Cortez making that exact statement in any official speech, interview, or public post. The quote appears to be a reworded version of broader arguments she and other Democrats have made regarding voting laws and election policy.

Ocasio-Cortez has been a vocal critic of Republican-backed election reforms, particularly those targeting fraud, and requiring involving voter identification requirements and restrictions on mail-in voting. In multiple instances, she has argued that such measures can suppress voter participation and disproportionately affect minorities and women, whom she declares have little ability to obtain government issued ID . . . for unclear reasons.

However, that falls a little short of explicitly stating that requiring U.S. citizenship to vote is, in itself, an attempt to “rig” elections.

Under federal law, only U.S. citizens are permitted to vote in federal elections. The political disagreement centers not on whether citizenship should be required (Democrats avoid the issue), but on how voting laws are structured and enforced at the state level.

So why is this quote spreading? In today’s media environment, complex political positions are often reduced to simplified soundbites. Statements about “voter suppression” or “election integrity” can easily be reframed in ways that inflame public reaction, especially when shared rapidly across social media platforms.

That appears to be what happened here. The viral quote takes a broader political argument and condenses it into a provocative line that, while accurately reflecting the position of Ocasio-Cortez and and Left, does not accurately reflect any confirmed statement made by her specifically.

That doesn’t mean the underlying debate is any less significant. Questions surrounding election integrity, voter access, and the balance between security and participation remain at the center of American political discourse. Republicans have consistently argued that stronger safeguards are necessary to ensure fair elections, while Democrats have warned that those policies will definitely restrict legitimate voters.

Of course, those who claim that minorities and women are incapable of obtaining valid IDs have failed entirely to produce any evidence of that claim. In fact, polls that ask minorities if they have valid government issued IDs consistently reveal that no one finds obstacles in obtain them.

Non-citizens cannot vote, and that is the law. Roadblocks to illegals voting are more than justified.

We who seek to remain informed and involved, whatever our political leanings may be, might well wonder–if there are American adults who have so little ability that they find obtaining a government issued ID an insurmountable task, perhaps they are better off sitting out the big decisions that affect out nation so profoundly. Perhaps they are easily manipulated and gullible. Perhaps that is exactly why the Left wants them to vote.

The Faces of Domestic Terrorism: A Wave of Self-Radicalized Islamist Attacks in America

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson

In the wake of U.S. military strikes against Iran, a series of violent incidents across the United States has raised renewed concerns among many security analysts about the resurgence of self-radicalized Islamist terrorism.

Within a matter of days, multiple attacks and attempted attacks unfolded in different parts of the country: a synagogue assault in Michigan, a deadly shooting at a military training program in Virginia, an Islamist motivated attack in Texas, and an attempted bombing in New York City involving homemade explosives.

At first glance the incidents appear unrelated. They occurred in different states, involved different suspects, and targeted different victims. Yet investigators say a closer look reveals a disturbing common thread: several of the suspects appear to have embraced jihadist ideology and were inspired by propaganda associated with the Islamic State and similar extremist movements.

The pattern reflects a phenomenon that counterterrorism experts have warned about for years—the rise of self-activated Islamist extremists who act independently, but draw ideological inspiration from global jihadist movements.

The most alarming recent plot unfolded in New York City.

On March 7, two young men—18-year-old Emir Balat and 19-year-old Ibrahim Kayumi—were arrested after allegedly throwing improvised explosive devices into a crowd near Gracie Mansion, the official residence of the city’s mayor. Authorities say the devices were real bombs packed with volatile explosive material and metal fragments capable of causing serious injury or death to large crowds of. bystanders.

The attack occurred during a protest outside the mayor’s residence. According to federal investigators, the two suspects had constructed multiple improvised explosive devices and transported them across state lines before throwing them toward the crowd.

Emir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi were seen throwing improvised explosive devices into a crowd near Gracie Mansion.

Fortunately, the bombs failed to detonate fully, and no one was killed.

The criminal complaint alleges that the two men had consumed ISIS propaganda online and openly expressed admiration for the terrorist organization. Investigators say one of the suspects stated he hoped to carry out an attack “bigger” than the Boston Marathon bombing.

Authorities believe the pair were not formally directed by ISIS leadership, but had been self-radicalized through online extremist content, a pathway that has become increasingly common in recent years.

While the New York plot was foiled, violence elsewhere in the country proved deadly.

In Virginia, a gunman opened fire inside a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps classroom at Old Dominion University, killing a retired military instructor and injuring two others. Investigators quickly discovered that the suspect had previously been convicted for supporting ISIS and had spent time in federal prison.

The choice of target, an American military training program, appeared deliberate. According to investigators, the attack was framed by the suspect as retaliation against the United States and its military actions overseas.

Mohamed Jalloh carried out a shooting at Old Dominion University on Thursday that killed 1 person and injured 2 others. The shooter is dead, officials said.

For counterterrorism officials, the symbolism is unmistakable: a jihadist sympathizer targeting representatives of the U.S. armed forces.

Another attack occurred in West Bloomfield Township, Michigan, where a man drove a truck into a synagogue complex that included a preschool and community center. More than one hundred children were inside the building at the time.

Armed security personnel prevented the attacker from entering the facility, stopping what authorities believe could have been a catastrophic mass-casualty attack.

Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, a 41-year-old Lebanon-born naturalized U.S. citizen, has been identified by the Department of Homeland Security as the suspect behind the attack on Temple Israel synagogue in West Bloomfield, Michigan

Investigators later revealed that the suspect had expressed anger about Israeli and American actions in Iran and the region. Authorities believe the synagogue was deliberately chosen as an antisemitic target of the terrorists rage.

Meanwhile, authorities in Texas are still investigating a mass shooting that witnesses say involved extremist Islamic ideology.

Texas gunman Ndiaga Diagne, a Senegalese immigrant-turned US citizen was wearing a sweatshirt that said ‘Property of Allah,’ and a shirt with an Iranian flag design.

Taken together, the incidents illustrate the continuing evolution of jihadist terrorism inside Western countries.

Unlike the large, centrally planned attacks associated with al-Qaeda in the early 2000s, today’s extremist violence is often decentralized. Groups like ISIS have spent years cultivating sympathizers and extremist reactionaries around the world to act independently, using whatever weapons are available, and targeting civilians, government facilities, or military personnel.

This strategy requires no direct command structure. Instead, individuals radicalized online interpret global events—wars, military strikes, or political conflicts—as personal calls to action.

Security analysts say moments of geopolitical tension can act as powerful catalysts for this process.

The recent escalation involving Iran has dominated global media and online discourse. Extremist propaganda channels have already begun portraying the conflict as evidence of a broader war between Islam and the West, a narrative designed to provoke retaliation by Islamist sympathizers abroad. For individuals already consuming radical content, that messaging can serve as a trigger.

At the same time, investigators caution against assuming that the recent attacks were coordinated or directed by a single organization. There is currently no evidence that the suspects communicated with one another or operated as part of a structured network. Instead, the emerging picture appears to be one of parallel radicalization.

This decentralized threat presents a major challenge for law enforcement. Traditional intelligence methods are designed to detect organized conspiracies, not individuals who radicalize quietly online and act alone.

For that reason, officials say the greatest danger may come not from large terrorist networks but from isolated individuals who decide, sometimes suddenly, to turn mistaken ideology into violence.

As investigators continue to examine the recent incidents, security agencies across the nation have quietly increased protection around synagogues, government buildings, military facilities, and public events.

This has become quite difficult in the wake of Democratic Party efforts to leave the American people vulnerable to such attacks by defunding the Department of Homeland Security at such a critical time.

Whether the recent attacks represent the beginning of a broader wave, or merely a troubling cluster of isolated incidents, remains uncertain. What is becoming increasingly clear is that global conflicts can have immediate domestic consequences.

In an era of instant communication and online radicalization, the ideological battlefields of the Middle East no longer remain confined overseas. Now, their echoes are heard in American cities.

The government must shift its strategies to combat this development in its effort to protect American citizens from the violence that accompanies Islamist propaganda.

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Sponsored by BasicInfo123 — simple bite-sized guides for life, money, civics, and more—because some stuff school just didn’t cover.

The Myth of the “Mandatory” Government Shutdown

By Leave a Comment

Government Shutdowns Aren’t Inevitable — They’re a Choice (for now)

by James Thompson, J.D.

As Congress battles over federal spending—particularly funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—Americans are once again warned that failure to pass a budget will “shut down the government.”

That phrase is repeated as though it were constitutional doctrine. It isn’t.

A government shutdown is not an unavoidable command of the Constitution. It is the product of executive interpretation—one that has never been definitively tested in court. And perhaps it’s time we reconsider it.

The Constitution Does Not Require Administrative Paralysis

Article I of the Constitution states that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury except through appropriations made by law. That is a vital check on executive power.

But it does not say that if Congress fails to pass a budget on time, the executive branch must cease functioning.

The modern shutdown framework largely stems from interpretations of the Antideficiency Act, reinforced by opinions issued in the 1980s by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) within the Department of Justice.

Those opinions concluded that agencies must halt “non-essential” activities during a funding lapse.

But OLC memos are not Supreme Court rulings.
And the issue has never been squarely resolved by the Supreme Court of the United States.

What we call a “shutdown” today is not a constitutional inevitability. It is a policy practice built on executive guidance.

Even During Shutdowns, the Government Doesn’t Actually Shut Down

Consider ICE and DHS—the very agencies at the center of today’s negotiations.

When appropriations lapse, immigration enforcement continues. Border Patrol continues. National security functions continue. Law enforcement continues. Why? Because those functions are deemed “excepted” for the safety of human life and protection of property.

In other words, the most critical sovereign functions of government continue regardless of funding disputes.

What shuts down are regulatory offices, administrative processing, parks, and large swaths of civilian bureaucracy. The government contracts. It does not collapse.

Shutdowns Are Political Leverage

Let’s be candid: shutdowns create pressure. They generate headlines. They force urgency. They create a bludgeon that Democrats use (leveraged by a complicit media) to force political concessions from Republicans.

But urgency is not the same thing as legal necessity. Congress has already authorized DHS. It has already authorized ICE. These agencies do not cease to exist when legislators miss a deadline.

The real question is whether a temporary lapse in appropriations requires the executive branch to halt lawful operations—or whether government could continue at prior funding levels until Congress resolves its dispute.

There is nothing in the Constitution that demands administrative paralysis.

What a Shutdown Really Means for Americans

If funding lapses:

  • ICE enforcement continues.
  • Border security continues.
  • Military operations continue.
  • Mandatory spending programs continue.

What stops are many administrative functions that directly affect citizens and businesses—permits, processing, federal contracts, and civil services.

Federal employees are furloughed. Contractors lose income. The public absorbs the disruption. All because lawmakers failed to agree.

Time to Rethink the Assumption

The idea that “government must shut down” has hardened into political folklore. But it rests on executive interpretation—not constitutional command.

One could imagine alternative frameworks:

  • Automatic continuing resolutions at prior-year levels
  • Spending caps triggered without halting operations
  • Tiered funding that preserves continuity

Other democracies manage budget impasses without deliberately suspending visible governance.

Perhaps we should ask why ours cannot. Budget negotiations—especially those involving ICE and border enforcement—are serious matters. Congress absolutely controls the purse.

But the American people should not be collateral damage in a political standoff. A shutdown is not destiny. It is a choice. And choices can be reconsidered.

Of course, in the event of a shutdown, it would be an excellent opportunity for the president to permanently furlough 80% of the non-military federal employees and finally DRAIN THE SWAMP!

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Sponsored by BasicInfo123 — simple bite-sized guides for life, money, civics, and more—because some stuff school just didn’t cover.

YOU’RE FIRED! It’s Time to Pull the Plug and Drain the Swamp

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson.

Washington, D.C. has long been home to a bloated and entrenched bureaucracy, dominated by career Democrats who have turned federal agencies into their own political strongholds. For decades, the Democratic Party has enjoyed near-total loyalty from the vast majority of federal employees, with their paychecks consistently recycled back into Democrat campaign coffers. Polling has shown that very few Republicans are employed in the federal government, cementing the perception that Washington’s bureaucracy is not neutral, but rather an arm of the Democrat machine.

This is the “swamp” that President Donald Trump warned the American people about when he first ran for the White House. And he was right. The swamp has spent decades growing unchecked, protecting its own interests, and working against the very principles of accountability and limited government that our republic was founded upon.

Now, with President Trump back in office and the Democrats once again showing their true colors by shutting down the government—refusing to pass the continuing resolution despite it being forwarded more than a dozen times—the opportunity is clearer than ever. The Democrats’ reckless obstruction proves that their priorities are not with the American people, but with defending their entrenched power in Washington.

For President Trump, this shutdown is not a crisis—it is an opportunity. A chance to finally deliver on his signature promise to drain the swamp.

Unlike past presidents, Trump has the political courage and public mandate to take bold action. He now has both the justification and the authority to slash the size of government, shut down unnecessary agencies, and cut loose the hundreds of thousands of federal employees who are not only failing to pull their weight but who actively work against the values of freedom, limited government, and constitutional integrity.

Massive cuts to the federal bureaucracy would not only restore balance and accountability, but they would also break the stranglehold that one political party has on Washington’s administrative state. Why should hardworking American taxpayers continue funding federal employees who openly funnel money, power, and influence to the Democratic Party—employees who serve the Party’s agenda rather than the people’s?

For decades, the swamp has been a hidden fourth branch of government—unelected, unaccountable, and overwhelmingly partisan. It is a system that has been weaponized against conservatives, against reform, and against the will of the voters. President Trump has this once-in-a-generation opportunity to put an end to this corruption.

Now is the time for President Trump to pull the plug to drain the swamp. By making swift and massive cuts to the federal workforce, he can finally dismantle the Democrat machine that has strangled Washington for decades. Doing so will not only fulfill his campaign promise, but will also restore the government to what it was always meant to be: a servant of the people, not a master.

If President Trump acts decisively now, while the government is shut down and he alone wields the power to ax the federal agencies and workforce, history will remember him as the man who broke the back of the bureaucratic elite and restored power to the American people.

DRAIN THE SWAMP!

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Sponsored by BasicInfo123 — simple bite-sized guides for life, money, civics, and more—because some stuff school just didn’t cover.

Another Day, Another Leftist Assassination

By Leave a Comment

A Deadly Arc: Dallas, Orem, Butler—and a Permission Structure the Left Won’t Disown

By James Thompson.


The day before the Charlie Kirk assassination, the Federalist Press published my article titled A Global War on Faith: Anti-Religious Attacks Escalate in America and Beyond. Of course, Charlie was gunned down in front of thousands, including children, by a pro-trans, anti-Trump terrorist, while speaking about the importance of Jesus Christ.

During these intervening days, multiple Leftist assassins and would-be assassins have been through the courts in various phases of their legal cases. Now, before sunrise this morning, a gunman opened fire at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office off I-35 in Dallas, Texas. The FBI’s on-scene briefing made one thing unmistakable: rounds recovered at the scene were inscribed with messages “anti-ICE.”

The sniper died by suicide; multiple detainees were shot, with early accounts reflecting multiple fatalities. This wasn’t random mayhem. It was targeted—and it carried the Left movement’s calling card right there on the brass–a now-familiar pattern of terror. The political message is not subtle.

Sources familiar with the investigation into the Dallas immigration facility shooting identified Wednesday’s alleged attacker as Joshua Jahn, 29.

Joshua Jahn

The gunman killed one person and injured two others after opening fire on ICE facility from a nearby building before taking his own life, police say.

Jahn struck three detainees in an unmarked transport van before killing himself around 7 a.m., according to the sources. He was found dead with a rifle on a nearby rooftop.

Not isolated: a string of ideologically aligned attacks and plots

Many amateur Leftist terrorists have responded to rhetoric from their leaders, ginning up violence with taunts that these “fascists,” Nazis,” and “threats to democracy” must be stopped, at ANY cost. Oh–here’s another: “86 47.” Here are just a few high profile cases:

  • Assassination of Charlie Kirk (Orem, Utah, Sept. 10). Prosecutors and reporters have detailed ideological markers, including anti-fascist and pro-trans slogans on cartridges. The reaction class split instantly: many on the Left deflected, minimized, or tried to reassign blame. Late night TV host Jimmy Kimmel was temporarily suspended for purposefully redirecting blame of the assassin to conservatives, while every bit of evidence, including the shooter’s own admissions, indicated he was a Leftist, anti-Trump, pro-trans activist.
  • Sacramento ABC10 office shooting (Sept. 19). A 64-year-old Democratic party activist and lobbyist fired into a TV station’s lobby; a note recovered by authorities pointed to Leftist, anti-Trump political grievance. This erupted amid the furor over ABC’s brief suspension of Jimmy Kimmel after his on-air remarks about the Kirk murder.
  • Attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh (Bethesda, 2022)—now at sentencing. The DOJ is seeking roughly 30 years; the Trans defendant admitted traveling to kill Kavanaugh “to alter the constitutional order.” That’s the rhetoric of revolutionary justice turned into a plan.
  • UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson (NYC, Dec. 2024). A liberal New York judge just tossed two state terrorism counts, but left the murder case intact. Filings describe a Leftist ideological grievance against the health-insurance system.
  • 2017 GOP Congressional baseball practice (Alexandria). James Hodgkinson’s ambush grievously wounded Steve Scalise and others. A recent House Intel review faulted early FBI framing and reaffirmed the obvious: politically targeted against Republicans. House Intelligence Committee+1

“Do Trump next”: the two 2024 attempts

  • Butler, Pennsylvania (July 13, 2024). Thomas Matthew Crooks grazed President Trump’s ear with a rifle round, killed firefighter Corey Comperatore, and critically wounded David Dutch and James Copenhaver, before being killed by counter-snipers. The Secret Service and DHS reports cement the timeline and the names.
  • West Palm Beach golf course (Sept. 2024). Ryan Routh was just convicted on all counts for an attempted assassination plot; jurors heard about burn phones, surveillance, and an explicitly political motive.

The “young trans shooters” the media memory-holes when it’s inconvenient. We’re still waiting to see the Tranifestos.

  • Nashville’s Covenant School (Mar. 27, 2023). A shooter who identified as transgender killed three 9-year-old children and three adults at a Christian school; police records and the city’s investigative summary confirm planning, targeting, and the identity details that so many pundits tried to bury.
  • STEM School Highlands Ranch, CO (May 7, 2019). One perpetrator, Alec (Maya) McKinney, identified as transgender; Kendrick Castillo was killed, eight others were injured. Court records and mainstream coverage document both the identity facts and the casualty count. CBS News+1

The blame game—and why it matters

A grim ritual now follows each attack: left-leaning celebrities, commentators, and even electeds reach for narratives that shift responsibility away from their own movement’s dehumanizing rhetoric. We watched it play out after Kirk’s killing—and again this week around Kimmel’s attempted walk-back. Meanwhile, outlets like Reuters and YouGov point to a troubling openness to “sometimes justified” political violence among the very liberal and younger cohorts, even as majorities still reject it outright. That’s a permission structure, not a repudiation.

From Dallas to Orem, from the Butler rally to the Florida golf course, from a TV lobby in Sacramento to a Supreme Court justice’s front yard, the story repeats: Leftist activists and influencers brand conservatives as “fascists” and “illegitimate,” and a subset of true believers takes the next step; assassination. Then, when the blood dries, too many voices on the Left default to euphemism, deflection—or a false counter-accusation while millions of Leftists cheer the violence on social media.

Losing elections because they have no workable solutions does not equate to ‘the winning side are fascists and Nazis, and must be stopped at any cost.’ Well over half of the Left responds that violence is justified because it is “critical” to stop those who won the elections. No cause justifies violence against political opponents. This behavior inevitably and invariably MUST lead to conservatives taking up arms to defend themselves, and our constitutional republic. It must stop immediately, or there WILL be an outpouring of violence, which will erupt into civil war. If Democratic and progressive leaders believe they can continue to gin up the mentally unstable members of their base to commit political violence, without repercussions, they are stupidly incorrect. They must condemn their own side’s dehumanizing language with the same fire they demand of everyone else—and stop excusing and urging what’s happening.

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Sponsored by BasicInfo123 — simple bite-sized guides for life, money, civics, and more—because some stuff school just didn’t cover.

Charlie Kirk Killed at event at Utah Valley University

By Leave a Comment

Lethal shots fired at a Charlie Kirk event at Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah. Kirk was shot in throat.

President Donald Trump confirmed Kirk’s death in a post on Truth Social.

“The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie. He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me, and now, he is no longer with us,” Trump wrote. “Melania and my Sympathies go out to his beautiful wife Erika, and family. Charlie, we love you!”

Conservative speaker and host assassinated by a gunman at an event at Utah Valley University, in Orem, Utah.

Police are investigating now, and the shooting suspect is NOT in custody.

The campus is on lockdown.

President Trump wrote on social media: “We must all pray for Charlie Kirk, who has been shot. A great guy from top to bottom. GOD BLESS HIM!”

In a statement on X, Vice President J.D. Vance wrote: “Say a prayer for Charlie Kirk, a genuinely good guy and a young father.”

Kirk is in critical condition at a hospital after being shot Wednesday at a Utah event, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.

Video posted from the event appeared to show Kirk being shot as he spoke to the crowd from under a white pop-up tent. After the shot, the crowd dispersed, with onlookers shouting “Run, run, run!”

See video>


A suspect is in custody, according to a UVU alert sent to students. The campus has been evacuated.

“A single shot was fired on campus toward a visiting speaker. Police are investigating now, suspect in custody,” an alert from UVU said.

https://www.tiktok.com/@cooperutah/video/7548536180225084727

An older man was arrested and taken into police custody. His name was not immediately released. It appears that he is not the shooter.

FBI and ATF agents are on the scene, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi.

President Donald Trump posted on social media: “We must all pray for Charlie Kirk, who has been shot. A great guy from top to bottom. GOD BLESS HIM!” 

FBI Director Kash Patel said the agency “stands in full support of the ongoing response and investigation.”

Utah Sen. Mike Lee said he is “tracking the situation at Utah Valley University closely.”

“Please join me in praying for Charlie Kirk and the students gathered there,” he said on social media.

Kirk had been scheduled to appear at Utah Valley University on Wednesday as part of his American Comeback Tour, with another stop at Utah State University later this month. His appearances have drawn protests and petitions from student groups critical of his views.

In a since-deleted post on Kirk’s social media just hours before the attack, the conservative firebrand wrote: “WE. ARE. SO. BACK. Utah Valley University is FIRED UP and READY for the first stop back on the American Comeback Tour.”

The Fall 2025 leg of the tour began at the Orem, Utah university and is “a nationwide campus tour aimed at equipping students with the tools to push back against leftwing indoctrination in academia and reclaim their right to free speech.” 

Let’s Be Honest: Young Black Men are Trapped in the Blue City Crossfire

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson

America’s homicide crisis is escalating (despite Democrat attempts to skew crime numbers), and young Black men remain trapped in a grossly outsized cycle of violence and victimization that far exceeds their share of the general population.

Black American men ages 15–34 account for just 5% of the U.S. population, yet they suffer homicide rates more than six times the national average.

In 2023, federal data show Black Americans were killed at a rate of 21.3 per 100,000, compared to just 3.2 per 100,000 for White Americans. Firearm homicides alone hit nearly 27.5 per 100,000 Black residents—a staggering figure that dwarfs those of every other racial group.

Why?

The tragedy is not just in the numbers, but in the lived reality. In Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and scores of other Democrat-run “Blue Cities,” shootings are measured in dozens per weekend. The overwhelming majority of both offenders and victims are young Black men. And despite public perception, the violence is overwhelmingly intraracial (Balck-on-Black): about 63% of violent crimes against Black victims are committed by other Black offenders, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey. Contrary to what many legacy media outlets claim, very few are committed by police.

A Cycle Rooted in Poverty and Family Instability

Researchers point to a web of interconnected drivers: segregated, under-resourced neighborhoods, failing public schools, and high rates of single-parent households. In 2023, nearly half of Black children lived with a single parent, compared to about one in five White children. Critics argue that decades of welfare policy discouraged family stability, and that “marriage penalties” in tax and welfare benefit systems risk making poor families worse off if they legally wed.

The result is a generation of boys too often raised without consistent male role models, in neighborhoods where crime networks wield more influence than families, schools or churches. As one Chicago pastor put it recently: “We’re asking young men to build a life on quicksand.”

Violence Beyond the Black Community

The violence does not remain contained. The shocking murder of Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee fatally stabbed on Charlotte’s light rail a few days ago drew national headlines and underscored broader anxieties about crime crossing racial lines. Hispanic and Asian communities in urban centers are also reporting rising victimization rates, though the overall pattern remains heavily concentrated within racial groups themselves.

What Works—and What Doesn’t

While political debates rage over policing, incarceration, and gun laws, researchers have quietly identified interventions that consistently save lives.

  • Focused deterrence strategies, such as the Group Violence Intervention model, have cut homicides sharply in cities that apply them with fidelity. These programs zero in on the small networks responsible for the majority of shootings, pairing swift enforcement with real offers of services and escape routes.
  • Youth interventions like Chicago’s Becoming a Man program have shown remarkable results, reducing violent-crime arrests by more than a third through cognitive-behavioral therapy and mentoring.
  • High-dosage tutoring and strong schools in disadvantaged areas attack the root of intergenerational poverty by raising achievement and keeping at-risk youth connected to opportunity.
  • Mobility programs that help families move into safer, higher-opportunity neighborhoods when children are young have lasting effects, producing higher adult earnings and more stable families.

These approaches stand in contrast to broad “tough on crime” sweeps that often criminalize entire communities while missing the small, tightly connected groups who actually drive the violence.

A National Responsibility

The cost of inaction is measured in human lives and lost futures. Every weekend, headlines announce the toll: “12 shot, 3 killed overnight” in many cities. Each figure represents not just a victim, but a family torn apart, a neighborhood further traumatized, and a society that has failed to deliver equal safety and opportunity.

If America is serious about addressing its most urgent public safety crisis, it must confront the uncomfortable truth: a small share of the population, disproportionately young Black men, bear the brunt of the nation’s violence epidemic–as perpetrators and victims.

Breaking that cycle will require more than policing alone. It demands rebuilding families, repairing schools, reforming welfare policies, and investing in proven strategies that offer young men a path to middle-class stability rather than early graves.

Until then, the “normal” American life—safe streets, good schools, stable families—will remain out of reach for too many of those who need it most.

President Donald Trump is launching a sweeping policing of troubled cities with federal assets in the hope of reducing crime and saving lives. His foray into Washington, D.C. with a federal presence has yielded fantastic results, sparing the lives of many young Black American men. However, Democrats are boisterously against such efforts, screaming in the streets that they are happy with the status quo in their war-torn cities, and that Trump is a fascist dictator to seek peace and safety in our cities. We expect to see the effort expanded to many Blue Cities in the next few months, and when Trump succeeds, we will see what can be done for the young Black men and their families who live to make a change.

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Sponsored by BasicInfo123 — simple bite-sized guides for life, money, civics, and more—because some stuff school just didn’t cover.

NY Appeals Court Throws Out Trump Civil Fraud Penalty

By Leave a Comment

New York — A five‑judge panel of New York’s Appellate Division (First Department) has thrown out the massive monetary penalty imposed on President Donald Trump in the state’s civil fraud case, finding the disgorgement order “excessive” under the Eighth Amendment. The ruling, issued Thursday, strikingly reshapes the case that had ballooned to more than $515 million with interest, and leaves a clear path for further appeals to New York’s highest court.

What the court decided

  • Disgorgement/monetary penalty: Vacated in its entirety as an excessive fine. The court concluded that directing Trump and co‑defendants to pay nearly half a billion dollars violated the U.S. Constitution’s Excessive Fines Clause.
  • Injunctive relief: The panel indicated that certain behavior‑modifying injunctions aimed at corporate practices were appropriate, even as it rejected the money judgment. (Those bans and monitorships had been paused during the appeal.)
  • Next steps: The decision keeps the door open for additional review—by the New York Court of Appeals—while dissolving the immediate threat of collection on the disgorgement. Trump’s previously posted $175 million bond forestalled collection while the appeal was pending.

How we got here

New York Attorney General Letitia James sued in 2022 under Executive Law § 63(12), a powerful state statute often used to police “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.” After a bench trial, Justice Arthur Engoron found Trump had inflated asset values and, in early 2024, imposed a penalty initially pegged around $355 million, which with interest swelled above $515 million; he also ordered leadership bans and other injunctive remedies.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James campaigned on promise to take down President Trump by any means necessary.

Trump appealed, arguing that (1) no lender lost money, (2) the Attorney General stretched § 63(12) beyond its proper scope, (3) the disgorgement was unauthorized or disproportionate, and (4) the penalty violated the Eighth Amendment. Several Republican‑led states filed amicus briefs supporting the excessive‑fines argument.

Today’s ruling—after an unusually long deliberation period for the First Department—adopts the excessive‑fines critique and erases the money judgment. (Reporting earlier this week highlighted how rare such internal divisions and delays are for this court.)

Why the Excessive Fines Clause matters here

The Excessive Fines Clause applies to state actions, including civil sanctions, via Timbs v. Indiana (2019). In Timbs, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that states cannot impose grossly disproportionate financial penalties. That constitutional guardrail now anchors the appeals court’s conclusion that New York’s disgorgement order went too far.

Critics’ case: why many call the lawsuit a “sham”

From the outset, critics argued that New York brought a politicized, victim‑less fraud case: lenders were sophisticated, performed their own valuations, were repaid, and did not complain of losses; yet the state sought a sweeping corporate death‑penalty‑style remedy. Business‑law commentators warned the case, if upheld, would chill private enterprise by punishing negotiations that harmed no counterparties. Today’s ruling vindicates the core of that critique by rejecting the most punitive financial sanction as unconstitutional.

Republican attorneys general likewise contended that using § 63(12) to extract a massive disgorgement where no consumer injury was shown transformed the statute into a blunt political instrument. Their filings emphasized that punishment must be proportional and tied to demonstrable harms—principles the appellate court’s decision echoes.

What still stands—and what could come next

  • Fraud findings & injunctions: The court signaled that targeted injunctive relief to constrain business practices can remain—a point the Attorney General will lean on as she considers next steps. (Any renewed attempt at monetary sanctions would face strict proportionality limits.)
  • Further appeals: Either side can seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. Given the stakes—for Trump, for the AG’s office, and for the future use of § 63(12)—a petition is highly likely.
  • Broader impact: The ruling will shape how New York (and other states) deploy civil‑fraud statutes in high‑profile business cases. It underscores that even civil “disgorgement” risks crossing into punitive territory barred by the Eighth Amendment—especially where the record shows no concrete losses to counterparties.

Bottom line

The appeals court didn’t just trim Trump’s penalty—it wiped out the money judgment as unconstitutional, dramatically undercutting the theory that justified the case’s most severe sanction. For supporters of the President, this outcome supports the view that the New York proceeding was overreaching and political. For state regulators, it’s a sobering reminder that civil enforcement powers meet constitutional limits, and that large “disgorgements” must be tied to real harms and calibrated to pass Eighth Amendment scrutiny.

Who Took the FireAid $100 Million? Dem Front Groups

By Leave a Comment

Circling the News has looked into the disposition of the FireAid funds, and has discovered that most of the money has ended up in the hands of democratic party front organizations, absorbed to support many leftist causes, instead of helping victims of the L.A. fires.

FireAid, a two‑venue benefit concert held on January 30, 2025, at Inglewood’s Intuit Dome and Kia Forum, raised over $100 million for the victims of the Eaton and Palisades fires in Los Angeles. The event featured megastars like Billie Eilish, Lady Gaga, and U2—who even pledged $1 million—while Steve and Connie Ballmer matched donations dollar for dollar.

The Annenberg Foundation was designated to oversee distribution of the proceeds via a newly formed 501(c)(3) dubbed FireAid.

The missing money

  • By July 2025—six months post-concert—investigative reporter Sue Pascoe (editor of Circling the News), found no evidence that funds had gone directly to fire survivors.
  • When pressed, the Annenberg Foundation and Clippers’ spokesperson Chris Wallace stated that all funds were allocated to nonprofits serving impacted communities, but none were provided as direct cash grants to individuals.
  • The community council in Pacific Palisades pushed back: of the nearly 120 nonprofits awarded money, only three served Palisades directly—Kehillat Israel, Chabad of Palisades, and Palisades High School—with no transparency on grant sizes or outcomes.

Where has the money gone?

  • Phase 1 (February 2025): $50 million distributed across 120+ nonprofits—a wide range of leftist organizations and causes (food, housing, arts, mental health, animal welfare, etc.)—but with no indication of any impact in hard-hit neighborhoods like Palisades.
  • Phase 2 (early summer 2025): $25 million allocated to longer-term programs—mental health, environmental remediation, sustainable rebuilding—again routed entirely via leftist nonprofits.
  • Phase 3: Still open for nonprofit applications; no direct individual aid has been announced.

Voices from the frontlines

  • Pascoe quotes a distraught reader: “I’ve never seen any fire aid money… There’s 12,000 people… homes gone. Those people probably wanna know where the money is.”
  • The Pacific Palisades Community Council demanded a full accounting—grant-by-grant, dollar amounts, and whether any funds reached victims directly—pressuring Annenberg and FireAid for transparency.

What’s at stake?

  1. Transparency: Donors—including Ballmers and artists—gave believing relief would hit families’ pockets. Yet there’s no public record of distributions, amounts, or recipients.
  2. Accountability: The failure to track how leftist nonprofit partners used the money raises the risk of funds being diverted to general left-wing causes or bureaucratic overhead (CEO salaries, donations to DNC), instead of victims.
  3. Public trust: Allegations accuse that funds were simply “laundered through democratic party front organizations.” What is clear is the heavy reliance on nonprofits without visible community oversight.

The bottom line

Over $100 million was raised in good faith to aid Los Angeles fire victims. Yet by mid‑2025:

  • No direct cash support has been confirmed to individual victims of the fires.
  • A small number of left-leaning nonprofits in severely affected areas have been revealed to have received grants—with no breakdown of dollar amounts or reported impact.
  • The remainder of funds is funneled into broader democrat community and infrastructure projects, at the discretion of FireAid advisors.

What happens next?

  • The Pacific Palisades Community Council is demanding a full financial breakdown—including all grants, matched funds, and direct aid—as of May 2025.
  • More investigative pressure from reporters like Pascoe, community groups, and possibly legal scrutiny may force public disclosure.
  • If answers continue to stall, donors may call for independent audits or even legal action to ensure intended recipients aren’t forgotten.

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Passes Congress in Landmark Victory

By Leave a Comment

In a stunning and historic move, Congress has just passed President Donald J. Trump’s long-awaited Big Beautiful Bill, delivering a major legislative win for his administration and a decisive step toward fulfilling key promises of his second term. The bill, touted by President Trump as “the most beautiful piece of legislation our nation has ever seen,” passed both chambers after weeks of intense debate and negotiation.

What’s in the Bill?

The Big Beautiful Bill is sweeping in scope. Among its most significant provisions:

  • Border Security and Immigration Reform: The bill allocates record funding for the completion of the southern border wall, bolsters border patrol forces, and implements stricter measures to prevent illegal immigration while streamlining legal immigration for merit-based applicants.
  • Tax Relief: It introduces further tax cuts aimed at middle-class families and small businesses, building on the success of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
  • Energy Independence: The bill rolls back excessive regulations on domestic energy production, supporting American oil, gas, and coal industries while expanding incentives for clean nuclear and next-generation technologies.
  • Restoration of Law and Order: It provides significant funding for law enforcement and first responders, with provisions aimed at reducing violent crime in major cities.

A Hard-Fought Victory

Passage of the bill was far from certain. Democrats mounted fierce opposition, criticizing the bill as being too focused on Trump’s campaign priorities. Yet in the end, a coalition of Republicans and moderate Democrats, responding to public pressure for action on border security, inflation relief, and national security, propelled the bill across the finish line.

Speaker of the House, who had initially wavered, ultimately praised the final product: “This is a bill that puts Americans first. It strengthens our economy, secures our borders, and supports our communities.”

Senate Majority Leader echoed the sentiment: “We’ve delivered on what the American people asked for: safety, prosperity, and common-sense governance.”

Trump’s Reaction

President Trump, speaking from the White House Rose Garden moments after the vote, hailed the legislation as “a win for all Americans” and “proof that when we put America First, nothing can stop us.”

He added: “This Big Beautiful Bill is going to make our country stronger, safer, richer, and greater than ever before. I want to thank Congress for working together, despite differences, to do what’s right for our people.”

The Road Ahead

The Big Beautiful Bill now heads to President Trump’s desk, where he is expected to sign it into law within days. Implementation will begin immediately, with federal agencies already preparing to roll out new programs and allocate funding according to the bill’s provisions.

Critics, including progressive lawmakers and left-wing media outlets, have vowed legal challenges to portions of the bill, particularly those related to immigration enforcement and energy policy. However, the Trump administration appears confident that the law will withstand scrutiny.

For now, the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill marks a pivotal moment in the Trump presidency—one that supporters are calling a defining achievement and a major step in delivering on the promises that brought him to the White House once again.

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Jamie Lee Curtis Wept Over Kanye’s Antisemitism—But Where Is Her Outrage Now?

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson | June 4, 2025

Jamie Lee Curtis addresses her online response to Kanye West’s antisemitic posts on social media, saying West’s posts were “just abhorrent.”

In 2022, actress Jamie Lee Curtis became a viral symbol of righteous outrage after rapper Kanye West posted a now-infamous tweet threatening to go “death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE.” Although the ‘threat’ was a hollow, big-mouth pronouncement that West was going to expose unfair treatment by Jewish music industry people, the Oscar winner condemned the comment as “abhorrent,” linking it to the atrocities of the Holocaust, and even broke into tears during a televised interview. At the time, Curtis’s response was praised as a courageous stand against hate.

But today, amid a tsunami of antisemitic harassment and violence—largely coming from far-left movements cloaked in anti-Zionist rhetoric—Curtis has been notably silent.

Across America, Jewish students are being harassed, threatened, and even physically attacked on college campuses. At pro-Palestine/Hamas rallies chants like “death to the Jews” and “Hitler was right” have been caught on camera. Jewish students at schools like Columbia, NYU, and UC Berkeley have reported needing security escorts, hiding in libraries, and being locked out of their dorms—simply for being Jewish.

Yet, Jamie Lee Curtis, along with many other left-leaning celebrities who loudly denounced Kanye West, now says nothing.

“Silence isn’t neutrality—it’s complicity,” said Noah Silverman, a Jewish student at UCLA. “When celebrities speak out against antisemitism only when it comes from the right, it tells us that our safety is conditional. If the threat comes from the ‘wrong kind’ of oppressor, it doesn’t matter.”

This glaring double standard has not gone unnoticed. Critics accuse Curtis and others in Hollywood of moral grandstanding when it suits their left-leaning narrative—but failing to call out hate when it emerges from within their own ideological circles.

“The left has built an entire identity around inclusivity, tolerance, and human rights,” said Bari Weiss, founder of The Free Press. “But when Jewish lives are threatened by people waving socialist flags instead of Confederate ones, suddenly the moral clarity vanishes.”

Curtis has continued posting regularly on social media about various progressive causes—climate change, women’s rights (although nothing about men in women’s sports), LGBTQ+ advocacy—but has made no public comment about the surge in antisemitic incidents tied to recent pro-Palestinian protests. Her silence has sparked backlash, especially from Jewish activists who once applauded her principled stand against Kanye West.

“The hypocrisy is staggering,” said Jonathan Feldman, an analyst at the Jewish Policy Institute. “Jamie Lee Curtis cried on live television over a tweet. But when Jewish college students are hiding from mobs, she can’t spare even a sentence?”

To be clear, no one is suggesting that all criticism of the state of Israel is antisemitic. But when protests devolve into calls for genocide and physical violence against Jewish individuals—when Jewish identity itself becomes the target—celebrities who previously championed “never again” owe the public more than silence.

Selective outrage isn’t justice. It’s performance. It looks like tacit approval.

And for those like Curtis, whose voice carries influence, that silence speaks volumes.

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

$4.7 trillion in untraceable Treasury payments

By Leave a Comment

Nearly one-third of Treasury payments a year lack proper identification codes, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent testified to Congress

By Deirdre Heavey

Earlier this year, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) uncovered $4.7 trillion in untraceable Treasury Department payments. 

Prior to the discovery, Treasury Account Symbol (TAS) identification codes were optional for $4.7 trillion in Treasury Department payments, so they were often left blank and were untraceable. The field is now required to increase “insight into where the money is actually going,” the Treasury Department and DOGE announced in February. 

“Of the 1.5 billion payments that we send out every year, they are required to have a TAS, a Treasury Account Symbol. We discovered that more than one third of those payments did not have a TAS number,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government earlier this month. 

Fox News Digital asked Republican senators on Capitol Hill to respond to the approximately 500,000 in untraceable payments made by the Treasury Department each year. 

“I’m not surprised at all, unfortunately,” Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kansas, said before adding, “They were leaving complete fields undone when they were filling out their financials, so this is a common theme. I’m not surprised.”

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Missouri, called for an investigation into where those payments actually went. 

“There’s so much waste. There’s so much fraud, There’s so much abuse in our government,” Schmitt told Fox News Digital. “I’m glad there was a laser-like focus on it. We ought to make many of those reforms permanent, but there probably ought to be some investigations here about where this money actually went. I mean this is taxpayer money. People work hard.”

Donald Trump and Elon Musk

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have worked to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).  (Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC)

After DOGE and the Treasury Department uncovered $4.7 trillion in untraceable funds, Marshall and Sen. Rick Scott of Florida introduced a bill in March requiring the Treasury Department to track all payments. 

The Locating Every Disbursement in Government Expenditure Records (LEDGER) Act seeks to increase transparency in how the Treasury Department spends taxpayer money. 

“When you hear about this story that they didn’t know where the money was going, it makes you mad because this is somebody’s money, this is taxpayers’ money when we have almost $37 trillion in debt, so this makes no sense at all,” Scott said. 

Elon Musk in "tech" shirt

Elon Musk shows off his t-shirt reading “Tech Support” while speaking at the first cabinet meeting hosted by President Donald Trump, at the White House in Washington, D.C., Feb. 26, 2025. (REUTERS/Brian Snyder)

The Congressional Budget projects that interest payments on America’s national debt will total $952 billion in fiscal year 2025. That’s $102 billion more than the United States’ defense budget at $850 billion. 

“We paid out more last year on our debt, $36 trillion in debt, with $950 billion in interest going to bondholders all over the world, including in China. That $950 billion didn’t go to build a bridge or an F-35. We paid more on the interest on debt than we did to fund our military,” said Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska. 

“That is an inflection point that when most countries hit, you look at history, that’s when great powers start to decline. So we have to get those savings.”

“Forced to Comply: The Lasting Consequences of America’s COVID Vaccine Mandates”

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson

In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, the American public is only beginning to reckon with the social, political, and personal costs of what most now view as an era of coercive overreach by the Democrat federal government and its media allies. One of the most striking recent reversals has come from Dilbert creator Scott Adams, who—after years of vehemently defending aggressive vaccination policies—has admitted, in the shadow of a personal cancer diagnosis, that the government-led push to vaccinate every American “at all costs” was deeply misguided.

Adams has acknowledged that those who refused the vaccine—the so-called “anti-vaxxers” vilified by pundits and politicians alike—are now enjoying the benefit of natural immunity, unburdened by the vaccine-related side effects that have become a topic of growing scientific concern. “They were right,” Adams said, noting that natural immunity, which was largely dismissed by officials early in the pandemic, has proven to be effective. “The smartest, happiest people are the ones who didn’t get the vaccination and are still alive.”

This statement reflects a larger shift in public sentiment, as millions who were fired, ostracized, banned from travel, forced to close their businesses, forced to stay home from school, or denied hospital visits with dying relatives begin to demand answers—and accountability.

A Mandate, Not a Choice

Under the Biden administration, vaccine mandates swept through the federal government, the military, public schools, hospitals, and large corporations. President Biden himself declared in July 2021: “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” That bold promise, however, did not hold. Biden contracted COVID multiple times despite being vaccinated and boosted, undermining the very narrative his administration used to justify its draconian policies.

President Joe Biden received one of many COVID-19 vaccinations

The White House, in conjunction with the CDC and mainstream media, created a culture of forced compliance. Americans were not merely encouraged to get vaccinated—they were compelled. In Orwellian fashion, objectors were ridiculed as science-deniers, conspiracy theorists, or threats to public safety. Democratic leaders across the country echoed the federal position, with cities like New York and Los Angeles enacting some of the strictest vaccine mandates in the world, including forced mask wearing and six-foot personal bubble zones in public–which were entirely without scientific basis.

But the real-world consequences were far from hypothetical. Teachers were fired. Nurses who worked through the height of the pandemic were terminated. Business closed permanently. Military personnel were discharged. Students were barred from campuses. Families were separated from loved ones in their final moments. Freedom of movement and association—basic rights in any free society—were suspended indefinitely in the name of safety. Leftists, drunk with their new-found power, ruled with jack-booted thuggery, destroying the lives of millions of Americans in the process.

Media Complicity and the Censorship Machine

Much of this was aided and abetted by a compliant press corps. Networks like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNBC, CNN and MSNBC rarely challenged the official narrative. Tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter throttled dissenting voices, deplatformed doctors, and labeled emerging science as “misinformation”—even when those claims were later validated. Dissent became dangerous, and speech was tightly policed.

Public trust eroded further as vaccine efficacy became increasingly unclear. The original promise of complete protection gave way to a shifting goalpost: fewer symptoms, fewer hospitalizations. And with that shift came the creeping realization that the public had been misled.

The Human Cost

The Biden administration’s mandates exacted a steep toll. Americans who dared question the prevailing orthodoxy were not only widely shamed, but often economically ruined. Many are still trying to rebuild.

Some justice is slowly being served. President Donald Trump has made efforts to reinstate military personnel discharged for refusing the vaccine, acknowledging the injustice. But these are small reparations for a crisis of trust that cut deep into the fabric of American life.

A Lesson for the Future

The pandemic response revealed the ease with which government with totalitarian leanings and media institutions could exert massive control over the lives of everyday Americans. What was marketed as “science” often functioned as mere ideology. And those who asked inconvenient questions were not engaged—they were erased.

As figures like Scott Adams reflect on their own role in enabling these draconian, Big Brother policies, a larger question remains: Will there be accountability? Who will we see being perp-walked on television for their unconstitutional betrayals of the American people? And will Americans ever again be allowed to question authority without being crushed by it?

In the end, COVID-19 may be remembered not only for the virus itself—but for the way it exposed the easy willingness of a government to seize control, and the cost of a media complex that cheered it on. The left should be held to account for everything they did to the American people, and at a minimum, should never be afforded even a modicum of trust by their victims.

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Gas Prices Plunge as Trump’s Return Spurs Energy Boom, Economic Ripple Effects

By Leave a Comment

May 15, 2025 — Washington, D.C.

In a dramatic shift from trends seen in recent years, gasoline and oil prices are tumbling across the United States, with some regions now reporting prices at nearly half of what they were on the day President Joe Biden left office. The reversal comes on the heels of former President Donald Trump’s return to the White House for a second term, ushering in sweeping changes to energy policy and geopolitical strategy.

From Boom to Bust and Back Again

During Trump’s first term (2017–2021), the United States experienced a surge in domestic energy production. The administration’s aggressive deregulatory approach and expanded drilling incentives led to historically low gasoline prices, with the national average often hovering around $2 per gallon. The U.S. briefly became a net exporter of oil and natural gas, and the term “American energy independence” became a political catchphrase.

That dynamic shifted sharply under President Biden. Prioritizing climate change mitigation, the Biden administration curtailed domestic fossil fuel production through executive orders, leasing restrictions, and support for renewable alternatives. While supporters applauded the environmental emphasis, critics pointed to rapidly rising energy costs, supply chain disruptions, and surging inflation as direct consequences.

By mid-2022, average U.S. gasoline prices had climbed above $5 per gallon in some states, driven by both policy decisions and global factors such as the war in Ukraine. These price hikes strained household budgets and increased the cost of transporting goods—one of several drivers behind persistent inflation.

A New Energy Landscape in 2025

Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump has rapidly reversed many of his predecessor’s energy policies. Executive orders reopened federal lands to oil and gas drilling, streamlined permitting processes, and greenlit major pipeline projects previously stalled or canceled.

The response from the energy sector was swift. U.S. oil output surged to record levels by May, and gasoline prices began dropping accordingly. As of this week, the national average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline stands at $2.39—down from $4.71 five months ago. In some Southern and Midwestern states, prices have dropped below $2 per gallon.

Economists note that this decline is not only easing pressure on consumers but also helping to lower transportation and manufacturing costs across industries. “Energy is the lifeblood of the economy,” said Dr. Laura Chen, an economist at the Heritage Foundation. “When fuel costs fall, virtually every sector benefits—especially food, shipping, and retail.”

Geopolitical Impacts: Strength at Home and Abroad

Trump’s assertive diplomacy is also being felt on the international stage. In a surprise visit to Saudi Arabia earlier this week, President Trump secured a new multi-nation agreement to increase oil output and stabilize prices. The deal includes cooperation from Gulf states and a tentative framework for easing tensions in the Red Sea corridor.

Analysts say the agreement not only boosts global supply but also undermines adversarial regimes that rely heavily on high oil revenues to fund aggression.

“Russia, Iran, and others use oil money to prop up their economies and fund military campaigns,” said former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman. “When energy prices fall, their ability to project power shrinks. This is economic deterrence in action.”

The economic and strategic benefits of lower oil prices are expected to continue in the months ahead. Inflation, which had remained stubborn through 2024, has already begun to decline, with the Consumer Price Index showing a 0.4% decrease in April—the first monthly drop in over two years.

The Road Ahead

While critics warn of environmental consequences and question the long-term viability of fossil fuel reliance, Trump supporters argue that renewed energy production is key to restoring economic stability and global strength.

“America is back in control of its energy future,” said the White House Press Secretary in a briefing Tuesday. “We’re putting American jobs, American security, and American families first.”

As oil rigs come back online and gas stations reflect lower prices, the political and economic narrative surrounding U.S. energy policy is once again shifting—with major implications for inflation, international stability, and everyday life.

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Economy

Elections

Foreign

Crime

Science Tech

Reader Responses