Someone on Twitter also asked me why I never criticize Trump. The answer is simple. I spent four years from 2016 to 2020 not only criticizing Trump but actively trying to bring him down. I was fully on board with Russiagate. I marched in the Women’s March. I went along with the lie that the Access Hollywood tape proved he was a sexual assaulter (though deep down I knew that was not true).

For the last ten years, there has been nothing but criticism of Trump day in and day out, 24/7, every second of every day. Do I think Trump was on Epstein Island? No, he’s already been cleared of it. If they had that kind of dirt on him, they surely would have used it. Instead, they had to try to frame him to impeach him, to vote him out. They raided Mar-a-Lago. They indicted him four times.

The reason I don’t waste my time criticizing him is that I support and vote for the Trump I know exists – the whole Trump. The good Trump, the bad Trump. The guy who says things he shouldn’t, the guy who might be in over his head with Putin. The flaws are part of the deal. This is like voting for a Great White Shark, saying, “Why don’t you care that he eats baby seals?”

Why don’t I care? Because I care more about ending “gender affirming care” and biological men playing in sports. I care about how the billionaire class has gutted America and the reliance on slave labor overseas. I like that Trump is strong enough to face all of this down and try to do something about it in the short time he has in office.

Why would I waste a second of that time criticizing him? What more can possibly be said by now? I went into my support willingly. If he did something I thought was unforgivable, I would say something. I am not in the “Trump cult.” There isn’t a “Trump cult.” Some people are fiercely loyal and protective of him because they watched him almost get shot in the head on live television. They love him but it isn’t a cult.

A cult would mean everyone takes the vaccine when Trump says to take it. That didn’t happen. A cult means everyone is commanded to obey and comply – that’s true on the Left, not the Right. A cult pushes a singular ideology everyone must believe — true on the Left, not the Right.

In the case of Musk, I think it’s personal. He feels abandoned by Trump. But more than that, he risked his whole business to help Trump win. He got very little in return for that. The Left destroyed his Tesla brand. They called him a Nazi. They burned his cars. Advertising plummeted on X. On top of that, Trump got rid of the EV mandate (I think). So yeah, he  feels burned.

But he’s still the richest man in the world. Hard to feel too sorry for him. He still crossed the line when he said Trump was in the Epstein files. He’s still a big baby who is overly sensitive and throws tantrums. I side with Trump because he is the one in power now and is in a precarious position. It’s not all about Elon.

That said, I am grateful to Elon. I have written about him a lot about him.

Daniel Greenfield

There are over 1 million foreign students in the United States. The largest group by far are Chinese students whose numbers have fluctuated between a third and a quarter of a million. These students are in America to gain training in this country, not only at top universities like Harvard, but at tech companies, before taking their knowledge and skills back to China.

Saudi Arabia, the tenth largest source of foreign students, had the single most famous foreign students of any country who didn’t win any Nobel prizes, but did successfully fly passenger planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, but didn’t quite make it to the White House.

Despite that, the Saudis continue to send tens of thousands of their students to America.

With Bangladesh in 13th place, Iran in 14th, Pakistan in 16th, Turkey in 19th and Indonesia in 22nd, a lot of foreign students come from the Muslim world and were involved in the pro-terrorist riots calling for the destruction of America, Israel and all of Western civilization.

Notably, few of America’s foreign students are westerners. No European nation even shows up in the top 10 countries for foreign students. The UK is in 15th place and France is only in the 20th. Only Canada, right across the border, is in the top 5, but accounts for only 2.6% of foreign students. Nigeria accounts for three times as many foreign students as France, Iran sends more foreign students than the UK and Pakistan far more than Spain. While most American students who study abroad go to Europe, European students are not going to America.

International students are mostly non-westerners and that’s by design. The Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, after extensive lobbying by Ivy League colleges, began bringing third world students to America to counter Communist influence. Beneficiaries included Barack Obama Sr and Shyamala Gopalan, the mother of Kamala Harris, along with other radicals, who found positions in the United States and left behind radical children who undermined America.

Whatever benefits we may gain from foreign students are more than outweighed by 8 years of Obama and by the destruction wreaked by the wayward children of other ‘international students’. And those benefits are at the heart of the debate taking place right now.

Outrage and protests followed the Trump administration’s crackdown on foreign students. America, we were told,

We are told that “international students” pay their way, but that’s not actually true.

In 2023, around 20% (or 207,788) of foreign students benefited from university subsidies, 1,684 foreign students were funded by the U.S. government and 2,351 by other domestic sponsors.

Only 56.8% of foreign students were mostly using their or family money to pay their way.

(Federal student aid is also extended to ‘refugees’, Afghans, Ukrainians, Haitians and any number of other groups seen as distressed, also victims of human trafficking, children of foreign domestic abuse victims, and anyone who spends enough time complaining about their life.)

It’s hard to track exactly how much student aid is going to foreign nationals, but it very likely outweighs the very limited impact of foreign student spending on the broader economy outside of a few college towns in Boston, D.C. and a handful of big cities in California and New York.

What is painfully clear is that the costs of foreign students, whether it’s 9/11, the Hamas campus riots, Obama administration, a hypothetical Kamala administration or Chinese intellectual property theft far outweighs whatever limited benefits they provide to anyone outside Harvard, Yale, Columbia or Georgetown. America doesn’t need international students, colleges do.

And as has been obvious for a long time: what’s good for colleges, isn’t good for America.

American taxpayers subsidized wealthy nonprofit institutions. These institutions demand an unlimited flow of foreign students to further enhance their revenues. And these foreign students, whatever tuition they pay or don’t pay, are benefiting from taxpayer-subsidized institutions.

It’s a good deal for Harvard, but it’s not a very good deal for America.

The original idea of bringing foreign students to America was that they would learn about ‘democracy’ and our way of doing things, then go back to their countries imbued with the American spirit. This hasn’t worked very often because foreign students are usually members of foreign elites, like the Obamas or Kamala’s family, who despise America. Rather than teaching the rest of the world about America, we import foreign and domestic enemies into our country.

Foreign students haven’t Americanized the world, they’ve radicalized, Islamized and terrorized America. Many of those third world students who moved here undermined America and even those who went back home, returned with an insider’s understanding of our weaknesses.

And American campuses, in their current state, are hardly likely to do anything other than radicalize foreign students and teach them to hate America. The original purpose of the foreign students programs introduced under Eisenhower and Kennedy failed even as the number of foreign students shot up from 400,000 in the 1990s to over 1 million.

Instead of making America or the world, foreign students set up Muslim Brotherhood operations, Chinese spy organizations and radical groups calling for the destruction of America.

There’s a place for foreign students in America, but the Trump administration is right to closely scrutinize Chinese students and the social media of students from Islamic terrorist states like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, while trying to cut back on the number of foreign students.

The truth is that America doesn’t need foreign students, foreign students need America..

Daniel Greenfield

The U.S. government has an interest problem.

Just how bad is it?

Really bad.

Most people intuitively understand that massive budget deficits aren’t sustainable. They recognize you can’t live indefinitely on a credit card.

Granted, it is fair to say government finance isn’t the same as personal finance, nevertheless, Joe Sixpack’s intuition is on target. Uncle Sam can’t keep borrowing and spending at the current pace forever. Eventually, the debt bubble will pop, and that moment looms closer with each passing day.

We’re starting to see warning signs.

After Moody’s downgraded the U.S. credit rating, bonds sold off, causing interest rates to spike. The 10-year Treasury yield surged to nearly 4.6 percent, and the 30-year approached a level not seen in nearly 18 years. This reflects waning demand for U.S. Treasuries.

And it makes sense. Would you loan your drunk uncle with a spending problem more money?

The slide in demand for Treasuries exacerbates a growing problem for the federal government. In simple terms, it means the government’s borrowing cost is rising. The more interest Uncle Sam has to pay, the more money has to borrow, creating an upward spiraling feedback loop.

How Much Is the Government Spending on Interest ?

Interest expense is already getting out of hand.

Interest on the national debt cost $101.7 billion in April alone. That brought the total interest expense for the fiscal year to $684.1 billion, up 9.5 percent over the same period in 2024.

So far, in fiscal 2025, the federal government has spent more on interest on the debt than it has on national defense or Medicare. The only higher spending category is Social Security.

Uncle Sam paid $1.13 trillion in interest expenses in fiscal 2024. It was the first time interest expense had ever eclipsed $1 trillion. Projections are for interest expense to break that record in fiscal 2025.

The United States has the highest debt interest payment to GDP ratio of any developed economy. It’s currently around 4.6 percent. That’s ahead of Greece at a mere 2.5 percent.

How’s that for “America First?”

The Interest Problem Is Only Going to Get Worse

Interest expense is rapidly increasing because debt that was financed when the Fed had rates pushed to zero is maturing. The federal government can’t just pay those bonds off. It must borrow more money to pay back prior borrowers. This maturing debt is being refinanced at much higher rates.

And there is a lot of debt to be refinanced coming down the pike.

There are nearly $700 billion in Treasuries on the Fed’s balance sheet alone with maturities of one year or less, and another $1.45 trillion maturing in the next five years.

In all, about a third of the public debt, totaling $9.3 trillion, will mature by the end of Q1 2026. More than $3.1 trillion set to roll over in that period was issued more than two years ago, meaning it will be refinanced at much higher rates.

Analyst Greg Weldon calls this a debt tsunami.

The projected 10-year net interest cost is $13.8 trillion. That is more than the entire national debt before 2010.

Where Is the Off-Ramp Here?

Where is the off-ramp?

There isn’t one.

This highway is going off a cliff, and we passed the last exit a long time ago.

Some people think the Federal Reserve can intervene with rate cuts and mitigate Uncle Sam’s interest problem. But the fact is, the Fed has little control over the long end of the yield curve. This was apparent when Treasury yields spiked even after the Fed cut rates last year.

That leaves one option – monetize the debt.

What does that mean?

In a word — inflation.

I’m talking about quantitative easing (QE). The Fed can ease the pressure on the bond market by buying Treasuries and holding them on its balance sheet. This “demand” pushes prices up and yields down.

In effect, QE turns Uncle Sam’s debt (Treasury notes and bonds) into cash. This enables the U.S. government to borrow more money at lower rates than it otherwise could under normal market conditions.

This is exactly how the government was able to borrow so much money during the pandemic. Between the time it launched QE in March 2020 and May 2021, the Fed purchased a staggering $2.44 trillion in U.S. government bonds. In effect, the central bank monetized more than half of the U.S. debt accrued.

No other entity bought more U.S. bonds than the Fed – not foreign investors, not U.S. banks, and not even U.S. corporations and individuals.

In effect, the Fed put its big fat thumb on the bond market.

The problem is that the Fed runs QE with money created out of thin air.

With a few keystrokes, the central bankers at the Fed transfer money that never existed until that moment to a bank or financial institution in return for securities.

The central bank then holds these assets on its balance sheet, having injected the newly created money into the banking system. The effect is to increase the money supply, incentivize borrowing, and drive interest rates lower. Banks can take this newly minted cash and make loans. This increases overall liquidity in the financial system and theoretically stimulates lending, boosting the broader economy.

Keep in mind, inflation properly defined is an increase in the money supply. So, when the Fed creates money out of thin air, it is driving inflation.

Ironically, QE also incentivizes debt, which is exactly how we got into this situation to begin with.

The overall long-term impact of QE is overwhelmingly negative. It distorts interest rates, incentivizes massive

Maharrey levels of debt, creates misallocations of economic resources, and blows up bubbles throughout the economy. Eventually, the bubbles burst, and the debt becomes unsustainable, leading to a bust.

So, yes — the national debt matters. And the proverbial chickens will come home to roost. It’s just a matter of time. They are playing a game of kick the can down the road. The question is: how long is the road?

Mike Maharrey, Enter State

The U.S. government has an interest problem.

Just how bad is it?

Really bad.

Most people intuitively understand that massive budget deficits aren’t sustainable. They recognize you can’t live indefinitely on a credit card.

Granted, it is fair to say government finance isn’t the same as personal finance, nevertheless, Joe Sixpack’s intuition is on target. Uncle Sam can’t keep borrowing and spending at the current pace forever. Eventually, the debt bubble will pop, and that moment looms closer with each passing day.

We’re starting to see warning signs.

After Moody’s downgraded the U.S. credit rating, bonds sold off, causing interest rates to spike. The 10-year Treasury yield surged to nearly 4.6 percent, and the 30-year approached a level not seen in nearly 18 years. This reflects waning demand for U.S. Treasuries.

And it makes sense. Would you loan your drunk uncle with a spending problem more money?

The slide in demand for Treasuries exacerbates a growing problem for the federal government. In simple terms, it means the government’s borrowing cost is rising. The more interest Uncle Sam has to pay, the more money has to borrow, creating an upward spiraling feedback loop.

How Much Is the Government Spending on Interest

Interest expense is already getting out of hand.

Interest on the national debt cost $101.7 billion in April alone. That brought the total interest expense for the fiscal year to $684.1 billion, up 9.5 percent over the same period in 2024.

So far, in fiscal 2025, the federal government has spent more on interest on the debt than it has on national defense or Medicare. The only higher spending category is Social Security.

Uncle Sam paid $1.13 trillion in interest expenses in fiscal 2024. It was the first time interest expense had ever eclipsed $1 trillion. Projections are for interest expense to break that record in fiscal 2025.

The United States has the highest debt interest payment to GDP ratio of any developed economy. It’s currently around 4.6 percent. That’s ahead of Greece at a mere 2.5 percent.

How’s that for “America First?”

The Interest Problem Is Only Going to Get Worse

Interest expense is rapidly increasing because debt that was financed when the Fed had rates pushed to zero is maturing. The federal government can’t just pay those bonds off. It must borrow more money to pay back prior borrowers. This maturing debt is being refinanced at much higher rates.

And there is a lot of debt to be refinanced coming down the pike.

There are nearly $700 billion in Treasuries on the Fed’s balance sheet alone with maturities of one year or less, and another $1.45 trillion maturing in the next five years.

In all, about a third of the public debt, totaling $9.3 trillion, will mature by the end of Q1 2026. More than $3.1 trillion set to roll over in that period was issued more than two years ago, meaning it will be refinanced at much higher rates.

Analyst Greg Weldon calls this a debt tsunami.

The projected 10-year net interest cost is $13.8 trillion. That is more than the entire national debt before 2010.

Where Is the Off-Ramp Here?   

Where is the off-ramp?

There isn’t one.

This highway is going off a cliff, and we passed the last exit a long time ago.

Some people think the Federal Reserve can intervene with rate cuts and

There isn’t one.

This highway is going off a cliff, and we passed the last exit a long time ago.

Some people think the Federal Reserve can intervene with rate cuts and mitigate Uncle Sam’s interest problem. But the fact is, the Fed has little control over the long end of the yield curve. This was apparent when Treasury yields spiked even after the Fed cut rates last year.

That leaves one option – monetize the debt.

What does that mean?

In a word — inflation.

I’m talking about quantitative easing (QE). The Fed can ease the pressure on the bond market by buying Treasuries and holding them on its balance sheet. This “demand” pushes prices up and yields down.

In effect, QE turns Uncle Sam’s debt (Treasury notes and bonds) into cash. This enables the U.S. government to borrow more money at lower rates than it otherwise could under normal market conditions.

This is exactly how the government was able to borrow so much money during the pandemic. Between the time it launched QE in March 2020 and May 2021, the Fed purchased a staggering $2.44 trillion in U.S. government bonds. In effect, the central bank monetized more than half of the U.S. debt accrued.

No other entity bought more U.S. bonds than the Fed – not foreign investors, not U.S. banks, and not even U.S. corporations and individuals.

In effect, the Fed put its big fat thumb on the bond market.

The problem is that the Fed runs QE with money created out of thin air.

With a few keystrokes, the central bankers at the Fed transfer money that never existed until that moment to a bank or financial institution in return for securities.

The central bank then holds these assets on its balance sheet, having injected the newly created money into the banking system. The effect is to increase the money supply, incentivize borrowing, and drive interest rates lower. Banks can take this newly minted cash and make loans. This increases overall liquidity in the financial system and theoretically stimulates lending, boosting the broader economy.

Keep in mind, inflation properly defined is an increase in the money supply. So, when the Fed creates money out of thin air, it is driving inflation.

Ironically, QE also incentivizes debt, which is exactly how we got into this situation to begin with.

The overall long-term impact of QE is overwhelmingly negative. It distorts interest rates, incentivizes massive levels of debt, creates misallocations of economic resources, and blows up bubbles throughout the economy. Eventually, the bubbles burst, and the debt becomes unsustainable, leading to a bust.

So, yes — the national debt matters. And the proverbial chickens will come home to roost. It’s just a matter of time. They are playing a game of kick the can down the road. The question is: how long is the road?

“‘For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?’” (Matthew 6:25).

For Christians to worry is to be disobedient and unfaithful to God. Nothing in our lives, internal or external, justifies our being anxious when God is our Master.

Worry is basically the sin of distrusting the promise and providence of God, and yet it is a sin Christians commit perhaps more frequently than any other. In the Greek, the tense of Jesus’ command includes the idea of stopping what is already being done. We are to stop worrying and never start again.

The English term worry comes from an old German word meaning to strangle, or to choke. That’s exactly what worry does—it’s a type of mental and emotional strangulation that probably causes more mental and physical afflictions than any other single cause.

The substance of worry is nearly always extremely small compared to the size it forms in our minds and the damage it does in our lives. It’s been said that worry is a thin stream of fear that trickles through the mind that, when encouraged, will cut a channel so wide that all other thoughts will be drained out.

If worrying is a pattern in your life—stop now. In the days to follow you’ll learn why you should trust your Father and stop worrying.

Ask Yourself

Would you categorize yourself as a worrier? If so, what do you think has driven you to choose the perceived relief of worry over the actual relief of trust in God? If not, what has tipped your heart in favor of less worry and more confidence and contentment?

From Daily Readings from the Life of Christ, Vol. 1, John MacArthur. Copyright © 2008. Used by permission of Moody Publishers, Chicago, IL 60610, http://www.moodypublishers.com.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened to block federal tax payments from his state on Friday, escalating tensions with President Donald Trump amid reports that the White House may cut federal funding to California, Breitbart reported.

“Californians pay the bills for the federal government. We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back. Maybe it’s time to cut that off, @realDonaldTrump,” Newsom posted on X Friday.

The constitutional authority of Newsom to withhold federal taxes on behalf of individuals, businesses, and other entities within the state appears not to be clearly defined.

Breitbart News reported that the Trump White House might cut federal funding to California due to its opposition to the Trump administration’s policies.

Despite a significant budget deficit and requests for federal aid — including $40 billion for fire relief — Newsom continues to challenge Trump administration policies through lawsuits, aiming for nationwide injunctions.

The administration’s potential move to withhold funding comes from broader tensions between the federal government and the state of California. The Trump administration has expressed frustration over California’s frequent legal challenges and policy defiance.

Trump threatened to cut California’s sports funding due to its opposition to a federal transgender policy.

This week, the U.S. Department of Transportation suggested reclaiming billions spent on California’s high-speed rail project.

California Democrats believe they can oppose federal policies yet still receive federal funds due to the state’s significant contributions to federal revenue. They also dismiss linking disaster aid, like wildfire relief, to political compliance.

A tax revolt led by the state could revive memories of the “nullification” doctrine advanced by some Southern states before the Civil War. Analysts have pointed out that such a move could backfire by triggering a tax revolt against the state’s sky-high taxes on Californians.

Jim Thomas ✉

Jim Thomas is a writer based in Indiana. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Political Science, a law degree from U.I.C. Law School, and has practiced law for more than 20 years.

Editor’s Note: Aren’t federal taxes paid directly from the individual to the feds ? I didn’t think the state was a middleman.  I think Newsom is walking on thin ice.  A/D

Aging billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s sprawling empire of U.S. media properties, including most notably the Wall Street Journal but also Fox News and the New York Post, have been steadily ramping up attacks on Vice President JD Vance.

The barrage on Vance, which seems to be a continuation of the Murdoch properties’ unsuccessful efforts to stop President Donald Trump from selecting Vance as his running mate last year during the 2024 presidential election, has included well more than a dozen hits in the Wall Street Journal against him and individual hits in the New York Post and Fox News as well.

The efforts from Murdoch’s properties are drawing the ire of people close to the president and vice president as well, with one source close to Vance telling Breitbart News that this is quite clearly a globalist plot to undermine the president’s agenda on peace and trade.

“Neocons have been screwing up U.S. foreign policy for decades and they’re furious that they have no foothold in this administration,” a source close to Vance told Breitbart News. “President Trump has ended Houthi terrorist attacks on U.S. ships, freed all living American hostages in Gaza and he’s forcing Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table and stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. They hate his success because it has exposed them as massive failures.”

A senior GOP political adviser added that this shows the Murdoch properties are out of step with the direction of the Republican Party.

“It’s a shame so much of the old guard media is still pushing forever wars and completely out of touch with the direction of the GOP,” the GOP adviser told Breitbart News.

Another GOP strategist with close ties to the Trump White House, added that people inside the administration and those close to it are more than happy to work with other outlets like Breitbart News instead of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal since those outlets seem to be running counter to the wishes of the electorate.

“President Trump has been the leader of the Republican Party for almost a decade, and Murdoch-media still isn’t onboard with his agenda,” the strategist said. “They’re digging their own graves and they’re going to keep losing access. There are plenty of outlets the White House can talk to, like Breitbart, who reach Republican voters and actually believe in making America great.”

Dating back to February, the Wall Street Journal has run a whopping 17 op-eds at least, and letters-to-the-editor attacking Vance—a pattern that seems to have increased in frequency in late May and early June. They attack Vance mostly on economic and foreign policy issues, showing a deep divide between the old guard of the GOP establishment and the new rising economic nationalist wing of the party that Vance quite clearly represents.

For instance, before the passing of Pope Francis, the Wall Street Journal back in mid-February ran this headline: “The Pope vs. JD Vance on Immigration.” The opinion piece, from a Canada-based priest, called for Vance—who is a Catholic convert—to ditch his principles and side with Francis against “mass deportations.” Vance, of course, has done nothing of the sort and stands arm-in-arm with Trump and his administration as they carry out immigration enforcement.

Then, a couple weeks later, the Journal began ripping Vance in a pair of pieces attacking his views on Germany where the Vice President went to call out the regime in Berlin for a lack of freedom of speech. Instead of calling out the German government for their oppressive, speech-stifling behavior toward the opposition, the Journal incredibly sides with the oppressors in a bid to rip Vance.

When that did not work in wiping out the vice president, the Murdoch-owned newspaper turned next to pressuring Vance on Ukraine. An early March letter to the editor from a Pennsylvania man amazingly attacks Vance after Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s blow-up in the Oval Office that saw Zelensky unceremoniously kicked out of the White House. This was the headline to that: “Has Vance Said Thank You to Ukraine Once?”

An Editorial Board piece from the Journal later, in late April, accuses Vance of having made what it calls the “cardinal error” of Trump’s second term by following the president’s directions in peace negotiations between the Russians and the Ukrainians and having the gall to try to understand what both sides want. The Editorial Board piece, which comes from the people who run the newspaper, points to this quote from Vance: “We’ve really tried to understand things from the perspective of both the Ukrainians and the Russians. What do Ukrainians care the most about? What do the Russians care the most about? And I think that we’ve put together a very fair proposal.”

And then the Editorial Board argues that Vance’s comment there “reveals the Administration’s cardinal error,” and pushes Trump to change course on Russia and Ukraine writing that “Mr. Trump can’t want his legacy to be handing Ukraine to Mr. Putin.”

Even more pieces from the Journal attack Vance on the Signal chat leak to The Atlantic magazine, with one Editorial Board slam on March 24 falsely arguing that Vance broke with the president in them, then another the next day on March 25 again slamming Vance falsely as having shown in the messages “contempt for allies.”

Less than two weeks later on April 4, the Wall Street Journal was at it again, this time running another letter-to-the-editor that compared Vance to assassins who plotted to successfully murder Roman emperor Julius Caesar under this headline: “Et Tu, Vice President Vance?”

An opinion piece a few days earlier accused Vance of plotting against Trump and beyond his term in office. “JD Vance Already Has an Eye on His Post-Vice Presidency,” read a headline from the opinion piece in the Journal published on April 1 written by Journal editorial page writer Barton Swaim.

Then in early May, the Editorial Board was at it yet again, writing a straight up attack on Vance on Trump’s tariffs after the vice president’s visit to a steel plant in South Carolina.

Then later in May, the Journal’s Kimberley Strassel argued that Vance criticizing Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts “Courts Trouble for Trump” and was “unhelpful to the administration.” Two days earlier, the Journal had printed an opinion piece from former Bill Clinton administration and former Al Gore and Walter Mondale campaign official William Galston attacking Vance over his arguments that the courts should be deferential to the administration on deportations. Interestingly, the article does not disclose, at least in the online version, that Galston worked for top Democrats including Clinton, Gore, and Mondale.

The Journal has also run a series of op-eds and letters-to-the-editor in recent days attacking Vance’s views on trade and markets.

In addition to the steady drumbeat of attacks from the Journal, Murdoch’s other major U.S. properties like Fox News and the New York Post have jumped on the bandwagon as well with anti-Vance attacks. For instance, Fox News ran this headline on May 21: “Will Vance remark about US bailing on Ukraine encourage Putin to sink nascent peace talks?”

The article is centered around a quote from an official with a questionable group called the “Foundation for the Defense of Democracies” criticizing Vance on his comments on the Russia-Ukraine negotiations. That very same group led a series of criticisms against Trump’s special envoy and senior adviser Steve Witkoff, who previously responded to them in a Breitbart News exclusive published earlier in May. The baseless attacks, first on Witkoff and now on Vance, seem centered on undermining Trump’s push for peace worldwide, particularly in the Middle East and in Europe.

And in the New York Post, Kimberley Strassel echoed attacks on Vance made in the Wall Street Journal over his criticisms of the U.S. Supreme Court. “JD Vance sabotages self with attack on Supreme Court,” was the headline in a May 30 New York Post column from Strassel.

All of this, of course, comes after as Breitbart News has previously reported there was a serious effort from Murdoch-owned media outlets to undermine Trump’s then-eventual decision to make Vance his running mate last year. And it also comes after a decade-long string of attacks from such outlets on Trump himself, as Breitbart News also reported earlier this year.

How this all shakes out—and whether the Journal and other Murdoch-owned properties like Fox News and the New York Post face any serious consequences—remains to be seen. But it’s clear from conversations with Breitbart News with many of them that most people around the president and vice president are not too pleased with them at the moment.

“The ongoing barrage of BS against true America First leaders to bolster Fox News’ and the Wall Street Journal’s neocon plants is getting old and tired,” a very senior well-connected source close to Trump’s family told Breitbart News. “It’s a sure way to see that true conservative leadership never happens again in this country.”

But one thing is very clear: Since these Murdoch-owned outlets failed so spectacularly to stop Trump over the last decade multiple times, this probably bodes very well for Vance’s chances long-term politically–if they are attacking him, he is probably winning and they know it.

Breitbart, Matthew Boyle

FBI Director Kash Patel says agents have recovered phones once used by Dr. Anthony Fauci during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, a discovery Patel called a “breakthrough” in the bureau’s ongoing investigation into Fauci’s role in the crisis, The Hill reported.

“We just had a great breakthrough this week on Fauci,” Patel told host Joe Rogan in Friday’s episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience.” “They had always been looking for phones and devices he used while he was back in Trump one during COVID, and nobody had found it until two days ago.”

The discovery, Patel said, could help uncover new information about how the federal government responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, he cautioned against premature conclusions.

“Everybody listening to us shouldn’t jump to the conclusion everything’s in there,” he said. “Maybe it’s deleted, maybe it’s not. But at least we found it. And at least now we can tell people that we have been looking, because it is of public importance.”

President Donald Trump and his allies have accused Fauci, the infectious disease expert who advised Trump on the COVID-19 pandemic, of misleading the public about the pandemic’s origins and the effectiveness of certain government measures. 

“We think that there was definite foul play, but my opinion is irrelevant,” Patel said. “It only matters what I can show the American people and prove.”

Patel added that the investigation must be handled carefully.

“That’s what we’re working on. That’s why I don’t run out there and say, Look, we’re gonna get this guy. We’re 100% gonna get him,” he said.

Fauci has faced mounting scrutiny from Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who last year said Fauci should be jailed over alleged ties to lab research in China. Paul and others claim Fauci’s involvement in gain-of-function research contributed to the COVID-19 outbreak and accuse him of causing “between 10 [million] and 20 million” deaths.

Fauci testified before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in 2024, maintaining that he followed available science and never covered up a potential “lab leak.” He argued government interventions saved lives, stating another million Americans may have died without them, though he admitted “how long you kept them going is debatable.”

Before leaving office, former President Joe Biden granted Fauci a sweeping presidential pardon, shielding him from prosecution for any actions related to his roles from Jan. 1, 2014, through the end of Biden’s term. The pardon drew swift condemnation from Trump.

Jim Thomas ✉

Jim Thomas is a writer based in Indiana. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Political Science, a law degree from U.I.C. Law School, and has practiced law for more than 20 years.

As President Donald Trump’s administration ramps up immigration enforcement in his second term, California Democrats are doubling down on their efforts to shield illegal aliens from federal authorities, even in places where public safety is at stake.

This week, the California State Senate passed a series of bills that critics argue would all but handcuff federal immigration agents operating in the state.

Democrats are moving to place fresh restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The legislation would ban ICE from making arrests at schools, hospitals, homeless shelters, and domestic violence shelters unless they obtain a judicial warrant — a move law enforcement leaders say will hamper their ability to detain and deport dangerous individuals.

The bills, all of which passed largely along party lines, are now headed to the Democrat-controlled State Assembly, where they are expected to sail through.

If signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom, the measures would cement California’s status as the most aggressive “sanctuary” state in the country.

Here’s a breakdown of the new bills:

SB 48 would bar ICE from entering non-public areas of schools without a warrant.

SB 81 applies similar restrictions to hospitals.

SB 841 blocks ICE access to homeless and domestic violence shelters.

While California Democrats claim these bills are about protecting vulnerable communities, opponents warn they send the message that California is a haven for illegal aliens, even those involved in serious crimes.

Critics point to recent scandals involving illegal aliens abusing sanctuary protections, including a 24-year-old man who posed as a teenager to enroll in an Ohio high school.

…

It also follows reports of abuse in Massachusetts shelters housing illegal aliens.

The move is just the latest in a long line of anti-enforcement policies pushed by California Democrats.

Just days after President Trump’s re-election, the Los Angeles City Council officially designated the city as a “sanctuary city.”

And in December, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors passed a “super sanctuary” ordinance that further limits cooperation with federal immigration officials.

Tom Homan, Trump’s former ICE director and now border czar, has warned that these “sanctuary” policies won’t stop ICE.

They’ll just force federal agents to operate more aggressively in areas that refuse to cooperate, he noted.

“If local police won’t help us, we’ll do it ourselves — but don’t complain when we’re knocking on more doors,” Homan said.

In April, Trump signed a sweeping executive order directing the Department of Justice and DHS to identify sanctuary jurisdictions and cut off federal funding where applicable.

Lawsuits are also expected to follow.

The California bills, if enacted, would also nullify key reforms Trump made to immigration enforcement immediately after taking office again.

In early 2025, his DHS scrapped the Biden-era “sensitive locations” policy that restricted ICE activity at schools, hospitals, and churches, arguing that such loopholes gave illegal migrants “nowhere to go but safe zones.”

Now, California Democrats are trying to reinstate those protections statewide, effectively turning public institutions into legal fortresses for illegal aliens, regardless of their background.

In addition to restricting ICE’s physical access, California lawmakers are pushing other bills to cut off information-sharing with the federal government.

One would block local governments from giving ICE data on street vendors, and another would prohibit public health departments from disclosing parents’ countries of birth on birth certificates.

Opponents say these laws make a mockery of immigration enforcement and elevate political posturing over public safety.

“California is choosing illegal immigrants over its own citizens,…

They’re creating a parallel legal system for people who shouldn’t even be here — and tying the hands of federal agents tasked with protecting our communities.”

The legislation represents a direct challenge to the Trump administration, which has vowed to prioritize border security and the rule of law in its second term.

Whether Governor Newsom — widely considered a potential 2028 presidential contender — signs the bills could signal just how far Democrats are willing to go in their fight against federal immigration enforcement.

Frank Bergman, Slay News

by Mike LaChance Jun. 6, 2025 9:20

A student in North Carolina just got $20,000 richer.

His school district was forced to apologize to him and make the cash payment because he was suspended for using the term ‘illegal alien.’

The left is so triggered by the topic of illegal immigration, that you can’t even use accurate language when talking about the issue without someone going crazy.

The family of a North Carolina high school student suspended for using the term “illegal alien” is slated to receive a $20,000 payment and a public apology under a proposed settlement, according to The New York Post.

The outlet reported Thursday that the settlement was reached to remove all references to racial bias from now-17-year-old Christian McGhee’s record, provide compensation and issue a public apology “for the mischaracterization of racial bias.”

“The Proposed Settlement provides C.M. with monetary compensation intended to defray the costs of his new school, which is private and charges annual tuition,” according to the document.

The teen received a three-day suspension last year after asking his teacher if a conversation in class was centered around “spaceship aliens” or “illegal aliens who need green cards” after he returned to the classroom from the restroom.

A Latino student present in the class reportedly “joked” that he was going to “kick Christian’s a–,” leading the teacher to escalate the situation to the assistant principal.

What was the school thinking?

Perhaps the person who issued the suspension should be fired.

Mike LaChance has been covering higher education and politics for Legal Insurrection since 2012. Since 2008 he has contributed work to the Gateway Pundit, Daily Caller, Breitbart, the Center for Security Policy, the Washington Free Beacon, and Ricochet. He has also written for American Lookout, Townhall, and Twitchy.