President Donald Trump said Friday night that the United States military could decide to relocate the troops that are currently stationed in Germany and move them to Poland.

The president touted his friendship with the country’s leader, President Karol Nawrocki, who assumed office last year. The Pentagon previously indicated that the U.S. would move 5,000 troops from Germany in the next six to 12 months.

“Well, Poland would like that,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “We have a great relationship with Poland. I have a great relationship with the president. I endorsed him, and he won. He came from way behind, and he won. He’s a great fighter, he’s a great guy. I like him a lot, so that’s possible.”

Germany is currently home to the largest U.S. military presence in Europe, with more than 35,000 troops currently stationed in the country, and is also viewed as crucial to the U.S.’s presence on the continent.

The United Kingdom and Italy also host over 10,000 U.S. troops each. Poland currently hosts 369 permanently assigned active-duty ​service members and about 10,000 personnel of rotational force, according to Reuters.

Just the News

Great Britain, traditionally considered the anchor of western civilization, is facing an incomprehensibly tragic fate, determined to replace its people and commit cultural suicid

Great Britain once commanded respect worldwide as the irreplaceable anchor of Western civilization. Its institutions—rooted in the Magna Carta’s covenant of liberties, the common law’s impartiality, the Enlightenment’s rational skepticism, and the parliamentary democracy that exported freedom across continents—embodied the West’s highest aspirations: individual autonomy, secular governance, equality before the law, and the unyielding defense of conscience. 

Yet these foundations are now being dismantled. In earlier times, this would have taken a military invasion or revolution. Today, however, the cultural collapse is brought about by mass migration and a demographic transformation whose consequences are as predictable as they are catastrophic. Projections confirm that the White British population, the historic carrier of Judeo-Christian values, will be reduced to minority status by 2063, with the transition arriving even sooner among the young. To be sure, this goes far beyond the exotic “diversity” celebrated by progressives in the past; it is the wholesale replacement of a tolerant, open society by an intolerant culture defined by ideological totalitarianism and systemic discrimination against women, homosexuals, and adherents of other faiths. The inevitable result will be the erasure of Britain as the West’s moral and cultural lodestar, supplanted by parallel societies, thoroughly Islamic powerhouses, governed by supremacist norms that brook no dissent.

The data are irrefutable and accelerating. A 2025 report by Professor Matthew Goodwin for the Centre for Heterodox Social Science forecasts that White Britons will fall below 50% of the national population by 2063, with those under forty crossing the threshold by 2050 and the share collapsing to roughly 33.7% by 2100. These findings echo Professor David Coleman’s 2010 Oxford study, which projected minority status by approximately 2066 under net immigration of 180,000 annually; current realities have rendered that timeline optimistic.

The 2010 University of Leeds analysis already anticipated a drop to 79% White British by 2051. The engines of this transformation are relentless: record net migration, peaking at 906,000 in 2023 and still exceeding 200,000 annually even after recent declines; fertility rates among White Britons languishing at approximately 1.39–1.54 children per woman, versus 1.97–2.03 among foreign-born residents; and the youthful demographic momentum of ethnic-minority cohorts. 

London and Birmingham have already passed the tipping point, their 2021 Census data revealing “minority White British” majorities. By century’s end, nearly half the population will be foreign-born or their immediate descendants. Accordingly, to dismiss the problem out of hand and characterize the demographic trend as “organic evolution” is an insult to the British; rather, it is “engineered displacement,” fueled by elite policies that treat borders as suggestions and native birth rates as irrelevant.

Britain’s historic role as civilizational anchor renders this shift existential. From the Glorious Revolution’s constitutional settlement to the abolition of the slave trade, from Newton’s empiricism to Mill’s marketplace of ideas, Britain forged the template for limited government, free speech, and personal dignity. These were not abstract ideals but lived realities that defeated tyranny, emancipated women, and decriminalized homosexuality. Yet the incoming demographic tide imports a culture fundamentally at odds with this inheritance. The primary vector is not abstract “ethnicity” but the rapid growth of populations from Muslim-majority regions, whose orthodox religious framework—when measured by attitudes in British Muslim communities—reveals an ideological totalitarianism that subordinates individual rights to divine command (as interpreted by imams, community leaders, and theological scholars, depending on time and place).

Polling data expose the gulf. A 2024 Henry Jackson Society survey found that only 28% of British Muslims viewed the outlawing of homosexuality as undesirable (compared with 62% of the general public), while 27% saw outlawing gay marriage as undesirable (compared to 60% of the wider public). Earlier Channel 4/ICM polling (2016) recorded 52% of British Muslims disagreeing that homosexuality should be legal. Support for sharia provisions remains stubbornly high: 23% in 2016 favored its introduction in parts of Britain, and the 2024 survey showed significant minorities endorsing compulsory halal in schools/hospitals (57%), public prayer rooms in secular institutions (66%), and legalization of polygamy (21%). These attitudes are not fringe; they reflect a worldview in which revelation trumps consent, and apostasy, blasphemy, or “insult” to the faith justifies coercion.

The cultural consequences are already manifest and will intensify as demographic weight shifts. Women face systemic subordination. Orthodox Islamic norms—evident in elevated rates of forced marriage, “honor”-based violence, and female genital mutilation within affected communities—treat female autonomy as a threat. The 2024 HJS polling revealed only 17% of British Muslims viewing a more traditional role for women as undesirable, while 39% in 2016 agreed that “wives should always obey their husbands” (Channel 4/ICM).

Rape-gang scandals, spanning Rotherham, Rochdale, and beyond, illustrate the contempt: organized networks disproportionately involving men of Pakistani Muslim heritage preyed on thousands of White working-class girls, with authorities paralyzed by fear of “racism” accusations. Recent inquiries, including Baroness Casey’s 2025 report and the Home Office’s independent panel, confirm over-representation of Asian and Pakistani-heritage suspects in group-based child sexual exploitation and explicitly probe the role of ethnicity, religion, and culture—factors long denied in the name of “multiculturalism.” Victims were branded “kuffar” (infidels), their degradation rationalized through a lens of religious entitlement. This is not isolated criminality; it is cultural entitlement enabled by demographic enclaves.

Homosexuals encounter visceral rejection. In communities where significant pluralities still regard same-sex relations as immoral or criminalizable, public spaces in Birmingham or Tower Hamlets have witnessed harassment, protests against LGBT education, and “no-go” pressures. The ideological totalitarianism increasingly extends to non-Muslims: blasphemy sensitivities stifle criticism, antisemitic incidents surge in tandem with Muslim population growth, and Christian minorities report intimidation. Parallel legal systems—sharia councils—already adjudicate family matters in ways incompatible with British equality.

As White Britons become minorities in their own cities and eventually their nation, Islamic norms will not assimilate; on the contrary, they will dominate, demanding accommodation while offering none. Schools with no White British pupils, hospitals enforcing halal norms, and political discourse paralyzed by fear of “Islamophobia” (i.e., the consequent ostracization, harassment, or assault)—the ultimate heresy from an appeasement point of view—are harbingers of a society where Western liberalism is the minority creed.

The pessimism is warranted precisely because the process is self-reinforcing. Lower native fertility, unchecked migration, and higher immigrant birth rates create a demographic momentum that no modest policy tweak can arrest. Elites, intoxicated by virtue-signaling and terrified of “far-right” labels, have presided over this transformation without democratic consent. The result is not hybrid vigor but cultural suicide: the anchor of the West—its commitment to reason, rights, and restraint—snapped in favor of a totalizing ideology that views pluralism as weakness and dissent as heresy.

By 2063, Britain will not be recognizably British. Its cathedrals may stand, but the values that built them will be relics. The tolerant society that once exported liberty will import the very intolerance that it once overcame. Demographic destiny, absent radical reversal, ensures that the eclipse is total. The light that illuminated the West will flicker out in the land of its birth, leaving a darker, more divided realm where ideological totalitarianism reigns and the discriminated—women, homosexuals, religious minorities—pay the price of elite folly. History is unlikely to record this as enrichment; it is a civilian conquest terminating a civilization.

American Thinker

In case of any doubt about Norway’s commitment to maintain – and expand – its production of gas and oil offshore, the energy minister, Terje Aasland, has a pithy response: “We will develop, not dismantle, activity on our continental shelf.”

This week, to the alarm of environmental campaigners, he announced that three gasfields off the country’s southern coast would reopen by the end of 2028 – nearly three decades after they closed – to meet a shortfall caused by the impact of the war in Ukraine and disruption to supplies from the Middle East.

The decision will help keep gas and oil production at about the 2025 level – which has been stable for almost 20 years – and stay broadly the same for the rest of this decade. Norway has 97 offshore oilfields, three of which came on stream last year, and its Norwegian Offshore Directorate expects “100 and beyond” within the next two years, still producing at least the present level of 2m barrels of oil daily.

The Barents Sea, in the high north, is the new gas and oil frontier – with the prospect of mining for seabed minerals between northern Norway and Greenland, a more distant prospect after initial surveys by the Norwegian Offshore Directorate – an agency of Aasland’s department – showed potential.

“Norwegian offshore production plays an important role in ensuring energy security in Europe,” Aasland tells the Guardian. “The world, and Europe, will have a need for oil and gas for decades to come and it is crucial that Norway continues to develop its continental shelf to remain a reliable and long-term supplier … and (with) a high level of exploration activity.”

As the birth rate continues to plummet to record lows, data shows that a significant percentage of liberals are deprioritizing the importance of marriage and having children, especially among teens. Among conservatives, however, the phenomenon does not appear to be occurring.

In an article published last week by the Institute for Family Studies (IFS), sociologists Brad Wilcox and Grant Bailey highlight how the aspirations that many liberals claim to have about marrying and having children are not lining up with their real-world behavior, which appears to be heavily influenced by negative media narratives.

They note that mainstream media outlets like Bloomberg, The New York Times, and The Washington Post have been publishing a steady stream of articles for decades that “devalue, deny, and discount the institution of marriage.”

Wilcox and Bailey further noted that current data on marriage has made it clear that the anti-marriage messaging is having an effect on the actual marriage rates of left-leaning, college-educated Americans. “No group of Americans is less likely to say marriage matters than liberals, especially the college educated,” they observe.

Among the cohort, only 30% agree that “children are better off with married parents,” according to the 2022 American Family Survey. Interestingly, less educated liberals were more supportive of the principle at 36%.

Conservatives hold strikingly different views on the question (which has been proven to be true time and again by social science data). The survey found that over nine in 10 college-educated conservatives (91%) say that children are better off with married parents, with 73% of less educated conservatives agreeing.

The proof of the importance of worldview regarding marriage is borne out in the actual data of who is married. As Wilcox and Bailey point out, “a majority of conservative men and women are married, and a majority of liberals are not,” with college-educated conservatives aged 22-40 being 50% more likely to be married than their liberal peers.

The bleak marriage picture for liberals becomes worse when considering the data on progressive teens’ views on the institution. A Monitoring the Future study found that since 2010, the percentage of liberal 12th graders who say they expect to get married has plummeted, with boys dropping 22 percentage points to 53% and girls dropping 12 points to 63%.

The outlook among conservative teens is far more positive, holding largely steady at around 83% for boys and 90% for girls over the last decade and a half.

“Despite many on the Left suggesting declines in marriage are largely a class issue, we found that political views were a stronger predictor of being married than college education,” IFS Research Fellow Grant Bailey told The Washington Stand. “Marriage rates are significantly lower among liberal adults, and left-leaning teens are increasingly disinterested in marriage.”

The grim marital outlook and the decreasing number of marriages among liberals, who encompass roughly 48% of the U.S. population, are likely a significant factor in the dwindling American birth rate. This is because the birth rate among married women (81.6 per 1,000) is considerably higher than it is for unmarried women (36.4 per 1,000).

Studies show that what liberals (and conservatives) are missing out on by eschewing marriage and children is happiness and fulfilment. Data collected in 2024 shows that just 66% of unmarried liberals aged 22-40 say they are “pretty” or “very” happy, compared to 86% of liberals who are married.

A considerable (although not as sharp) difference also exists among conservatives, with 90% of those who are married saying they are happy compared to 73% of those who are not.

Policy analysts like Leah Libresco Sargeant argue that those who are married are called to witness how married life brings meaning and purpose to a world hungering for both. “As a married woman, I think marriage is great,” she recently observed. “It shouldn’t be this ‘hard sell.’

We should approach marriage with a real sense of optimism in that we’re trying to invite people into this phase of life that is both challenging and beautiful.”

Originally published at The Washington Stand

The Obamacare marketplace is reportedly facing significant upheaval following the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies.

Cigna announced in late April that it will leave the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges in 2027, which could further shake up the individual marketplace. CVS’ Aetna ceased offering plans and overall enrollment has declined since Congress refused to renew ACA subsidies, The Hill reported.

“Medical insurance has become unbearably expensive, and this is even before a single service is used,” Jeffrey Tucker, founder and president of the Brownstone Institute, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “For many people this truly makes no [sense].”

“Crowdsourced alternatives [to the ACA] are doing well even with the legal limits,” Tucker added. “Some people with built up [Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)] who go independent drop medical insurance completely and take their chances. This is actually a rational choice.”

Tucker emphasized that some U.S. insurers are facing “extreme limits” to “leaving the [Obamacare] system now.”

In most cases, carriers who decide to exit the market elect to do so at the end of the calendar year, according to a May 1 report from Healthinsurance.org. Mid-year carrier exits have been highly uncommon in the ACA-compliant individual market.

“There are draconian mandates on business,” he explained, adding that “the exit ramps are too restrictive.” He also said Americans “desperately need universal and unlimited HSAs and we need further to break down the defined benefits mandates.”

An HSA is a type of savings account that allows people to set aside money on a pre-tax basis to pay for qualified medical expenses, according to HealthCare.gov.

A KFF survey published in March found that 80% of returning ACA Marketplace enrollees said their 2026 plan’s premiums, deductibles or coinsurance and co-pays are higher than last year, including 51% of returning enrollees who say they are now “a lot higher.”

Almost 23 million Americans get medical insurance through one of the online exchanges that operate under the ACA, according to Pew Research Center. An estimated 8% of U.S. adults under age 65 who generally worked over 20 hours per week in 2023 got their coverage in the individual market, KFF reported in September 2025.

The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare (CMS) stated in a January fact sheet that the agency is “exercising its full statutory and regulatory authority to protect consumers from unauthorized enrollment activity and safeguard the integrity” of the ACA exchanges.

“CMS is committed to a strong, stable, and competitive Marketplace that continues to deliver meaningful coverage options for millions of Americans,” an agency spokesperson told the DCNF in a statement. “Each year, the agency sees issuers expand and contract on the individual market for various reasons, and while it is concerning when any issuer decides to leave even one county, the agency continues to see strong market participation nationally.”

“Consumers in every state still have access to a range of high-quality plans, and the agency is focused on ensuring the ACA Exchanges remain a reliable pathway to affordable, comprehensive coverage,” the CMS spokesperson added.

Cigna did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment. Aetna declined to comment.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in October 2025 that 2.3 million marketplace enrollees improperly claimed the premium tax credit via intentional overstatement of income for that year.

The Department of Justice announced in February that two executives were each sentenced to 20 years in prison after being found guilty of being involved in a years-long scheme to defraud the ACA program. The Wall Street Journal editorial board asserted in December 2025 that Obamacare has become a “Mecca for fraud.”

“The ACA exchanges are not in upheaval; they are adjusting after a period of subsidy expansion and a tremendous increase in enrollment, much of it improper,” Gabrielle Minarik, program manager at the Paragon Health Institute, told the DCNF.

“Following the law’s early instability, coverage stabilized during the first Trump administration as reforms expanded consumer options and restored greater market discipline,” Minarik explained. “The 2026 debate reflects a return to the ACA’s original subsidy framework after the expiration of temporary COVID-era subsidy boosts. The enhanced subsidies distorted prices, weakened eligibility safeguards, inflated enrollment, led to widespread improper and phantom enrollment, and imposed substantial costs on taxpayers as well as people enrolled without their consent.”

In 2021, federal spending on the ACA exchanges hit $60 billion, leading to 1.6 million additional Americans obtaining private insurance coverage, according to Paragon Health Institute estimates published in October 2023. U.S. taxpayers paid an estimated $36,798 per each additional private insurance enrollee and $20,739 for each additional non-group enrollee, which was notably more than three times as much as the CBO’s original estimates, Paragon Health Institute reported.

“Some enrollment decline is expected, given the large numbers of improper and phantom enrollments,” she continued. “Republicans and the administration have responded with targeted relief options rather than even higher subsidies to insurers, underscoring a preference for sustainable reforms over fiscal dependency.”

Minarik also said she thinks “a wave of additional insurer exits from the ACA marketplace is unlikely.” She added that “further reductions in effectuated enrollment” in the individual marketplace are likely to occur “as the market returns to more normal subsidy parameters and program integrity measures take effect.”

In June 2025, CMS issued a final rule aiming to finalize “additional safeguards to protect consumers from improper enrollments and changes to their health care coverage, as well as establishes standards to ensure the integrity of the ACA Exchanges.”

A recent report from Wakely Consulting Group, a strategic consulting firm, projects that coverage in the marketplaces may plummet by up to 26% in 2026 compared to the average enrollment in 2025. Top Obamacare provider Centene disclosed in March that its enrollment had declined by over 1.5 million over just a few months, Forbes reported.

As of 2025, 93% of ACA Marketplace enrollees received some form of premium tax credit which subsidized their coverage, according to KFF.

In 2025, for enrollees who received advance premium tax credits the average monthly gross premium was $619, per KFF’s estimates. By comparison, the average monthly gross premium for a benchmark silver plan is $625 in 2026, and the average gross monthly premium for an individual’s lowest-cost bronze plan option is $456, KFF reported.

Health insurance premiums for individuals purchasing coverage on their own rose an average of 10% or more annually during the three years before ACA was enacted, according to a June 2014 Commonwealth Fund report.

Democratic Rep. Brittany Pettersen of Colorado claimed Wednesday in a X post that rising healthcare premiums in the U.S. are “added costs for families who are already struggling to cover gas, groceries, and housing.”

Republican Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri wrote in a Jan. 22 social media post that “after 15 years of a Democrat-created health system under Obamacare, [healthcare] prices have only gone up.”

Analysts previously told the DCNF that surging U.S. medical costs will likely play a pivotal part in the outcome of the November’s midterms. Healthcare currently represents almost one in every five dollars spent in the nation’s economy, KFF reported in March.

The Daily Caller

The term “bloodbath” is being thrown around to describe Labour’s position, and that sounds about right. Of course, just as important as who loses is who wins, and Nigel Farage’s right-wing, anti-immigration, anti-Islamic Reform Party dominated. In just a few years, they have gone from a small upstart, laughed at by the broader press, to being the ascendant political power in the country. Even in far-left Wales, Labour lost its grip on power.

======================================================

Alex Armstrong @Alexarmstrong BREAKING:

Labour are conceding defeat in Wales. This will be the first time in the history of the Senedd where Labour have not controlled the country. Historic. 6:46 AM · May 8, 2026 · 13.3K Views

=======================================================

Here’s a bit of Farage celebrating his victory. You’ll have to ignore the bit of cope from The New York Times reporter who penned the report. The press still doesn’t want to accept that an “anti-immigration” agenda in the UK isn’t a gimmick. It’s a legitimate issue for voters who have been inundated with unvetted Islamic migration and have paid a steep price for their leadership’s haphazard policies.

For more than a year, opinion polls have indicated that Reform U.K., the right-wing populist party, was Britain’s most popular party as its leader, Nigel Farage, imitated President Trump’s anti-immigration agenda and railed against the Labour government.

Now, it’s looking increasingly official.

In early results from a set of local elections on Thursday, Mr. Farage and his party have emerged victorious in more than 400 council seats across England. The wins have come at the expense of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party and the Conservatives, the parties who have led the country for decades.

“Labour are being wiped out by Reform in many of their most traditional areas, and what you’re going to see later on today is the Conservative Party being wiped out in their heartlands,” a beaming Mr. Farage told reporters Friday morning.

“It can’t continue to be a fluke or a protest vote,” Mr. Farage said. “I would honestly say you’re witnessing a historic shift in British politics. This is now the most national of all parties.”

So what does this all mean?

On a micro-level, a large number of municipalities across the UK will now have better governance, and that can certainly make a difference on issues like migrant crime, which has become a touchpoint for voters. On a macro-level, though, this portends very bad things for Labour. While the next national election isn’t scheduled until 2029, remember that the UK has a parliamentary system, and it’s unlikely that Starmer lasts anywhere near that long. An election will probably be called well before that, and unless something dramatic changes, it appears that a Reform-led coalition (presumably with what’s left of the Tories) will be in power soon enough.

And that’s the thing about Western politics. Once the ball gets rolling downhill, it doesn’t tend to stop until after the next national election, and the Reform ball is only picking up speed. I’m not even sure what Labour could do at this point to win back the goodwill it has lost, and lost in record time, no less. London will no doubt continue to burn itself to the ground, and as of now, it seems to just be going further left by handing seats to the progressive Green Party, but for the first time in a long time, the majority of the rest of the UK has a chance at redemption and reclaiming their country.

Unfortunately, though, it may be too late. As I’ve written before, there is a point of no return for countries that import Islamism and crack down on civil liberties, and it really feels like the UK crossed it over the last few years. Still, even a managed decline, doing what can be done to slow the bleeding, would be preferable to what they have now.

When the scale of the Medicaid fraud in Minnesota started to emerge, our first thought was that, if it’s that easy to rip off Medicaid, the North Star State can’t be the only place where it’s happening.

Turns out we were right, as the Daily Wire’s exposé of massive fraud schemes in Ohio makes clear. Which means there are almost certainly still more to be uncovered. Which leads to the question of why we are learning about this only now.

Daily Wire is releasing a five-part series that alleges massive fraud in an Ohio Medicaid program – a state that obtained a waiver so it could reimburse “home healthcare.” The idea made sense. Care at home is cheaper than in skilled nursing facilities.

But it threw open the door to fragrant abuse.

As the Daily Wire’s Luke Rosiak explains, “Ohio pays people to go to Medicaid beneficiaries’ homes to perform ‘homemaking’ and ‘chores’ like cooking and cleaning. The people performing these ‘personal services’ tasks don’t even have to be healthcare workers — and in many cases, are actually relatives of the Medicaid recipient.”

Rosiak dug into a treasure trove of Medicaid data released by DOGE and found the same thing being uncovered by independent journalists in Minnesota and in California. Obvious cases of fraud. Storefronts that don’t appear to be doing anything other than billing Medicaid. And, as it turns out, lots of immigrants are running these scams.

In the second part of his series, he reports finding 288 “home health” companies in just seven buildings in Columbus, Ohio, that collectively billed Medicaid $250 million.

So now, independent, muckraking journalists have uncovered massive child care fraud schemes in Minnesota, hospice fraud schemes in California, and a bustling “home health” care racket in Ohio.

And in each case, the governors have dismissed the allegations, claiming that their administration is aggressively rooting out fraud and that this is all just MAGA types causing trouble.

Even Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine’s initial statement – after the Daily Wire’s first article in the series was published – was dismissive of the report, saying that it “does not seem to allege any fraud in the details provided.”

One big problem with Medicaid is that, because of the way it’s financed, fraud actually pays dividends to the states, which get federal matching dollars for every dollar spent on providing Medicaid benefits. So, if the state doles out hundreds of millions of dollars to phony day care, hospice, or “home health” companies, Washington kicks in hundreds of millions, which the state can then use to pay for legitimate healthcare.

So, how many more Medicaid schemes are out there? How many schemes involve food stamps? Obamacare? Medicare?

If the journalism profession weren’t so hopelessly captured by the Democratic Party, every investigative journalist at every major news outlet in every state would be digging into to see if it’s happening in their hometowns.

But our guess is that zero are, because it would be seen as somehow helping Donald Trump.

Instead, reporters are filing stories about the “devastating,” “draconian,” and “deadly” Medicaid cuts Republicans approved as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Typical is an NPR headline from last week: “It’s Day 1 of Medicaid work requirements in Nebraska. People are worried.” The Bulwark, which is so insanely anti-Trump that it now makes the Huffington Post look sensible, cried that “Trump’s Big Medicaid Cuts Are About to Get Very Real.”

You’d think Democrats would be as adamant as anyone about rooting out fraud. After all, every dollar that goes to a con artist is a dollar that isn’t being used to help the needy.

But as we’ve said before, for today’s Democrats, fraud isn’t a bug that needs to be stamped out. It’s a feature that enriches their friends and family — and gets them reelected.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris made a recent appearance on ABC’s The View, where she stated that the 2024 presidential race was “the closest presidential race in the 21st century in terms of the outcome,” a comment that led to a rousing round of applause from the audience. It also prompted co-host Ana Navarro to say, “You know, say that again because he likes to say over and over again that he got a mandate.”

In response to Navarro, Harris said, “Well, and that’s part of why I wrote the book, because history will talk about this race. It is part of American history. And it was important to me that when history is written, that my voice be present.” The only problem with Harris’ statement is that, as usual, it isn’t true. President Donald Trump won the popular vote by 2 million votes. He also won the Electoral College vote by 86 points.

In fact, according to a report published by Fox News, the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore was far closer than the Trump and Harris race, both in terms of the popular vote and Electoral College vote. This fact was pointed out by a user on social media platform X, who shared a clip from the episode.

According to Fox, Harris, who was on the program to promote her new book, “107 Days,” which is a rehash of her failed presidential campaign, in which she also said the biggest reason she lost to Trump was due to not having enough time to campaign. “There are many factors I think that played into the outcome of that election, but I think probably one of the biggest in my mind is, we just didn’t have enough time,” she stated.

Navarro prompted Harris’ answer, stating she believed that the former vice president had the whole race sewn up going into election night, but was shocked that Trump still defeated her. “I felt so good going into Election Day, and then I read in the book that you did too. I went into Election Day thinking you were going to win,” the co-host said.

“So did you,” Navarro said, to which Harris replied, “Yeah. I did.” Navarro chimed back in, saying, “So — I mean, it was a very tight race — but, ultimately, if you have to pin it down to one thing, what was the primary reason, do you think, that you lost?” Harris then blamed her loss on only having four months to campaign after stepping in to replace former President Joe Biden.

Biden opted to step down as the Democratic Party nominee after a horrifically bad debate performance against Trump in June. Harris then told the co-hosts of the show that the whole situation was unprecedented. “And, you know, I mean, one of the reasons I wrote the book is this is unprecedented. Think about this, that there is a race for President of the United States,” she said.

“The current sitting president is running for re-election. Three-and-a-half months from the election, he decides not to run,” the former vice president continued. “The sitting vice president then takes the mantle, running against a former president of the United States who had been running for ten years — with 107 days until the election.”

The award-winning actress, who has long been an LGBTQ+ ally, returns to her iconic role of Miranda Priestly in the upcoming ‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’.

Acting royalty Meryl Streep is returning as sharp-tongued fashion editor Miranda Priestly in the upcoming The Devil Wears Prada 2, which hits cinemas worldwide next week.

During the press tour for the sequel to the 2006 film, Streep commented on the popularity of The Devil Wears Prada with the LGBTQ+ community.

“It makes me so happy! Would we have fashion without gay people?” she told Out magazine. “Forgive me, would we have anything? I wouldn’t know how to put together anything. It’s a joy to have made it with [the LGBTQ+] community in mind. Top of mind.”

She added that the new film has been well received by people from a wide variety of backgrounds, saying: “It’s cross culture. We’ve just been around the world with this. The reaction is the same in Mexico City as Tokyo, as Seoul, as Shanghai… I honestly was surprised. I really was surprised by the universality of the response and from so many different kinds of people.”

The Devil Wears Prada 2 sees Streep joined by returning cast members, including Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci.

Streep said of her cast members: “I feel so lucky to be able to come back to something we did 20 years ago. Who gets to do that? We’ve had a whole lifetime. Look at Stanley Tucci! He’s blossomed! [Emily Blunt] blossomed at birth.”

Streep has long been an LGBTQ+ ally, expressing support for the queer community on numerous occasions.

In 2004, during her Golden Globes acceptance speech for Angels in America, she spoke out in support of marriage equality, condemning then-president George W. Bush for his anti-gay marriage stance.

In 2017, the Human Rights Campaign honoured her with its Ally for Equality Award, saying she had used her voice throughout her career to support LGBTQ+ people. In her speech, she took aim at anyone threatening to disrupt the progress women, people of colour and the accomplishments of the LGBTQ+ community.

“We should not be surprised that fundamentalists, of every stripe, are exercised and fuming,” she said. “We should not be surprised that these profound changes come at a steeper cost than we originally thought. We should not be surprised that not everyone is actually cool with it.”

Streep also memorably ended her speech by saying: “There is a prohibition against the establishment of a state religion in our Constitution, and we have the right to choose with whom we live, whom we love and who and what gets to interfere with our bodies. As Americans, men, women, people, gay, straight, L, G, B, T, Q, all of us have the human right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And if you think people got mad when they thought the government was coming after their guns, wait till they come and try to take away our happiness!”

Fox News contributor Mark Thiessen joined anchor John Roberts on Thursday to discuss the latest developments in President Donald Trump’s negotiations to end the conflict in Iran, which Thiessen warned risked putting the U.S. in a weaker position.

Roberts introduced Thiessen and noted, “He’s got a new column out today in the Washington Post titled ‘Trump Risks Snatching Defeat From the Jaws of Victory.’” Roberts continued:

You’re offering the president some advice here, including on X, where you said: “Here’s what Iran sees after being warned not to. They hit UAE and fired on a U.S. ship, and we didn’t respond. Instead, we suspended the Strait of Hormuz mission. They take that as weakness. They don’t think Trump is willing to bomb them again. They think they have leverage. He needs to prove them wrong.” What would you tell him if you had the honor?

“Exactly right. So look, first of all, let’s stipulate that Donald Trump’s decision to do this operation is one of the most courageous things an American president has done in my lifetime,” Thiessen replied. Notably, the U.S. did bomb Iran shortly after the segment aired on Fox. Thiessen continued:

No other president—four presidents said Iran can’t have a bomb—Donald Trump is the only one who did anything about it. But how you start a war and how you finish a war is as important as how you started it. And right now the Iranians are not seeing that Donald Trump has all the cards. They think they have the cards. He started Project Freedom.

Said if you fire on a U.S. ship or fire on U.S. allies, I’m gonna blow you off the face of the earth. And they did exactly that—they fired at a U.S. destroyer. They fired at our allies in the UAE. And we didn’t do anything. And then Marco Rubio announced that we’re ending Operation Epic Fury, and we’re now into Project Freedom. And then the next day we suspended Project Freedom. So what the Iranians see, if you’re looking at that from an Iranian perspective, you see weakness.

You see that the president seems to not want to enforce this blockade. That you’ve got this threat of attacking Gulf oil that is stopping him, not only from restarting the war, but also from opening the Strait of Hormuz. And you think that you’ve got all the cards. Now, they don’t have all the cards because Donald Trump can start the campaign again.

We’ve got double the firepower that we had at the start of the war, and he has that cocked and ready to go. They should have none of the cards. They should know that they have no cards. But they think they have cards because we’re sending signals to them that they have cards.

“So there’s this idea of a memorandum of understanding that might lead to some sort of peace deal. Here’s what Hugh Hewitt wrote about that on X. He said, ‘This would be a terrible deal. I hope the terms of any deal would be significantly stricter. No enrichment ever. Highly enriched uranium to us, stat. No more proxies. Turn on the internet. President Trump never gives up leverage. Why would he start now with Iran on the ropes?’ And then this from Ari Fleischer: ‘This is a far cry from unconditional surrender.’ You know, there’s a certain zigzag quality to where we are in terms of decision-making,” Roberts followed up.

“So Trump is trying to get a deal, and I understand that. But the fact is, the Iranians are not going to give him a deal when they’re emboldened. They think that they are dictating the pace of play. And so he needs a reset in order to show them who’s really in charge. What I would do if I were him is I would finish what he started,” Thiessen replied, adding:

Reopen Project Freedom, open up the Strait of Hormuz, and tell the Iranians that if you fire on our Gulf allies and try to target their oil infrastructure, we’re gonna destroy your oil infrastructure. We’re gonna blow up Karg Island—which is 96% of their oil—goes through Karg Island.

If we blow up Karg Island, their economy is destroyed. And then you unleash Israel to start the combat operations again. We take care of the Strait of Hormuz operation. Israel starts targeting their leadership, their energy infrastructure, their military bases. And you finish the job. And then if they’re not willing to capitulate at that point, then you say, “Okay, we’ve accomplished our military mission, and now we’re going to have a covert op to send arms to the Iranians.”

President Trump said this week: if the Iranians get guns, they’re going to overthrow the regime. So give them the guns. Let them overthrow the regime. The problem that he faces is that all of the accomplishments that he’s had in terms of taking down their nuclear capabilities and their military capabilities are necessarily temporary if this regime remains in power. Because even if he gets a deal, as soon as he’s gone, they’re gonna break it. The only way you guarantee that these stay is if the regime is gone.