Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) grilled Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) during a contentious Capitol Hill hearing addressing the rampant fraud in his state, much of which has been tied to the Somali immigrant community.
Mace specifically asked Walz a series of questions about fraud linked to funding designated to help children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder — and the Minnesota governor, combative at times, struggled to answer some of the most basic questions about the people in his state.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Tim Walz can’t, or won’t, answer simple questions about the absolutely massive increase in Autism program spending in his state.
These numbers have been circulating publicly for some time.
This is just insane. What a fraud. <a href="https://t.co/eF2nWEL7Le">pic.twitter.com/eF2nWEL7Le</a>
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/2029225712167620779?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Mace began by asking Walz how much the state of Minnesota had spent on autism programs in 2017. Walz at first said that he did not know, and when Mace challenged him directly — asking whether he&#8217;d prepared for the hearing ahead of time — he argued that he did not know because he was not the governor in 2017.
&#8220;We&#8217;re gonna do some Minnesota math today,&#8221; Mace said, and she eventually revealed that Minnesota had spent approximately $1,000,000 on autism programs in 2017.
&#8220;How much money was spent on autism in Minnesota in 2024?&#8221; Mace asked then.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t have the number in front of me,&#8221; Walz replied. As governor I don&#8217;t —&#8221;
&#8220;Were you governor in 2024?&#8221; Mace asked.
&#8220;I was, but I&#8217;m not the —&#8221;
&#8220;Okay, so your excuse before, you didn&#8217;t know what 2017 autism numbers were because you were not governor, and today you can&#8217;t answer the numbers about 2024 as governor and you still said you prepared for this hearing today, it&#8217;s unbelievable,&#8221; Mace said. &#8220;$343,000,000 was spent in 2024. What percent increase is that, from one million to 343 million?&#8221;
&#8220;I&#8217;m not here to be your prop, go ahead and tell me,&#8221; Walz snapped.
&#8220;Are you governor of Minnesota or not?&#8221; Mace asked.
&#8220;Yes, I am,&#8221; Walz replied.
&#8220;Well, when I&#8217;m governor of South Carolina, you can sure as hell bet that I&#8217;m going to know the math,&#8221; Mace shot back, explaining that it those numbers represented a 34,200% increase.
&#8220;Do you know the number of children in Minnesota?&#8221; she asked.
&#8220;I know that Minnesota ranked as a top three state for children in the last year,&#8221; Walz said.
Mace asked what the state&#8217;s total population was, and Walz knew the answer to that question: &#8220;5.7 million.&#8221;
&#8220;What is the total population of children in Minnesota?&#8221; Mace followed up.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t have the number in front of me,&#8221; Walz said.
&#8220;Are you governor of Minnesota?&#8221; Mace repeated. &#8220;And you don&#8217;t know the number of children residing in Minnesota? &#8230; As governor, I expect you to know this information. Thank God you&#8217;re not the vice president.&#8221;

JD Vance And Tim Walz Face Off In Vice Presidential Debate In New York

‘Thank God You’re Not The Vice President’: Nancy Mace Grills Tim Walz Over Autism Funding Fraud

'Thank God You're Not The Vice President': Nancy Mace Grills Tim Walz Over Autism Funding Fraud

Fraud

Media

Nancy Mace

Politics

Somalis

Tim Walz

A Senate Armed Services Committee hearing went sideways on Wednesday when an anti-war protester and Green Party candidate attempted to disrupt the proceedings, shouting, &#8220;No one wants to fight for Israel!&#8221;
The protester, identified as Brian McGinnis, a Marine Corps veteran and Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate in North Carolina, had to be dragged from the hearing by Capitol Police — and when he grabbed onto a door to prevent them from removing him, Senator Tim Sheehy (R-MT) jumped into action as well.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 UPDATE: New video from the moments BEFORE the Sen. Sheehy intervened show the veteran aggressively resisting US Capitol Police’s attempts to remove him from the hearing following his interruption
THREE officers were treated for injuries by DC EMS, per USCP
You can also… <a href="https://t.co/nZdSHpw9dB">pic.twitter.com/nZdSHpw9dB</a>
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) <a href="https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2029346900898377897?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The initial confrontation showed McGinnis, wearing his Marine Corps dress uniform as he resisted, flailing and attempting to use his body weight against the officers who were trying to get him out of the room. When Capitol Police were finally able to get him to the door, he could be seen grabbing the door, wedging his arm between the door and the frame.
Sheehy, a retired Navy SEAL, assisted the officers in their efforts, pausing only briefly to help pry McGinnis&#8217;s hand from the door.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Senator Sheehy joined Capitol Police in lifting up and ejecting anti war protestor Brian McGinnis from a SASC subcommittee hearing. McGinnis is a Green Party candidate running for Senate in N.C. An antiwar activist filmed the video below: <a href="https://t.co/0dVA0ORWXQ">pic.twitter.com/0dVA0ORWXQ</a>
— Alan He (@alanhe) <a href="https://twitter.com/alanhe/status/2029301477341061613?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;No one wants to fight for Israel!&#8221; McGinnis shouted, apparently referencing Operation Epic Fury, the joint campaign with Israel against the Iranian regime.
Another protester could be heard shouting as Sheehy tried — with no luck — to pull McGinnis&#8217;s hand away from the door, claiming that Sheehy had broken the candidate&#8217;s hand: &#8220;A U.S. Senator just broke the hand of a Marine!&#8221;
Back on his feet, McGinnis complained that his hand was stuck, and several Capitol Police officers continued to attempt to free him from the door.
Sheehy responded to the incident in a post on X, saying, &#8220;Capitol Police were attempting to remove an unhinged protestor from the Armed Services hearing. He was fighting back. I decided to help out and deescalate the situation. This gentleman came to the Capitol looking for a confrontation, and he got one. I hope he gets the help he needs without causing further violence.&#8221;
Capitol Police also released a statement following the altercation, telling <a href="https://dailymontanan.com/2026/03/04/montana-sen-sheehy-gets-in-altercation-with-anti-war-protester/">The Daily Montanan</a>, &#8220;This afternoon, an unruly man who started to illegally protest during a hearing, put everyone in a dangerous position by violently resisting and fighting our officer’s attempts to remove him from the room.&#8221;
The statement also said that McGinnis was treated for an unspecified injury — but that three of the Capitol Police officers also had to be treated for injuries as a result of his actions.
McGinnis faces three counts of  &#8220;resisting arrest and crowding, obstructing, and incommoding for the unlawful demonstration&#8221; as well as three counts of assaulting a law enforcement officer.
&#8220;Protests are not allowed inside the Congressional Buildings. There are plenty of other spots on Capitol Grounds, outside, where demonstrations are allowed,&#8221; the statement added.

House Hearing Examines Current Readiness Of U.S. Joint Force

Watch Navy SEAL Senator Help Cops Drag Out ‘Unhinged’ Anti-War Protester

Military

Protest

Tim Sheehy

U.S. Senate

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt put a quick stop to The Independent&#8217;s Andrew Feinberg, who tried to claim that the Trump administration had not properly outlined the imminent threat posed by the Iranian regime.
Leavitt rejected &#8220;the premise of the question&#8221; out of hand, then laid out a list of Trump administration officials who had, in fact, made the case for Iran posing an imminent and ongoing threat to the United States and to American interests.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PressSec</a>: &#8220;<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a> does not make these decisions in a vacuum. This decision to launch this operation was based on a cumulative effect of various direct threats that Iran posed to the United States of America.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/hJtO1Igz5S">pic.twitter.com/hJtO1Igz5S</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2029271931598352667?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;At the top of the briefing, you listed a long list of grievances against the Iranian government going back to the takeover of the embassy in &#8217;79,&#8221; Feinberg began, listing a couple of examples. &#8220;But no one in this administration has laid out the imminent threat that was supposed to be taken care of by this &#8230; Why is it that you can&#8217;t say what the imminent threat against the U.S. was that required us to launch this?&#8221;
&#8220;I completely reject the premise of your question,&#8221; Leavitt replied. &#8220;You have had the President of the United States, the Secretary of War, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and now I am out here today to explain to you exactly what led the president to make the decision to launch Operation Epic Fury.&#8221;
But Leavitt didn&#8217;t stop there. Instead, she went on to lay out, in more detail, some of the actions taken by the Iranian regime that had spurred President Trump to action, from their previous and ongoing support of terror proxies to their persistent attempts to create nuclear weapons that could eventually threaten the American people even at home.
&#8220;President Trump does not make these decisions in a vacuum. This decision to launch this operation was based on a cumulative effect of various direct threats that Iran posed to the United States of America, and the president’s feeling based on the fact that Iran does pose an imminent and direct threat to the United States of America,&#8221; she continued.
The press secretary took her explanation a step further, noting that Trump had only resorted to military action when it was abundantly clear that negotiations were going nowhere — and once he&#8217;d determined that Iran was likely to take action against the United States, he chose to strike first and prevent it from happening.
&#8220;The president found that through these extensive, exhaustive, failed negotiations with Iran that they were hell-bent on death and destruction,&#8221; she said. &#8220;So again, the president was not going to be just another president on a very long list who sat back, and stood by, and passed the buck of this direct threat to the next administration &#8230; Again, these decisions are not made in a vacuum. They are made by the president’s feeling that Iran was going to strike the United States and our assets in the region, and he was not going to sit back and watch that happen. The determination was made that the president was going to strike first alongside Israel, and that has obviously been proven to be the right decision and an effective one at that.&#8221;

Media Briefing Held By White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt

Leavitt Rejects Premise Of ‘Imminent Threat’ Question In Fiery Defense Of Iran Strike

Leavitt Lets Reporter Have It For Questioning Iran Rationale: 'I Completely Reject The Premise'

Iran

Karoline Leavitt

Operation Epic Fury

White House

A CNN senior military analyst said on Tuesday that the demonstration of military force and precision on display in Operation Epic Fury was enough to make the political leadership in both Russia and China sit up and take notice.
Admiral James Stavridis (Ret.) joined anchor Kasie Hunt on &#8220;The Arena with Kasie Hunt,&#8221; where he argued that in addition to capturing the complete attention of global adversaries, the United States was also progressively weakening both Russia and China as it weakened Iran.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨NEW: CNN Senior Military Analyst James Stavridis🇺🇸
&#8220;If you are Xi or Putin, you have to RESPECT the military capability. What the US Military has done in the last 2 months is EXTRAORDINARY. It&#8217;ll get your attention in Beijing &amp; Moscow. Weakening Iran weakens Russia &amp; China.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/CmWMLfxtwY">pic.twitter.com/CmWMLfxtwY</a>
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonJournoDC/status/2028961128651395234?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 3, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;If you are Xi or Putin, you hate us, but you have to respect the military capability of the United States,&#8221; Stavridis explained. &#8220;And it&#8217;s Midnight Hammer, it&#8217;s the snatch-and-grab on Maduro, and now a pretty massive bombing campaign. And yeah, we&#8217;ll have some missteps and some foot faults here and there, but when you look at the span of what the U.S. military has done in the last two months, it&#8217;s pretty extraordinary, it&#8217;ll get your attention in Beijing and Moscow.&#8221;
Stavridis went on to say that he didn&#8217;t believe the United States had attacked Iran solely to demonstrate strength — although that was certainly a byproduct of the campaign — but because every hit that damages Iran also strategically weakens both Russia and China, although for different reasons.
&#8220;By weakening Iran, you are weakening Russia, you are weakening China,&#8221; he said. &#8220;China looks at Iran as a big investment opportunity. Russia looks at Iran as an arms and technology supplier. Many of the drones flying in Ukraine today were made in Iran. So there&#8217;s a geopolitical pragmatism that can affix itself to these strikes in terms of degrading both Russia and China.&#8221;
As Operation Epic Fury, undertaken alongside Israel, stretched into its fifth day, War Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that U.S. naval assets had destroyed a hefty portion of the Iranian regime&#8217;s navy — and that American forces had set their sights on cutting off access to and from Iranian airspace.

US admiral James Stavridis in Athens

CNN Military Analyst Says Operation Epic Fury Weakens China, Russia

China

Donald Trump

Global Politics

Pete Hegseth

Russia

The United States Navy employed a method not seen since World War II to sink an Iranian warship, using a torpedo to take out the regime vessel that mistakenly &#8220;thought it was safe in international waters.&#8221;
War Secretary Pete Hegseth described the scene during a Wednesday morning press briefing, sharing video of the strike and drawing another comparison to the Second World War as he said that America&#8217;s military was unequivocally &#8220;fighting to win.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://t.co/PiqQpVIrMu">https://t.co/PiqQpVIrMu</a> <a href="https://t.co/Wc1e0B0um7">pic.twitter.com/Wc1e0B0um7</a>
— Department of War 🇺🇸 (@DeptofWar) <a href="https://twitter.com/DeptofWar/status/2029193757162139762?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;An American submarine sunk an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters,&#8221; Hegseth said. &#8220;Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo — quiet death — the first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War II. Like in that war — back when we were still the War Department — we are fighting to win.&#8221;
The White House showed video of the strike, and the War Department followed with two still photos of the Iranian warship, one immediately after the torpedo strike and the other shortly afterward as it fully capsized.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://t.co/J4grAgoqxc">https://t.co/J4grAgoqxc</a> <a href="https://t.co/szOofLkh9W">pic.twitter.com/szOofLkh9W</a>
— Department of War 🇺🇸 (@DeptofWar) <a href="https://twitter.com/DeptofWar/status/2029203986314919960?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Torpedoes were used to significant effect during World War II despite a number of early issues, including some that failed to detonate and others that ran too deep — sometimes 10-15 feet below their intended targets. All told, American submarines sank more than 1,100 shipping vessels and 214 warships using the Mark-14 torpedo in the Pacific theater, all contributing to a successful blockade of the Empire of Japan.
Both President Donald Trump and Hegseth have been clear about the goals of Operation Epic Fury, the military campaign undertaken alongside Israel against the Iranian regime, and have said that hobbling the regime&#8217;s navy was one key objective.
As the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) posted days earlier, American military assets have already made great strides toward that objective, sinking several Iranian vessels in the Gulf of Oman. The Iranian regime typically used those vessels to harass international shipping lanes in the area, and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-u-s-blows-iranian-warship-out-of-the-water-erases-regime-fleet">CENTCOM</a> effectively declared on Monday that such actions would no longer be tolerated.
&#8220;Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades,&#8221; CENTCOM captioned a video of another American strike taking out an Iranian vessel. &#8220;Those days are over.&#8221;

Screenshot/WarDept

U.S. Submarine Unleashes Method Not Seen Since World War II On Iranian Target

While critics of President Donald Trump&#8217;s foreign policy push the narrative that his Iran strikes are dividing MAGA, a closer look at the data suggests that any cracks are at the surface rather than deep in the president&#8217;s Republican base.
The RealClearPolitics <a href="https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/issues/military-action-iran">Average</a> showed that overall support for Operation Epic Fury, the joint military campaign undertaken by the United States and Israel over the weekend, had the president underwater a bit with 39% approving of the action and 52% disapproving.
A breakdown of some of the individual polls showed that Republicans were united on the issue, with no one poll showing more than 18% opposing military action in Iran. The vast majority of the disapproval came from Democrats — who were also fairly united — and, to a lesser extent, independents.
A <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-trump-administration-iran-war-goals/">CBS/YouGov</a> poll taken between March 2 and March 3, for example, showed that just 10% of Democrats approved of military action in Iran and 90% disapproved. Among independents, 63% opposed the action and 37% were in favor. A majority of Republicans (85%) supported military action and just 15% did not.
A similar result came from a <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16eShJoxX7NNcoSPkAsymnz8loVbgDrC9HztvcTpS22Y/edit?gid=0#gid=0">Washington Post poll</a> taken on March 1, which showed Democrat opposition at 87% and support at 9%. On the Republican side, 81% approved and 12% did not — and independents once again fell in the middle, with 59% against military action and 28% in favor of it.
A <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2026-03/Reuters%20Ipsos%20Iran%20Airstrike%20Topline%203.1.2026.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a> survey followed the same pattern, with 5% of Democrats supporting military action in Iran and 95% against it. Republicans came out largely in favor of military action, showing 82% approving and 18% disapproving. Among independents, 67% disapproved and 29% supported the action.
The apparent outlier included in the average was a poll from <a href="https://insideradvantage.com/iran-flash-survey-top-line-tabs/">InsiderAdvantage</a> taken on February 28, but it still showed similar numbers from Republicans: 79.3% in favor and 12% opposed. The numbers for Democrats shifted slightly, with 62.5% disapproving and 32.1% approving. Independents also showed much higher numbers in favor of military action, with 45.3% supporting and 40.3% opposing.
Sentiments had been moving in Trump&#8217;s favor, if only slightly, just prior to the first strikes, however. A <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-americans-views-on-iran-prior-to-conflict/">CBS/YouGov</a> poll taken on February 24 showed 47% in favor of Trump taking military action to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and 53% opposed. Just three days later, 51% were in favor and 49% opposed.
A <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-views-divided-us-action-against-iran">Fox News poll</a> conducted between February 28 and March 2 showed overall approval and disapproval deadlocked at 50% on either side — but also showed that a majority (61%) view Iran as a national security threat.
Among Republicans, as in the other polls, the sentiment lies primarily (84%) on the side of taking military action against Iran. Among independents, support for military action was just under half, at 40% — and only 20% of Democrats were in favor.
The Fox News poll went a bit deeper as well, noting that among those who had served in the military, a majority (59%) favored the campaign against the Iranian regime and 39% opposed it.

President Trump Delivers The State Of The Union Address

MAGA Unity: Polls Show Republicans Opposed To Trump’s Iran Strikes Are Loud, Small Minority

MAGA Unity: Republicans Opposed To Trump Iran Strikes Are Loud, Small Minority

Polls

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said on Tuesday that he didn&#8217;t understand a reporter&#8217;s question comparing President Donald Trump&#8217;s recent military action in Iran with former President Barack Obama&#8217;s military action in Libya in 2011.
Jeffries took the question from Fox News congressional correspondent Bill Melugin, who referenced 2011 comments from then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). At the time, Pelosi had insisted that Obama did not need prior authorization from Congress to strike Libya, nor did he need authorization to continue military action there.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NEW: I asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) about Nancy Pelosi saying in 2011 that President Obama didn&#8217;t need Congressional approval to bomb Libya, but Dems now say President Trump needs approval to bomb Iran?
Jeffries said Iran is &#8220;very different&#8221; &amp; told me &#8220;I… <a href="https://t.co/SkLr1R5wr1">pic.twitter.com/SkLr1R5wr1</a>
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) <a href="https://twitter.com/BillMelugin_/status/2028932152126054616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 3, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;House Democrats say Trump needs that approval to bomb Iran,&#8221; Melugin said. &#8220;What&#8217;s the difference?&#8221;
&#8220;Well, obviously, Libya and the circumstances connected to that were very different than the circumstance that we face in Iran right now,&#8221; Jeffries said, adding, &#8220;I mean, I don&#8217;t even understand the genesis or basis of that question, not suggesting you&#8217;re asking it in bad faith.&#8221;
&#8220;Libya went on for seven months,&#8221; Melugin pointed out.
&#8220;But I&#8217;ve said — as I&#8217;ve indicated — first of all, I was not in Congress at the time, so we&#8217;re dealing with what we&#8217;re dealing with right now, which is a catastrophic endless war as Donald Trump has characterized it,&#8221; Jeffries claimed despite the fact that the current operation was just over 72 hours old and Trump&#8217;s initial prediction was that the mission could be accomplished in a matter of weeks.
Jeffries went on to complain that the Trump administration had acted without intelligence indicating &#8220;a preeminent attack on the United States&#8221; or American interests and claimed that if such action was necessary, it meant that the president had not been telling the truth when he said that the airstrikes last year had completely wiped out Iran&#8217;s nuclear program.
Multiple Democrats — including Jeffries — have criticized Trump for authorizing action against Iran without first consulting Congress for authorization. Secretary of State <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rubio-unloads-on-reporter-who-asks-why-trump-didnt-notify-congress-before-striking-iran">Marco Rubio</a> explained that the Gang of Eight had been informed, and then cited the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to assert that the Trump administration had done things by the book.
The War Powers Resolution states that the president can engage in military action for up to 48 hours without informing Congress, and can continue to wage war for up to 60 days — with an additional 30 days for any necessary troop drawdowns — without going to Congress for authorization. As Rubio also noted, no presidential administration — Republican or Democrat — has ever accepted the War Powers Resolution as constitutional.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) Holds News Conference

Top Dem Squirms When Obama Libya Flashback Collides With Iran Strike Outrage

Barack Obama

Hakeem Jeffries

Libya

Former President Bill Clinton visibly froze when he was asked to explain why the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein might have said that he &#8220;likes them young.&#8221;
Clinton, deposed by several members of Congress in the ongoing Epstein probe, appeared to freeze the moment the question was asked about Epstein before his attorney jumped in quickly to rephrase the question for him before he answered.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Asked about Jeffrey Epstein allegedly saying that Bill Clinton “likes them young,” Clinton denies having any interest in “young” girls.
Q: Is an intern young?
Clinton: Yes. <a href="https://t.co/0aEym00yjP">pic.twitter.com/0aEym00yjP</a>
— Decensored News (@decensorednews) <a href="https://twitter.com/decensorednews/status/2028627983649407040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 3, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Did you know one of the witnesses who testified in the Epstein cases said that you, quote, &#8216;like them young.&#8217; Why would Epstein say that about you?&#8221; Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) posed the question.
Clinton stared straight ahead, but his attorney pounced immediately: &#8220;Are you asking his opinion? Are you asking him to think about why Mr. Epstein would say something about him?&#8221;
&#8220;Correct. Why would Epstein say that about the president?&#8221; Mace pressed.
The attorney jumped into motion again, quickly reframing the question before Clinton could begin to answer, saying, &#8220;So she&#8217;s asking you to try to be in Mr. Epstein&#8217;s mind and guess at what Mr. Epstein would have thought about —&#8221;
&#8220;First of all —&#8221; Clinton began, but was cut off as Mace interrupted.
&#8220;&#8216;Clinton likes them young,&#8217; referring to girls,&#8221; she repeated.
After a long pause, Clinton tried again.
&#8220;First of all,&#8221; he said, and then paused again before adding, &#8220;That&#8217;s not true.&#8221;
&#8220;What&#8217;s not true?&#8221; Mace asked.
&#8220;That I have any interest in underage girls,&#8221; Clinton said.
&#8220;I didn&#8217;t say underage, Mr. President,&#8221; Mace interjected. &#8220;I said young.&#8221;
&#8220;That&#8217;s still not true,&#8221; Clinton said, his voice rising slightly as he pushed back from the table.
Mace&#8217;s follow-up question, clearly referencing his former intern Monica Lewinsky, also appeared to take the former president off guard: &#8220;Is an intern young?&#8221;
&#8220;Yes,&#8221; Clinton conceded, but quickly added, &#8220;At my age, anybody younger than I am is young.&#8221;
Lewinsky was just 22 and working as an intern in the White House when Clinton, then 49, began an extramarital affair with her. The affair lasted 18 months and when their relationship became a public scandal in 1998, Clinton initially denied everything.
The former president, throughout the deposition, insisted that he had never witnessed Epstein doing anything that would have led him to believe that the late convicted pedophile had ever been involved in trafficking underage girls.

Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky

WATCH: Clinton Denies He ‘Likes Them Young’ — Then Comes The Lewinsky Question

Bill Clinton

Congress

Epstein Files

Jeffrey Epstein

Sex Trafficking

The latest video from United States Central Command (CENTCOM) shows a montage of missile launches, displaying the &#8220;unrelenting overwhelming firepower&#8221; unleashed by American naval destroyers since the beginning of Operation Epic Fury over the weekend.
The United States — in conjunction with Israel — began a full-scale military operation against the Iranian regime on Saturday, and CENTCOM&#8217;s video gave a brief picture of the sheer force being exerted by American military assets abroad.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers are delivering unrelenting, overwhelming firepower from regional waters. DAY and NIGHT. <a href="https://t.co/3YTiFkFc1V">pic.twitter.com/3YTiFkFc1V</a>
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) <a href="https://twitter.com/CENTCOM/status/2028875984519205384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 3, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers are delivering unrelenting, overwhelming firepower from regional waters. DAY and NIGHT,&#8221; the caption reads. The video clocks in at just 51 seconds long, and delivers nine consecutive missile launches from U.S. Navy destroyers.
Since Operation Epic Fury launched on Saturday, CENTCOM has been keeping the world apprised of its actions via a series of videos posted to X. Just an hour prior to the video showing the missile launches, CENTCOM shared another video showing American weapons taking out Iranian mobile missile launchers.
&#8220;U.S. forces are hunting these threats down and without apology or hesitation, we are taking them out,&#8221; the caption read, in part.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The Iranian regime is using mobile launchers to indiscriminately fire missiles in an attempt to inflict maximum harm across the region. U.S. forces are hunting these threats down and without apology or hesitation, we are taking them out. <a href="https://t.co/gv1SfKCrk4">pic.twitter.com/gv1SfKCrk4</a>
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) <a href="https://twitter.com/CENTCOM/status/2028825605114904776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 3, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Another video <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-u-s-blows-iranian-warship-out-of-the-water-erases-regime-fleet">shared on Monday</a> showed United States military assets taking out Iranian ships in the Gulf of Oman — where traditionally, Iranian naval vessels would harass any ships attempting to use the international shipping lanes — and declared a quick and decisive end to Iran&#8217;s days of controlling the Gulf.
&#8220;Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over,&#8221; CENTCOM declared.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Two days ago, the Iranian regime had 11 ships in the Gulf of Oman, today they have ZERO. The Iranian regime has harassed and attacked international shipping in the Gulf of Oman for decades. Those days are over. Freedom of maritime navigation has underpinned American and global… <a href="https://t.co/nzdkMVMqZC">pic.twitter.com/nzdkMVMqZC</a>
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) <a href="https://twitter.com/CENTCOM/status/2028553001644736808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 2, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

U.S. Navy missile launch

U.S. Military Drops New Iran Strike Video — And The BOOM Looks Bigger Than Ever

Iran Airstrike

Israel

U.S. Military

World

A recently resurfaced video of then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) may be a stumbling block for Democrats who are all too eager to insist that President Donald Trump does not have the authority to take military action against Iran without first getting a permission slip from Congress.
Pelosi, after then-President Barack Obama took similar criticism for striking Libya in 2011, defended his actions and claimed that he did not need authorization from Congress before engaging in military action.
WATCH:  <iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; margin: 20px auto 5px; border: 0;" src="https://player.mux.com/00bmrRZbiCbSV002cj01Vxg8baonr00lq00a5?metadata-video-content-type=embed_video&amp;metadata-video-id=a773e5e3-aa94-43b4-a0b8-f5b391859cde&amp;metadata-video-stream-type=on-demand&amp;metadata-video-title=26-03-03%3A%20Nancy%20Pelosi%20War%20Powers&amp;poster=https%3A%2F%2Fdailywireplus-v2.imgix.net%2Fimages%2Fembedded-videos%2F36dd8fb6-3635-4b8a-a121-6c3ce0ab82af.png&amp;autoplay=false&amp;accent-color=%23DB3D3B&amp;primary-color=%23ffffff&amp;secondary-color=%23000000" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
<div style="max-width: 728px; margin: 0 auto;">
Credit: CSPAN
</div>
&#8220;Madam Speaker — Madam Leader, you&#8217;re saying that the president did not need authorization initially and still does not need any authorization from Congress on Libya?&#8221; a reporter asked her.
Pelosi replied with just one word — &#8220;Yes&#8221; — before she concluded the briefing.
But Pelosi has either forgotten her previous statements, changed her tune in the intervening years — or, because of a change in presidents — said exactly the opposite when Trump authorized Operation Epic Fury.
&#8220;President Trump’s decision to initiate military hostilities into Iran starts another unnecessary war which endangers our service members and destabilizes an already fragile region. The Constitution is clear: decisions that lead our nation into war must be authorized by Congress,&#8221; she <a href="https://x.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/2027767074118869334">claimed</a> on Saturday, as American and Israeli forces executed joint strikes against the Iranian regime.
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) offered a similar take, saying, &#8220;Trump ripped up the Iran nuclear deal and created this mess. Now, he&#8217;s putting service members in harm&#8217;s way with no clear plan and no Congressional approval. The American people deserve answers — and Congress needs to do its job.&#8221;
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said essentially the same, arguing that Trump had &#8220;single-handedly&#8221; started a full-scale war in Iran, adding, &#8220;&#8216;America first&#8217; doesn’t mean dragging the United States into another forever war built on lies while ignoring the needs of Americans here at home. The Constitution is clear: only Congress can declare war. The Senate must come back in session immediately to vote up or down on a War Powers Resolution.&#8221;
But Pelosi&#8217;s own prior defense of Obama (not to mention the War Powers Resolution of 1973) stands in direct opposition to those claims.
The War Powers Resolution, as Secretary of State <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rubio-unloads-on-reporter-who-asks-why-trump-didnt-notify-congress-before-striking-iran">Marco Rubio</a> noted on Monday, only requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours once hostilities have begun — and further allows him to wage war for 60 days, with an additional 30 days for any necessary troop drawdowns, without a vote from Congress authorizing the action.

Nancy Pelosi

Resurfaced Pelosi Clip Haunts Dems Crying Foul Over Iran Strikes

WATCH: Resurfaced Pelosi Clip Haunts Dems Crying Foul Over Iran Strikes

Secretary of State Marco Rubio fired back at reporters on Monday when they questioned him about the joint military action undertaken by the United States and Israel against the Iranian regime, asking why no one from President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration had notified Congress before the first strikes.
Rubio said that the Gang of Eight — a bipartisan group that is comprised of the eight top-ranking congressional leaders — had been informed, but said that no law compelled the administration to inform Congress writ large prior to taking action.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 BREAKING: Sec. Marco Rubio is on FIRE right now
&#8220;Why not notify Congress?!&#8221;
RUBIO: &#8220;We can&#8217;t notify 535 members of Congress. Vote on whatever they want. There&#8217;s NO law saying we have to do that.&#8221;
&#8220;We did notify the Gang of 8&#8230;NO LAW requires the president! NO presidential… <a href="https://t.co/nrtf9sWNFt">pic.twitter.com/nrtf9sWNFt</a>
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2028577390817849574?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 2, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Why not notify Congress ahead of this —?&#8221; the reporter asked.
&#8220;Well, we did,&#8221; Rubio pushed back immediately. &#8220;We notified Congress, well, we notified the Gang of Eight, we notified congressional leadership. There&#8217;s no law that says we have to do that. The law says that we have to notify them 48 hours after beginning hostilities. We&#8217;ve done that. I think the notification went today.&#8221;
&#8220;But we did notify members of Congress in advance,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;We can&#8217;t notify 535 members of Congress.&#8221;
When one reporter interrupted, arguing that Congress had to vote on a resolution declaring war, Rubio shot back, &#8220;Congress can vote on whatever they want, but there&#8217;s NO law saying we have to do that. And I&#8217;m going to say something because I see people on TV — look, that&#8217;s fine, if they want to take a War Powers vote, they can do that, they&#8217;ve done that. They&#8217;ve done that a bunch of times.&#8221;
Rubio repeated that there was no law requiring a president to take any action to notify Congress about strikes before engaging, adding, &#8220;To begin with, no presidential administration has ever accepted the War Powers Act as constitutional, not Republican presidents, not Democratic presidents. That said, we have followed the notification at 48 hours, and we&#8217;re here today.&#8221;
&#8220;I&#8217;ve done more Gang of Eight briefings than I got in four years of Biden! I was in the Gang of 8. We complied with the law and we will continue to comply with it,&#8221; he concluded.
According to the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47603">War Powers Resolution of 1973</a>, the president must inform Congress within 48 hours after taking military action or sending troops into combat or imminent combat. A president can then continue such military action for only 60 days — with an additional 30 days for troop drawdown — without a vote from Congress authorizing the continued operations.

Secretary Marco Rubio Meets With Ecuadoran Foreign Affairs Minister Gabriela Sommerfeld

Rubio Unloads On Reporter Who Asks Why Trump Didn’t ‘Notify Congress’ Before Striking Iran

Marco Rubio

War Powers Resolution

President Donald Trump said on Monday that he was accepting an invitation to appear at this year’s White House Correspondents&#8217; Dinner, adding that his appearance would certainly make the annual event the “GREATEST, HOTTEST” one to date.
Trump made the announcement via his Truth Social platform, saying that it was nice to finally see members of the usually-combative press acknowledge him as “truly one of the Greatest Presidents in the History of our Country, the G.O.A.T.”
“The White House Correspondents Association has asked me, very nicely, to be the Honoree at this year’s Dinner, a long and storied tradition since it began in 1924, under then President Calvin Coolidge,” Trump began, saying that he’d accepted in part because he wanted to be there because 2026 will be the year the United States celebrates its 250th birthday as a nation.
“It will be my Honor to accept their invitation, and work to make it the GREATEST, HOTTEST, and MOST SPECTACULAR DINNER, OF ANY KIND, EVER!” he continued.
Trump went on to explain that he only skipped the event in years past because he had been so unfairly treated by most in the press.
“Because the Press was extraordinarily bad to me, FAKE NEWS ALL, right from the beginning of my First Term, I boycotted the event, and never went as Honoree,” he said, adding, “However, I look forward to being with everyone this year. Hopefully, it will be something very Special. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”
Trump boycotted the event for the entirety of his first term as president — and the first year of his second term — largely because of his often contentious relationship with most of the legacy press.
CBS News senior White House correspondent and president of the White House Correspondents Association Weijia Jiang said that she’s glad Trump has agreed to attend the dinner.
<p class="paragraph-elevate inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph_elevate" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cmm9vaivn00113b6rt8z59tgl@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true">“For more than 100 years, the journalists of the White House Correspondents’ Association have enjoyed an evening with the president,” she said. “We’re happy the president has accepted our invitation and look forward to hosting him.”

After Five-Year Boycott, Trump Says He’ll Go To This Year’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner

White House Correspondents Association

White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Menu

Virginia Kruta