As President Trump attempted to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran, it became clearer and clearer that the deal was not possible. Trump was never going to sign a JCPOA 2.0. deal.
Some people on the Right were complaining that President Trump wasn&#8217;t acting like Barack Obama. But it was never a MAGA position to be Barack Obama. Donald Trump said for ten years that the JCPOA was the worst deal in American history. He was never going back to it.
As new details emerge as the levels of coordination and talking between the United States and Israel over this current wave of attacks, it is clear that President Trump was actually playing 4D chess with all of this.
He put Iran in a box to keep them there and allow for the possibility of Israel to destroy their nuclear facilities and large swaths of their military capability, with no risk to American troops.
The president was asked by the Wall Street Journal about whether he was given a heads-up by the Israeli government. He replied, “Heads-up? It wasn&#8217;t a heads-up. It was, ‘We know what&#8217;s going on.’”
President Trump is being very clear about this. It appears the United States was not just read in on the operation. Think of the extent to which this was a 4D chess plan, in which the appearance of negotiations with Steve Witkoff was actively put forward by the United States in order to sucker the Iranians into going to sleep after it was clear that the Iranians were not making a deal.
It&#8217;s quite plausible that the United States was involved in a disinformation operation targeted directly at the Iranian government.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2217?elementPosition=1&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
In any case, tactical surprise was not only achieved, it was achieved in historic fashion. And that looks a lot like 4D chess with plausible deniability from the United States. That&#8217;s what it looks like from the outside and from all of the information that&#8217;s being released, including from President Trump.
On Friday morning, President Trump put out a series of statements. He <a href="https://x.com/jonkarl/status/1933483871422632218">told</a> Jon Karl of ABC:
<blockquote>I think it&#8217;s been excellent. We gave them a chance. And they didn&#8217;t take it. They got hit hard, very hard. They got hit about as hard as you&#8217;re going to get hit. And there is more to come, a lot more.</blockquote>
President Trump&#8217;s <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114675456780398208">first statement</a> came last night:
<blockquote>I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to “just do it,” but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn’t get it done. I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come &#8211; And they know how to use it. Certain Iranian hardliners spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!</blockquote>
Remember peace through strength? This is what it looks like. This is what Trump&#8217;s foreign policy looks like. It&#8217;s what it&#8217;s always looked like. Anyone who is surprised by this has been ignoring what President Trump has been saying and doing for his entire time as president of the United States.
<blockquote>There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. God Bless You All!</blockquote>
President Trump&#8217;s first response to the Israeli attack was:
<blockquote>Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb. We hope to return to the negotiating table. We&#8217;ll see. There are some people in the leadership who won&#8217;t return.</blockquote>
Yup.
Trump said <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114675841423085927">this morning:</a>
<blockquote>Two months ago I gave Iran a 60 day ultimatum to ‘make a deal.’ They should have done it! Today is day 61. I told them what to do, but they just couldn’t get there. Now they have, perhaps, a second chance!</blockquote>
What Iran should do, if they had any brains at all, would be to come to President Trump on bended knee and beg him, beg him to let them give up their nuclear program in exchange for the ayatollahs remaining alive and the regime not being threatened and the elimination of sanctions. The Iranian regime does not have any forward operating capacity. They just don&#8217;t.
President Trump has made it clear over and over and over that Iran could have stopped this at any time. All they had to do was say, “Fine, no nuclear program,” and that would have been the end of it. Instead, they decided they were going to keep pushing and keep pushing and keep pushing.
And President Trump played this absolutely perfectly. Israel acted alone. Israel acted with its own capacity. Israel is doing this by itself. And the United States is saying, “Listen, Israel is our ally. Our interests and the Israeli interests align on Iran not having a nuclear weapon. But this is Israel&#8217;s fight predominantly and foremost. And Israel is an independent country making its own decisions.”
And this is what really matters here. Israel is saying to the entire region that if you screw with Israel, these will be the consequences.
And Donald Trump, the most supportive American president Israel has ever known, had their back.

TOPSHOT-US-JORDAN-DIPLOMACY-TRUMP-ABDULLAH II

The 4D Chess Of President Trump

Air Force

Ben Shapiro

Benjamin Netanyahu

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Iran

Iran Nuclear Deal

Israel

Middle East

Opinion

President Trump

Dying civilizations reveal themselves in familiar ways. Faith is abandoned, culture is drained of meaning, and the will to defend the home is eroded. But there are two unmistakable signs that a civilization is in mortal danger: when its people cease to build families — and when it tolerates invasion without resistance.
In 2006, Pat Buchanan raised a warning to the American people: “We are entered upon the final act of our civilization. The last scene is the deconstruction of the nations. The penultimate scene, now well underway, is the invasion unresisted.”
What the American people are witnessing in Los Angeles is that penultimate scene. Flying the flags of foreign lands, the barbarians have stormed the gates. They bear no loyalty to America, no reverence for her inheritance, and no desire to become part of her family.
Millions of deportable aliens fill American cities and hold American jobs, but they are strangers in our midst. Not because sanctuary cities like Los Angeles have failed to welcome them, but because they intend to tear down the permanent things that make this nation worth belonging to.
The Republic has been invaded. We need mass deportations. Not someday. Now.
Mass deportations are fiscally responsible, morally just, and <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-trump-deportation-program-nets-positive-approval-contrasting-views-on-scope/ar-AA1GjePH?ocid=BingNewsSerp">politically popular</a>. Flying someone safely home is possibly the most merciful consequence for violating our laws. Mass deportation is not extreme — it is the moderate, moral alternative to chaos that any serious nation would take to defend its borders. And while some might criticize the amount of funding that this endeavor requires, you can’t put a price on the safety and well-being of the American people.
Approximately <a href="https://www.fairus.org/issue/how-many-illegal-aliens-are-united-states-2025-update">18.6 million</a> illegal aliens reside in the United States. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a backlog of more than nine million pending immigration benefit applications. Another 3.5 million cases are backlogged in the DOJ immigration court system. To restore our immigration system (both legal and illegal), we should <a href="https://static.heritage.org/-2025/NewAmericanImmigration_Booklet.pdf?_gl=1*tgx60l*_gcl_au*Nzg2MzEyMDc1LjE3NDIzMTI3MjU.*_ga*MTgxNTg1ODk1MS4xNzM0NDUwMTI4*_ga_W14BT6YQ87*czE3NDk1MjMzMzckbzE0MCRnMSR0MTc0OTUyMzM0MSRqNTYkbDAkaDA.">pause intake</a> of additional applications, including employment authorization documents. In the meantime, the administration can work to remove all deportable aliens between now and January 19, 2029.
This will take both resources and courage — but the American people support the goal. Six months into the Trump administration, the President’s <a href="https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1932107479976128956">approval rating</a> on immigration is “surging like a rocket,” according to CNN.
Now, Congress must act — and pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with urgency.
The President of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, is <a href="https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1931834653889134879">calling for protests</a> in the United States and threatening mobilizations over a minuscule 3.5% tax on remittances. In response to such threats, Congress should use reconciliation to increase the remittance tax to at least 15% — as Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) has rightfully <a href="https://x.com/Eric_Schmitt/status/1931880241188024476">proposed</a>. It is immoral for foreigners to break our laws, only to then wire dollars that ultimately fund the regimes and networks undermining us.
Congress must also do its job and deliver all the resources necessary to enforce our laws and restore order: expanded ICE funding for detention beds, agents, transportation, and legal support; the permanent codification of President Trump’s proven border policies; and the end of legal gamesmanship that allows illegal aliens to exploit endless appeals and paralyze the system.
Deportable aliens who are put into removal proceedings should not be granted endless chances to delay justice. They previously had due process opportunities to apply for a visa or refugee protection to lawfully enter the U.S. and, once in the U.S., to seek a lawful benefit, including asylum, with DHS. Once an alien is in removal proceedings, the only question should be: is the alien deportable as charged?
The days of surrendering our sovereignty to process lawyers and activist judges must end.
We must institute mandatory E-Verify. No work permits should be granted unless — and until — an immigration benefit has been lawfully approved. Simply filing an application must not become a backdoor pass to employment in the United States. The rule must be simple: no approval, no work.
Asylum fraud is the Trojan horse of the current crisis. We must close it.
And we must <a href="https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment">end</a> universal birthright citizenship and chain migration. Only the children of American citizens should have automatic birthright citizenship. And family-based immigration means nuclear family only. Gone will be the days of migration chains that allow aliens, not Americans, to decide who comes here permanently.
Mass deportations are necessary not only to bring back law and order and protect the working class, but also to restore the full political rights of every American. While the Trump administration has rightfully prioritized the deportations of violent criminals, mass deportations require extending far beyond that. Allowing any illegal alien to stay not only erodes law and order but undermines the blessings of American citizenship — especially for those in deep-blue states.
The American people are ready. The President is ready. Now Congress must be ready.
We will not witness the end of the American Republic — unless we choose to.
* * *
Kevin Roberts, Ph.D., is president of The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action for America.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Protests Erupt In L.A. County Sparked By Federal Immigration Raids

Why America Needs Mass Deportations Now

Congress

Department of Homeland Security

Deportations

Heritage Foundation

illegal alien

Illegal Immigation

Los Angeles

Riots

In April, President Trump imposed global reciprocal tariffs on the United States’ trading partners, invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, to address the national <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/">emergency</a> posed by the large and persistent trade deficit” driven by the lack of reciprocity in the country’s trade relationship.
President Trump also wanted to see jobs and factories come “<a href="https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/trump-wants-us-to-make-things-again-but-is-it-ready-for-the-challenge-125060400675_1.html">roaring back</a>” to the United States.
The idea that the United States can become a manufacturing powerhouse is an attractive one, to politicians on both sides of the aisle. After all, who would not be in favor of economic revitalization, new jobs, improved security, and economic independence? However, America’s ability to establish manufacturing dominance faces insurmountable challenges… unless we are smart about the industries we “bring home.”
Historically, the United States has never been a true manufacturing superpower.
Manufacturing employment in the United States peaked in 1979, with nearly 20 million workers employed in the “manufacturing sector.” Over the next four decades, manufacturing entered a structural decline, and the United States transitioned to a service-oriented economy. By 2020, “the <a href="https://www.blackrock.com/us/financial-professionals/insights/exploring-us-manufacturing#:~:text=In%201979%2C%20U.S.%20employment%20in,a%20more%20service%2Doriented%20economy.">service</a> sector dominated the economy,” accounting for 79% of the nation&#8217;s Gross Domestic Product, up from 52% in 1950, and represented 80% of the nation’s total employment. In 2025, fewer than 13 million <a href="https://nam.org/mfgdata/facts-about-manufacturing-expanded/">workers</a> were in the manufacturing sector.
The challenges for the United States to become a manufacturing superpower are many and complex.
First, the country simply does not have the labor pool to do so. The <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/04/adp-jobs-report-may-2025-.html">unemployment</a> rate in May 2025, the latest data available, was approximately 4.2%, near full employment.
The labor <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/widget">participation</a> rate is running at 62.6%, which is well below the 67+ percent <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/191734/us-civilian-labor-force-participation-rate-since-1990/">rate</a> seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but not low enough to indicate there is a bench of workers waiting to enter the job market and join the manufacturing sector.
In addition, our labor force is one of the highest-paid in the world. In the United States, the average hourly <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t24.htm">wage</a> of a “nonsupervisory manufacturing employee” is approximately $28.80. In 2020, that wage was approximately $6.50 per hour in <a href="https://www.china-briefing.com/news/reshoring-from-china-to-mexico-how-prevalent-is-it-really/#:~:text=The%20hourly%20wage%20for%20manufacturing,over%2012%20percent%20from%202019.">China</a> and $4.82 in Mexico. In <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/744071/manufacturing-labor-costs-per-hour-china-vietnam-mexico/#:~:text=A%20difference%20in%20earnings,and%20Vietnam%20for%20cheaper%20labor.&amp;text=Log%20in%20or%20register%20to%20access%20precise%20data.">Vietnam</a>, the average hourly wage in manufacturing is $3.10.
We simply do not have the workers to compete with less developed nations, and those we do have make too much money to make America competitive with them.
The only answer would be to open our borders and import foreign workers to fill manufacturing openings at suppressed wages. This is something that President Trump rightly opposes, as it would change the make-up of the United States, to the detriment of our national identity.
So, what are we to do?
The United States can reshore its manufacturing, but must do so on a limited, prioritized basis. We should not care where our tennis shoes, blue jeans, or T-shirts are manufactured. Those industries hold no vital interest to the United States.
However, we should prioritize the reshoring of industries such as pharmaceuticals, computer chips, drones, and food additives.
“Approximately 40% of finished pharmaceutical products and 80% of active drug ingredients sold in the U.S. are manufactured overseas, <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-262t">according to a report by the GAO</a>. This includes a significant portion of generic drugs, with roughly 80% being produced overseas.”
China controls 80% of the <a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/a-global-strategy-to-secure-uas-supply-chains/">drone</a> market in the United States.
83% of <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/strategy-united-states-regain-its-position-semiconductor-manufacturing#:~:text=And%20as%20to%20semiconductors%2C%2083,capacity%20is%20now%208%20percent.">semiconductors</a> are manufactured outside of the United States.
As a free market capitalist, I do not like the government picking “winning industries,” but there is a national security aspect to consider, and President Trump is doing this.
The <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/pulling-billions-from-harvard-fund-trade-schools-heres-what-people-saying-about-trumps-latest-move">president</a> recently floated the idea of taking the $2.2 billion in frozen assets from Harvard University and using that money to fund trade schools, where people could learn to support the manufacturing that is in the nation’s vital and national interests.
At the end of the day, the United States will never become a manufacturing superpower. Our cost structure and standard of living are simply too high… and that is a good problem to have.
However, we must focus on reshoring those industries that are vital to our national defense and our national interests. With the right focus and incentives, we can quickly achieve this strategic goal and free ourselves from our competitors’ supply chain whims.
* * *
Jim Nelles is a Navy veteran and supply chain consultant based in Chicago. His articles have appeared in the Washington Examiner, Newsweek, Foxnews.com, and The Daily Wire. He has served as a chief procurement officer, chief supply chain officer, and chief operations officer for multiple companies.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>

Inside A General Motors Assembly Plant Ahead Of Earnings Figures

‘Roaring Back’: Here’s How To Reshore Manufacturing The Right Way

'Roaring Back': Here’s How To Reshore Manufacturing The Right Way

Auto workers

China

Free Trade

Labor Unions

Steel workers

Supply Chain

Tariffs

Unemployment

Wages

The most radical thing Washington can do right now is stop spending. President Trump’s proposed $9.4 billion rescissions package won’t accomplish that on its own, but it at least, finally, moves us in the right direction.
For decades, members of both parties have treated spending growth as a measure of success. The assumption has been that government must grow, and that any program, once funded, must be permanent. That mindset has left us with a bloated federal bureaucracy that has replaced free-market policy and individual freedom with centralized control and pushed the country to <a href="https://www.usdebtclock.org/">nearly $37 trillion in debt</a>.
Still, most sitting lawmakers have never voted to cut a single dollar of federal spending. This package gives them that chance. More than that, it gives them an opening to start restoring the habits of a functioning legislature.
It’s also the first time the Department of Government Efficiency has had its work put into legislative form. Elon Musk built and led DOGE under the simple premise to stop wasting taxpayer money. Musk has since returned to the private sector, but he and the president have made clear that the mission remains. The rescissions package, which would codify spending cuts proposed by DOGE, reflects that mission. It targets corrupt USAID programs, taxpayer subsidies for ideologically biased public broadcasters NPR and PBS, and other programs that fail even a basic test of necessity in a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/05/02/us/trump-budget-2026">$1.7 trillion discretionary budget</a>.
Fiscal conservatives, especially those complaining this package doesn’t go far enough, should not let the perfect be the enemy of the essential. Fiscal discipline, like any discipline, requires a starting point. You don’t run a marathon by starting with 20 miles, you start with one. This bill is that first mile.
Congress should treat it as such: start small, bank the win, and keep cutting wherever the rules allow. That means more rescissions, which require only a simple majority to pass. It also means using the appropriations process and, when necessary, continuing resolutions, to keep pushing the issue. Not every tool requires a supermajority, but even the ones that do are worth using to force the debate. Progress in this fight can come steadily if congressional Republicans stay united and focused.
It also means that if passed, this package should be the first of a longer series of cuts. Each one can go further, targeting programs that stray from constitutional purpose or national interest. Repetition in this case can build momentum and credibility.
It can also build legislative muscle memory. Too many lawmakers now assume the only way forward is through bipartisan overspending. A successful rescission would challenge that assumption. It would remind Congress that not every federal dollar is sacred and that cutting even a fraction of the budget is still possible with political will.
Moreover, follow-through matters just as much as passage. House and Senate Republicans must ensure these cuts aren’t restored elsewhere. Cuts that DOGE has made or proposed shouldn’t be backfilled through continuing resolutions or omnibus bills, especially those that are widely popular across America. What gets cut should stay cut. The goal is a permanent shift in direction.
DOGE’s broader purpose has always been to realign government toward greater efficiency and accountability. That vision reflects a basic expectation of public service – that government should function effectively, that leaders should make responsible decisions rather than defer them, and that taxpayers should have confidence their money is being used with care, not lost to inefficiency or corruption.
Congressional Republicans should also keep in mind that a win here sets the tone for the 2026 midterm elections. It signals that the Trump administration’s second-term agenda, as well as the party’s broader movement, is not just about executive action but real, legislative reform. Therefore, they should view these cuts not as the finish line, but as the starting point.
The stakes are about whether the federal government serves the American people or the other way around; whether Congress retains the capacity to exercise restraint, or whether inertia has become the default; and whether a new generation of lawmakers can relearn the forgotten skill of saying no.
This rescissions bill offers the chance to begin answering those questions. Conservatives should take it, and then keep going.
* * *
Paul Teller is the Executive Vice President of Advancing American Freedom.
John Shelton is a policy director for Advancing American Freedom. 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

House Republicans

Why The First Spending Cut Is Worth Making

DOGE

Elon Musk

National Debt

Republicans

Spending Bill

Taxes

U.S. House of Representatives

USAID

Americans have waited long enough, and now real relief from sky-high prescription drug prices is finally here. Recently, President Donald J. Trump signed a landmark Executive Order to end the decades-long injustice that has forced American families — especially Hispanic households — to pay more for lifesaving medications than almost anyone else in the world.
Hispanics, who are more likely to be uninsured or underinsured compared to other groups, are disproportionately burdened by high out-of-pocket prescription costs. In fact, according to the CDC, nearly one in four Hispanic adults report not taking prescribed medications due to cost, compared to just 13% of non-Hispanic White adults. This Executive Order directly addresses that disparity by demanding lower drug prices and making medications more affordable and accessible for millions of working families across the country.
This bold order reaffirms the President’s unwavering commitment to putting American patients first by stopping foreign free-riding, crushing the stranglehold of pharmaceutical middlemen, and bringing fairness back to a rigged system.
Under President Trump’s leadership, America is no longer the world’s piggy bank for pharmaceutical giants and socialized healthcare systems abroad. This Executive Order directs the U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Commerce to hold foreign nations accountable for the unfair practices that underpay for prescription drugs and undermine lifesaving drug development. In essence, Americans — who fund the bulk of pharmaceutical innovation through our taxpayer dollars and higher prices — have been subsidizing socialism abroad. No more.
For many Americans across the U.S., especially those economically impacted by high healthcare costs, this Executive Order is a game changer. Families working long hours, often balancing multiple jobs, should not have to choose between buying insulin for their children or groceries for the week. President Trump’s directive ensures that low-income patients, seniors, and working-class Americans will now have direct access to the same steep discounts that pharmaceutical companies give to patients overseas through government-negotiated prices.
That means bypassing the costly middlemen and securing medicines at “most-favored-nation” prices that reflect the best deal given to any other country in the world. If drug manufacturers refuse, the Order empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to act decisively: impose these pricing standards through regulation and take additional aggressive steps to drive costs down. This is what America First leadership looks like.
Let’s not forget: President Trump has been down this road before. In his first term, he introduced bold reforms to ensure that Medicare would no longer overpay pharmaceutical companies — specifically, by requiring that prices for Medicare-covered drugs be no higher than those paid in comparable countries. These common-sense measures were rescinded by the Biden-Harris Administration before they could take effect. The result? A so-called “victory” for Medicare that actually left American taxpayers and seniors paying an average of 78% more for prescription drugs than patients in eleven other advanced nations. That’s not a win — it’s a disgrace.
Now, in his second term, President Trump is finishing what he started. This new action builds upon earlier victories, including transparency in hospital pricing, the push for generics and biosimilars, and expanded drug importation options. These initiatives are part of a comprehensive, America First healthcare agenda focused not on enriching bureaucracy, but on empowering patients.
For those disproportionately affected by chronic conditions like diabetes, hypertension, and asthma, this move provides tangible economic relief. It ensures families can access the medicine they need to stay healthy. It means hardworking Americans can afford care without risking financial ruin. And it signals that forgotten communities are no longer overlooked — they are being heard and prioritized.
We should also be clear: this isn&#8217;t just good policy. It’s great politics. President Trump is showing the American people that he’s not afraid to stand up to entrenched interests to deliver real results. He’s not beholden to Big Pharma, nor is he willing to play nice with foreign governments who exploit our generosity while we suffer at home.
In an era where politicians too often offer empty promises and soaring rhetoric, President Trump delivers. His commitment to reforming healthcare pricing is not just about economics—it’s about justice. And make no mistake: justice is exactly what millions of Americans, especially those in underserved communities, have been demanding for years.
President Trump said it best: “Our citizens pay massively higher prices than other nations pay for the same exact pill, from the same factory.” That ends now.
This is more than an Executive Order. It’s a promise fulfilled, a burden lifted, and another bold move in President Trump’s mission to restore prosperity, fairness, and dignity to the American people.
* * *
Bobby Jindal is the former Governor of Louisiana and Chair of the Center for a Healthy America at America First Policy Institute.
Jorge Martinez is National Director for Hispanic Outreach for America First Policy Institute. He previously served as press secretary for the U.S. Department of Justice.

Trump Vows US Drug Price Cuts Of Up To 80% In Industry Blow

Trump’s Bold Move To Lower Drug Prices Puts Americans First, Not Big Pharma

Trump's Bold Move To Lower Drug Prices Puts Americans First, Not Big Pharma

Big Pharma

Pharmaceuticals

Prescription Drugs

Trump Administration

White House

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP-MEMORIAL DAY

The Russia Hoax Was Just The Beginning: The Left’s Plan To Undermine Trump’s Second Term

The Russia Hoax Was Just The Beginning: The Left's Plan To Undermine Trump’s Second Term

Democrats

Donald Trump

James Clapper

John Durham

Judges

Leftists

Peter Strzok

Robert Mueller

Russiagate

We&#8217;ve been trending in this direction for some time now, but after yesterday&#8217;s ruling by a three-judge panel on the United States Court of International Trade in Manhattan — which struck down all of the Trump administration&#8217;s tariffs — it&#8217;s now official: We don&#8217;t need any more rulings from federal judges about what the president of the United States isn&#8217;t allowed to do. Those are completely pointless. Instead, what we need, in our alleged first-world democracy, is a ruling from some federal court explaining, in as much detail as possible, what exactly the president of the United States does have the authority to do while in office. That would be the most efficient way forward, at this point.
In just the past five months, federal courts have held that the Trump administration has no authority to do the following:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Change federal government websites</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Fire any Executive Branch employees</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ban mentally disturbed individuals from joining the armed forces </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eliminate slush funds for corrupt NGOs</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stop funneling billions of dollars of taxpayer money to anti-white universities like Harvard</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eliminate wasteful &#8220;administrative spending&#8221; that&#8217;s tacked onto every single scientific grant</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Deport illegal alien gang members — even the wife-beaters and terrorists</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Cut federal funding to child castration services for children</li>
</ul>
And now, after all of these rulings and dozens more like them, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/worlds-stock-markets-react-to-court-ruling-against-trumps-tariffs?author=Hank+Berrien&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=11&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=World%E2%80%99s+Stock+Markets+React+To+Court+Ruling+Against+Trump%E2%80%99s+Tariffs">we heard last night</a> from the U.S. Court of International Trade that the president of the United States also does not have the power to impose emergency tariffs on foreign nations. Before we go into the details about this ruling and the problems I have with it, there&#8217;s a very important point that needs to be made here, which is this: Even if you think tariffs are a terrible idea — and really even if you believe that the Court of International Trade made the right ruling in this particular case — you simply cannot deny that the judicial system in this country, because of its own overzealousness, has never been less legitimate than it is right now.
The sheer number of injunctions that have been issued, blocking every single agenda item that the democratically elected president has attempted to execute, is unprecedented in the history of the United States. We&#8217;re in comical, “jump-the-shark” territory. And that&#8217;s a very, very big deal, because courts don&#8217;t have militaries. They can&#8217;t enforce their own rulings. When they lose legitimacy, they lose everything. And with this latest ruling, on top of all the other rulings, legitimacy is long gone.
So who does have legitimacy? Where does legitimacy come from? For judges, legitimacy comes from restraint and consistency, and adherence to the law. For presidents, it comes from democratic elections. It comes from campaigning, and openly telling voters what you plan to do, if and when you&#8217;re elected. And with that in mind, you will not find a single person — even the most deranged anchor on MSNBC — who will disagree with this statement: Donald Trump explicitly campaigned on imposing massive tariffs on foreign nations in order to return manufacturing to the United States. That was always a core plank of his domestic agenda. That doesn&#8217;t mean you have to agree with him. You can feel however you want about tariffs. But it does mean that Trump&#8217;s plan was put to a vote. And the American people decided that Donald Trump&#8217;s economic agenda was the best way forward. That&#8217;s legitimacy. If that&#8217;s not legitimacy, then legitimacy has no meaning. And neither does democracy.
Again, even on MSNBC, they concede this point. Last night, as he was celebrating this court decision, the perpetually unhinged Lawrence O&#8217;Donnell admitted that Trump&#8217;s entire campaign was about tariffs. He says he was talking about tariffs the whole time — and he blames the &#8220;campaign press&#8221; for not talking about tariffs enough. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 unconstitutional Tariffs" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O-_kzh1ORhE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The point of this little diatribe from Lawrence O&#8217;Donnell is to suggest that, if only the &#8220;campaign press&#8221; had covered Trump&#8217;s tariffs a little bit more, then the voters would have rejected his entire candidacy. This is a very familiar tactic on the Left. They did the same thing with Russiagate. They claimed that, if only people knew that the Russian government had spent $100,000 on Facebook memes back in 2016, then they would never have voted against Hillary Clinton. You poor, poor voters. You&#8217;re always being tricked by Donald Trump. You have no agency whatsoever. Thankfully, the courts will correct that little problem for you.
This is about as undemocratic as it gets. It is asinine, narcissistic and above all, totalitarian. Of course, it wasn&#8217;t just this one MSNBC blowhard who discovered that Trump was talking about tariffs all the time. The entire country heard Trump talk about tariffs. And then they overwhelmingly decided to elect him. And that should matter, more than anything else. Unless the president clearly and unambiguously exceeds his authority under the constitution, then the courts should respect the will of the voters.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1605-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
And in this case, if you read the ruling from the panel of judges on the United States Court of International Trade, you&#8217;ll discover that Donald Trump did not actually exceed his authority. In order to come to the opposite conclusion, a lot of mental gymnastics were required on the part of this three-judge panel. I want to start with the court&#8217;s handling of Trump&#8217;s fentanyl-related tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. At the moment this ruling was issued, the tariffs stood at 25% for Mexican and Canadian products, and 20% for Chinese products (with an exception for Canadian energy, which remained at 10%).
Normally, the president can&#8217;t issue tariffs that are quite this high. However, as you probably remember, the Trump administration determined — rightly — that fentanyl trafficking is a national emergency because tens of thousands of Americans are dying each year from fentanyl that&#8217;s imported from overseas. Therefore, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the White House asserted its authority to impose substantial tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China — tariffs that are much higher than they otherwise could be.
Under this emergency act, the president is allowed to, “&#8230; deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.&#8221;
Again, the president can, “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States &#8230; if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.&#8221;
That&#8217;s a direct quote from the text of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which became law in the 1970s. That&#8217;s the authority Congress delegated to the president. Under this Act, the president can impose substantial tariffs to &#8220;deal with&#8221; any &#8220;extraordinary threat,&#8221; as long as he declares a national emergency. So you might be asking: Isn&#8217;t that exactly what happened in this case? Didn&#8217;t Trump impose the fentanyl tariffs in order to pressure countries like Mexico and China to stop allowing fentanyl into this country? Under the terms of this law, isn&#8217;t the president implementing these tariffs to &#8220;deal with&#8221; the fentanyl crisis?
According to the trade court, the answer to that question is no. Here&#8217;s their reasoning. They focus extensively on the words &#8220;Deal with&#8221; in the law that I just read.
Here&#8217;s what <a href="https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf">they said</a>:
<blockquote>&#8216;Deal with&#8217; connotes a direct link between an act and the problem it purports to address. A tax deals with a budget deficit by raising revenue. A dam deals with flooding by holding back a river. But there is no such association between the act of imposing a tariff and the &#8216;unusual and extraordinary threats&#8217; that the [Fentanyl] Trafficking Orders purport to combat. &#8230; The [Fentanyl] Trafficking Orders do not &#8216;deal with&#8217; their stated objectives. Rather, as the Government acknowledges, the Orders aim to create leverage to &#8216;deal with&#8217; those objectives.</blockquote>
In other words, the court is acknowledging that the fentanyl tariffs are being used by the Trump administration as a form of leverage, which can force foreign countries to &#8220;deal with&#8221; the fentanyl problem. But they&#8217;re claiming that, under the law, that&#8217;s not allowed. That&#8217;s not how you&#8217;re supposed to &#8220;deal with&#8221; fentanyl, according to this three-judge panel. The judges are saying that the Trump administration is assuming too much power, and that &#8220;leverage&#8221; isn&#8217;t the appropriate way to &#8220;deal with&#8221; an emergency. Therefore, apparently, the Trump administration needed to impose a tariff specifically on fentanyl imports, or something like that — even though it would obviously accomplish nothing at all, because no one is declaring their fentanyl shipments at the border.
I want to emphasize this a little more, because this part of the ruling really deserves more attention than it&#8217;s getting. Congress passed a law that allows the president to &#8220;deal with&#8221; any emergency he declares. And now, decades later, this trade court is saying, in effect — &#8220;no, you can&#8217;t deal with it like that.&#8221; But there&#8217;s nothing in the law that justifies their ruling. The court just makes it up. The only reasoning that the court provides — which is contained in two paragraphs at the end of their opinion — is that the Trump administration&#8217;s approach would justify any kind of tariff they wanted to impose, no matter how ridiculous. They&#8217;re saying that, if Trump can use &#8220;leverage&#8221; as a justification, then he can impose whatever tariff he wants. But that&#8217;s not true. There has to be an underlying emergency, first of all. And the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans every year certainly qualifies.
Additionally, there&#8217;s evidence that, in this case, Trump&#8217;s &#8220;leverage&#8221; is indeed working. Within days of Trump&#8217;s sweeping tariffs on Canada, for example, Trudeau appointed a fentanyl czar and pledged to screen exports more carefully, in order to prevent fentanyl from entering into this country.
So we&#8217;re not talking about some arbitrary tariff that has no connection to reality. We&#8217;re talking about a tariff that has already produced tangible results that will stem the flow of fentanyl. But apparently, that&#8217;s not good enough.
I&#8217;m highlighting this part of the ruling because it underscores the extent of the judicial coup we&#8217;re witnessing. Congress delegated authority to the president to &#8220;deal with&#8221; an emergency. He attempted to do that. And then the court overrides him, based on ad hoc reasoning that invalidates the will of the voters, who elected the Trump administration (and the members of Congress who passed that emergency tariff law). Again, it&#8217;s fine if you think the tariffs are a bad idea, or good idea, or if you have mixed feelings about it. But the solution, in that case, is for Congress to rescind the tariff power — in whole or in part. The solution is not for random courts in Manhattan to override the president and the Congress, based on very strained interpretations of the law.
This ruling has already been appealed, and it&#8217;s clear that the Trump administration can still impose tariffs — albeit reduced ones — under the non-emergency tariff powers that have been passed by Congress. And late on Thursday, a federal appeals court put a temporary stay on the court&#8217;s ruling. So the ultimate outcome here is still uncertain. What&#8217;s not uncertain is that federal judges, once again, have undermined what&#8217;s left of their legitimacy with this ruling. If this had been the very first injunction against a Trump administration policy, it wouldn’t be as much of a crisis. People may even give the judges the benefit of the doubt throughout the appeals process. But we&#8217;ve seen more than 100 rulings like this by now. This is unsustainable — to the point that, if one of these federal judges somehow manages to issue a good ruling, no one will follow it. That&#8217;s not the ideal outcome for this country or the rule of law, obviously. But with this decision from a court that no one has ever heard of — which erases the president&#8217;s congressionally-approved authority to &#8220;deal with&#8221; national emergencies — it&#8217;s the outcome that now appears to be inevitable.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump Executive Order Aimed At WilmerHale Law Firm

These Federal Judges Are Trying To Stop Trump From Dealing With The Fentanyl Crisis

Canada

Federal Government

Fentanyl

Matt Walsh

Mexico

There are enormous threats on the world stage. Those threats can be mitigated by President Trump. Or, through lack of clarity, they can grow worse. 
Just before the Memorial Day Weekend, Vice President JD Vance spoke at the Naval Academy. He suggested that President Trump&#8217;s visit to the Middle East, in which he visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, was designed to recapitulate an American foreign policy that is based on a realistic assessment of what the world looks like.
He explained, “I actually think the most significant part of that trip is that it signified the end of a decades-long approach in foreign policy, that, I think, was a break from the precedent set by our founding fathers. We had a long experiment in our foreign policy that traded national defense and the maintenance of our alliances for nation-building and meddling in foreign countries’ affairs, even when those foreign countries had very little to do with core American interests.”
The Vice President was presumably arguing against the war in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan is a bit of a different story, since originally the war in Afghanistan was launched on the back of 9/11, so it was, in fact, a core American national interest to defenestrate the regime that had protected Osama bin Laden in the aftermath of the murder of 3,000 Americans.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday&amp;_gl=1*1qdq03s*_gcl_au*MTYyNDg0MTE0OS4xNzQxODk4NTMz*_ga*MTEzOTk1NjkxNi4xNzI2MzI1MDQz*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NDgzNzg2NDgkbzEwMDMkZzEkdDE3NDgzODEwMTckajU4JGwwJGgw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Vance suggested that American foreign policy has to be focused on countering our peer adversaries: “Our government took its eye off the ball of great power competition and preparing to take on a peer adversary, and instead we devoted ourselves to sprawling, amorphous tasks like searching for new terrorists to take out while building up faraway regimes. Now, I want to be clear. The Trump administration has reversed course. No more undefined missions, no more open-ended conflicts. We&#8217;re returning to a strategy grounded in realism and protecting our core national interests. Now, this doesn&#8217;t mean that we ignore threats, but it means that we approach them with discipline and that when we send you to war, we do it with a very specific set of goals in mind. And consider how this played out in just the last major conflict we engaged in, with the Houthis over in the Middle East. We went in with a clear diplomatic goal not to enmesh our service members in a prolonged conflict with a non-state actor, but to secure American freedom of navigation by forcing the Houthis to stop attacking American ships. And that&#8217;s exactly what we did.”
The Houthi example is a very interesting one for him to use, because the reality is that the Houthis have not ceased their activities in the Red Sea. Originally, we did not define our battle against the Houthis as simply restoring deterrence with regard to Houthi attacks on American ships; the goal was to restore freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. The goal was to ensure that people could use the Red Sea through the Suez Canal in order to ship things, including oil and LNG, from the region.
That has not been restored. The Houthis are still shooting a couple of missiles a day over Saudi Arabian airspace at Israel. And shipping has still not been restored in the Red Sea.
Now, I don&#8217;t disagree with anything that Vance is saying on the surface. But the use of the Houthis is a telling example, because one of the things that is an open battle in this administration, which we all need to keep our eye on, is what this sort of language obscures.
What is the actual policy of the Trump administration? Is it a policy that makes sure to actually set red lines that are keepable? The Vice President suggests that every mission has to have an exit strategy with an end in sight, saying, “Past leaders sent our service members on mission after mission with no exit strategy, no end in sight, and with little articulation for the American people or for the warfighters about what we were doing.”
All of that sounds really nice. The reality is that foreign policy is a lot messier than that. So, for example, the United States currently has troops stationed in South Korea. Why? That is an open-ended conflict. There&#8217;s an armistice with North Korea, and the United States is, in fact, maintaining the peace in the region between South Korea and North Korea by having a trigger force there.
The United States still has military bases in Japan. Why? Presumably to deter a Chinese takeover of the South China Sea. The United States still has overflight and overwatch power over the Middle East. Why? To ensure the free flow of oil, for example, and to prevent, I assume, the nuclearization of Iran.
This kind of easy notion that the United States can simply, in pinpoint fashion, define our conflicts and get in and get out is not the way actual foreign policy really works.
If you believe that we are now living in a much more dangerous world than we were previously, that&#8217;s going to require a larger commitment to military spending. A safer world, a world in which free trade actually applies, in which you do have freedom of navigation, in which economic growth is the norm, in which the United States has trade capacity and commerce; in which global growth is the norm — all of that is maintained, in the end, by the credible threat of the use of the American military.
That&#8217;s the reality of the situation. That&#8217;s always been the reality of the situation. The notion promoted by some on the more isolationist side of the Republican aisle — that if the United States basically defines in pinpoint fashion its own military engagement, the rest of the world will simply comply — is not the way the rest of the world works.
That&#8217;s been true all along. There&#8217;s a very famous story about George Washington at the Constitutional Convention. There was a constitutional delegate who suggested that the standing army of the United States should be limited to 5,000 men. The reason was that there were a lot of members of the founding generation who didn&#8217;t like the idea of a standing army on the national level. And George Washington would have to fend off the British with an army of essentially irregular soldiers, militiamen, whom he had to cobble together throughout the Revolutionary War.
The constitutional delegate proposed a 5,000-man cap on the army in the actual Constitution. George Washington agreed. And then he sarcastically said that there had to be a stipulation added to the Constitution that no invading army could number more than 3,000.
Of course, the joke he was making is that, when it comes to foreign policy, necessity is the mother of policy.
So you can have all of these principles that we all hope to have about “no open-ended missions,” “no long-term commitments.” The reality is that in a world in which the United States refrains from any long-term commitment and refrains from flexible policy, what you end up with is more red lines crossed.
And so the question becomes, for the administration, how strong are the administration&#8217;s red lines, and what happens when those red lines are crossed? When it came to the Houthis, the United States drew a red line. Originally, it was about freedom of navigation.
That freedom of navigation has not, in fact, been restored.
You can make the case that shouldn&#8217;t have been the mission in the first place in the Red Sea. Fine. But that was not actually the mission. The ends were shifted in order to achieve some sort of titular end to a conflict so the United States could then go and pick up checks in Qatar.
Again, you can make the argument that that&#8217;s a good policy or that it&#8217;s not a good policy, but let&#8217;s be clear about what happened there.
Right now, America&#8217;s enemies are perceiving, at the very least, that there’s some play in the joints.
If President Trump had the foreign policy team from his first term in place, it wouldn&#8217;t be happening. Trump 1.0 was extremely predictable on foreign policy: If you crossed a red line, you would get punched in the face. If you did not cross a red line, we would negotiate with you. That was the foreign policy of the United States. 
There&#8217;s been debate inside the administration over whether Trump 1.0 was too hawkish.
But what America’s enemies see is that now might be a good time to push. That is certainly clear from Russia, from China, and from Iran. Russia. China and Iran are sensing weakness in the Trump administration&#8217;s approach. Russia has been stringing President Trump along while it ramps up its attacks on Ukraine. According to reports, China has now strengthened its ability to rapidly attack Taiwan. Iran, which has been weakened by Israel to its weakest point in decades, is stiffening its negotiating stance with the United States.
President Trump is a peace through strength president.
But that needs to be conveyed not just in words, but in actual forward posture, in military spending, in public statements.
Because the United States has spent the last 20 years being non-credible in its threats. And that needs to stop, as it did during President Trump’s first term.

Vice President Vance Speaks At U.S. Naval Academy Graduation Ceremony

Peace Through Strength Requires Actual Strength

JD Vance

U.S. Military

To prove that Donald Trump is a very mean person while journalists are totally compassionate and loving, CNN has aired a sympathetic interview with a member of a Mexican drug cartel. 
Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “Oh, Klavan, you marvelous merchant of magical mirth, only you could invent a scenario in which a Left-wing news outlet sinks so deeply into the bubbling tarpit of its own twisted political hatred that the lunatic idea of legitimizing a death-mongering gangster could wend its way through every level of internal decision-making without one voice of even semi-decency speaking up to say, “Wait, wait, we can’t allow our childish demonization of our political opponents to twist our souls into gnarled burnt offerings fit only for the altars of hell so that we actually call evil good and good evil right there on cable TV in front of our six or seven viewers.”
But no, my friends, I am not making this up.
CNN girl reporter Shapely Nudnick actually traveled to a Mexican hideout where she spoke sympathetically with a masked member of the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, whose former boss El Chapo was said to be personally responsible for the deaths of over 34,000 people.
Ms. Nudnick, winner of this year’s Pulitzer prize for most attractive backside, fetchingly leaned forward and asked the masked gangster – and as God is my witness, I am not making this up, “According to the Trump Administration, you are a terrorist … What do you make of that?”
The masked member of the murderous cartel responded, “I don’t like to get overly emotional because my job depends on inspiring terror in anyone who tries to stand in my way, but I must be honest and tell you this slur from your President Trump hurt my feelings very deeply. I am just a man trying to make a living in this crazy world, and when I heard I had been labeled a terrorist, my hands were literally shaking so hard I could barely shove a screwdriver into the face of one of my rivals. I respect President Trump, and respect is very important because people who don’t return my respect are often found inside plastic bags in several different locations. But a man must eat and, to be fair, our customers are mostly in the United States and as any good businessman will tell you, you have to go where the customers are and then slowly poison them to death. I hope the American people will push back against this insult, and if they don’t, I know where they live.”
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Andrew Klavan Show</a> </h3>
CNN has proudly announced that this interview is only the first in a new series of self-degrading acts of pure evil that will appear over the course of the Trump Presidency, and they’ve been airing tantalizing previews of future episodes. In one clip, Shapely Nudnik bravely travels to an undisclosed elementary school to interview a pedophile teacher who says, “I think it’s very cruel for people to demonize someone they don’t even know with ugly words like pervert and evil scum-sucking hell-fiend. I just thank heavens I belong to a teachers’ union where they support the idea that minor attracted persons can work at an elementary school. After all, that’s where the children are, not to mention the porn.” 
In another clip, Miss Nudnick scores an interview with former Nazi torture doctor Joseph Mengele who says, “It’s true I used to perform grotesque and unspeakable medical experiments on children, but I’ve totally reformed, and now I’m supplying kids with gender affirming care, because I’ve had a lot of practice, and that’s what I’m good at.” 
In other Left-wing media news, the Pulitzer committee has awarded its prize for photography to a picture of a bullet flying at President Trump’s head. Committee Chairman Thaddeus Foul-heart said, “We know that other photo of a wounded Trump raising his fist with the American flag in the background is the single most iconic image of the first quarter of this century, but that photo inspired love and admiration for our president, whereas we were rooting for the bullet.”
* * *
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>.”
The views expressed in this satirical article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. Follow him on X: @andrewklavan
Klavan is the bestselling author of numerous books, including the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The fourth installment, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1613165536?ref_=dbs_m_mng_rwt_calw_thcv_3&amp;storeType=ebooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Woman Underground.</a>” His most recent nonfiction release is “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Cain-Finding-Literature-Darkness/dp/0310368340/?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_w=nMYjR&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_p=bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_r=133-8344803-2786917&amp;pd_rd_wg=7a8J3&amp;pd_rd_r=5791ea0f-6d96-4732-9d6a-3a4e6b348bb5&amp;ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Kingdom of Cain: Finding God in the Literature of Darkness.</a>” (May 2025, Zondervan/HarperCollins).

CNN Airs Heartfelt Sit-Down With Masked Cartel Hitman

Andrew Klavan

Humor

interview

Legacy Media

Satire

Sinaloa Cartel

Terrorism

One of President Donald Trump’s better qualities flies far under the radar. He doesn’t hold a grudge. That’s especially true when there’s a greater good in play.
Then-candidate Trump sparred aggressively with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly during the 2016 campaign. Late last year, Kelly endorsed Trump, speaking at a MAGA rally days before the Nov. 5 election.
The president once dubbed a presidential rival “Little” Marco Rubio. That politician is currently Trump’s trusted Secretary of State.
Now, Trump wants to make amends with Hollywood, an industry that loathes him with the heat of a thousand suns. This act of forgiveness dwarfs them all, but Trump sees movies as a vital part of the nation’s soft power as well as a critical industry.
<div id="attachment_877383" style="width: 873px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-877383" class="size-large wp-image-877383" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-877916002-863x576.jpg" alt="HOLLYWOOD, CA - DECEMBER 06: Donald Trump star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in Hollywood, California on Dec. 6, 2016." width="863" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-877916002-863x576.jpg 863w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-877916002-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-877916002-768x513.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-877916002-1536x1026.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-877916002-2048x1368.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-877916002-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-877916002-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 863px) 100vw, 863px" />shalunts. Getty Images.</div>
It’s why Hollywood should swallow hard and play nice with President Trump. Or, at the very least, lend him its collective ear.
Trump’s shocking outreach began with, what else, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-says-movie-industry-is-dying-puts-plan-in-place-to-save-it" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a social media post</a>. He promised 100% tariffs on movies made outside of the U.S.
<blockquote>I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands,” he added. “WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!&#8221;</blockquote>
All heck broke loose in La La Land, with entertainment news outlets spinning furiously against the vague proposal.
Call it Trump’s opening volley, part of the president’s knack for starting with big claims and negotiating from there. It’s similar to Trump’s earlier announcement that movie superstars Mel Gibson, Sylvester Stallone and Jon Voight would form a group of “Ambassadors” to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-appoints-a-list-stars-as-ambassadors-to-hollywood" target="_blank" rel="noopener">revive the flailing film industry.</a>
<blockquote>It will again be, like The United States of America itself, The Golden Age of Hollywood!</blockquote>
Except the news seemed to have caught the trio by surprise and, only recently, did one of the actors, Voight, step forward with <a href="https://variety.com/2025/film/news/jon-voight-trump-hollywood-tariff-1236390109/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">concrete plans</a> on making Hollywood great again.
<a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/05/07/nx-s1-5389865/trump-movie-tariffs-jon-voight-tax-incentives-hollywood" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NPR described Voight’s vision</a> as “federal tax incentives, co-production treaties with other countries and subsidies for theater owners and film and TV production companies.”
<div id="attachment_861225" style="width: 987px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-861225" class="size-large wp-image-861225" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/Jon-Voight-977x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 19: Actor Jon Voight speaks at Donald Trump's victory rally on January 19, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance will be sworn in on January 20. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)" width="977" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/Jon-Voight-977x576.jpg 977w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/Jon-Voight-300x177.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/Jon-Voight-768x453.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/Jon-Voight.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 977px) 100vw, 977px" />Scott Olson/Getty Images</div>
The “Midnight Cowboy” star acknowledged the rift between Trump and Hollywood, adding that it shouldn&#8217;t distract from the big picture.
“I think he’s been treated unfairly. I think I have too. But what’s the difference? Who cares?” Voight asks. “I mean, there’s been a battle, but now it’s time to put that aside. And I must say, in all of the interactions we’ve had [on addressing runaway production], politics has never come up. Never.”
Hollywood, Inc. would be foolish not to listen.
Yes, the box office came roaring back in recent weeks, courtesy of hits like “Sinners” and “A Minecraft Movie.” That doesn’t camouflage the sizable issues confronting movie studios, from the death of the modern movie star to escalating film budgets.
Case in point? The upcoming “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” has a <a href="https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2025/3/25/mission-impossible-8-has-a-400m-budget" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$400 million budget</a>, meaning it will have to dramatically out-perform the best films in the series to make a profit.
Hollywood’s problems would make a depressing feature.
Film and TV productions have been fleeing Los Angeles for some time. Streaming platforms have proven to be far less profitable than hoped, with Netflix emerging as the strongest money maker for now.
The DVD/Blu-ray gravy train slowed some time ago, removing a safety net for films that didn’t catch fire at theaters.
Dueling 2023 strikes hurt the industry more than anticipated, and the threat of A.I. to the creative community looms in the not-so-distant future. Social media, YouTube and other distractions now dominate the culture, making young consumers <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/deloitte-gen-z-creator-content-streaming-price-1236171227/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">less invested in Hollywood product</a>.
Meanwhile, California Democrats are <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2025-05-06/newsom-called-for-a-federal-tax-incentive-to-save-hollywood-but-will-that-actually-happen" target="_blank" rel="noopener">scrambling to prevent productions</a> from leaving the City of Angels for more receptive states and countries. That’s left countless Calif.-based crew members desperate for work. <a href="https://variety.com/2025/biz/news/new-york-film-subsidy-jersey-1236392167/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York just followed suit</a>.
Hollywood players hate Trump so much some wish they could erase his presence from pop culture of yore. “Home Alone 2: Lost in New York” <a href="https://variety.com/2025/film/news/home-alone-2-director-trump-cameo-removed-1236369779/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">director said just that about Trump’s seconds-long cameo</a> in his 1992 film.
<div id="attachment_908099" style="width: 832px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-908099" class="size-large wp-image-908099" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Donald-Trump-Macauley-Culkin-822x576.jpg" alt="Macaulay Culkin" width="822" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Donald-Trump-Macauley-Culkin-822x576.jpg 822w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Donald-Trump-Macauley-Culkin-300x210.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Donald-Trump-Macauley-Culkin-768x538.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Donald-Trump-Macauley-Culkin.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 822px) 100vw, 822px" />Ron Galella/Ron Galella Collection via Getty Images</div>
Others have alternately <a href="https://variety.com/2016/tv/news/louis-c-k-donald-trump-insane-bigot-dangerous-1201723679/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dubbed him Hitler</a> or <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/celebrities-wished-trump-dead/">wished him dead</a>. That sentiment may be hard to overcome.
The perfect storm of problems facing Hollywood may be too much for any presidential plan to solve. Gen Z’s drift away from movie watching can’t be assuaged by new policies. Stars still insist on <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/fantastic-four-rachel-zegler-problem/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">insulting potential customers</a>, from “Snow White’s” Rachel Zegler to the cast of “The Fantastic Four: First Steps.”
The two sides need to put aside their differences for the greater good. A healthy film market impacts more than just studio executives, theater owners and various crew members.
Hollywood movies send a message to the world. Films like “The Pursuit of Happyness” (2006) showcase the power of the American capitalist system. Others promote values like individual liberty (2012’s “Still Mine”) and triumphs over adversity (2016’s “Hidden Figures”).
It’s why China invests so heavily in its movie industry. The Communist nation wants to put the nation’s best foot forward on the big screen, removing sequences from foreign films that cast the country in a negative light.
President Trump may not make Hollywood great again. He could help the industry thrive against all odds.
* * *
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP

Trump Wants To Make Hollywood Great Again — Will The Industry Listen?

California

Entertainment

Film

Hollywood

Jon Voight

Mel Gibson

Movies

Netflix

New York City

Sylvester Stallone

President Trump is apparently pushing for a higher tax rate. That’s a nonstarter.
The tax regime that President Trump put into place in his first term, his tax cuts, were a boon to the economy. They actually disproportionately benefited people who were middle and lower class. Revising the tax regime to pay for more loopholes and tax breaks in particular areas by increasing taxes on the highest income earners will sink investment capital. That&#8217;s what it does.
As somebody who has been in most tax brackets at one point in my life, I can tell you I will invest less if I have less money to invest. That&#8217;s true for everyone who is a high net earner. Increasing the income tax on the top income tax bracket in order to pay for more useless government spending — because nobody has the actual guts to say in American politics that we spend too much on our social welfare programs, which we do, particularly our means tested social welfare programs — will break the American economy.
It&#8217;s like shifting deckchairs on the Titanic.
Increasing the marginal tax rate at the top by 2% or something similar is not going to save anything. If the Republican Party is now the tax-raising party and the tariff party, we will have to see how that works out for them at the polls.
I do not think it is going to work out particularly well.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2196-member-exclusive?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
According to some reports, President Trump is privately urging speaker Mike Johnson to raise the top tax rate and close the so-called “carried interest loophole.”
You hear about the “carried interest loophole” all the time. Very often the media will use a term and call it a loophole when it&#8217;s not a loophole at all. Here’s an example: They will refer to a “gun show loophole,” claiming that if you&#8217;re a federally licensed firearms dealer, you can just go to a gun show and sell a gun randomly, which is not true. They say the “gun show loophole” means a private person who sells a gun to his friend doesn&#8217;t have to necessarily go through all of the federal background check, which just means that if you are a federally licensed firearms dealer and you&#8217;re a private individual, that these rules don&#8217;t apply to you in the same way.
So what is the “carried interest loophole”? Is it a loophole at all? What is carried interest? “Carried interest” works like this: Fund managers typically receive two forms of compensation. If you work at hedge fund or in private equity or venture capital, you have two forms of being paid.
One is a management fee, which is just income. You simply get paid a flat fee to handle people&#8217;s portfolios.
Then there&#8217;s the so-called “carried interest,” which is a share of the fund&#8217;s profits. The fund makes a profit; you get a share of the profit. But in order for it to qualify for capital gains tax as opposed to income tax, the underlying investments have to be held for more than three years.
Management fees are taxed at the regular income rate; carried interest is taxed as the long-term capital gain at a maximum rate of 20% if the underlying investments are held for more than three years.
So here is the question. If you have a share of the profits, isn&#8217;t that more like owning a stock? That&#8217;s the reason why it&#8217;s not treated as a form of typical income. It&#8217;s more like selling a stock because you actually are getting a share of stock that was profitable and then it was sold. Thus it&#8217;s more like a capital gain than it is like income.
Now you can make an argument that capital gains should be taxed the same as income. But stop pretending that the “carried interest loophole” is a form of normal income that&#8217;s getting carved out for hedge fund managers. That&#8217;s not what it is.
This populist leftist economic policy for heavy trade restrictionism for the sake of trade restrictionism as a subsidy to particular areas of the American economy added to higher tax rates, and I&#8217;m wondering what the difference is between that economic policy per se and leftist Democrat senator Sherrod Brown&#8217;s economic policy when he was senator from Ohio.
That is not the economic policy that President Trump enacted in his first term that was so wildly successful in increasing the earnings of everybody from the bottom part of the spectrum to the top part of the spectrum.
This would be a mistake.

Trump Hails The Election Of First US Pope As A ‘Great Honor’

Why Raising The Top Tax Rate Is A Recipe For Economic Decline

Economy

Income tax

Wealth Tax

Welfare

President Donald Trump sat down with host Kristen Welker for a full length interview on Sunday&#8217;s &#8220;Meet the Press&#8221; — and throughout the conversation, he often paused to challenge the mainstream media narratives and the framing Welker chose for her questions.
For those who don&#8217;t spend their Sunday mornings glued to the television — and their Sunday afternoons attempting to dig through a week&#8217;s worth of network and cable news media spin — The Daily Wire has compiled a short summary of what you may have missed.
Trump&#8217;s repeated jabs at Welker during the interview reflect the tone that most associated with his second administration have taken with members of the press — and the tone that Trump himself exhibited in a previous wide-ranging interview with ABC News anchor Terry Moran — making his interview the perfect summary of a week in legacy media narratives.
Welker began the interview with questions about the economy, asking Trump whether he deserved credit  — or blame — for the general direction the economy has taken during the first 100 days of his administration. The president threaded the needle a bit on that question, noting that some policy changes impact the economy more quickly than others — meaning that some of the current economic numbers were still a direct result of policies implemented by former President Joe Biden.
To Welker, who asked whether the economy was truly a Trump economy, the president replied, &#8220;I think certain aspects of it are. Costs are. I was able to get down the costs, but even that, it takes awhile to get them down but we got them down good. &#8230; We lost $5-6 billion a day [on trade] with Biden — $5-6 billion. And I&#8217;ve got that down to a great number right now in a record time.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NBC: Is this now your economy, sir?<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &#8220;I think certain aspects of it are. Costs are. I was able to get down the costs&#8230; We lost $5-6 billion a day with Biden&#8230; and I&#8217;ve got that down to a great number right now in a record time.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/Qy2LkRzsm2">pic.twitter.com/Qy2LkRzsm2</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1919020316489126364?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 4, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
NBC News, true to form, published that same clip under a headline suggesting that Trump was passing off the less positive economic numbers on Biden — without noting that the president was right when he said that some policies took longer to show results than others might.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
President Trump says ‘good parts’ of economy are his and ‘bad parts are the Biden economy’ <a href="https://t.co/9mEbnABSAq">https://t.co/9mEbnABSAq</a>
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) <a href="https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1919019693156843824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 4, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Welker pressed the president on the tariffs, arguing that there were some small businesses hurt by the initial impact — but Trump immediately challenged her framing of the issue.
&#8220;You pick a couple of little businesses. What about the car business? They&#8217;re going to make a fortune because of the tariffs &#8230; the head of the union who was no fan of mine &#8230; now he&#8217;s saying&#8230; &#8216;We&#8217;ve been waiting 40 years for somebody to do what Trump is doing.'&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a> calls out Fake News NBC: &#8220;You pick [out] a couple of little businesses. What about the car business? They&#8217;re going to make a fortune because of the tariffs&#8230; the head of the union who was no fan of mine&#8230; now he&#8217;s saying&#8230; &#8216;We&#8217;ve been waiting 40 years for somebody to… <a href="https://t.co/iVSAr0w9UZ">pic.twitter.com/iVSAr0w9UZ</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1919023203856286203?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 4, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
When the topic turned to illegal immigration, Trump referenced what Attorney General Pam Bondi has labeled the &#8220;real constitutional crisis&#8221; — the fact that Democrats and a number of carefully-shopped district court judges have attempted to overwhelm the system by forcing the Trump administration to adjudicate every illegal immigrant&#8217;s individual case prior to ordering deportation.
&#8220;The big emergency right now is that we have thousands of people that we want to take out — and we have some judges that want everybody to go to court,&#8221; Trump said, arguing that based on the numbers, it would take hundreds of years to process every illegal immigrant through the court system. &#8220;We have millions of people. We&#8217;re going to have millions of court cases?&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &#8220;The big emergency right now is that we have thousands of people that we want to take out — and we have some judges that want everybody to go to court &#8230; We have millions of people. We&#8217;re going to have millions of court cases?&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/Eli9acE8Dd">pic.twitter.com/Eli9acE8Dd</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1919020763912220928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 4, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Welker pressed Trump on whether or not he believed everyone in the United States — whether citizen or not — was entitled to due process and the right to plead their case before a judge, and Trump&#8217;s reply was simple: &#8220;I don&#8217;t know, I&#8217;m not a lawyer.&#8221;
&#8220;We have thousands of people &#8230; some of the worst, most dangerous on earth — and I was elected to get them the hell out of here and the courts are holding me from doing it,&#8221; Trump added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &#8220;We have thousands of people &#8230; some of the worst, most dangerous on earth — and I was elected to get them the hell out of here and the courts are holding me from doing it.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/uNJESyWas1">pic.twitter.com/uNJESyWas1</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1919022289397452899?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 4, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
NBC&#8217;s interpretation of that exchange was slightly different: &#8220;Trump, asked if he has to &#8216;uphold the Constitution,&#8217; says, &#8216;I don&#8217;t know&#8217;.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://t.co/e8soBQtkKq">https://t.co/e8soBQtkKq</a>
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) <a href="https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1919023638222602658?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 4, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Welker went on to challenge Trump&#8217;s actions regarding certain political adversaries – in particular those who were directly involved in prosecuting the legal cases against him — asking whether he was making matters worse by stripping their security clearances.
&#8220;You said you wanted to unify the country. Does going after political foes undercut that goal?&#8221; she asked.
Trump, who has often said that the cases against him were entirely political in nature, said no — the goal was to make sure that the people filling such roles were &#8220;honest people.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Welker: “You said you wanted to unify the country. Does going after political foes undercut that goal?”<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: “No. We want honest people.” <a href="https://t.co/ESGFrufqPC">pic.twitter.com/ESGFrufqPC</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1919023028702224674?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 4, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;What do you say to those who believe you are taking the country down an authoritarian path?&#8221; Welker asked, provoking an immediate reaction from Trump.
&#8220;There you go again. Why don&#8217;t you ask in a different way? Many people want to come into our country. Many people love Trump &#8230; I won the popular vote,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;They had their chance at the election, and they lost big.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NBC: What do you say to those who believe you are taking the country down an authoritarian path?<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &#8220;There you go again. Why don&#8217;t you ask in a different way? Many people want to come into our country. Many people love Trump&#8230; I won the popular vote&#8230; they had their… <a href="https://t.co/XFx4X21jfF">pic.twitter.com/XFx4X21jfF</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1919024153950134384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 4, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Welker even asked Trump about rumors that he was actively considering running for a third term as president — rumors that the president quickly laughed off.
&#8220;I&#8217;m looking to have four great years and turn it over to somebody — ideally a great Republican, a great Republican — to carry it forward,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;Four years is plenty of time to do something really spectacular.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
&#8220;I&#8217;m looking to have four great years and turn it over to somebody — ideally a great Republican, a great Republican — to carry it forward,&#8221; says <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>.
&#8220;Four years is plenty of time to do something really spectacular.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/pK6t6X3AiA">pic.twitter.com/pK6t6X3AiA</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1919026233943187660?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 4, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
When asked directly, Trump named Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio as potential successors.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP-HABBA

Spin Cycle: Trump Takes On NBC Anchor In Combative ‘Meet The Press’ Interview

Menu