Month: May 2025

The FBI was very interested in capturing Ray Epps after the J6 protests and riot – until they removed him from their Most Wanted list.

Infamous January 6 instigator Ray Epps was listed as #16 on the FBI Most Wanted List for a few days after the January 6, 2021 protests until he was removed from the list.

Epps led the charge on the US Capitol and was up front when protesters broke through two bike rack barriers. And it was Ray Epps who pushed a giant MAGA sign at police, a crime that sent at least eight protesters to prison for several years.

Yet, Ray Epps was quickly removed from the FBI Most Wanted List for some reason. We still have no idea why the FBI did this.

Current FBI Director Kash Patel spoke about this oddity on Timcast back in 2023.

Kash Patel: I think as a former federal prosecutor and a public defender who defended a lot of these types of cases, what you need to show is whether or not the FBI and government agents were using undercover operatives and informants on the day of January 6th, because if you can show that, you know they’ve been at… Hang on.

But the paperwork shows having run informants, that’s a six-month buildup. Minimum. It’s not like they just dropped them into the Proud Boys and said, Hey, don’t disrupt, please. Once you prove that, then you defeat the insurrection narrative with the FBI’s own documentation, forget what the videotape shows…

…I’m not saying I know definitively. What I’m saying is a reasonable suspicion is that there were agents, there’s a video showing a guy with an earpiece pulling people into the building. All You combine that with the evidence of Ray Epps, and it looks like you have a preponderance of evidence suggesting there may have been federal law enforcement involved in making that thing happen…

…I’ll get you beyond a reasonable doubt. Two pieces of information. Ray Epps was on FBI’s most wanted list one day, and the next day, he was off of the FBI’s most wanted list.

There are only two ways that happens. You die or you’re an informant. Put that aside. Under Congressional testimony, Jill Sanborn, who I used to work with, the head of the FBI counterintelligence division in charge of all these investigations, testified under oath when Senator Cruz asked her flat out, were there federal agents involved with January sixth?

She said, Senator, I can’t answer that at this time. If the answer was definitive no, having been a DOJ FBI guy myself, she would have gone there and said, No, absolutely not. The reason she said, I can’t answer that is because of the same stonewalling they gave us during Russiagate with Christopher Steele, Halper and everybody else. It’s the same narrative, and I’m telling you they were there.

Kash Patel: “Ray Epps was on FBI’s most wanted list one day, and the next day he was off. There are only two ways that happens: you die, or you are an informant.”

pic.twitter.com/UZFrKobUdI

— Alex Bruesewitz (@alexbruesewitz) March 9, 2023

We still don’t know why Ray Epps was removed from the FBI’s Most Wanted List.

Last Wednesday, investigative journalist Yehuda Miller, on behalf of The Gateway Pundit, made a FOIA request from the Department of Justice for any and all information regarding Ray Epps and January 6, including all communications and directives relating to the removal of Ray Epps from the wanted list.

We also requested all communications between the FBI and Ray Epps from Jan 1, 2020, through Jan 1, 2025, and all files, records, and communications relating to Ray Epps from Jan 1, 2020, through Jan 1, 2025.

Ray Epps working the crowd on January 6, 2021.

On Thursday, we received a response to our FOIA request on Ray Epps.

The FBI rejected the FOIA request, saying, “While the existence of FBI records is acknowledged, the records are exempt from disclosure as processing these third-party records would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

What is that supposed to mean? They have the records, but releasing them may be “an invasion of Ray Epps’ personal privacy?”

“The FBI has completed its search for records subject to the FOIA that are responsive to your request. The records on third party individuals) you requested are categorically denied pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). Please be advised that you have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure (relating to the operations and activities of the government) outweigh the personal privacy interests of these individual(s). While the existence of FBI records is acknowledged, the records are exempt from disclosure as processing these third-party records would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As a result, your request is closed.”

As we looked further into this FOIA response, on page 4, the FBI explains that the documents were denied because, according to (b)(6), “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.”

This is a ridiculous excuse to deny these documents to the public. Of course, the public has a right to know who Ray Epps was working with and what the FBI knew about his role on January 6.  They just don’t want to disclose this.

We will continue to pursue these documents, as Americans deserve to see this information. Apparently, the FBI is worried that someone will be hurt if the documents are released. They are likely talking about the FBI.

Here is the full response from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The post FBI Responds to Yehuda Miller and The Gateway Pundit’s FOIA Request on Ray Epps — and It Only Raises More Questions appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Frontier Airlines severed its relationship with a pair of contractors after a viral exchange with a customer in which the two acted like absolute buffoons.

The footage — filmed by the would-be passenger — was posted to social media platform X Wednesday, showing two workers who taunt a man trying to check in at the Frontier Airlines desk.

Frontier Airlines worker refuses to let a man check into his flight, taunts him as he tries rushing so he doesn’t miss his flight.

Man: “I paid for a ticket.”

Worker: “You didn’t pay $25 for an agent assist fee. Hello? And you thought you was gonna get on your flight. And you… pic.twitter.com/A6m3rb1KsO

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) May 7, 2025

“I paid for a ticket,” the man could be heard telling the workers, who were also filming the exchange.

After a brief moment in which one of the workers and the man went back and forth about his late arrival and the resultant fee he owed, this worker lost all composure and any sense of professionalism.

“And you didn’t pay $25 for an agent assist fee, and you check in three hours later. Hello! And you thought you were going to get on your flight. And you thought you were going to get on your flight. And you thought you were going to get on your flight,” she said, childishly mocking the man.

As the other worker laughed, the man said again, “I literally paid for a ticket. I’m here 30 minutes before my flight, and they’re not letting me check in,” he said before being interrupted by the first worker, “And you’re not getting on your flight.”

“Make me check you in,” she said, challenging him.

“You literally work for a company that I bought a plane ticket for,” he responded, almost in disbelief at how two people were acting on the job.

More mocking and childish behavior followed before the man told anyone watching after the fact, “I’m literally here at Frontier, I bought a ticket, and they are not letting me check in.”

WTVD-TV reported the man had arrived at Raleigh-Durham Airport 50 minutes before his flight to Boston.

He missed the check-in window, and was upset to learn there was a $25 late fee to check in with an agent. After some argument, he agreed to pay the fee.

The New York Post reported the ticketholder — who didn’t want to be named — was “a 45-year-old married father of three” who was returning home after a week-long business trip.

The man told the Post that the workers began berating him for not checking the airline’s website.

After he argued and finally agreed to pay the fee, he said he muttered, “I’m never flying this s***ty airline again.”

“When I said that, the lady who I was talking to took a step back and gasped, and was like, ‘How dare you curse at me? I’m not checking you in. I don’t have to check you in,” he told the news outlet.

“And my reaction was, ‘You will check me in.’ I think those were the words that I used,” he said.

“And when I said that, she completely just went — I don’t know  if ‘ballistic’ is the word, but essentially she shut off completely and absolutely refused to check me in.”

Videos of the encounter went viral, with Colin Rugg’s post alone receiving nearly 14 million views within a day.

Frontier released a statement saying they had been in contact with the customer involved in the incident.

The Post reported the man ended up paying $500 to fly home on a different airline, adding that Frontier reimbursed him after he called the company to complain about the incident.

“The employees, who work for a third-party contractor, are no longer associated with the Frontier account,” a company representative told WTVD.

Although this passenger probably could have shown more self-restraint, this was absolutely not the way for the workers to respond

Customer service workers can sometimes encounter rude, callous, and downright disrespectful people, but dealing with such challenges is literally part of the job.

That’s just one aspect of customer service: maintaining composure when faced with circumstances that compel you to lash out.

If these two can’t manage that, they shouldn’t be anywhere near a job like this.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Airline Workers Refuse to Let Ticketholder Check In, Pull Out Phones and Cruelly Mock Him Instead appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Colorado Democratic Senator Mocks Christianity with Blasphemous Joke: The Radical Left Has No Limits

Colorado State Senator Chris Kolker has stirred nationwide outrage after making deeply offensive and blasphemous comments about Jesus Christ. In a recent appearance, Kolker referenced a scene from the comedy film Talladega Nights, claiming that on his judgment day, he might stand “in front of a trans Jesus.” The statement, dripping with sarcasm and irreverence, ridicules a core belief of Christianity and exposes the radical left’s growing contempt for the faith held by millions of Americans.

This isn’t an isolated incident within the Democratic Party—it’s part of a larger pattern of cultural aggression against Christianity. While Democrats preach “tolerance” and demand respect for all religions, they routinely mock and demean Christian values without consequence. Kolker’s remarks are not an exercise in free speech—they are a direct insult to the spiritual foundation of Western civilization.

His analogy to Talladega Nights—where characters fantasize about different versions of Jesus—crossed the line when he introduced a trans Jesus, not only distorting Christ’s identity but also using the Christian faith as a tool for political provocation. This isn’t satire; it’s ideological warfare.

Imagine a conservative mocking the Prophet Muhammad or Buddha in the same way. The media would explode with outrage. But when it comes to Jesus Christ, silence or applause is the norm. This glaring double standard reveals just how deeply anti-Christian ideology has infiltrated politics, education, and media.

Reactions from faith leaders and citizens alike were swift and clear. Many Christian organizations are demanding a public apology. Local leaders in Colorado are also questioning whether Kolker truly represents the values of his constituency.

But this goes beyond one senator’s bad joke. It reflects a political culture that treats faith as an obstacle to be mocked, not a foundation to be respected. Kolker embodies an ideological current that wants to replace gospel truth with postmodern relativism, reshaping even Christ Himself to suit the narrative of the day.

Christians must respond—not with hate, but with unwavering moral clarity. We need leaders who stand for truth, family, life, and faith without apology. Because if we stay silent while Jesus is publicly mocked, we become complicit in the erosion of our spiritual heritage.

#BlasphemousKolker #AttackOnChristianity #StandForFaith #ChristiansRiseUp #DisrespectfulSenator #RadicalLeft #ReligiousRespect #ConservativeValues

The post Colorado Democratic Senator Chris Kolker Mocks Christianity appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Screenshot: Fox News @ Night with Trace Gallagher

Camryn Kinsey, a former Trump administration official and rising conservative voice, collapsed live on-air during a Thursday night broadcast of Fox News @ Night with Trace Gallagher.

Kinsey, a former White House correspondent for One America News Network and founder of Titan Media Strategies, was offering sharp insights into the stark ideological divide between President Trump and Joe Biden when she began to visibly struggle with her words.

“Ideology is where… It’s not abut uh—” Kinsey attempted to say, before her eyes rolled back and she slumped sideways, crashing to the ground on live television.

Gallagher was visibly shaken by the disturbing sight, nearly rising from his chair before a crew member rushed in to assist.

Gallagher turned to the camera and calmly informed viewers, “We’re just gonna get some help for Camryn,” before quickly shifting focus to another panelist.

As of early Friday morning, no official update had been provided regarding Kinsey’s condition or the cause of the fainting episode.

WATCH:



Kinsey’s on-air collapse comes just one day after another Republican leader passed out in public. On Wednesday, Florida State Senator Ileana Garcia fainted during a press conference held by Governor Ron DeSantis.

Garcia, who was speaking about environmental legislation, suddenly turned to DeSantis and said, “Governor, forgive me. I’ve gotta sit down because I am not feeling well.”

Seconds later, she began to slump—only to be caught by Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, who gently lowered her to the ground while reassuring her, “We got you.”

Last month, President Trump was speaking when what appeared to be a medical emergency halted the proceedings.

The ceremony began as planned, with President Trump delivering brief remarks alongside Dr. Oz and other officials.

Midway through the event, the press was rushed out of the room.

In va ideo of the incident, it appeared that a young girl may have been suffering a medical emergency.

The post SHOCK LIVE ON AIR: Fox News Panelist Camryn Kinsey Suddenly Collapses During Broadcast (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A Florida man is recovering after being gored by a bison at Yellowstone National Park this week.

It seems like this is a lesson that people have to learn once or twice a year, every year. For some reason, people think these are calm, docile animals that can be approached. The truth is that they weigh almost as much as a car and can run surprisingly fast. They’re also wild animals and are famously unpredictable in their behavior.

A full grown bison could easily kill a human being, if they wanted to.

The Daily Caller has details:

Bison Gores Tourist At Yellowstone National Park

A bison gored a 47-year-old Florida tourist Sunday at Yellowstone National Park after the man approached the beast.

The tourist was treated by emergency medical personnel after sustaining minor injuries, Yellowstone authorities said in a press release.

The incident is subject to an ongoing investigation, but it remains the first case of a bison attacking a person in 2025. There are two such cases in 2024, and one in 2023.

“Always stay 25 yards away from bison,” Yellowstone park authorities said in the press release. Authorities advised people maintain a similar distance for all large animals and a 100 yard distance from wolves and bears.

“Bison will defend their space when threatened and have injured more people in Yellowstone than any other animal. They are unpredictable and can run three times faster than humans,” the press release said.

People reacted on Twitter/X:

If you get this close to a bison to get a photo, you’re so stupid, you deserve to die.

“Bison Gores Florida Man in Yellowstone National Park”

Humans think wildlife is here for our amusement. Most don’t see wildlife as living beings, but rather as living objects here FOR US. pic.twitter.com/BjkYuhRL2v

— art4cc (@ArtForCC) May 8, 2025

People. Don’t pet the bison. You’re welcome. https://t.co/qixmkMcyCf

— Buzz Patterson (@BuzzPatterson) May 8, 2025

In which Nature weeds out the Stupid.

“Florida Man Is First Bison Goring Of The Season At Yellowstone National Park” https://t.co/ydfrOjMKp6

— Phineas Fahrquar (@irishspy) May 7, 2025

Maybe the park just needs bigger warning signs, reminding people that you should avoid wild animals with horns that weigh thousands of pounds.

The post YIKES! Florida Man Gored by Bison at Yellowstone National Park After Getting Too Close to Animal appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Donald Trump made a bold move Wednesday, announcing an immediate halt to U.S. bombing of Yemen’s Houthi rebels in exchange for their commitment to stop attacking ships in the Red Sea. “They said, at least to us, that they don’t want to fight anymore,” Trump revealed during an Oval Office meeting with Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney. “We will honor that, we will stop the bombings, as they said they won’t be blowing ships anymore.”

There are significant questions surrounding the announcement: Trump simply said that the Houthis won’t be blowing “ships,” without specifying whether he referred specifically to American ships or any ships. His words that “the Houthis said that, at least to us” may hint that it is specifically the American ships he was referring to. Remarkably, Trump did not in any way appear to be linking his decision to a Houthi commitment to stop attacking Israel. In fact, the Israeli leadership seems to have been caught completely off-guard by Trump’s announcement. 

It becomes even more intriguing given the announcement of the Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi about the mediating role the sultanate played between the Houthis and the U.S. Oman, of course, is also the main facilitator of the U.S. talks with Iran, the Houthis’ chief backer, having hosted the first round of talks between Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Not surprisingly, Witkoff is reported to have been involved in hammering out the deal with the Houthis through Oman. 

The Houthi attacks on U.S. ships were a major stumbling block in the nascent Washington-Tehran dialogue, as White House statements have made clear. Last week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, in an aggressive post on X, warned Iran that it will “pay the consequence” of its support for the Yemeni group “at a time and place of our choosing.” 

Trump’s decision, if it holds, deserves praise for two reasons. First, it reflects a pragmatic recognition that the escalating U.S. military campaign was spiraling into a violent dead end, with significant civilian casualties, no clear strategic gains, and mounting damage to its own administration. 

The U.S. campaign against the Houthis, which intensified in March, was meant to deter their attacks on Red Sea shipping. But the campaign, involving large-scale strikes on Houthi leadership, infrastructure, and munitions, yielded grim results amid limited operational success. A U.S. strike on a migrant center in late April killed 68 people, mostly women and children, according to Houthi media, drawing widespread condemnation. Over the past five weeks, scores of civilians perished, with Houthi-run health authorities reporting 31 killed and 101 injured in a single day. Sana’a residents described nightmarish scenes of explosions shaking neighborhoods and terrorizing families.

Despite the onslaught, the Houthis continued disrupting Red Sea shipping and showed no signs of backing down, even intensifying attacks on Israel and U.S. warships. Back in America, the war on Yemen played a role in undermining Trump’s own administration through the “Signalgate” scandal. 

Trump’s decision to halt the bombing acknowledges the reality: This was a bloody cul-de-sac with no gain of any sort in sight.

Second, the decision clears a potential pathway to negotiations with Iran. While Houthis cannot be accurately described as Iran’s “proxy,” as they are often labelled, Tehran is their main benefactor, providing them weapons, training, and intelligence. Trump’s decision to halt the bombing bolsters ongoing U.S.-Iran nuclear talks. These “constructive” discussions, as described by Iran’s Abbas Araghchi, have shown progress, with technical talks addressing uranium enrichment levels and sanctions relief. By reducing tensions with the Houthis, Trump may be signaling a willingness to engage Iran more broadly, potentially linking Houthi de-escalation to a larger deal on Iran’s nuclear program and regional activities. This would align with MAGA’s adamant opposition to a war on Iran.

Crucially, the apparent deal with the Houthis does not cover Israel. The Houthis have continued their attacks on Israeli targets in solidarity with the Palestinians of Gaza. Trump’s announcement made no mention of protecting Israeli interests and appeared to focus solely on American ships. 

This is a deliberate choice, reflecting a policy that prioritizes U.S. security over broader regional entanglements. While Israel remains a key ally, Trump’s decision signals that his administration will not let Israel’s conflicts dictate American military and diplomatic strategy. This aligns with Trump’s campaign promises to avoid foreign quagmires and put American interests first—a stance that resonates with his base and differentiates him from predecessors who often entangled the U.S. in Middle Eastern wars.

Of course, risks remain. The Houthis’ commitment is yet to be tested. Without a mechanism to ensure compliance, the deal could falter, forcing Trump to resume strikes and potentially undermining diplomacy with Tehran. Crucially, Israel’s onslaught in Gaza is intensifying, and the Houthis’ resolution to fight Israel till it ceases that assault remains fully in place. While Trump is choosing to focus on U.S. interests, it remains to be seen whether he’ll resist the pressure from the remaining pro-Israel hawks in his administration to resume bombing should Israel’s war with the Houthis escalate further. 

Yet Trump’s apparent willingness to test the reciprocal arrangement with the Houthis, rather than perpetuate a cycle of violence, is a pragmatic, prudent step reflecting a commitment to American priorities. By stopping a campaign that was leading nowhere, he has opened a door to further engage Iran while keeping Israel’s conflicts at arm’s length. This is America First in action—focusing on U.S. interests, minimizing unnecessary bloodshed, and seeking diplomatic openings where possible.

The post Trump’s Houthi Bombing Halt Puts America First appeared first on The American Conservative.

President Donald Trump has given several recent interviews on his first 100 days in office. He first spoke with Time, then with The Atlantic, and, most recently, with NBC’s Meet the Press. In them, he gave some of his clearest statements yet on controversial foreign policy issues, though ambiguity on some important matters remained.

The Russia–Ukraine War

On the war in Ukraine that he promised to end on his first day in office, Trump made four bold statements. The first was on NATO membership for Ukraine, the second was on the role of NATO in provoking Russia’s invasion, the third was on territorial agreements, and the fourth was on America’s possibly walking away from negotiations.

On NATO membership, Trump reiterated the administration’s position that Ukraine would never join. When asked if Ukraine should “give up any hope of ever joining NATO,” he said, “I don’t think they’ll ever be able to join NATO.” The one-page peace plan that the U.S. presented to Ukraine in Paris on April 17 as America’s “final offer” firmly states that “Ukraine will not seek to join NATO.”

The second point that Trump made about NATO was that “what caused the war to start was when they [Ukraine] started talking about joining NATO.” 

Talk of the war being provoked and Russia having legitimate security concerns has been heresy in the West. Yet it is a point that has been conceded by both Ukraine and NATO.

David Arakhamia, who led the Ukrainian negotiating team in the Belarus and Istanbul talks, confirmed that an assurance that Ukraine would not join NATO was the “key point” for Russia. According to Arakhamia, “They were prepared to end the war if we agreed to… neutrality and committed that we would not join NATO.” Zelensky himself said that the promise not to join NATO “was the first fundamental point for the Russian Federation” and that “as far as I remember, they started a war because of this.”

Jens Stoltenberg, who was then the secretary general of NATO, said that a NATO promise of no further enlargement “was a precondition” for Russia “not [to] invade Ukraine.” Putin, Stoltenberg said, “went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.”

Trump’s answers to questions on territorial concessions were equally clear and important. Asked if Russia would keep Crimea, he answered concisely that “Crimea will stay with Russia.” Trump’s peace plan offers formal U.S. recognition of Russia’s ownership of Crimea and says the U.S. will de facto recognize that territory in the Donbas currently occupied by Russia is under “Russian control.”

Having stated what territory Ukraine will have to give up, Trump was asked what territory Russia would have to concede. Trump replied, “Russia will have to give up all of Ukraine. Because that’s what they want.” Trump then claimed that “if it weren’t for me, they would keep going” and that “they would be fighting right now for all of Ukraine.” Though the claim makes Ukraine’s loss of land more palatable for public consumption and credits Trump with having accomplished some tough negotiations, there is little to no evidence for his claim that Putin intended or intends to conquer all of Ukraine.

Trump and his team have repeatedly said in recent days that they could walk away from negotiations if a diplomatic solution seemed elusive. When an interviewer asked, “How long do you give both countries before you’re going to walk away?” Trump answered that “there will be a time when I will say, ‘Okay, keep going. Keep being stupid and keep fighting.’” Asked if he could envision “a situation in which you’re going to come in, not with troops, but with more weaponry, with full-blown support for Ukraine to keep its territorial integrity,” Trump downplayed a U.S. return to military support, saying that it “doesn’t have to be weapons. There are many forms of weapons. Doesn’t have to be weapons with bullets. It can be weapons with sanctions. It can be weapons with banking. It can be many other weapons.” 

Trump was asked, “Is there anything that Putin could do that would cause you to say, ‘You know what? I’m on Zelensky’s side now.’” Taking the question to refer to Zelensky as a person and not as a representative of Ukraine, Trump revealingly replied, “Not necessarily on Zelensky’s side, but on Ukraine’s side, yes. Yeah. But not necessarily on Zelensky’s side. I’ve had a hard time with Zelensky.”

Nuclear Negotiations with Iran

On negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, Trump continued to express optimism, but what that deal would entail underwent an important metamorphosis between his first interview with Time and his last interview with Meet the Press.

Trump continued to use his formulation that there are two ways to accomplish his goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon (an ambition that Iran denies that it has). “I think we’re going to make a deal with Iran,” he said. But if “we can’t get a deal,” he said, he’d “very willingly” go to war with Iran. Trump insisted that “Iran will not have a nuclear weapon” but maintained that he “think[s] we can make a deal without the attack” and that he “would much prefer a deal than bombs being dropped.”

Trump has consistently said that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program are limited to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon: “You know, it’s not a complicated formula. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” In the initial Time interview, he continued with the formulation that the goal of negotiations was verifiable limitations on Iran’s civilian nuclear program. “Iran will not have a nuclear weapon,” he said, simply.

But by the final interview with Meet the Press, Trump’s demand in negotiations seemingly had grown, though ambiguities in the White House’s official position remained. Asked “Is the goal of these talks limiting Iran’s nuclear program or total dismantlement?” Trump answered, “total dismantlement.” 

Though Trump himself had always identified the goal of negotiations as being limited to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has said that the U.S. is demanding “full dismantlement,” and Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff said that “a Trump deal” means “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”

In his interview with Meet the Press, Trump seemed to change his position and join Waltz and Witkoff in in their position that the U.S. is not negotiating verifiable limits on Iran’s civilian nuclear program but the “total dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program.

When the interviewer sought to clarify that “that’s all you’ll accept?” Trump confirmed, “yeah, that’s all I’d accept.” Trump rejected Iran’s need for a civilian nuclear program “to make electricity” because “they have so much oil, what do they need it for?” 

Yet he then repeated his earlier stance that “the only thing they can’t have is a nuclear weapon.” He said, “I think that I would be open to hearing” about a civilian nuclear program to generate energy before seemingly shutting that option down again with the caution that “civilian energy often leads to military wars.”

Since the Meet the Press interview, Trump has said that he hasn’t decided if he’d accept a deal that allows Iran to develop civilian nuclear energy. If Trump’s final position is the hardline stance, it will complicate and possibly doom negotiations with Iran, whose team is negotiating under the firm limit imposed by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that Iran will not negotiate “the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.”

Territorial Expansion

Trump’s most worrisome comments pertained to the issue of U.S. territorial expansionism. When asked if he wanted “to be remembered as a president who expanded American territory,” Trump replied that he “wouldn’t mind.”

Trump made two bold statements on that matter. The first was on Canada, the second on Greenland.

Trump consistently reiterated his desire to annex Canada as the 51st state. He has regularly referred to the border that separates Canada and the U.S. as an “artificially drawn line.” Given the opportunity to retract the threat and clarify that the statements were intended, not as existential threats to Canada, but as part of a negotiating strategy, Trump passed on the opportunity and stated clearly for the record that he is serious.

“You’ve talked about acquiring Greenland, taking control of the Panama Canal, making Canada the 51st state,” the Time interviewer said. “Maybe you’re trolling a little bit on that one,” referring to Canada. “I’m really not trolling,” Trump insisted. Asked whether he planned on talking to Canada’s new Prime Minister, Mark Carney, about making Canada the fifty-first state at their first meeting, Trump said, “I’ll always talk about that.” 

Trump also consistently claimed that Canada needs the United States, but the United States needs nothing from Canada. “We don’t need their gasoline; we don’t need their oil; we don’t need their lumber. We don’t need their energy of any type. We don’t need anything they have,” he said, before adding his solution to the asymmetrical relationship: “I say it would make a great 51st state.”

In the Meet the Press interview, Trump reiterated his claim that the U.S. doesn’t need anything from Canada before adding, “We do very little business with Canada. They do all of their business practically with us. They need us. We don’t need them.” Canada is actually the third largest exporter to the United States.

Perhaps Trump’s most alarming statement came after he repeated his desire to make Canada “a cherished state” and insisted that the border between the U.S. and Canada is an “artificial line that was drawn with a ruler many years ago.” He was asked, “Would you rule out military force to take Canada?” He answered, encouragingly, “Well, I think we’re not going to ever get to that point.… it’s highly unlikely. I don’t see it with Canada. I just don’t see it, I have to be honest with you.” He then, alarmingly, added, “It could happen. Something could happen with Greenland. I’ll be honest, we need that for national and international security.”

Trump then reminded his interviewer that when asking about his “desire to claim Canada [and] Greenland,” she “forgot the Panama Canal.”

These three “first 100 days” interviews provide clear insights into Trump’s foreign policy. Some of it is encouraging, some of it concerning, and all of it very controversial.

The post Trump on Trump: The ‘First 100 Days’ Interviews appeared first on The American Conservative.

The Trump administration designated Friday two Haitian gangs, the Viv Ansanm coalition and Gran Grief, as both Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists. In a press release, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the gangs’ “ultimate goal is creating a gang-controlled state where illicit trafficking and other criminal activities operate freely and terrorize Haitian citizens.”

The designation gives the government a wide range of options for penalizing financial transactions that benefit the gangs, which could include almost any activity in a country so thoroughly dominated by organized crime. Haitian gangs assassinated the last president of the Caribbean republic in 2021 and toppled the remains of the government in 2024; in the intervening months they have taken almost complete control of the countryside and are close to pushing out the UN mission occupying the capital, Port-au-Prince.

Gang rule has been brutal for Haitians, who are regularly subject to plundering, kidnappings for ransom, extortion, and all manner of violent crime. The UN reports that over 5,600 people were murdered and more than 1,500 people were kidnapped in 2024, an astonishing amount for a country with a population of only 11.6 million. Gang members routinely carry out mass rape and sexual violence, often as a form of retribution or a display of dominance against their rivals.

Domestic efforts to constrain the gangs have failed. The Haitian police forces, always encumbered by corruption and a lack of training, equipment, and professionalism, are now completely outnumbered and without a functional government to support them; they and their families are in constant danger from criminal elements. The Kenyan-led UN security mission, which was projected to provide an additional 2,500 police officers, contributes less than 1,000; it too is barely holding on in a small enclave in the capital, 80 percent of which is controlled by Viv Ansanm and another 10 percent by other gangs.

The criminal anarchy has plunged the already poor population into the depths of misery; business and normal economic activity is impossible to maintain in an environment of constant violence, and much of the population has been reduced to scavenging and dependence on international humanitarian aid for their continued subsistence. According to Action Against Hunger, about 1 million Haitians received food aid in the past year; many others have received other kinds of international assistance.

Haitian gangs have not been slow to turn international aid into another lucrative source of funding for themselves. Shipments of food and other aid must pass through gang-controlled territory to reach the needy population, and gangs charge significant tolls in return for safe passage. In an interview with Haiti’s Le Nouvelliste newspaper, Finance Minister Alfred Metellus stated that the gangs may derive as much as $75 million a year in revenue from tolls extorted from drivers transporting goods into Haiti from the Dominican Republic—$2000 for each cargo container.

So far, the international response has accomplished nothing but perpetuating the impossible situation Haiti finds itself in—providing only just enough additional force to prevent a complete takeover by gangs and the erection of a criminal government, while providing new sources of revenue for gang leaders in the form of international aid. The Biden administration seems to have determined to end the conflict by evacuating Haitians into the U.S. Hundreds of thousands entered the country during his term under the Immigration Parole Program, settling, among other places, in Springfield, Ohio, where they became a campaign issue in 2024.

The designation of Haitian gangs as terrorist organizations appears to signal that the Trump Administration is assembling a new strategy for dealing with Haiti, although it is not yet clear what that will be. The law imposes stiff penalties on anyone who provides “material support” or “resources” to designated groups. Anyone who sends money or other resources to Haiti that end up in the hands of the gangs not only risks facing criminal charges or being slapped with counter-terrorism sanctions, they may even face deportation.

The scope of the law is broad enough that it could apply to not only foreign funders of Haitian gangs, but also to international aid organizations that pay tolls to gang members to use their roads, or remittances sent home by Haitians that end up one way or another in the the hands of gangs. Because Haiti’s territory is so deeply infested with organized crime, the designation could function as a de facto embargo on commerce with the country.

Human rights watchdogs are concerned that the new approach “will have enormous chilling effects on the aid and lethal effects in Haiti where so much of the population is already starving,” and say that the Trump administration could use the designation as a tool to deport Haitians living in the United States.

A new approach towards the gang problems in Haiti is not only necessary but pressing. The international response has served only to prolong the crisis, which has been ongoing for close to a decade without resolution. The provision of humanitarian aid to starving Haitians, while noble in intent, has only empowered the gangs that are the source of their immiseration. Bringing Haitians to the U.S., as the Biden administration did, also does nothing to solve the problem, while actively harming Americans. A more muscular strategy that cracks down hard on gang funding and avoids potentially introducing foreign conflicts to the U.S. has the potential to serve both Haitians and Americans far better than the status quo.

The post U.S. Designates Haitian Gangs as Terrorist Organizations appeared first on The American Conservative.

Now less than two weeks away, the Memorial Day recess hangs over House Speaker Mike Johnson like an anvil.

The holiday recess is just the latest deadline set by Johnson to bring the House’s budget reconciliation mega-bill to the floor—and the biggest fights still lie ahead. Maybe it was Golden-Age endorphins that caused Johnson to say in January that the House could finish its reconciliation work by late April. By February, that deadline was pushed to early May.

The last time I covered budget reconciliation for this magazine, I wrote, “It’s something of a miracle Congress is even this far along in the process.” And that was before seven of the 11 House committees that received instructions from the budget resolution passed their respective pieces of the megabill out of committee.

Until this week, GOP infighting has been largely contained to what President Donald Trump might call “concepts of a plan.” Moderates have been tweaking about increasing SALT deductions, cutting Medicaid, and protecting Biden green energy subsidies. In one lawmaker’s words to me, there’s a lot of “have their cake and eat it too” happening on Capitol Hill.

But things change when pen gets put to paper. Take what happened with the House Transportation Committee markup, the biggest public contretemps over a concrete policy proposal in the budget reconciliation process thus far. 

Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO) had to pull a provision that would have placed a universal $20 fee on gas-powered passenger vehicles. Graves’s intent was to lay the foundation for getting rid of the federal gasoline tax in the future, but that did not sit well with some of his Republican colleagues.

“Like, are you out of your fricking mind?” Rep. Chip Roy, (R-TX) said of the fee. “Like, the party of limited government is gonna go out and, ‘Say we’re gonna have [a car tax]?’” Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO), a member of the Transportation Committee, said he was a “no” on the proposal.

In the end, the committee scrapped the $20 fee and proposed increasing the EV fee to $250.

But that’s small potatoes to the upcoming fights that will likely define this legislation. The Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees are scheduled to hold markups next week, following a delay. These sessions are expected to be the most pivotal in the budget reconciliation process. 

Energy and Commerce has been instructed to find $880 billion in cuts over the 10-year window. Meanwhile, Ways and Means have been given a $4.5 trillion leash for tax cuts. Despite the delay, both committees have added meetings throughout the week to iron out their plans. Ways and Means, for example, met Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday to discuss the tax portion of the GOP mega-bill.

Nevertheless, the path to the summit of the mountain gets narrower at the top. 

For the past few weeks, moderates have tried applying as much pressure on House leadership as possible to limit Medicaid reforms via budget reconciliation. Johnson has let the process unfold and let the committee do its work, but it has cost him messaging consistency. The speaker has been caught wavering on what reforms Republicans are considering to achieve $880 billion in cuts. Changes to FMAP (the rate by which the federal government reimburses states for Medicaid services)? Yes, then maybe, now no. Per-capita spending limits? Who knows!

Johnson is becoming slightly more assertive now, however. On Tuesday evening, Johnson met with GOP moderates and told reporters the two biggest Medicaid reforms, FMAP changes and per-capita caps, are likely off the table. “I think we’re ruling [per capita caps] out as well but stay tuned,” Johnson told reporters. Yet, one unnamed Republican at the meeting told POLITICO that Johnson suggested the $880 billion in cuts was “aspirational.” 

Moderates are offering a three-part proposal for Medicaid reform: additional work requirements for able-bodied adults, more frequent eligibility checks, and eliminating any benefits for illegal immigrants. “We’re coming up with options — we’re discussing them, hashing through them, debating them,” Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), one of the House GOP moderates, said after the meeting. “They’ll come back with a revision.”

But those savings would only get Republicans half way there, and ruling out FMAP and per-capita caps take large amounts of potential savings off the table.

Conservatives did not take the news well. “So – the GOP leadership position is to defend OBAMACARE policies,” Roy wrote in an antagonistic post on X.

The House Freedom Caucus also took to X: 

It’s one thing to ask for lower Medicaid savings while compromising on the SALT deduction, but moderates are going for it all. Moderates are demanding a substantial increase to the SALT deduction, among other SALT adjustments that will negatively impact the deficit. And, despite having a substantial caucus devoted to SALT, they haven’t yet brought a number to the table. Some of the disagreements in the moderate camp are downright comical, such as whether or not to include second homes or place an income cap on SALT. (Ah, yes, the party of the multi-ethnic working class at work.)

Meanwhile, conservatives are fighting back. In a new letter to Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), thirty-two House Republicans wrote that “under the House’s framework, the reconciliation bill must not add to the deficit.”

“The House reconciliation instructions are binding. They set a floor for savings, not a ceiling. We must hold that line on fiscal discipline to put the country back on a sustainable path,” the lawmakers added. “We are more committed than ever to making that happen.”

But this is all just the sound of sharpening knives. They’ll come out for real next week if things stay on track. Which is no guarantee. Rep. Buddy Carter of Georgia, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, said Republicans will be “hard pressed” to meet Johnson’s Memorial Day deadline.

The post Another Round of Congressional GOP Infighting Begins appeared first on The American Conservative.

Pelosi / PBS Screenshot

When speaking to a journalist recently, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested that the Catholic Church could have female priests in her grandchildren’s lifetimes.

This is a window into the mind of the left. They look at this as an equality issue, rather than just respecting the traditions of the Catholic Church.

They would actually look forward to, and celebrate, the ‘first’ female priest, as if it was a civil rights issue or something.

FOX News reports:

Pelosi says Catholic Church could have female priests in her grandchildren’s lifetime

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Wednesday the Catholic Church could have female priests in her grandchildren’s lifetime.

“Maybe my grandkids’,” Pelosi told Politico’s Jonathan Martin after he asked her, “Do you think we’ll see female priests in your kids’ lifetime?” in a conversation Wednesday that was part of Politico’s “Securing Europe: NATO’s Next Steps Event.”

Pelosi, who is Catholic and was denied Communion by San Francisco’s archbishop over her support for abortion rights, also talked about her perspective on the Church’s stance on other hot-button issues.

“That’s one of the debates they were having when we were over there, the role of women in the church, attitudes to LGBTQ, issues that relate to divorced Catholics, can they receive Communion and if they remarry, oh my gosh, can they still receive Communion? Those kinds of day-to-day things that the Church has not really fully resolved,” Pelosi said.

It’s funny the way the media always bends over backwards to mention that Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic. They do the same thing with Joe Biden. They conveniently overlook the fact that both of these people have beliefs that directly conflict with church teachings. The abortion issue is a perfect example. The idea of female priests is another one.

They don’t respect traditions, they see the church as something that needs to evolve.

The post Nancy Pelosi Suggests There Will be Female Catholic Priests in Her Grandchildren’s Lifetimes appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.