Month: May 2025

Wearing just a MAGA hat and an overcoat to keep himself dry, President Donald Trump capped a long day by talking to reporters for over six minutes in the pouring rain without an umbrella Friday night as he returned to D.C. from a trip to Pittsburgh where he held a rally with steel workers to celebrate his deal to save U.S. Steel. Earlier in the day, Trump, who turns 79 on June 14, held a lengthy Oval Office press conference with outgoing DOGE chief Elon Musk.

President Trump reacts to a question by Real America’s Voice reporter Steve Gruber at a press gaggle at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, screen image via Forbes Breaking News, May 30, 2025.

Upon his arrival at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland just outside of Washington, D.C., Trump walked over to reporters and took over a dozen questions covering U.S. Steel, Elon Musk, sanctions on Russia, Gaza ceasefire negotiations, trade deals, the G7 summit in Canada next month, Susie Wiles hacked phone impersonations and Chinese college students’ visa worries. Trump also commented on the administration’s fight with Harvard and brokering peace between India and Pakistan.

Trump liked the questions by Real America’s Voice reporter Steve Gruber. At the end of the gaggle, Trump asked him who he was with. Gruber shook Trump’s hand and gave him a pat on the back as Trump headed to the waiting Beast.

Trump landed around 9 p.m. after a line of strong thunderstorms that spawned several tornado warnings had moved through the D.C. area. The temperature was around 60 degrees.

Transcript via pool reporter Zolan Kanno-Youngs with the New York Times.

Part One and Part Two.

POTUS started by saying he thinks the U.S. Steel/Nippon deal will be “a fantastic deal.” He said $17 billion is being invested for new steel mills.

Q: Can Pennsylvania be the steel capital of the world?

“I think it’s going to happen. I think it’s going to happen.”

Q: What’s it going to take?

“Not much. We just had $17 billion given. And again, we’re going to have control in the U.S. It’s going to be a U.S.A. deal, the board is controlled. More importantly the money is built and spent on facilities. You can’t take them and leave.”

“The money is invested in brick and mortar, you can’t lift it up and take it,” Trump said. “But I think much more importantly it’s going to be a great partnership. And the company Nippon is coming in with $17 billion plus.”

Q: But is it an acquisition? Is Nippon acquiring U.S. Steel?

“This is an investment. It’s controlled by the United States and more importantly they’re spending the money on brick and mortar. You can’t take it. What are you going to do, pick it up and move it to Japan? That’s not going to happen.

Q: But they will own U.S. Steel?

“I rejected this about four times now and when they finally got it right I liked it a lot,” Trump said, adding the unions loved it.

Q: It will be thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania right?

“Thousands….I like this guy.”

Q: Were you aware of Elon Musk’s regular drug use?

“No, I wasn’t. I think he’s fantastic. I think Elon is a fantastic guy.”

Q: Are you troubled by these reports?

“I’m not troubled by anything with Elon. I think he’s fantastic. He did a great job. And you know DOGE continues. And by the time it’s finished, we’ll have numbers that knock your socks off. It’s going to be a — he did a fantastic job. And he didn’t need to do it.”

Q How do you replace him?

He’s not easy to replace.

Q: Is the Nippon deal finalized?

“No, I have to approve the final deal.”

Q: How will it stay in U.S. ownership?

“Well you’ll see but I have to approve the final deal with Nippon and we haven’t seen that final deal yet. But they’ve made a very big commitment. And it’s a very big investment. It’s the largest investment in the history of Pennsylvania in any deal, not just steel…”

Q: Do you support the Lindsey Graham/Blumenthal bill that would levy sanctions on Russia?

“I don’t know. I have to see it. We’ll take a look at it.”

Q: Are you confident that your proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza that was just submitted this week will get approved by Hamas?

“I think they want to, they want to get out of that mess. They’re in a big mess. I think they want to get out of it.”

Q: Can we anticipate any trade deals next week? And does this deal today with Nippon help your overall talks with Japan?

“Well Japan very much wants to make a trade deal, I don’t think this has much to do with it but it certainly won’t hurt… I think the deal I’m most proud of is the fact that we’re dealing with India, we’re dealing with Pakistan and we were able to stop potentially a nuclear war through trade, as opposed to bullets. Normally they do it through bullets. We do it through trade. So I’m very proud of that. Nobody talks about it but we had a very nasty potential war going on between Pakistan and India. And now if you look they’re doing fine.”

Trump noted Pakistan representatives are coming to Washington next week and the administration is very close to making a deal with India.

“I wouldn’t have any interest in making a deal with either if they were going to war with each other,” Trump said.

Trump was asked for his message for the G7 in a couple weeks

“Well, it’s in Canada and he’s a very nice guy by the way, Mark Carney, I think he’s a very nice guy. And we had some good talks. We’ll see what happens.

Q: There’s reports that Susie Wiles’s phone was breached and someone is impersonating her.

“I heard that, yeah.”

Q: Are you concerned about that?

“No, she’s an amazing woman. She can handle it. But I’ve heard they breached her phone and tried to impersonate her. Nobody can impersonate Susie. There’s only one Susie.”

Q: What’s your message to Chinese college students in the United States that want to stay in the United States and don’t want their visa revoked?

“They’re going to be okay. It’s going to work out fine. We just want to check out the individual students. We have to and that’s true with all colleges,” Trump said.

He then criticized Harvard for allegedly not providing the government with enough information.

“We want people that can love our country and take care of our country and cherish our country and for some reason Harvard doesn’t want to give us a list,” Trump said.

Trump ended the gaggle by saying it was time to get out the rain, “I would suggest you all get out of the rain now. Goodbye everyone, have a good night.”

The post Watch: Nearly 79-Year-Old President Trump Takes Reporters’ Questions in the Pouring Rain Without an Umbrella at the End of a Long Day appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Federal Judge Tanya Williams has sparked a new wave of national debate following remarks that, while intended to promote inclusion, have been viewed by many conservative sectors as a troubling sign of the ideological bias creeping into the U.S. judicial system. In a recent interview, Williams stated, “I think it’s important that, especially in criminal cases, when you have people on one side of the courtroom who can look at the judge and say, ‘Wow, she looks like me, so maybe I have a better chance.’”

At first glance, such words might appear harmless or even well-meaning. However, they raise serious concerns about the impartiality expected of those entrusted with upholding justice—free from external influences of race, gender, or ideological affiliation. Justice, according to the U.S. Constitution, must be blind. Yet this statement implies that a judge’s appearance might shape perception—and potentially the outcome—of a trial.

A Troubling Vision of Judicial Impartiality

For millions of citizens who value this nation’s founding principles, Judge Williams’ comments raise doubts about how committed the judicial system remains to fairness and objectivity. The idea that a defendant might feel more optimistic about their case simply because the judge “looks like” them is not only misguided—it’s dangerous.

President Donald J. Trump, now in his second term, has been clear about the urgent need to clean up and reform the justice system to restore its neutrality. “It’s not about looking like the judge. It’s about applying the law—no matter where you’re from, how you look, or who you voted for. Justice is justice, period,” the President declared during a recent event in Florida.

A System That Should Represent Values, Not Identities

From the highest courts to the most local tribunals, identity has too often been transformed into a banner of “progress,” frequently at the cost of meritocracy and common sense. Judge Williams’ comments reveal a school of thought that prioritizes superficial representation over consistent legal reasoning.

Diversity in institutions matters, yes—but it must never replace competence, nor become an implicit metric of fairness. As Senator Tom Cotton aptly stated, “The judge is not there to be your reflection in the mirror; they’re there to ensure the law is followed.”

The Danger of Sentimentalism in the Courtroom

A judge’s emotional or cultural identification with a defendant should never be a factor—positive or negative. The role of a judge is to remain above emotional ties that could cloud legal judgment. The rule of law depends on facts, evidence, and precedent—not subjective empathy.

Legal analysts across the country have warned that this type of judicial philosophy risks fueling perceptions of bias. In a system already strained by racial and political tensions, the last thing the U.S. needs is to feed the idea that justice can be tailored to fit the face in the courtroom.

Trump’s Mandate: Restore Trust in the Courts

Throughout his presidency, Donald Trump has driven an unprecedented judicial renewal, appointing judges with firm originalist principles and a commitment to interpreting the Constitution as it was written. His current term reaffirms that goal: to ensure that every court, from municipal to the Supreme Court, operates under principles of law—not ideological fashion.

“We’re putting justice back where it belongs—at the heart of the law, not at the mercy of courtroom sentiment or passing trends,” Trump stated during a recent conference with federal judges. His vision is supported by a growing majority of voters who are alarmed by the drift of our institutions toward relativism and the “anything goes” culture.

The American People Want Objectivity—Not Activism in Robes

As we move into an era of constitutional reaffirmation, the people of the U.S. don’t want activists in robes. They want judges who respect the limits of their role—judges who know that their decisions affect lives, legal precedents, and future generations. It’s not about resembling anyone. It’s about representing what’s right.

As President Trump rightly said: “Justice doesn’t need a mirror. It needs a scale.”

The post Representation in Justice: Judge Williams’ Words Rekindle Debate Over Inclusivity in U.S. Courts appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Trump Pardons Former Governor Rowland – Did Big Pharma Target Him for His Psychiatric Drug Ban?

Republished with permission from AbleChild

Recently Pardoned Former Governor John Rowland’s political downfall is often reduced to scandalous headlines about gifts and corruption, but the truth behind his resignation reveals a far more complex and troubling story—one that involves a fierce battle with Big Pharma, a controversial psychiatric drug ban for vulnerable children, and a corruption scandal that may not be as disconnected as it seems.

In the early 2000s, Governor Rowland took a rare and bold stand against the wrongful medication of children in state care by banning three powerful antipsychotic drugs from Connecticut’s drug formulary: Risperdal (risperidone), Zyprexa (olanzapine), and Seroquel (quetiapine). These medications were widely prescribed despite mounting evidence of severe side effects, including increased risks of suicide, diabetes, and violent behavior. The ban thrust Connecticut into the national spotlight when The New York Times ran a front-page article in 2004 exposing the widespread use—and potential dangers—of these psychiatric drugs in children under state supervision, sparking a nationwide conversation about the ethics and safety of medicating vulnerable youth.

That same year, National Public Radio (NPR) also covered Connecticut’s groundbreaking actions, highlighting the state’s efforts to protect children from inappropriate psychiatric drug use and the challenges faced in regulating these medications. The NPR coverage emphasized the growing concern over the off-label use of antipsychotics in children, the lack of adequate oversight, and the pushback from pharmaceutical companies.

Connecticut’s legislative and regulatory bodies responded with a six-month review of psychotropic medication use in children in state care, resulting in public acts aimed at establishing oversight mechanisms and protecting children from inappropriate drug use. This review was part of a broader effort to address systemic issues such as lack of informed consent and insufficient court approvals.

Across the country, states like New York, Florida, New Jersey, and Arkansas also made national news for confronting the rampant and often off-label use of antipsychotic medications in children in foster care. Investigations and lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies such as Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly highlighted illegal marketing practices promoting these drugs for unapproved uses in children. Connecticut emerged as one of the front lines in this battle, with state legislators and child welfare agencies scrutinizing psychotropic drug use and seeking greater oversight and protections for children in care.

Rowland’s ban challenged powerful pharmaceutical interests. According to advocacy groups like AbleChild, representatives from Canadian pharmaceutical companies met with the governor behind closed doors, pressing him to reverse the decision. Within six months, the banned drugs were reinstated on the state formulary, raising urgent questions about the influence of Big Pharma on public health policy and the safety of children in care.

Shortly after the reversal, Rowland’s political career unraveled amid a federal corruption investigation focused on gifts he accepted—including a $3,600 hot tub installed at his lakeside cottage, cigars, champagne, and lavish vacations from friends and state contractors. While the official charges centered on these illicit gifts, the timing of the scandal and the rapid reinstatement of the psychiatric drugs invite a deeper, uncomfortable question: Were these events truly unrelated? Or was the corruption scandal a convenient smokescreen obscuring the high stakes battle over the health of Connecticut’s most vulnerable children?

Rowland initially denied accepting these gifts but later admitted guilt, leading to his resignation and a prison sentence. Yet, the story does not end there. Advocacy organizations like AbleChild have continued to expose systemic failures in the wrongful medication of children in state care—failures marked by lack of informed consent, absence of court oversight, and dangerous dosages. Their work underscores a broader crisis that Rowland’s ban briefly spotlighted before powerful forces pushed back.

This is not just a tale of political corruption; it is a stark reminder of how public health policy can be compromised by corporate power and political vulnerability. Governor Rowland’s real history challenges us to look beyond the surface, question who truly controls the fate of children in state care, and demand accountability from those entrusted to protect them.

As new light is shed on these intertwined events, the truth about Governor Rowland’s legacy—and the forces that shaped it—finally comes into focus.

Key Articles and Coverage on Connecticut’s Ban of Psychiatric Drugs in Children in State Care found below:

The New York Times, “Connecticut Bars Use of Psychiatric Drugs in Children” (2004) — Front-page coverage highlighting the state’s ban on Risperdal, Zyprexa, and Seroquel for children in state care, exposing widespread concerns about safety and overuse.

National Public Radio (NPR), “States Crack Down on Psychiatric Drug Use in Foster Children” (2004) — Reported on Connecticut’s pioneering efforts and challenges in regulating antipsychotic drug use in vulnerable youth populations.

Connecticut General Assembly, 2004 Legislative Review — Six-month review and subsequent public acts aimed at regulating psychotropic medication use among children in state custody.

First Focus Report, “Psychotropic Medication Use in Children on Medicaid” (2008) — Documented Connecticut’s legal and policy reforms amid national scrutiny of antipsychotic drug use in children.

CT Mirror and other state news outlets (2004–2015) — Ongoing coverage of Connecticut’s efforts to improve oversight and care for children receiving psychiatric medications.

AbleChild is a 501(3) C nonprofit organization and has recently co-written landmark legislation in Tennessee, setting a national precedent for transparency and accountability in the intersection of mental health, pharmaceutical practices, and public safety.

What you can do.  Sign the Petition calling for federal hearings!

Donate! Every dollar you give is a powerful statement, a resounding declaration that the struggles of these families will no longer be ignored. Your generosity today will echo through generations, ensuring that the rights and well-being of children are fiercely guarded. Don’t let another family navigate this journey alone. Donate now and join us in creating a world where every child’s mind is nurtured, respected, and given the opportunity to thrive.  As a 501(c)3 organization, your donation to AbleChild is not only an investment in the well-being of vulnerable children but also a tax-deductible contribution to a cause that transcends individual lives.

The post ABLECHILD: President Trump Pardons Former Governor Rowland – Did Big Pharma Target Him for His Psychiatric Drug Ban? first appeared on Joe Hoft.

The post ABLECHILD: President Trump Pardons Former Governor Rowland – Did Big Pharma Target Him for His Psychiatric Drug Ban? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Candy manufacturer Haribo has issued a major recall after cannabis was found in some bags of its candy.

The incident took place in the Netherlands, where multiple members of one family became sick after eating Haribo’s Happy Cola F!ZZ candy, according to NL Times.

The Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority later confirmed that cannabis was found in samples of the candy that it took for testing, leading to a recall of one-kilogram bags.

“The situation goes beyond simple health complaints,” an agency representative said. “We immediately contacted Haribo, which issued a safety warning.”

An agency representative said some people reported “dizziness” after eating the candy, according to the BBC.

It said, consuming the candy “can lead to health complaints, such as dizziness, when consumed.”

How cannabis made it into the candy is not known.

A company representative said Haribo is working with law enforcement to “establish the facts around the contamination.”

Dutch police became involved after children were taken sick after eating the candy, according to the Guardian.

“We want to know exactly how it got into the candy, and, of course, how the bags ended up in the store,” police representative Chantal Westerhoff said.

To date, three affected bags have been identified, NL Times reported.

Haribo recalls bags of sweets in Netherlands after cannabis found https://t.co/lro5eiSEAP

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) May 29, 2025

However, Haribo is recalling all 1,000-gram bags of Happy Cola F!ZZ carrying a production code of L341-4002307906 and an expiration date of January 2026. Haribo wants customers to send their bags directly to the company, not to the store where they were purchased.

The company said that only one product was affected and only bags of that product sold in the Netherlands are covered by the recall.

All other products are safe, Haribo said.

The company said, it will issue refunds for all candy returned to it, according to the New York Post.

“The safety of our consumers is our highest priority, and Haribo takes this incident very seriously, which is why a recall has been issued in the Netherlands,” the company said in a statement.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Haribo Recalls Entire Stock of Gummy Candy After Three Packs Found Laced with Drugs appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Jacksonville City Council President Kevin Carrico has revealed that Democrat Mayor Donna Deegan has notified sheriffs not to enforce state or local immigration laws.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has been at the forefront of tackling illegal immigration.

In a post to X on Thursday, Carrico wrote, “As to General Council Fackler directing JSO not to enforce the State and Local Illegal immigration laws, This directive not only ties the hands of our local law enforcement, but it undermines the will of the Council and State Legislature. Florida is leading the fight for law and order, and instead of standing with us, the Mayor’s lawyer is siding with open-border politics.”

As to General Council Fackler directing JSO not to enforce the State and Local Illegal immigration laws, This directive not only ties the hands of our local law enforcement, but it undermines the will of the Council and State Legislature. Florida is leading the fight for law and…

— Kevin Carrico (@CMKevinCarrico) May 29, 2025

Carrico discussed the directive in an interview with Florida’s Voice, saying, “The Office of General Counsel of the, that was appointed by the Democratic mayor, sent a letter to the sheriff or email to the sheriff today telling him, do not enforce the state illegal immigration law and do not enforce the local illegal immigration law that we’ve been on this show talking about.”

NEW: Jacksonville City Council President-Elect @CMKevinCarrico reveals that the mayor’s Office of General Council has notified the sheriff to not enforce state or local immigration law pic.twitter.com/0o2MY0GTcw

— Florida’s Voice (@FLVoiceNews) May 29, 2025

The mayor’s office confirmed Carrico’s statement, sharing an email chain about the matter with Action News Jax.

An email from General Counsel Michael Fackler read in part, “The Office of General Counsel advises JSO to not enforce Chapter 605, Jacksonville Municipal Code, while the federal court’s injunction of Fla. Stat. SS 811.102-103 is in place. A copy of the federal injunction is attached.”

The report adds, “That same email goes on to say that the OGC also advises JSO not to enforce the state immigration law ‘as doing so would violate the federal court’s injunction.’ It also says JSO should cooperate with the enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

In a statement provided to the outlet, the mayor’s office said the directive was simply “legal advice” and that the office does not have authority over the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office.

“The Office of General Counsel represents the entire Consolidated Government and has repeatedly raised concerns that the local ordinance is redundant to the state law that is now blocked by a federal court. This is simply legal guidance offered by the General Counsel to another independent entity to avoid lawsuits being filed against the city.”

The sheriff’s office told ANJ that it “will continue to enforce federal, state and local laws.”

The post Florida Mayor Notified Sheriffs Not to Enforce Immigration Law appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

On Tuesday, the license that allowed Chevron to continue operating in Venezuela despite U.S. sanctions expired. The move sparked controversy and internal disagreement within the Trump administration over whether the license should have been extended—and under what terms.

When Special Envoy Richard Grenell announced on May 21 that Chevron would receive a 60-day extension, Secretary of State Marco Rubio quickly contradicted him, confirming that the license would expire as scheduled on May 27.

Any extension requires approval from both the Treasury and State Departments. Ultimately, both agencies agreed to limit Chevron’s activities to minimal maintenance operations—similar to what was permitted during the first Trump administration.

Some in or close to the administration have claimed this decision reduces Trump’s leverage over the Venezuelan regime and hands China access to the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

But is any of this true?

During the first Trump administration, the U.S. government pursued a “maximum pressure” strategy that targeted Venezuela’s oil industry. After negotiations with the Venezuelan government, the Biden administration eased some sanctions, including restrictions on the oil industry, granting operation licenses to Chevron, EMI, and other western oil companies. In April 2023, Biden reinstated many of the sanctions it had lifted but left the Chevron license untouched.

The Trump administration announced in February the revocation of the license issued by Biden in November 2022. Nevertheless, the Trump administration extended the license for 60 days in March after Venezuela committed itself to allowing the return of deported Venezuelan migrants and released a group of American hostages in Venezuela. But, as usual, Maduro didn’t deliver what he had promised. He didn’t allow as many repatriation flights as expected, and the human rights situation in the country has only worsened.

Before the license, Chevron’s presence in Venezuela was limited to minimal maintenance operations, but it could not exploit, process, or export Venezuelan oil. Ever since, Chevron has been free to do business in Venezuela, which allowed the country to become the third-largest exporter of crude oil to the U.S.  But now Trump has returned Chevron to its pre-2022 state, only permitting it to continue maintenance operations. Chevron won’t be able to export Venezuelan oil or buy oil extracted in Venezuela.

Those who hoped for the extension of the license and further engagement with Maduro have changed their narrative: The main issue now, they say, is that China will have free access to the largest oil reserves in the world all for itself. In an interview with Steve Bannon, Grennell said that “in our neighborhood, we want to make sure that the Chinese are not coming in and taking oil and minerals and gold and keeping us on the outside.”

The reasoning behind this is shaky to say the least. China already has an expansive presence in Venezuela, with or without Chevron. If they want to exploit oil resources in Venezuela, they can do so, and here is no reason Venezuelan authorities would stop them.

Nevertheless, while China’s economic endeavors are growing throughout Latin America, Venezuela is one of the few exceptions. Oil production of China’s joint ventures with the Venezuelan state oil company have declined since 2016, as has trade between both countries. After lending over $60 billion to Venezuela, China is trying to recoup its loans via discounts on Venezuelan oil shipments. Thus, it is quite unlikely that the Chinese presence in Venezuela would increase as Chevron goes to its pre-2022 status. In fact, Chinese investments and exports only decreased from 2019 to 2022, when the sanctions imposed on the Venezuelan oil industry by the Trump administration were still in force.

The suspension of Chevron’s license has significantly harmed the Venezuelan regime. Chevron exports between 200,000 and 240,000 barrels per day of crude from Venezuela, which is more than a quarter of the country’s oil exports. Venezuela was receiving an approximate $400 million a month from Chevron. Tax and royalty payments from Chevron’s license have been a major source of income for Maduro since early 2023, expanding its oil industry once again. Venezuela is taking between $2 billion and $3 billion a year in royalties and tax payments thanks to the licenses. Venezuelan oil production, although still far from its historical records, was at its highest point in almost a decade. The sanctions will prevent the Venezuelan regime from receiving this income, and with the Chinese unwilling to invest more in Venezuela, it’s likely out of options.

This has led Venezuela to escalate repression in the country. Around 70 opposition leaders and political activists in Venezuela were arrested last week. The highest-profile name is Juan Pablo Guanipa, who was the right-hand man of María Corina Machado, the opposition leader. Guanipa had been in hiding since the July electoral fraud that saw Maduro proclaim his reelection as president of Venezuela. After almost a week since his arrest, his whereabouts are still unknown, but he’s rumored to be in the Helicoide, the largest torture center of the Venezuelan regime.

The arrests are probably a desperate Maduro attempt at getting Trump back at considering negotiating the extension of the Chevron license in exchange for some political prisoners. Still, the Trump administration is unlikely to yield—nor should it. In fact, if anything, it has done quite the opposite. In March, the U.S. government imposed a 25 percent tariff on “all goods imported into the United States from any country that imports Venezuelan oil, whether directly from Venezuela or indirectly through third parties.”

Allowing Chevron to operate in Venezuela was actively hurting the U.S. Some $400 million a month generated by American oil imports was being used by the Venezuela regime to fund its drug operations throughout the Americas, including drugs funneled into the U.S. through the southern border by Tren de Aragua. The money also helped stabilize the dictatorship that has caused the largest humanitarian crisis in the western hemisphere, with thousands of Venezuelans trying to cross the southern border illegally as a result.

Oil companies shouldn’t dictate American foreign policy, and they especially shouldn’t do it when they would lead the U.S. to finance a dictatorship that has been doing everything in its power to destabilize America through drug trafficking, uncontrolled migration, and the establishment of criminal groups on U.S. soil.

It’s right and proper that the Trump administration puts America first instead of Chevron first.

The post Chevron First or America First? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Residents of Richmond, Virginia can safely drink the city’s water again after a city-wide boil water advisory was lifted late Thursday. It’s the third significant failure to impact the city’s drinking water this year. 

The first-year Mayor Danny Avula announced at 2:30 pm that the Virginia Department of Health had successfully treated the contaminated water and that negative results from required compliance samples would allow officials to remove the advisory effective immediately. 

“I’m deeply grateful to the residents and businesses for enduring this unexpected boil water advisory,” Avula said. “Residents and businesses expect better, and I am as committed as ever to finding the problems and fixing them. Doing this work requires being honest about what’s working and what’s not and I pledge my ongoing commitment to doing just that.”

“Sorry, we’re closed” read business signs throughout the region this week as officials attempted to diagnose and then treat the city’s water supply after a sudden drop in water pressure produced by samples from the Ginter Park Tank led to emergency conservation measures and a boil advisory. Residents in numerous neighborhoods across the city were affected, with businesses in the Fan, Jackson Ward, Carytown, Oregon Hill, and parts of Southside Richmond being forced to close due to water issues. 

The chaos began early Tuesday morning after an operational failure led to low or no pressure throughout the system. Richmond officials initially announced on Tuesday that they were addressing issues associated with “high turbidity” (murky or cloudy water) but that no further precautions were necessary. That directive had changed by the afternoon when city officials instituted a boil water advisory. 

WTVR in Richmond reported that a May 12 maintenance request noted that plate settlers, which are filters used to remove sludge, needed to be cleaned. The engineering expert Joel Paulsen explained that, if the settlers are not cleaned, sediment overwhelms the system and clogs the filters, which is exactly what happened earlier this week.

The Department of Public Utilities (DPU) spokeswoman Rhonda Johnson said officials were focused on providing recovery efforts and that an investigation into the cause of the failure would begin once the situation was addressed. 

“It really sounds like the plates themselves failed in this case, because they weren’t cleaned in a timely enough fashion,” said Paulsen.

In Richmond, the dirty water has renewed criticism of the Trump administration’s decision in April to cancel a $12 million FEMA grant intended to support Richmond’s aging infrastructure. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) called the administration’s decision to cut grant funding “the kind of penny-wise pound-foolishness that makes me crazy.”

“We have aging water and sewer systems all over Virginia,” Warner added. “If officials don’t invest in upgrading those systems, this kind of problem is going to happen everywhere around the commonwealth.”

But a spokesperson for the city’s Department of Public Utilities downplayed the cancelled funds, noting that the grant, approved in 2023, would not have addressed the problems this week. In its decision to revoke funding, the Trump administration deemed the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant program as nothing more than “wasteful and ineffective” spending based on “political agendas.” 

Though the water failures have forced some to question Avula’s performance as mayor so far, Reva Trammell, a Richmond city council member, wondered whether former mayor Levar Stoney, who is running for lieutenant governor on the Democratic ticket, should have done more to address the city’s water infrastructure with the $155 million federal Covid-19 emergency aid package Richmond received between 2017 and 2024. 

Stoney pushed back on the suggestion Wednesday, stating by phone that he couldn’t recall “any sort of document coming across my desk as mayor speaking directly to this grant.” Richmond’s water facility, which can treat more than 100 million gallons per day, supplies water to parts of neighboring counties such as Henrico, Chesterfield, Hanover, and Goochland. 

“I put forward eight budgets,” Stoney said in a statement. “Seven of those budgets had adjustments to the water utility rate. By the time I left office, I saw a 21% increase in the rate. Those dollars went into investments in maintenance and capital upgrades. But we can’t burden our ratepayers with fixing a 100-year-old system alone. We need federal and state partners to make investments.”

Attempts to access the grant online and learn whether the funding would have addressed water infrastructure efforts were unsuccessful after the Trump administration removed the site. The city’s boil advisory, which affected schools, restaurants, and civilian housing, was lifted Thursday afternoon. 

Avula said on Friday morning that “delayed maintenance” of the sedimentation basins in the city’s water treatment plant was to blame for the facility’s failure. 

In January, Richmond was without water for days after a blizzard caused distribution outages throughout the city. Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) activated the National Guard to address the situation as residents in Central Virginia scrambled to find clean drinking water. Government officials were criticized at the time for failing to alert the public in a timely manner, an issue that reared its head again during this week’s advisory. 

The post Richmond Boils Over appeared first on The American Conservative.

The Russia–Ukraine war looks bad.

Russia is hammering Ukraine, with intensified drone and missile attacks over Memorial Day weekend. Across the Atlantic, the U.S. president took notice.

Before boarding Air Force One on Sunday, President Donald Trump told reporters that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin was disrupting peace talks by “killing a lot of people” in Kiev and other cities. “I dunno what the hell happened to Putin,” he shouted over jet engines. By nighttime, Trump had figured it out. “He has gone absolutely CRAZY!” he wrote on Truth Social.

Maybe so. More likely, Putin—a cold-blooded strategist who rationally, often ruthlessly, pursues Russia’s perceived interests—smells absolute victory in Ukraine and aims to achieve it. Alternatively, Putin may be trying to wear down the Ukrainians so that Kiev loses leverage at the negotiating table and consents to a deal that addresses what Moscow calls the “root causes” of the conflict, namely, Ukraine’s Western tilt in recent decades.

Amid Putin’s apparent intransigence, some foreign-policy analysts want Trump to “walk away” from Russia–Ukraine diplomacy and cease America’s involvement in the conflict. Other, hardline voices are urging Trump to escalate the war to show resolve and punish Putin. 

He should do neither, which is to say, he should keep doing what he’s doing. That means nudging diplomacy along while providing Ukraine enough aid to hold off the Russian invaders. 

Despite setbacks, Trump’s approach may be paying off. This week brought signs that Putin, who has rejected a U.S.-proposed ceasefire that Kiev agreed to in March, may be warming to the kind of peace settlement that Ukraine and the West could be satisfied with. 

Reuters reported Wednesday, citing three well-placed Russian sources, that Putin’s “conditions for ending the war in Ukraine” include the following: partial sanctions relief, Ukrainian neutrality, protection for Russian speakers in Ukraine, an agreement on Russian assets frozen in the West, and a written pledge by major Western powers that NATO will stop expanding eastwards. 

These are reasonable requests, none which Washington or Kiev should dismiss outright, and all of which seem compatible with a peace deal the White House presented in April.

Wednesday brought another non-depressing development. Hours after the Reuters report came out, news broke that Russia proposed another round of direct ceasefire talks with Ukraine in Istanbul, to be held Monday. Like Russia’s proposal for the first round two weeks ago, this one came amid intensifying pressure from Trump. The previous day, he had posted on Truth Social that Putin was “playing with fire”.

Putin, of course, may also be playing for time. At the first round of Russia–Ukraine talks, Moscow’s delegation made outrageous demands and seemed disinclined to cease fire anytime soon. Some analysts saw silver linings, but most judged that the talks were a Russian ruse. Kiev suspects that is happening again, in part because Moscow, at the time of writing, still hasn’t presented a promised memorandum outlining its vision of a peace settlement.

Nevertheless, this week’s diplomatic developments raise hopes that the brutal war in Ukraine can be resolved diplomatically, and soon. And they present Trump a momentous decision about how to navigate what may be the final phase of the Russia–Ukraine war, or just another cycle of foot-dragging by Putin.

Whether Trump wants to even participate in another phase of diplomacy isn’t clear. Vice President J.D. Vance warned in April that if the Russians and Ukrainians didn’t agree to a ceasefire, then the U.S. would “walk away from this process.” Since then, some on the right have urged the White House to do just that. These pro-restraint conservatives generally also recommend that the Trump administration, while it’s at it, cut support for Ukraine. 

America-Firsters see at least one good reason for Trump to wash his hands of the conflict and let Moscow, Kiev, and Brussels hash it out: America lacks vital interests in Ukraine. Put more bluntly: It’s none of our business. 

I understand the sentiment. But the truth is, the war is our business. The U.S. helped provoke Putin’s invasion and afterwards enmeshed itself deeply in the war. One of the belligerents, Russia, is an adversary of the United States. The other, Ukraine, is in this mess largely because of misguided U.S. foreign policy that for decades antagonized Moscow.

Trump himself seems to think that the fact of our involvement in the conflict means we have an interest in resolving it. During the now-infamous Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in late February, Trump offered this defense of America’s trying to settle the war diplomatically: 

It’s a pathway to getting something solved. And I feel that as the head of this country, I have an obligation to do that. Plus, we’re very much involved. We got involved. It’s too bad we got involved because there should have been no involvement because there should have been no war.

Trump is right, and it’s useful to lay out the reasons why abandoning our involvement now would entail serious domestic-political and geostrategic risks.

On the domestic-politics front, Trump would pay a steep political price if, after withdrawing military support from Ukraine and ceasing diplomacy, the Russian military proceeded to overrun the country. As Trump knows, President Joe Biden’s poll numbers never recovered from the botched Afghanistan withdrawal. The grim spectacle of Moscow gobbling up a former Soviet republic thanks to American retreat would likely play even worse.

Moreover, Trump promised on the campaign trail to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war “within 24 hours” of winning the election. If, instead, he enables a Russian triumph within months of reentering the White House, the media would flail him, and the conservative political establishment could turn on him.

As for the geostrategic risks, they are in large part a problem of America’s own making. Its decades-long mishandling of the relationship with Moscow made more likely a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. In my view, wiser U.S. policy might have not only averted the invasion, but led to a harmonious Global North, with North America, Europe, and Russia integrated in a stable security order. 

But that didn’t happen. 

Instead, Washington dismissed Moscow’s legitimate concerns about NATO expansion and strategic instability, and the Kremlin took a revanchist turn. While normal security interests motivated Putin’s decision to invade, the Russian leader had also developed extravagant historical views that deny Ukraine’s status as an independent cultural entity. 

Over the course of the war, Russia has boosted its defense-industrial capacity, reversing its strategic decline relative to the West. At the same time, the antipathy of Russian elites toward the West has been inflamed to alarming levels. This is a disconcerting combination of factors.

Worse, Moscow’s military appetite seems to have grown with the eating, with high-profile politicians, intellectuals, and media figures increasingly describing the Baltic states and other eastern European countries as part of Russia’s sphere of influence, if not part of its rightful territory. Given Russia’s difficulties in conquering Ukraine, we shouldn’t exaggerate its capabilities—but we also shouldn’t discount the imperial ambitions and anti-Western animosity of Russian hardliners, nor their rising influence throughout the Ukraine war.

Russian–Western tensions are more likely to ease if the war ends in negotiations that address the concerns of all parties, rather than in a Ukrainian capitulation that leaves the West humiliated and Moscow emboldened. And the war is more likely to end that way if Trump, whom Putin respects, sustains America’s involvement. With Putin signaling a moderation of demands ahead of this week’s proposed talks, now is no time to give up on negotiations and withdraw U.S. military support that Ukraine desperately needs.

Rather, Trump should stay the course, continuing to use carrots and sticks to keep the two sides talking, while mostly avoiding actions and (until this week) rhetoric that needlessly alienate Moscow. Kiev has, for the most part, lately been going along with Trump’s peace efforts, thanks to his threats to cut off security assistance. But with U.S. military stocks depleting and the Russian economy resilient amid Western sanctions, Trump has smaller sticks to use against Putin.  

Fortunately, by putting on the table a broader rapprochement and economic partnership with Washington, Trump has dangled a big carrot in front of Putin’s nose, which may yet distract from the scent of looming military triumph. Based on my own conversations with Russian diplomats and academics, I know to a virtual certainty that Moscow finds the carrot enticing. 

To increase the odds that the carrot will help lead Russia to peace, Trump should make absolutely clear that concrete steps toward rapprochement can only happen after the war ends in a negotiated settlement.

As for the sticks, foreign policy experts assess that the U.S. still possesses some capacity to keep Ukraine in the fight. Trump can and should exercise his “drawdown authority” to quickly transfer billions of dollars in security assistance, thus continuing that feature of the diplomatic strategy. But he should calibrate the aid to bolster Ukraine’s defense, not to empower Kiev to try recapturing lost territory or to strike deep inside Russia. 

That last point is crucial, especially following the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s remarks this week backing Ukrainian long-range strikes with Western-supplied weapons. Last year, after the Biden administration authorized Ukraine to strike inside Russia with U.S. weapons, Moscow revised its nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for nuclear use and declaring that such strikes constitute a joint attack on the Russian Federation. Since Ukraine cannot use Western-supplied long-range missiles without targeting assistance from NATO, Russia’s view on the matter is valid. 

To manage nuclear risks and maintain constructive relations with Putin, Trump should prohibit Ukrainian strikes inside Russian territory with U.S.-supplied weapons. At the same time, he should make clear to Putin—as he promised to do on the campaign trail—that the U.S. will continue underwriting Ukraine’s defense until Moscow makes peace. 

Trump’s diplomatic efforts have brought the Russia–Ukraine war nearer a resolution. The process has taken longer than the president had hoped, but sustaining those efforts is his best chance to avoid political calamity, end a terrible war, and begin the hard work of repairing Russian–Western relations.

The post Putin Is Stalling, but Trump Should Stay the Course in Ukraine appeared first on The American Conservative.

A community in Florida is rallying around a disabled veteran after the homeowners association told him he had to take down an American flag on a flag pole in his yard.

What are the people in the homeowners association even thinking? Who tells a disabled veteran to take down the flag that he fought for and became disabled defending? Shame on these people.

They even filed a lawsuit over this.

FOX News reports:

Disabled veteran fights homeowners association lawsuit over flagpole in Florida yard

A disabled veteran in Volusia County, Florida, is at the center of a heated dispute with his homeowners association (HOA) over a flagpole installed in his yard.

According to Fox News affiliate WOFL-TV, the Countryside Villas PUD3 HOA has filed a lawsuit against the unnamed veteran, claiming he failed to obtain the required approval before erecting the permanent structure.

Despite the legal friction, community support for the veteran has surged, with neighbors speaking out against what they see as harassment and unnecessary litigation.

“Leave the veteran alone. He hasn’t done anything wrong,” Frank Johnson, a veteran himself, told the outlet. “He’s called me crying that they’re harassing him and bullying him. He’s served this country. He’s paid his dues. They wanted to get him on a flagpole and some weeds in the lawn. It’s pathetic. It’s really pathetic.”…

The situation only escalated when the veteran refused to remove the flagpole, accruing $1,000 in fines. The HOA responded by initiating a lawsuit for $8,000 and threatening to place a lien on his property.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is a veteran. Someone needs to call his office and ask him to intervene in this situation. He has a very good record of standing up to woke BS like this and would be a valuable ally in this fight. Make the members of the homeowners association famous.

The post Florida Community Outraged After Homeowners Association Tells Disabled Veteran to Remove American Flag in His Yard appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki speaks on her new MSNBC show. (MSNBC / YouTube screen shot)

MSNBC’s new primetime lineup is not delivering on ratings. In fact, they’re causing the exact opposite to happen as more people tune them out. Who could have predicted such a thing?

After Trump’s first 100 days in office came to a close and Rachel Maddow went back to her part-time schedule, the network promoted Jen Psaki to the 9 PM hour.

What MSNBC seems to fail to realize is that everyone remembers that Jen Psaki was Joe Biden’s White House press secretary like five minutes ago. Talk about ‘state-run’ TV.

The Daily Mail reports:

Fresh embarrassment for struggling MSNBC as new line up leads to disastrous ratings drop

Viewers are fleeing MSNBC just weeks after the liberal network debuted a new primetime lineup in a bid to salvage tumbling viewership.

So far this month, MSNBC dropped 41 percent in the primetime demographic and 34 percent in the total day demo compared to May 2024, leaked ratings figures show.

It’s a stinging blow for Jen Psaki who on May 5 took over for Rachel Maddow during the 9pm timeslot from Tuesday to Friday…

The latest ratings for ‘The Briefing with Jen Psaki’ came on May 22, when it failed to crack the coveted 1 million viewer mark. Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News, which also airs at 9pm, had 2.3 million total viewers that night.

Psaki’s show also performed dismally with the 25-54 key age demographic, only pulling in 55,000 viewers in that category. By comparison, Hannity had 210,000 viewers in the key demo.

Again, who could have predicted this? Everyone. Everyone could have predicted this.

MSNBC Primetime Viewership Plummets 41% This Month

Were there signs? pic.twitter.com/kVqSfmVVwC

— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) May 29, 2025

It’s a clown network devoted to nothing more than hatred of Trump and Republicans. The only people who are going to waste their time watching are hardcore lefties with incurable cases of TDS.

The post OOPS! New Primetime Lineup at MSNBC Leads to Drastic Drop in Ratings appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.