Month: November 2025

Politics

How to Stop Being Afraid and Interact With the Press

We’re not monsters—or at least, not irrational ones.

One of the painful aspects of this otherwise very agreeable profession is that you sometimes have to deal with people in the government. They get the raw end of the deal, though: Sometimes they have to deal with you. The sad truth of it is that Republicans especially tend to be terrified of journos, and the more conservative they are, the less likely it is that they know how to deal with them. 

This is a bit of a structural weakness. What’s the point of talking to the press? The prima facie purpose is to make sure your line gets out there. This use case doesn’t require a lot of analysis. In a non-adversarial story, refusing to talk to the writer is letting the chips fall where they may on angle and framing; in an adversarial story, it can seem tantamount to an admission. (You’ve probably heard that the mainstream press, by and large, is not a natural friend to the right; if you give it an excuse to paint you in the darkest colors possible, it will.) Those outcomes can be fine, but context is everything; sometimes, you want a little more say in the material that goes out. 

One currently popular theory of press relations is that complete refusal to cooperate with the media will allow you to circumvent journalists’ wiles. You can put everything out by your own channels, whether social media or press releases. The problem is that the press is in fact still an important publicity tool, and almost everyone in the world has a smaller platform at his disposal than that of a publication or media outlet; there’s a reason PR consultancies spend tens of thousands of dollars flooding journalists’ inboxes with emails advertising things like “PITCH” and “STORY IDEA” and “EXPERT FOR INTERVIEW.” (We never read these, by the way; if your PR man is charging you for doing email blasts, insist on seeing the open/click metrics before coughing up a check.) The press is especially valuable if there is information you would like to get out unofficially—that is to say, leaking. Leaking is not usually criminal or particularly mysterious, let alone inherently hostile to the public figures or organs involved; it’s a communication tool like any other. Someone can leak in a way that is helpful to an administration just as someone can give official comment in a way that is harmful to the administration. A generic example of a “friendly” leak: If an official wishes to fight or preempt a hostile narrative in the press, he may send information to sympathetic journalists that ameliorates or explains an otherwise unpopular decision. 

This is a very granular way of stating the obvious: Interacting with the press is a way of influencing the information environment, a way to shape or push narratives. But this is not the only or even the primary way in which interacting with journalists is useful. Pressmen, by the nature of the job, talk to a wide variety of people, perhaps a wider variety than an apparatchik sitting in an air-conditioned architectural blight in downtown Washington. Every once in a blue moon, journalists don’t want to take something out of you; they want to tell you something. But even if they are trying to get something out of you, they may well tell you something you don’t know; the very questions will give you a sense of what information is unsecured and ripping around outside your awareness or control. By corollary, the framing of journalists’ questions and comments can also tell you what they don’t know, which can also be useful if you are, for example, trying to assess the extent and gravity of a leak. Telling a journalist something may or may not be useful; listening to a journalist is almost always useful. 

Much like firing a shotgun or performing the physical act of love, it’s more pleasant if you’re not terrified of your own shadow while you’re doing it. I’ve talked to officials and appointees who punctuate every sentence with the words “off the record.” This repetition is undignified and somewhat unwise—expressing fear in front of a professional information-trafficker and desperado like a journo will just encourage him to press harder. It also betrays a deficit of common sense. If you are telling somebody something that is a bona fide generational scoop, he’s going to burn you, no matter how many times you say the magic words. If you’re not giving him the family jewels or a promissory note for the same, he’s not going to burn you: If he does, you’ll stop telling him useful things, and, worse, he’ll lose one of his excuses to burn an afternoon on an expense-account lunch. 

He’s especially not going to burn you if you are broadly aligned politically—he has to live in the same pond you do, and he will want many of the same things you want. But if you stonewall him, he may start figuring out how to take it out of you in other ways; he certainly will have no special investment in you or your agenda. It can be a tough city if you alienate your natural friends.

The post How to Stop Being Afraid and Interact With the Press appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs

Life After Xi

China is sailing the high seas with an aging helmsman.

(Photo by MAXIM SHEMETOV/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

For years, Xi Jinping has encouraged the usage of many Maoist era slogans. One such slogan, “Sailing the Seas Depends on the Helmsman,” was a Cultural Revolution staple, used in song, speeches, and on posters praising the chairman. The slogan’s reemergence highlights a connection in how the state viewed itself then and now.

The slogan also reflects Xi’s view of himself. As his years in office have gone on, this self-portrait has also been imposed on the party itself. Xi is presented as singular and irreplaceable. And yet, inevitably, he will need one day to be replaced.

Already seventy-two years old, Xi likely will secure another five-year term in 2027. But time is an enemy not so easily purged. As the years go on, the passage of time will silently erode Xi’s authority and reshape the behavior of other Chinese elites, loosening his hold over them, whether or not the aging leader is ready for it.

Xi’s China pretends succession is a solved problem. It is not. The CCP chooses to ignore the question publicly, but behind closed doors, the party cadres know the clock is ticking.

In the West, Xi’s consolidation of authority is often portrayed as growing in strength. In reality, it reflects myriad forms of national weakness: factionalism, corruption, economic slowdown, demographic collapse. Each is pushing China from a bureaucratic technocracy back into a personalist autocracy.

This transition is well documented by scholars. Carl Minzner, one of the leading voices on China’s political trajectory, argues that China is experiencing an era of “counter-reform” in which personalism resurfaces as institutional norms grow weak.

Xi’s power was not inherited. His predecessor, Hu Jintao, did not wield anything close to this level of authority. Rather, Xi spent a decade systematically building a network designed to center the system around himself.

Although the Chinese Communist Party frames this centralization of power as necessary for “stability,” it risks a succession crisis in the not-too-distant future. When China reaches the time when a power transition is needed, it will enter one of the most dangerous political periods since Mao. But the Chinese political class is likely to maintain control.

As rulers age in personalist structures, the incentive structure of elites shifts. While supporting the aging ruler is safe now, that calculation will change in five or ten years. As the helmsman weakens, elite-risk calculation shifts against the aging captain, regardless of ideology.

Strongman autocracies always insist that their helmsman is timeless. Mao was celebrated for his vigor even at eighty-two when he was clearly geriatric. The same was true for the energetic Soviet gerontocrats like Brezhnev, even as he slept through Politburo meetings. Of course, American readers may feel a sense of déjà vu, as recent presidents and congressional leaders have often been older than Xi himself. But one way or another, U.S. elections tend to remove even the most ingrained figures and provide a mechanism for selecting their replacement.

Xi, in his speeches, portrays himself as a visionary leading China into a “new era” of “national rejuvenation.” In his 2021 New Year’s address, he spoke again of “changes unseen in a century.” 

However, while his propaganda can deny reality, those in his political orbit cannot.

A rising administrator wonders what value there is in tying his future to a man nearing eighty. Businesses will worry about investment under instability. Technocrats worry about imposing new reforms that curb the old man’s power, something anyone who has ever spoken to their grandfather could understand.

Xi’s administration is often credited with the elimination of factional politics. However, this is a mistake. Instead, the reality is that China’s political factionalism moved underground. 

Minzner notes that institutional decay strengthens informal political networks. Jude Blanchette describes a similar process in his work on how Xi re-engineered the political system around himself.

The calculus for the cadres in these factions is not to openly oppose Xi. He has won for now. Instead, they wait. They prepare for the world after Xi. They hedge their bets quietly, judging rationally that this is the correct next step in a system under an aging apex.

As with past power transitions, even in the wake of instability, it is unlikely China will experience a dramatic revision. The CCP has always preferred slow rebalancing. The likeliest scenario has four main themes to watch for:

1. A Temporary Leadership Committee

In the initial stages after the resignation of the leader, Leninist systems often turn to rule by committee. Without an obvious successor, they let the committee essentially act as a political testing ground. Eventually, one dominant personality will likely rise through the committee to define the new era.

2. A Weak Successor

In spite of the ascension of a new leader, it is very unlikely such a figure could match the gravitas of Xi. Even if he is a loyalist with Xi’s backing, he will lack the prestige and centrality of his predecessor.

3. Policy Moderation is Different from Westernization

Xi’s regime has often been seen as a reversion to the old ways. Moving away from this policy will likely be misread in the West as liberalization. Instead, CCP elites will make such moves in order to buy stability. It is likely China will return closer to the technocratic model of Xi’s predecessors, in spite of the current administration’s purges of past technocratic leaders. This means pursuing quieter diplomacy and selective deregulations. 

4. Military’s Political Power Increases

Xi significantly strengthened the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). With his resignation, its power will remain, and it will be less restricted by the new leadership. This doesn’t mean a military takeover, but the power of the PLA will be elevated in the new China.

After Mao’s death, China spent thirty years working to build a political system that, while authoritarian, was designed to prevent dictatorial rule. Chinese elites put into place retirement ages, term limits, and other restrictions on presidential power as tools of self-preservation. Xi dismantled these structures, ensuring his continued place at the helm. But sooner or later, the ship of state must confront the brutal waves of reality.

The post Life After Xi appeared first on The American Conservative.

Uncategorized

Epstein Revelations Won’t Bring Down Trump

It is unlikely that a smoking gun would have gone unnoticed in years of scrutiny and political acrimony.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The Epstein Files are the left’s white knight, the deus ex machina they hope will finally destroy Donald Trump. It is believed Epstein, a pig of a man who is now the unlikely savior of the Democratic Party, will succeed in bringing down Trump where multiple impeachments, Russiagate, the ex-fixer Michael Cohen, endless prosecutions over increasingly arcane financial acts, three elections, late night TV, and whatever is the gaffe or rudeness of the week have failed. This is unlikely.

One reason the soon-to-be-released Epstein files are unlikely to fatally damage Trump is that very little in the new documents will be truly new. Trump’s past social interactions with Epstein have been public knowledge for decades. Photos of the two men at parties were published long before Epstein’s 2019 arrest. Trump acknowledges knowing Epstein, once calling him “a terrific guy” in a 2002 magazine interview; he has said they later had a falling-out. None of this has produced much legal or even reputational exposure. To bring down a political figure like Trump, there must be a revelation, a mediagenic single piece of information that dramatically shifts the known narrative. Without a revelatory moment, the story cannot cross the threshold from speculation to actionable misconduct.

The files released to date contain no evidence of Trump’s participation in Epstein’s trafficking. But it’s not as if the Justice Department (DOJ) information about Epstein has been sitting around unexamined. Five years ago, the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility released the results of its extensive investigation into how Epstein secured a lenient plea deal in Florida in 2008. The 348-page document only said the deal reflected “poor judgment.” It also noted the prosecutor in charge of child exploitation cases at the time said that none of the victims he spoke with “ever talked about any other men being involved in abusing them.”

What remains is only speculation. Epstein was arrested in 2019, during the first Trump presidency. Nothing came out. Very significantly, the Biden administration held the same files for four years and nothing came out. Former Vice President Kamala Harris ran against Trump in a heated campaign and nothing came out. Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of sex trafficking and nothing came out. Of the hundreds, maybe thousands, of celebrities, house servants, airplane mechanics, et al. who would have interacted with Epstein, none have come out, not even perhaps to turn state’s witness and save themselves from a conspiracy charge.

The one man who knew everything, Epstein himself, is dead by suicide. The most convincing victim willing to speak out, Virginia Giuffre, is dead by suicide (though she made no allegations against Trump while alive or in her book). Maxwell’s strategy has been to remain tight-lipped; she will plead the Fifth in the House Epstein probe. This is not to say that some or all of that left unsaid may contain important material, but rather that, despite everything, the hard reality is nothing has tied Trump to the crimes. Nothing but wishful thinking suggests the new document dump will be any different.

This is not a surprise. The files coming out were prepared by the Department of Justice to prosecute Epstein, the sole defendant. Why would they contain critical information about others who could also become defendants but somehow just didn’t? The FBI and DOJ wrote that the documents “did not expose any additional third-parties to allegations of illegal wrongdoing… We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

Epstein has been one of the most investigated criminals in modern American history. After his 2006 Florida charges, state prosecutors, civil attorneys, newspapers, investigative journalists, and advocacy groups examined his case extensively. After his 2019 arrest, scrutiny intensified further. Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial produced thousands of pages of documents. Throughout, Trump has been scrutinized by political opponents, media outlets, litigation adversaries, and multiple prosecutors. If any credible Epstein-related allegation involving Trump existed, the likelihood that it would have remained hidden through such sustained examination is extremely small.

Here’s one thing the new documents will certainly contain: the names of well-known people who associated with Epstein. These associations are not evidence of criminal or immoral conduct. The already-known Epstein’s contact lists, party guest books, flight manifests, and social calendars include a vast array of individuals. The mere presence of a name in a contact file, a Christmas card list, or a flight log does not demonstrate involvement in illegal or immoral activity.

This distinction matters because the bar is extremely high. To bring down a public figure, especially one as lawyered-up as Trump, prosecutors would need corroborated evidence of a specific criminal act, a credible witness, and a clear link tying Trump to the conduct. The Epstein files are messy, sprawling, and most often ambiguous. They reveal Epstein had connections with many people, but they do not, by themselves, yet create a case. Of course in certain circles, such as at Harvard, this might be enough to bring down someone (see Larry Summers). But Trump is different.

The most plausible fallout from the files will occur far below Trump’s level. Trump’s persona is based on the perception that he is constantly under attack from elites, institutions, and the media. New allegations often serve to reinforce, not weaken, his supporters’ belief that he is being unfairly targeted. Take a look at the Access Hollywood tape, two impeachments, multiple criminal indictments, civil judgments, 34 felonies, and the host of other scandals that would have ended the careers of any other politician. Few MAGA voters remain who would meaningfully shift their position because of guilt-by-association allegations in decades-old documents. And the media will no doubt overplay any tidbits found, adding to MAGA’s view of them as predators in their own right.

Absent new and concrete evidence, which has not surfaced in any release to date, the Epstein files will generate headlines and endless conspiracy theories but not collapse the administration. Trump has survived scandals far more direct and damaging. The Epstein story will continue to matter deeply for victims seeking truth and accountability, but in American politics, it is unlikely to deliver the downfall some predict.

The post Epstein Revelations Won’t Bring Down Trump appeared first on The American Conservative.

WATCH: Sen. Roger Marshall Lays Out Trump’s Patient-First Health-Care Vision

Kansas Senator Roger Marshall, a physician who spent decades practicing medicine before entering Congress, appeared yesterday on My View with Lara Trump to outline the Republican health-care framework that directly challenges the Democrat-engineered Obamacare system. 

The interview offered one of the most straightforward explanations yet of why Democrats continue to defend a model that rewards insurance corporations rather than patients, and why President Trump’s return to a consumer-centered approach is gaining national momentum.

Marshall began with a statistic Democrats rarely acknowledge: under Obamacare, the federal government now transfers roughly $150 billion every year to large insurance companies. 

As he explained, the law was written by those same corporations, whose interests shaped the subsidy structure and the mandatory enrollment rules. 

Instead of empowering patients to make their own choices, Obamacare locks families into narrow networks and rising premiums while delivering guaranteed taxpayer revenue to insurers.

Marshall highlighted the most alarming consequence: the surge of “ghost patients” that Obamacare makes possible. 

According to federal data he cited, 35% of individuals counted as Obamacare enrollees file zero claims. 

Insurance brokers can sign people up with nothing more than a name and birthdate, and the government pays the full premium whether the person uses the coverage or even knows they were enrolled. 

Marshall called it one of the largest structural fraud problems in federal health care, and he emphasized that Democrats have controlled Obamacare for 15 years, making them fully responsible for the system’s failures.

Lara Trump then played a clip of President Trump describing the alternative: redirecting subsidy dollars away from insurers and back to the American people. 

Trump’s proposal allows families to take that same federal funding and purchase plans directly, place the money into health savings accounts, and negotiate prices with full transparency. 

Hospitals would be required to post real costs upfront, ending the decades-long practice of concealing prices until after treatment.

Marshall endorsed the plan without hesitation. 

He explained that no functioning market can exist without price transparency, noting that consumers would never walk into a restaurant without seeing a menu. 

Yet in health care, Americans routinely receive treatment without knowing the cost until weeks later. 

This approach, he said, strips families of control and drives prices upward—a problem Trump’s reforms correct by restoring patients to the center of the system.

Toward the end of the interview, Marshall contrasted the country under Trump versus the conditions left by Democrats.

He pointed to safer streets in Washington, lower gas prices, falling interest rates, and a revitalized trade agenda—eight major deals already progressing—compared to Joe Biden’s complete absence of achievements on trade, health-care reform, or cost reduction.

The debate is now unmistakable: Democrats want more subsidies for insurance companies, while President Trump and Senator Marshall are working to give Americans transparency, choice, and direct control over their own health care.

The post Sen. Marshall Exposes Obamacare Fraud: “35% Are Ghost Patients” — Says Trump’s Plan Puts Power Back in Patients’ Hands (VIDE0) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The student who was ousted as the president of the prestigious Oxford Union after celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk says he just wanted to make people laugh.

After news broke that Kirk had been fatally shot by a lunatic leftist during an event at Utah Valley University back in September, George Abaraonye wrote: “Let’s fucking go.”

In an interview with the British radio station LBC, Abaraonye did his best to salvage whatever is left of his reputation.

“[It was] a stupid and silly thing for me to say, I reacted to a notification and the headline. I had no context for, you know, what had happened.”

“I didn’t really understand the severity of the situation.”

When pressed by host Lewis Goodall about having personally met Charlie Kirk, Abaraonye blamed Kirk’s “polarizing” conservative ideology.

Mr Kirk’s comments don’t exist in a vacuum, you know.

He was an incredibly, kind of, polarizing figure and I think it’s almost a symptom of him and my reaction of kind of how we have discourse online, in which you know, it’s oftentimes about saying something almost inflammatory because I wanted to spark a conversation about kind of what had happened.

The fact that, oh my God, this is such a major event that has taken place. I wanted to get a reaction, I wanted to have a conversation.

Watch the clip below:

Oxford union former president-elect George Abaraonye who celebrated Charlie’s ass*ssination, says he just wanted to “get a laugh” pic.twitter.com/Pb6JdeBL3E

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 30, 2025

Goodall then suggested he just wanted to make people laugh.

“Almost exactly like a laugh and a bit of a reaction and kind of, I realized afterwards that you know that wasn’t the right way to about it.”

Abaraonye was removed as president of the Oxford Union last month after losing a vote of no-confidence.

During his campaign to win the vote, Abaraonye portrayed himself as a man fighting against the far-right.

“Today is your opportunity to affirm Free Speech, to stand against the racism of the Far Right, and to stand up for the principles the Union has championed for 200 years,” he said on the day of the vote.

“Two centuries later, the same people who claim to believe in the Union are now acting in stark opposition to the Union’s founding principles, by supporting a campaign of harassment, censorship, and abuse. We will not be silenced.”

However, Abaraonye’s unfortunately fell on deaf ears after his opponents reached the two-thirds majority in order to secure his removal.

The post Disgraced Oxford Union President Who Celebrated Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Says He Just Wanted to Make People Laugh (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

LISTEN: President Trump Gaggles with Press on Air Force One, Nov. 30, 2025

Aboard Air Force One on Sunday, President Donald Trump delivered his clearest warning yet that the United States will treat maritime drug-smuggling operations as mass-casualty threats, citing the staggering death toll tied directly to fentanyl trafficking. 

“Each boat is responsible for the death of 25,000 Americans,” Trump told reporters. “You can see the drugs in the boats. They’re doing an amazing job, and the numbers are shocking.”

The remark underscored a core theme of Trump’s press conference: the fentanyl catastrophe is no longer a border issue—it is a national-security emergency.

According to CDC data, synthetics like fentanyl now kill more Americans annually than the Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam wars combined. 

Trump framed every seized vessel not as a routine interdiction, but as a life-and-death intervention preventing tens of thousands of casualties.

Trump emphasized that maritime trafficking has plummeted since the administration’s new naval directives went into effect. 

“The amount of drugs coming into our country by sea is infinitesimal compared to what it was just a few months ago,” he said. 

While he did not detail operational movements, he praised military and Coast Guard teams executing precision strikes on cartel boats responsible for moving the chemicals that become fentanyl in U.S. cities.

WATCH: Previously Unreleased Footage of U.S. Coast Guard Intercepting Drug Smugglers off Venezuela

Democrats have sharply criticized Trump’s approach, particularly after rumors circulated about secondary strikes in a recent operation. 

Trump dismissed the controversy, saying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “did not say that, and I believe that.” 

He added that a lethal first strike on a drug-running vessel is “fine” because of the scale of American deaths tied to each shipment. 

“Very little concern,” Trump said when asked if he had any reservations. “Look at the numbers.”

Trump used the fentanyl statistics to justify additional immigration restrictions, arguing that several countries with collapsed governments were contributing to the crisis. 

“We don’t want those people,” he said, referring to migrants coming from nations with strong cartel presence or no functioning law-enforcement structures. 

He tied the asylum pause directly to national security, saying, “Many of them are no good, and they shouldn’t be in our country.”

While reporters pressed him on Venezuela defense controversies, Trump repeatedly returned to the American death toll—27,000 killed in the past month alone from conflicts abroad, but more than 75,000 killed annually from fentanyl at home. 

He made clear that drug networks moving products into the United States would be treated with zero tolerance.

Trump closed with a blunt reminder of the stakes: “Think of this—each boat, on average, is responsible for the death of 25,000 Americans.” 

The administration is signaling that the era of treating drug trafficking as a law-enforcement issue is over. 

It is now a wartime footing aimed at stopping the deadliest killer in modern American history.

Watch additional reporting on Venezuela here:

The post Trump Warns: “Each Boat Is Responsible for 25,000 Dead Americans” as Fentanyl Crisis Drives Toughest Crackdown Yet appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Border Czar Tom Homan was on “Sunday Morning Futures” with guest host Jackie DeAngelis this weekend to discuss the tragic and deadly ambush that killed one National Guard member and left another in critical condition

US Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, 20 years old, died after being shot this past Wednesday, and US Air Force Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe, 24, was left in critical condition. The alleged shooter was a 29-year-old Afghan, who was brought in under Biden’s “Operation Allies Welcome” program.

“Your message right now to the service men and women of this country. The law enforcement officers that you work with as well, and their families, as they continue to try to do their jobs, to keep the country safe, but at such a great risk?” DeAngelis asked.

“First of all, prayers to the guardsmen. The one fallen and the one fighting for his life every day,” Homan said.

“Every ICE agent, Border Patrol agent, guardsmen. They weren’t drafted. They agreed. They stepped up to make this country safe again and put a gun on their hip and they wear a kevlar vest every day to make this country safe again under the greatest President in my lifetime, Donald Trump,” Homan continued.

“Every one of these people are American patriots by the fact that they put themselves in harm’s way to protect people that they will never meet,” Homan explained.

“You’ve been fighting the fight of an open border. You’ve shut that border down. There is also this aspect of botched foreign policy from the Biden administration. How do we move forward as a nation to make sure we can keep our country safe?” DeAngelis asked.

“First of all, I want people to know that throughout my career I’ve buried Border Patrol agents, I’ve buried ICE agents. The worst job in the world,” Homan said.

“President Trump has saved America. Let’s be clear. When he came in office, he gave us the most secure border in the history of this nation,” Homan explained.

Homan explained the impact of Biden’s open border and explained the significance of President Trump’s promise to close the border and deport illegals.

“We don’t have ten thousand, up to twelve thousand people a day enter this country illegally. We had 10.5 million illegal aliens come to the border under Joe Biden. And that’s not counting the hundreds of thousands that came through the CHNV Program, the CBP One App. It’s not counting the over 2 million known gotaways,” Homan said.

“Biggest national security failure in the history of this nation under Joe Biden. And thank God President Trump is in the Oval Office because he is cleaning it up. The most secure border in the nation’s history. He kept that promise to the American people. We have a historic deportation operation going on,” Homan continued.

Border Czar Homan also explained that President Trump’s strategy to target maritime drug operations is making our country safer and is saving numerous lives.

“President Trump is now taking the war against drugs to the away game,” Homan said.

“We knew once we secured the border, less drugs come across to kill Americans. We knew they would take the maritime. And what’s President Trump doing? He’s wiping them out in maritime, saving thousands of lives every month by doing so,” Homan declared.

Watch:

Today, exclusively on @SundayFutures with @MariaBartiromo, White House Border Czar Tom Homan @RealTomHoman spoke with guest host @JackieDeAngelis about the deadly attack against the National Guard in Washington, D.C.@FoxNews pic.twitter.com/amnZ1mxTET

— SundayMorningFutures (@SundayFutures) November 30, 2025

The post Border Czar Tom Homan Blasts Joe Biden for the Deadly Ambush of National Guard in DC (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep Jason Smith, was on “Sunday Morning Futures” with guest host Jackie DeAngelis to discuss the future of Obamacare.

The video opened with a clip of reporters asking President Trump about Obamacare. The President did not want it for the long run but was open to the possibility of a short-term compromise to advance his America First agenda.

“The President backs a plan that gives money directly to Americans through health savings accounts instead of using federal funds to subsidize insurance premiums for Obamacare,” DeAngelis said.

“Thirty days til the subsidies expire. Roughly two months until we are potentially in a situation where the government can be shut down again. Not a lot of time to make inroads on serious healthcare reform,” DeAngelis said.

“As President Trump said, if he did extend the subsidies, it would be with certain restrictions. It would be to buy some time to be able to move forward,” DeAngelis continued.

“Walk me through how all of this is going to work?” DeAngelis asked.

“What Republicans are looking at is how to bring down the cost of healthcare for all Americans. How to bring down the premiums for all Americans and creating more access for all Americans,” Smith said.

Congressman Smith explained that Obamacare is filled with fraud. He said that insurance companies were making money off the subsidies even though not every recipient was using the insurance.

“When you look at Obamacare, you can see all the fraud that’s within it,” Rep Smith said.

“In ’24, of the 24 million people on the Obamacare exchanges, 12 million did not even have one medical claim,” Smith explained.

“They clearly didn’t even know that they had health insurance, but guess what? Those insurance companies, they sure were subsidized from the federal government,” Rep Smith explained.

“Premiums have gone up 80 percent since Obamacare was passed. A hundred fifty different hospitals have closed since Obamacare was passed. We have to do things differently,” Smith said.

“The answer is not a covid era program that was created in ’21. We need to look at some real, real reforms. Real changes,” Rep Smith explained.

Watch:

Today, exclusively on @SundayFutures with @MariaBartiromo, House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith @RepJasonSmith spoke with guest host @JackieDeAngelis about the future of Obamacare.@FoxNews pic.twitter.com/yFEISVLnWw

— SundayMorningFutures (@SundayFutures) November 30, 2025

The post Chairman Jason Smith Weighs in on the Future of Obamacare – “You Can See all the Fraud That’s Within it” (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Following the November 26 shooting of two West Virginia National Guard members near the White House, in which one service member was killed, and another remains in critical condition, President Donald Trump has announced sweeping new measures to tighten refugee vetting and reevaluate green card holders from multiple nations, focusing intensely on those from Middle Eastern and African countries. The suspected gunman, identified as 29-year-old Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal, entered the United States in September 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome, the Biden administration’s emergency resettlement program following the Afghanistan withdrawal. Trump declared his intention to “reexamine every single alien from Afghanistan who has entered our country under Biden” and stated the administration would take “all necessary measures to ensure the removal of any alien from any country who does not belong here or add benefit to our country,” introducing the term “remigration” as part of his policy framework for potential deportations.

The administration has moved to block green card and visa approvals for nationals from 12 countries in Africa and the Middle East—including Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—even for individuals already living legally in the United States, based on claims of insufficient identity verification and security data sharing. Additionally, a November 21 memo from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joe Edlow directed a comprehensive review and re-interview of approximately 200,000 refugees who entered the United States between January 20, 2021, and February 20, 2025, halting all green card applications for this population.

On Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro directly challenged the vetting claims of the Biden administration, declaring: “If you think there was vetting, I have a bridge to sell you,” while describing the chaos at the Kabul airport during the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal. Pirro stated that the Biden administration “short-circuited the vetting” process and claimed that approximately 90,000 Afghan nationals were admitted without proper background checks, escalating charges against the shooting suspect to first-degree murder. Trump announced the Trump administration has suspended all processing of Afghan refugee and asylum applications “pending further review of security and vetting protocols,” affecting the thousands of Afghan nationals already granted admission into the country.

Sponsor | https://www.purgestore.com | Use promo code DREW for 20% off and support The Gateway Pundit today!

Follow Drew on X: https://x.com/DrewHLive
Follow Drew on Rumble: https://rumble.com/DrewHernandez

The post President Trump Gets More Aggressive On Immigration After Horrific Shooting Of National Guard Troops | Drew Hernandez appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Donald Trump fired off an urgent post on Sunday to rally Republicans in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District to vote for Matt Van Epps in the upcoming special election, slamming his Democrat opponent, far-left extremist Aftyn Behn, as an “unhinged” radical who must be defeated.

The Democrat candidate, Aftyn Behn, recently went viral for a resurfaced clip in which she declared, “I want power, not babies.”

This comes amid a shockingly tight race in a district Trump won by a massive 22 points in 2024, with recent polls showing Van Epps leading Behn by just two points, 48% to 46%, as undecided voters could tip the scales.

In his post, which did not hold back, Trump wrote:

I am asking all America First Patriots in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District, who haven’t voted yet, to please GET OUT AND VOTE on Election Day, Tuesday, December 2nd, for a phenomenal Candidate, Matt Van Epps. Matt is fighting against a woman who hates Christianity, will take away your guns, wants Open Borders, Transgender for everybody, men in women’s sports, and openly disdains Country music. She said all of these things precisely, and without question — IT’S ON TAPE! Do not take this Race for granted. The Radical Left Democrats are spending a fortune to beat one of the best Candidates we’ve ever had, Matt Van Epps! You can win this Election for Matt. GET OUT AND VOTE FOR MATT VAN EPPS, who has my Complete and Total Endorsement — HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!

The 7th Congressional District special election will take place on December 2.

Behn is a dangerous leftist activist with a history of unhinged behavior and anti-American views.

During the 2020 riots sparked by George Floyd’s death, Behn tweeted that burning down police stations was “justified,” a position she has stubbornly refused to disavow.

When pressed about the post on “MS Now,” Behn evaded the question, stating, “I’m not gonna engage in cable news talking points,” while accusing opponents of smear tactics.

Wow. Democrat Aftyn Behn appears to have been celebrating the burning of a police station back in 2020 and MSNBC actually called her on it.

She wants to represent Tennessee but hates Nashville and wants to defund police.

No thanks @aftynfortn! pic.twitter.com/ncpR5dVLGJ

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) November 24, 2025

Behn has championed abolishing and defunding police, including efforts to “dissolve” the Metro Nashville Police Department.

In a 2020 podcast, she branded President Donald Trump and his supporters as “racists, white-supremacists, and bigots,” claiming his presidency empowered bigotry.

Just days ago, The Gateway Pundit brought you the insane video of Behn being dragged out, crying and screaming, from Governor Bill Lee’s office after storming in during an attempted sit-in protest.

Democrat Candidate for Tennessee Special Election Aftyn Behn Shares Hate for the City and People She Wants to Represent

The footage shows her wailing like a toddler as police remove her for criminal trespassing, perfectly capturing her pattern of disruptive, attention-seeking antics that prioritize chaos over governance.

In another resurfaced audio from her podcast, Behn sneered, “I hate the city, I hate the bachelorettes, I hate the pedal taverns, I hate country music, I hate all of the things that make Nashville apparently an ‘it’ city to the rest of the country.”

Democrat Candidate for Tennessee Special Election Aftyn Behn Shares Hate for the City and People She Wants to Represent

When confronted with these damning remarks, Behn offered a laughable defense, claiming her words were taken out of context or were just “sarcasm.”

Van Epps is a “true America First patriot” who will fight for secure borders, a strong economy, and traditional values.

Stay tuned to The Gateway Pundit for updates on this pivotal race.

The post Trump Blasts Tennessee Candidate Aftyn Behn Who ‘Hates Christianity’ and ‘Country Music,’ Urges Voters to Show Up for Matt Van Epps appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.