A historic all-female Blue Origin space mission turned into a social media spectacle when fast-food giant Wendy's unleashed a series of sarcastic tweets targeting pop star Katy Perry.
According to the New York Post, the restaurant chain's social media team took aim at Perry after she returned from her brief journey to space alongside CBS News anchor Gayle King and Jeff Bezos' fiancée Lauren Sánchez.
The mission marked a significant milestone as the first all-female crew to visit space since Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova's solo flight in 1963. The group included accomplished professionals Amanda Nguyen, a bioastronautics research scientist, NASA rocket scientist Aisha Bowe, and filmmaker Kerianne Flynn.
Wendy's X account initiated the mockery by responding to news of Perry's return with a dismissive tweet asking if they could "send her back." The fast-food chain continued their commentary by referencing Perry's 2008 hit song after she was photographed kissing the ground upon landing.
When users pointed out the brief duration of the space flight, Wendy's sarcastically corrected them, emphasizing it was "11 minutes" rather than 10. The chain's social media team further quipped, "When we said women in stem this isn't what we meant."
The exchange garnered significant attention on social media platforms, with many questioning why Perry was singled out among the six-member crew.
The criticism extended beyond Wendy's, as several prominent entertainment figures expressed their disapproval of the space mission. Amy Schumer, Olivia Wilde, Emily Ratajkowski, and Olivia Munn were among those who publicly voiced their concerns about the venture.
The Blue Origin New Shepard 31 flight launched at 9:30 a.m. from the company's West Texas base. Each crew member's spacesuit featured personalized touches reflecting their careers, with Perry's outfit incorporating a fireworks design as a nod to her hit single.
Perry also brought a daisy flower aboard as a tribute to her daughter with Orlando Bloom, while Sánchez's suit included a fly symbol referencing her children's book. King's spacesuit was adorned with a microphone, representing her broadcasting career.
The debate surrounding the space flight highlighted the growing intersection of celebrity culture and space exploration. While some celebrated the historic nature of the all-female crew, others questioned the value of such brief commercial space ventures.
The incident demonstrated the evolving nature of corporate social media strategies, with Wendy's Gen Z-focused account maintaining its reputation for provocative and sarcastic commentary. The fast-food chain's response garnered both praise and criticism from social media users.
Representatives for both Wendy's and Perry have not publicly addressed the social media exchange, leaving questions about the motivation behind the targeted criticism unanswered.
The Blue Origin mission represented a significant achievement in space exploration history, bringing together six accomplished women from diverse professional backgrounds. Despite lasting only 11 minutes, the flight marked only the second time an all-female crew has ventured into space. The mission successfully concluded with the crew's safe return to Earth at Blue Origin's West Texas facility. While Wendy's social media posts may have overshadowed some aspects of the historic flight, the achievement remains a milestone in the ongoing effort to increase female representation in space exploration.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris faces an uncertain path as she contemplates a potential run for California governor in 2026.
According to the New York Post, a recent survey conducted by Politico and UC Berkeley's Citrin Center reveals that California policy influencers demonstrate lukewarm enthusiasm toward Harris's possible gubernatorial ambitions, with 36% expressing indifference to her potential candidacy.
The poll, which sampled 718 California influencers and 1,025 registered voters through the TrueDot.ai platform from April 1-14, showcases a diverse range of opinions among different demographic groups. The survey's findings indicate a notable divide between policy insiders and regular Democratic voters regarding Harris's potential candidacy.
Among registered Democratic voters, support for Harris appears more robust than among policy influencers. Approximately 41% of Democrats expressed strong excitement about her potential candidacy, while 33% reported feeling joyful about the prospect. Only about a quarter of Democratic voters indicated indifference to her possible run.
The survey revealed significant variations in enthusiasm among minority voters. Black voters showed particularly strong support, with 35% expressing joy and 38% indicating excitement about a potential Harris gubernatorial campaign. However, Latino and Asian voters displayed more reservations, with 19% of Latino voters feeling hopeless and 19% of Asian voters expressing irritation about the possibility.
Policy influencers demonstrated a notably cooler response to Harris's potential candidacy. Beyond the 36% who expressed indifference, 22% described themselves as "mostly excited," while 20% reported feeling "irritated" and 4% claimed to be "outraged" about the prospect.
Since her electoral loss to President Trump in November 2024, Harris has largely remained out of the public spotlight.
Her public appearances have been limited to occasional speeches and social media commentary on current events. In a recent social media post, Harris criticized the Trump administration's Project 2025 and new tariff policies.
The former vice president has made it clear she intends to remain politically active, declaring after her defeat that she will "stay in the fight" and won't "go quietly into the night." However, she has yet to make any official announcements about her future political plans.
The timing of the poll coincides with increasing speculation about Harris's political future, as incumbent Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom faces term limits in 2026. Political observers suggest Harris may be considering either a gubernatorial run or another presidential bid in 2028.
The mixed reception to Harris's potential candidacy reflects the complex political dynamics in California as the state prepares for a post-Newsom era. The survey results suggest that while Harris maintains strong support among certain Democratic constituencies, she may face challenges in building broader enthusiasm among policy influencers and some minority communities.
The possibility of Harris running for governor has sparked varied reactions across California's political spectrum. With Newsom term-limited in 2026, the state's political establishment appears to be carefully weighing potential successors while considering factors such as electability and policy priorities.
The poll's margin of error stands at plus-or-minus 5 percentage points for registered voters, highlighting the fluid nature of public opinion this far ahead of the 2026 gubernatorial race.
A new development unfolds in the ongoing conflict between President Donald Trump and Harvard University over institutional policies and federal funding.
According to Just The News, Trump suggested stripping Harvard University of its tax-exempt status after the institution refused to comply with his administration's demands regarding diversity policies and anti-Semitism concerns.
The escalating tension reached a critical point on Monday when the Trump administration took decisive action by freezing $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in contracts allocated to Harvard University, marking a significant financial impact on the institution.
The administration's requirements for Harvard include substantial modifications to their current institutional framework. These changes focus primarily on implementing merit-based hiring practices, addressing programs allegedly linked to anti-Semitism, and eliminating various diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
Harvard's leadership has maintained a firm stance against these demands, choosing to reject compliance despite the substantial financial consequences. This decision demonstrates the university's commitment to its existing policies and institutional values.
The situation has drawn significant attention from both academic and political spheres. Educational institutions nationwide are closely monitoring the developments, as the outcome could set a precedent for federal oversight of university policies.
Trump took to TRUTH Social to express his views on the matter, specifically targeting Harvard's tax-exempt status. In his statement, he emphasized the connection between tax exemption and public interest obligations.
Trump's message on the platform directly questioned Harvard's position, suggesting that the university's current stance might warrant its reclassification as a political entity for tax purposes. His statement highlighted concerns about what he termed as "political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting 'Sickness.'"
The administration's approach represents a significant shift in federal-academic relations. This development marks one of the most substantial confrontations between a presidential administration and an elite educational institution in recent years.
The frozen federal funding represents a substantial portion of Harvard's research and operational budget. The $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts constitute significant financial resources for the institution's various programs and initiatives.
Despite these considerable financial implications, Harvard's administration has remained steadfast in its position. The university's response indicates a willingness to weather the financial impact rather than alter its institutional policies.
The standoff has created uncertainty about the future of numerous research projects and programs dependent on federal funding. Many of these initiatives may face operational challenges if the funding freeze continues.
President Trump's challenge to Harvard's tax-exempt status and the university's subsequent refusal to comply with federal demands has created a complex situation in American higher education. The confrontation centers on fundamental questions about institutional autonomy, federal oversight, and the role of diversity policies in academic settings. The outcome of this conflict could significantly impact how educational institutions navigate federal requirements while maintaining their institutional values and policies.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's inner circle faces a significant shakeup at the Department of Defense headquarters.
According to Breitbart, two senior Pentagon officials were escorted from the building and placed on administrative leave Tuesday following an internal investigation that identified them as sources of unauthorized information disclosure.
The implicated officials, Dan Caldwell and Darin Selnick, held prominent positions within Defense Secretary Hegseth's administration. Caldwell served as a top adviser while Selnick occupied the role of Pentagon deputy chief of staff. Both individuals shared professional history with Hegseth through their previous work at Concerned Veterans for America.
The investigation, initiated by Pentagon Chief of Staff Joe Kasper, came in response to multiple security breaches that occurred over several weeks. One notable incident involved leaked information regarding Tesla CEO Elon Musk's planned Pentagon visit, which was inaccurately reported by various media outlets.
Defense officials indicate that Caldwell allegedly shared sensitive information with left-leaning journalists in what appears to be an attempt to undermine Secretary Hegseth's leadership. The exact nature and extent of the unauthorized disclosures remain unclear, but they reportedly included classified information accessible only to high-ranking Pentagon officials.
The security breach investigation gained urgency as it coincided with increased military preparations in the Middle East. The Pentagon has recently deployed additional military assets, including a second aircraft carrier and multiple B-2 stealth bombers, in response to escalating tensions with Iran.
Both dismissed officials maintained strong ties to organizations focused on veterans' affairs and defense policy. Caldwell's most recent position was with Defense Priorities, an organization known for its advocacy of military restraint in foreign policy matters.
The professional relationship between Hegseth and Caldwell extended beyond their shared history at Concerned Veterans for America. Caldwell held such a trusted position that Hegseth designated him as the point of contact for coordinating military strikes against Houthi forces in communications with National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.
Selnick's connection to the administration stemmed from his role as a senior adviser at Concerned Veterans for America, though his tenure there began after Hegseth's departure from the organization.
Recent weeks have seen significant developments in U.S. military positioning, particularly concerning Iran. President Trump has intensified his rhetoric regarding Iran's nuclear program, leading to strategic military deployments in the region.
The Pentagon's response includes positioning at least six B-2 stealth bombers at Diego Garcia, a strategic location in the Indian Ocean. This military buildup represents a substantial show of force in the region. These developments occurred against the backdrop of the ongoing investigation into unauthorized information disclosure, potentially compromising sensitive military operations and strategic planning.
The removal of two top Pentagon officials marks a critical moment in Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's administration. Dan Caldwell and Darin Selnick, both with extensive backgrounds in veterans' affairs and defense policy, were escorted from the Pentagon following allegations of unauthorized information disclosure.
The security breach investigation continues as the Pentagon grapples with the implications of leaked classified information while managing increased military deployments in the Middle East. The incident highlights ongoing challenges in maintaining operational security at the highest levels of military leadership, particularly during periods of heightened international tensions.
Governor Jared Polis signs a controversial measure that will transform firearm ownership requirements in Colorado.
According to Breitbart News, the Democratic governor's approval of the semiautomatic firearm ban will require state residents to secure an "eligibility card" from their local sheriff before purchasing AR-15s and similar weapons, with the law taking effect in August 2026.
The legislation extends beyond AR-15s, encompassing AK-style rifles, certain shotguns, and specific pistol models. The comprehensive ban represents a significant shift in Colorado's approach to firearm regulation, placing it alongside states with stricter gun control measures.
The eligibility card system introduces a multi-step process for potential buyers. Residents must first undergo a thorough background check conducted by their county sheriff's office. The vetting process serves as the initial hurdle in obtaining the required documentation.
Following the background check, applicants face additional requirements. They must complete up to 12 hours of mandatory training spread across two days. However, individuals who have previously completed hunter education courses may qualify for reduced training hours.
The system mirrors Illinois' existing Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card program. Yet, Colorado's version differs by targeting only specific categories of firearms rather than all gun purchases.
Law enforcement officials prepare for the implementation of the new system. The responsibility of processing applications and conducting background checks will fall primarily on county sheriffs' offices across the state.
Critics argue that the law creates unnecessary barriers for law-abiding citizens while doing little to prevent criminals from acquiring weapons through illegal channels. The legislation has sparked debate about the effectiveness of such restrictions in reducing gun violence.
Gun rights advocates express concern about the precedent set by the new requirements. They worry about the potential expansion of the eligibility card system to cover additional firearm categories in the future.
The Colorado state government has established a clear timeline for the law's implementation. The 16-month gap between signing and enforcement allows time for administrative infrastructure development and public education.
Local law enforcement agencies will use this period to establish processing systems and train personnel. The extended timeline also gives residents time to understand and prepare for the new requirements.
The state plans to launch public awareness campaigns to inform residents about the changes. These efforts aim to ensure smooth transition when the law takes effect.
Governor Polis and Democratic lawmakers have taken a decisive step in reshaping Colorado's firearm regulations. The eligibility card requirement marks a significant departure from previous state gun laws, placing additional oversight on semiautomatic weapon purchases. The law positions Colorado among states implementing stricter firearm regulations. When the measure takes effect in August 2026, residents seeking to purchase AR-15s and similar weapons must navigate a new regulatory framework requiring sheriff approval, background checks, and mandatory training.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez confronts fellow representative Marjorie Taylor Greene over her suspicious stock market activities amid recent economic fluctuations.
According to the Daily Mail, Greene purchased between $21,000 and $315,000 worth of stocks just before President Donald Trump announced a pause on his controversial tariff policy, leading to significant market gains.
The revelation has sparked heated debate about potential insider trading in Congress, with Greene's stock purchases coinciding with Trump's social media post declaring "THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!" Her investments included shares in major companies like Apple, Devon Energy Corporation, and Merck & Company pharmaceuticals, all of which saw substantial increases following the tariff pause announcement.
Ocasio-Cortez, speaking at a "Fight Oligarchy" event in Idaho alongside Bernie Sanders, publicly challenged Greene about her financial gains. She emphasized the suffering of ordinary Americans during the market turbulence and questioned the timing of Greene's investments.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joined the criticism during an interview with Jen Psaki. He labeled Greene as "Exhibit A" of corruption within Congress and expressed his intention to push for legislation banning stock trading by sitting members.
The controversy stems from the dramatic market shifts following Trump's initial "Liberation Day" announcement and subsequent policy reversal. The stock market experienced its worst wipeout in history, losing $6.6 trillion in US stock value before rebounding after the tariff pause.
Greene's trading activities show a strategic pattern during the market volatility. She disposed of U.S. Treasury bills worth between $50,000 and $100,000 just before the tariff announcement, then made substantial stock purchases as the market bottomed out.
Ocasio-Cortez had previously raised concerns about potential insider trading on social media. She posted:
Any member of Congress who purchased stocks in the last 48 hours should probably disclose that now. I've been hearing some interesting chatter on the floor. Disclosure deadline is May 15th. We're about to learn a few things. It's time to ban insider trading in Congress.
Greene defended her actions through a spokesperson, who dismissed calls for investigation as "utterly absurd." The congresswoman maintains that her investments are managed by a financial advisor through a fiduciary agreement.
The timing of Greene's investments proved highly profitable as the market rebounded dramatically after Trump's policy reversal. The Nasdaq surged more than 12 percent while the S&P 500 gained 10 percent, marking their biggest jumps since October 2008.
Several of Greene's stock picks showed remarkable gains, including Palantir with a 19 percent increase and Advanced Micro Devices rising 21 percent since the tariff pause. These gains came after the market's worst performance since March 2020.
The White House attempted to frame the tariff pause as part of their strategic plan, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defending it as the "strategy all along." However, critics view the timing of Greene's trades as suspicious.
Representatives in Congress face mounting pressure over their stock trading activities. The current rules require members to disclose trades within 45 days, leading to the May 15 deadline for transactions made during the tariff announcement period. Greene's latest disclosures reveal 15 investments between March 16 and March 24, including three large transactions in U.S. Treasury Bills worth between $100,000 and $250,000 each. Her total Treasury investments during this period ranged from $300,000 to $750,000.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' clash with the Trump administration brings a new dimension to an unprecedented legal battle over a deported Maryland resident.
According to the Washington Examiner, Jeffries is urging the Supreme Court to hold Trump administration officials in contempt for refusing to comply with a court order demanding the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite having a valid U.S. work permit.
The dispute escalated during Jeffries' appearance on MSNBC's "Inside with Jen Psaki," where he outlined potential legal actions against key administration figures. The Democratic leader emphasized that while House Democrats' direct power is limited to influencing public opinion, the judiciary holds substantial authority to enforce its ruling through contempt proceedings.
A constitutional crisis looms as legal experts debate the Supreme Court's ability to enforce contempt charges against Trump officials. Yale Law professor Nicholas Parrillo's extensive research covering 15,000 judicial decisions reveals three possible enforcement paths: agency fines, individual fines, or imprisonment.
The Trump administration maintained its position on Monday, declaring no obligation to retrieve Abrego Garcia from his current detention. This stance was reinforced during Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele's White House visit, where he declined to facilitate the return of the individual whom federal officials claim has gang affiliations.
Historical precedent suggests significant challenges in implementing judicial contempt orders against executive officials. Previous attempts at imprisoning government officials have been notably unsuccessful, with such measures occurring only twice and lasting mere hours.
According to Jeffries' statements during his MSNBC appearance:
The Supreme Court, and/or the federal district court, actually needs to enforce its order, and the vehicles that are available for the court to do that relate to contempt, and that contempt can be directed at a variety of different members of the Trump administration, including but not limited to the secretary of state, and/or his or her designees, and the secretary of homeland security, and/or his or her designees for the court to determine
Research from Harvard Law Review highlights the judiciary's historical reluctance to imprison officials. Past attempts have often resulted in negative consequences for the judges involved, with some being removed from cases or forced to recuse themselves.
The unprecedented nature of the situation has created uncertainty among legal scholars. Most historical cases show agencies or courts eventually backing down to avoid direct confrontation between judicial and executive branches.
Legal experts point to the rarity of such confrontations between branches of government. The potential implementation of contempt charges against high-ranking administration officials would mark a significant departure from historical precedent.
The case has drawn attention to the limitations of judicial enforcement powers when faced with executive branch resistance. Constitutional scholars are closely monitoring the situation as it could establish new precedents for inter-branch authority.
The standoff highlights broader questions about the balance of power between government branches and the enforcement of judicial decisions against executive officials.
The dispute centers on Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident with valid work authorization since 2019, who was deported to El Salvador despite his legal status. House Democrats, led by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, are pushing for judicial intervention through contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials, including the secretaries of state and homeland security. The Supreme Court faces a complex decision that could establish new precedents for enforcing judicial orders against executive branch officials, while historical patterns suggest potential challenges in implementing such enforcement measures.
A high-stakes media access dispute escalates as the White House continues to restrict Associated Press coverage of presidential events.
According to Fox News, the White House blocked Associated Press reporters from covering an Oval Office meeting between President Donald Trump and El Salvador President Nayib Bukele on Monday, defying a recent court order that deemed such restrictions unconstitutional.
The confrontation stems from Trump's executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" and AP's subsequent decision to maintain the water body's historical name in its coverage. The news agency had issued style guidelines stating it would continue using the original name while acknowledging Trump's chosen designation, citing the need for global audience clarity.
U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden's ruling last week explicitly stated that the White House had violated constitutional rights by blocking AP's access to press events. The judge rejected claims of legitimate reasons for the ban, emphasizing that viewpoint discrimination is forbidden even within the Oval Office setting.
The White House quickly mounted a legal challenge, filing an appeal and securing a Thursday hearing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The administration seeks to maintain AP restrictions while the case undergoes review.
AP spokeswoman Lauren Easton addressed the situation, stating their position on the matter:
Our journalists were blocked from the Oval Office today. We expect the White House to restore AP's participation in the (White House press) pool as of today, as provided in the injunction order.
The conflict began in February when the White House barred AP from Oval Office and Air Force One press events. This action followed AP's stance on maintaining the Gulf of Mexico nomenclature in its reporting.
AP had justified its position through official style guidance, emphasizing the historical significance of the name. The agency's guidelines highlighted its role as a global news organization requiring clear geographic references for international audiences.
The judge's order was scheduled to take effect Monday, with McFadden previously rejecting a White House request for delay. Despite this ruling, AP photographer and reporter access remained restricted during the presidential meeting with Bukele.
McFadden's ruling emphasized the fundamental nature of press freedoms, particularly regarding government access. The judge found no legitimate explanation for the White House's treatment of AP.
The White House's appeal and continued restriction of AP access raises questions about executive authority limits regarding press access. Legal experts suggest the case could set important precedents for future media-government relations.
The administration's response to the court order may influence how similar disputes are handled in coming years, potentially affecting the broader landscape of press freedom in America.
The Associated Press continues its legal fight against White House press restrictions following President Trump's executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico. The dispute centers on AP's editorial decision to maintain traditional geographic terminology while acknowledging the administration's new designation. With a crucial appeals court hearing scheduled for Thursday, the outcome could significantly impact both press access protocols and the relationship between media organizations and the executive branch.