Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett's remarks and bold social media presence have intensified scrutiny, highlighting divisions within the Democratic party.
According to Breitbart News, Representative Jasmine Crockett has emerged as a controversial figure in Democratic politics following a series of inflammatory statements, including remarks about Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, drawing both criticism and threats of censure.
The Texas congresswoman, who served as the national co-chair of the Harris-Walz campaign, has rapidly gained national attention through her provocative social media presence and public statements. Her recent controversial comments about Governor Abbott's disability and calls for action against Elon Musk have particularly intensified scrutiny of her political tactics.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has expressed concern over Crockett's remarks about Elon Musk, specifically her birthday wish for him to "be taken down." During an appearance on Sunday Morning Futures, Bondi warned the congresswoman about her choice of words.
Crockett's inflammatory rhetoric extended to her comments about Senator Ted Cruz. During a recent interview about winning elections in Texas, she employed aggressive metaphors that raised eyebrows. She stated:
I think that you punch. I think you punch. I think you're okay with — you're okay with punching... But, like, it's Ted Cruz. I mean, like, this dude has to be knocked over the head, like, hard, right? Like, there is no niceties with him, like, at all. Like, you go clean off on him, right?
The congresswoman faces additional controversy over allegations of physically confronting a journalist who questioned her about the Tesla Takedown movement, reportedly grabbing his phone and scratching his hand.
Crockett's emergence comes at a crucial time for the Democratic Party, which struggles to regroup after recent electoral defeats. At 43, she positions herself as part of a new generation of leadership, distinctly different from established figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Her social media presence has included participation in TikTok trends and theatrical displays, such as a video game-style "choose your fighter" video. She also made headlines by walking out during Trump's congressional address while wearing a "resist" shirt.
The congresswoman has made controversial claims about crime statistics, including an incorrect statement on CNN claiming white supremacists commit 80 percent of violent crimes in the country.
Texas Representative Randy Weber has introduced a censure resolution against Crockett following her remarks about Governor Abbott at the 2025 Human Rights Campaign dinner, where she referred to him as "Governor Hot Wheels."
The resolution characterizes her comments as discriminatory and part of a pattern of inappropriate behavior. These developments occur as Democrats face historically low approval ratings and internal party challenges.
Jasmine Crockett's rapid rise to prominence reflects the ongoing transformation within the Democratic Party following their recent electoral setbacks. Her confrontational style and controversial statements have drawn criticism and support, as she positions herself as a potential new face of Democratic leadership.
The congresswoman faces multiple challenges, including potential censure and legal scrutiny, while continuing to advocate for aggressive political tactics against Republican opponents. These developments signal a potentially significant shift in Democratic Party messaging and leadership as they prepare for future electoral contests.
A heated Senate Intelligence Committee hearing exposed deep divisions among lawmakers and officials regarding the handling of sensitive information in a Signal text chain.
According to Fox News, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) called for the immediate resignations of National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth following revelations about a potential national security breach involving a Signal text chat accessible to a journalist from The Atlantic.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard faced intense questioning during the hearing about the nature of communications in the Signal chat, particularly regarding discussions about U.S. operations against Houthi forces in Yemen. She maintained throughout the proceedings that no classified information was shared in the conversations, though she declined to provide specific details about the chat's contents.
Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) pressed Gabbard repeatedly on her involvement in the group chat with senior Trump administration officials. Warner expressed frustration with what he perceived as evasive responses, emphasizing that such behavior from regular intelligence officers would result in termination.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe confirmed his participation in the group chat, defending the use of Signal's end-to-end encryption as permissible and lawful in this instance. FBI Director Kash Patel revealed he had only recently been briefed on the matter and could not provide updates about any potential investigation.
The controversy has highlighted concerns about information security practices among top government officials. Several Democratic senators expressed alarm about the potential mishandling of sensitive information and federal records.
President Trump has indicated he does not plan to remove Waltz from his position as national security advisor despite the growing controversy. This stance has intensified the partisan divide over the handling of the situation.
Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) offered a more nuanced perspective on classification authority, explaining that different department heads maintain distinct responsibilities for protecting sensitive information within their jurisdictions. This clarification came after several exchanges about who could definitively determine whether classified information had been compromised.
When questioned about specific details regarding weapons packages, targets, or timing in the Signal conversation, both Ratcliffe and Gabbard indicated they were not aware of such discussions, with Gabbard deferring to the Department of Defense for further clarification.
Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) directed pointed questions about the specific content of the Signal messages, particularly concerning military planning details. The responses from intelligence officials remained carefully measured, with most deferring to ongoing reviews by the National Security Council.
Warner's comparison of the situation to potential consequences for lower-ranking officials highlighted the broader debate about accountability standards across different levels of government. The incident has sparked discussions about the need for consistent application of security protocols regardless of position.
The combination of modern communication technologies and traditional security requirements has created new challenges for government officials. The incident has prompted calls for updated guidelines on the use of encrypted messaging apps in official communications.
The Signal text chain controversy has placed National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the center of a heated debate over information security practices within the Trump administration. Senator Wyden's call for their resignations stems from concerns about the potential exposure of sensitive operational details through unclassified channels, particularly regarding military actions against Houthi forces in Yemen. While Director of National Intelligence Gabbard maintains no classified information was compromised, the incident has triggered broader discussions about communication protocols and accountability measures for senior government officials handling sensitive national security matters.
President Donald Trump takes decisive action on election security through a comprehensive initiative aimed at preventing potential voter fraud.
According to Daily Mail, Trump signed an executive order implementing radical changes to ensure "free, fair, and honest" elections, potentially affecting millions of registered voters through stricter identification requirements and ballot submission deadlines.
The sweeping order mandates documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for federal election registration and requires all ballots to be received by Election Day. It also introduces a citizenship question on federal voting forms and establishes new verification processes between state and federal agencies.
The executive order requires voters to present specific forms of identification, such as driver's licenses, birth certificates, or passports, to participate in federal elections. State and local officials will work with federal authorities to verify this documentation.
Studies indicate that approximately 21.3 million U.S. citizens of voting age, representing 9% of eligible voters, do not have readily available proof of citizenship. Voting rights advocates express concern that these requirements could disenfranchise legitimate voters.
Trump emphasized the importance of election integrity while signing the order. He stated:
Election fraud, you've heard the term, ended, hopefully. At least this will go a long way toward ending it.
The order threatens to withhold federal assistance from states that fail to comply with the new requirements. This approach marks a significant shift in federal-state election administration relationships.
The directive instructs federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, Social Security Administration, and State Department, to share data with election officials to identify non-citizens on voter rolls.
The attorney general is directed to prioritize enforcement of federal election integrity laws in states that don't share information about suspected election crimes with the federal government.
Constitutional law experts note that while Congress has some regulatory power over elections, the Constitution primarily grants states authority over election administration. This division of power could lead to legal challenges against the executive order.
Justin Levitt, a constitutional law expert and former White House senior policy adviser during the Biden administration, acknowledges some federal agency involvement in elections. These include the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's grant distribution and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's role in protecting election systems.
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger praised the order as "a great first step for election integrity reform nationwide." Meanwhile, Mike Lindell, a Trump ally advocating for hand-counting ballots, used the announcement for fundraising purposes.
The executive order represents Trump's latest effort to combat what he perceives as election fraud through stricter voting requirements and enhanced verification processes. The directive aims to fundamentally change how Americans vote by mandating citizenship proof, enforcing Election Day deadlines, and establishing new data-sharing protocols between government agencies.
Democratic Representative Maxine Waters ignited heated discussions during a weekend protest in Los Angeles with her remarks about First Lady Melania Trump's immigration status.
According to Fox News, Waters suggested President Donald Trump should investigate and potentially deport the First Lady while speaking at an anti-Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) rally.
The California congresswoman's comments came as she addressed hundreds of protesters gathered to oppose the Trump administration's recent government downsizing initiatives. Waters questioned the documentation status of Melania Trump's parents while criticizing the president's stance on birthright citizenship.
Melania Trump, who was born in former Yugoslavia, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2006, making history as the first naturalized First Lady of the United States. She follows Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams, wife of President John Quincy Adams, as only the second foreign-born First Lady in American history.
The First Lady's immigration journey included sponsoring her parents, Viktor and Amalija Knavs, for green cards and citizenship after securing her own status. Both parents successfully obtained U.S. citizenship in 2018, with Viktor Knavs recently appearing at public events alongside the Trump family following Amalija's passing in 2024.
Waters told the crowd:
When he talks about birthright, and he's going to undo the fact that the Constitution allows those who are born here, even if the parents are undocumented, they have a right to stay in America. If he wants to start looking so closely to find those who were born here and their parents were undocumented, maybe he ought to first look at Melania. We don't know whether or not her parents were documented. And maybe we better just take a look.
President Trump's day-one executive order banning birthright citizenship has become a focal point of controversy. The order aims to reinterpret the 14th Amendment by restricting citizenship rights for children born to illegal immigrants or those with temporary non-immigrant visas.
The executive order faces legal challenges and has recently reached the Supreme Court. This development has intensified discussions about immigration policy and constitutional interpretation across the political spectrum.
The rally where Waters made her remarks drew hundreds of protesters to Los Angeles' Wilshire Boulevard. Demonstrators specifically targeted the VA hospital during their march, expressing opposition to the administration's federal agency audits seeking to identify overspending and corruption.
Waters further addressed the protesters with pointed criticism of both President Trump and Elon Musk, stating:
We are here because we are not going to let Trump, we're not going to let Elon Musk, his co-president, or anybody else take the United States Constitution down.
Conservative critics have seized upon Waters' comments about the First Lady, with clips of her speech gaining significant traction across social media platforms. The remarks have sparked particularly intense reactions on TikTok and X, where users have been sharing and commenting on the footage extensively.
Waters' office has not responded to requests for additional comments regarding her statements about the First Lady. The incident has added another layer to ongoing debates about immigration policy and political discourse in Washington.
Representative Maxine Waters' controversial statements about First Lady Melania Trump's immigration status have intensified the already heated debate surrounding immigration policy and government reform. The Democratic congresswoman made these remarks during an anti-DOGE protest in Los Angeles, where hundreds gathered to oppose the Trump administration's federal agency downsizing initiatives. As President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship continues its journey through the legal system, the Supreme Court's upcoming decision could significantly impact the national conversation on immigration reform and constitutional interpretation.
A stunning development unfolds as Prince Harry and Prince Seeiso of Lesotho step away from their roles at Sentebale, a charitable organization they established to honor their mothers' legacies.
According to the New York Post, the Duke of Sussex announced his resignation as patron of Sentebale, citing irreparable tensions between the board of trustees and chairwoman Sophie Chandauka.
The departure comes as a significant blow to the organization, which has been supporting disadvantaged children since 2006. Prince Harry, 40, expressed his devastation over the decision, which was made alongside co-founder Prince Seeiso of Lesotho amid growing internal conflicts within the charity's leadership structure.
The breakdown in relationships between key stakeholders has created an untenable situation within the organization. In a joint statement, both princes addressed their difficult decision to step down from their roles as patrons.
Prince Harry and Prince Seeiso stated:
With heavy hearts, we have resigned from our roles as patrons of the organization until further notice, in support of and solidarity with the board of trustees who have had to do the same. It is devastating that the relationship between the charity's trustees and the chair of the board broke down beyond repair, creating an untenable situation.
The controversy appears to center around disagreements regarding the charity's fundraising focus in Africa. Multiple board members, including Timothy Boucher, Mark Dyer, Audrey Kgosidintsi, Kelello Lerotholi, and Damian West, have unanimously resigned from their positions.
Chairwoman Sophie Chandauka has taken a firm stance against the departures, refusing to step down from her position. She issued a strongly worded response to the situation, alleging serious misconduct within the organization.
Chandauka defended her position with the following statement:
For me, this is not a vanity project from which I can resign when I am called to account. There are people in this world who behave as though they are above the law and mistreat people, and then play the victim card and use the very press they disdain to harm people who have the courage to challenge their conduct.
The chairwoman claims she exposed issues including poor governance, weak executive management, abuse of power, bullying, harassment, and misogyny. She has reported the trustees to the Charity Commission, which has acknowledged awareness of the governance concerns.
The recent exodus of leadership follows several significant departures over the past year. Richard Miller stepped down as CEO after five years of service, while Andrew Tucker, a senior official of 10 years, and Baroness Lynda Chalker, an 18-year director, also left their positions.
The organization had already experienced a major shift when advertising executive Johnny Hornby departed after serving 11 years as a trustee, including five years as chairman. These successive departures have created a leadership vacuum within the organization. The Charity Commission has confirmed its involvement in the matter, stating they are currently assessing the situation to determine appropriate regulatory measures. This development adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing crisis.
Prince Harry and Prince Seeiso's departure from Sentebale marks a significant turning point for the charitable organization they founded nearly two decades ago. The Duke of Sussex established the charity in 2006, choosing the name "Sentebale," which translates to "Forget me not," in honor of his late mother Princess Diana's favorite flowers.
The crisis has led to the resignation of both founding patrons and the entire board of trustees, creating unprecedented challenges for the organization's future operations. The Charity Commission's involvement and ongoing assessment of the situation will likely determine the next steps for this once-promising charitable venture supporting disadvantaged children in Africa.
Dr. Marty Makary, a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine professor and former Fox News medical contributor, faces new challenges as he prepares to lead the Food and Drug Administration.
According to Fox News, the Senate confirmed Makary's nomination on Tuesday after he cleared a final procedural test vote with a 56-44 margin to invoke cloture.
During his confirmation process, Makary addressed various concerns regarding vaccines, chronic illness, food safety, and abortion in front of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP). His hearing particularly highlighted his stance on vaccine advisory meetings and his past criticisms of FDA policies.
The confirmation hearing saw intense moments when Senator Patty Murray questioned Makary about a postponed FDA vaccine meeting. Murray specifically pressed him about his plans to reschedule the advisory committee meeting.
Makary cleverly redirected Murray's scrutiny by referencing the Biden administration's 2021 decision to bypass key committee meetings when authorizing COVID-19 vaccine boosters. This decision faced criticism from committee members, including Dr. Paul Offit from Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
The exchange highlighted Makary's willingness to challenge established practices and his critical view of previous FDA decisions. His response demonstrated his readiness to address controversial topics directly while maintaining his professional stance.
Before his nomination, Makary had been vocal about his concerns regarding FDA operations. His 2021 opinion piece called for significant changes in agency leadership and culture to promote scientific advancement.
The new FDA chief's previous role as a Fox News medical contributor has drawn attention from both supporters and critics. His media background provides him with unique communication skills that could prove valuable in his new position.
His confirmation hearing also revealed his alignment with President Trump's healthcare initiatives, particularly regarding nutrition and public health. He emphasized the connection between food and health outcomes, specifically addressing childhood obesity and early-onset Alzheimer's.
Makary addressed the Senate committee with a clear vision for the FDA's future, emphasizing the importance of focusing on preventive health measures and nutrition-based approaches to chronic diseases.
During his hearing, Makary emphasized how President Trump and Secretary Kennedy's focus on healthy foods has created a nationwide movement. He stressed that childhood obesity extends beyond individual willpower and that early-onset Alzheimer's involves more than genetic factors. According to Makary's statement to the committee:
We now have a generational opportunity in American healthcare. President Trump and Secretary Kennedy's focus on healthy foods has galvanized a grassroots movement in America. Childhood obesity is not a willpower problem, and the rise of early-onset Alzheimer's is not a genetic cause. We should be, and we will, be addressing food as it impacts our health.
Dr. Marty Makary's confirmation as FDA chief marks a significant shift in the agency's leadership following his successful Senate confirmation with a 56-44 vote. The Johns Hopkins professor and former Fox News medical contributor brings his expertise in medicine and public health communication to the role.
His appointment represents President Trump's vision for healthcare reform, particularly focusing on nutrition and preventive health measures. Makary's leadership promises to address critical issues such as childhood obesity, early-onset Alzheimer's, and vaccine policy while implementing significant changes in the FDA's operational culture and scientific advancement approach.
President Donald Trump announces a significant change in leadership for America's premier public health agency during a critical period of healthcare reform.
According to Daily Wire, Dr. Susan Monarez, the current acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has been nominated by Trump to permanently lead the agency after his previous nominee withdrew from consideration.
The nomination follows the withdrawal of Dr. Dave Weldon, a former Republican congressman from Florida, whose nomination was pulled on March 13th due to insufficient Republican support in the confirmation process. This development marks a significant shift in the administration's strategy for CDC leadership, emphasizing scientific expertise over political experience.
Dr. Monarez's nomination showcases her impressive academic background, which includes a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin and postdoctoral training in Microbiology and Immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine. Her extensive experience in public health and scientific research positions her as a technically qualified candidate for the role.
Trump specifically highlighted Monarez's role as a mother and public servant, emphasizing how these qualities contribute to her understanding of public health priorities. The President expressed confidence in her ability to address what he perceives as declining public trust in the CDC.
The nomination indicates a strategic pivot from the previous choice of Weldon, whose background was primarily in politics rather than public health administration. This change suggests a renewed focus on scientific expertise in leadership selection.
Dr. Weldon's withdrawal from consideration revealed underlying tensions between pharmaceutical industry interests and CDC leadership selection. The former congressman issued a detailed statement attributing his nomination's failure to negative perception from the pharmaceutical sector.
In his statement, Weldon defended his medical practice, noting his regular use of pharmaceutical products in patient care. The situation highlights the complex relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and public health leadership.
These developments occurred just hours before Weldon's scheduled Senate confirmation hearing, demonstrating the volatile nature of high-level healthcare appointments in the current political climate.
Trump expressed that Monarez will work closely with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. to implement new agency priorities. Their collaborative approach aims to address chronic disease prevention and restore public confidence in the CDC.
President Trump outlined key focus areas for the new leadership, including innovation, transparency, and strengthening public health systems. The administration emphasized accountability and high standards as crucial elements of their strategy.
Trump took to social media to deliver his message about these objectives, stating that the partnership between Monarez and Kennedy would be instrumental in making America "healthy again."
Dr. Susan Monarez's nomination represents a strategic shift in CDC leadership, combining scientific expertise with public health administration experience. The nomination follows the withdrawal of former congressman Dave Weldon, whose candidacy faced opposition from pharmaceutical industry stakeholders and insufficient Republican support. The new nominee will need to navigate Senate confirmation processes while preparing to address multiple public health challenges. Working alongside HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Monarez is expected to focus on rebuilding public trust in the CDC through enhanced transparency and innovation in public health systems.
The nation's highest court grapples with a contentious racial gerrymandering case that could reshape Louisiana's congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
According to Fox News, the Supreme Court heard arguments Monday on whether Louisiana lawmakers can consider race when drawing congressional districts, specifically examining if the state's recently updated map violates constitutional protections.
The case centers on Louisiana's congressional redistricting efforts following the 2020 census, which showed Black residents comprising one-third of the state's population. The map has faced multiple legal challenges since its initial creation, with courts previously striking down versions that critics argued diluted minority voting power under the Voting Rights Act.
Louisiana's latest redistricting plan, known as S.B. 8, created a second majority-Black voting district but immediately drew criticism from non-Black plaintiffs. They contend the new district, stretching approximately 250 miles from Shreveport to Baton Rouge, represents an unconstitutional use of racial considerations in map-drawing.
The state's legal team, led by Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, defended the map's design as a practical solution to protect political stability. During oral arguments, Aguiñaga emphasized the broader political implications at stake:
I want to emphasize that the larger picture here is important – because in an election year we faced the prospect of a federal court-drawn map that placed in jeopardy the speaker of the House, the House majority leader and our representative on the Appropriations Committee. And so in light of those facts, we made the politically rational decision: we drew our own map to protect them.
The initial redistricting map, which included just one majority-Black district, was invalidated by a federal court and the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022. These rulings supported claims by the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
State lawmakers were subsequently ordered to adopt a new redistricting map by January 2024. The resulting plan, S.B. 8, attempted to address previous concerns by creating a second majority-Black district.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last November but delayed consideration until after the 2024 elections. The decision reflected the complex nature of balancing various constitutional requirements and practical considerations.
Louisiana officials have expressed frustration over the repeated map revisions and seek clarity from the Supreme Court on navigating what they describe as competing legal demands. The state's legal team emphasizes the need for clear guidance in this complex area of constitutional law.
State representatives argue that non-Black voters failed to demonstrate the direct harm required for equal protection claims. They also maintain that race was not the primary factor in redrawing the congressional districts.
The high court's decision, expected by late June, could significantly impact how states approach racial considerations in redistricting efforts. The ruling may provide crucial guidance for similar challenges nationwide.
The Supreme Court's examination of Louisiana's congressional map represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over racial considerations in redistricting. The case challenges lawmakers to balance constitutional requirements with practical political considerations while ensuring fair representation for all voters.
The outcome will directly affect Louisiana's political landscape and potentially influence redistricting practices across the country. As the court deliberates this complex issue, their decision could establish new precedents for how states approach the delicate balance between racial representation and constitutional protections in future redistricting efforts.
Golf legend Tiger Woods and Donald Trump Jr.'s former wife, Vanessa Trump, have made their relationship public, sparking reactions from the Trump family.
According to Fox News, Woods made the relationship official through an Instagram post on Sunday night, prompting a supportive five-word response from Ivanka Trump.
The announcement follows months of speculation about their romantic involvement, with reports suggesting the pair had been dating for at least a year. Woods chose to confirm the relationship through a heartfelt social media post that garnered over 6,700 comments, including one from his new partner's former sister-in-law.
The relationship between Woods and Vanessa Trump appears to have strengthened through their children's shared passion for golf. Both Woods' son Charlie and Vanessa's daughter Kai are competitive golfers, with their paths crossing at various tournaments.
Their children's involvement in golf has created multiple opportunities for the families to spend time together. Recently, Woods was photographed with Kai at the Genesis Invitational, demonstrating their growing family bond. Additionally, both Vanessa and Kai attended a TGL match last month, a golf league created by Woods and Rory McIlroy.
Kai has already committed to pursuing her golf career at the University of Miami, while Charlie continues to follow in his father's footsteps, participating in U.S. Open qualifiers and playing alongside his father in tournaments. The young golfers even competed in the same tournament last month, further cementing the families' connection.
Ivanka Trump expressed her approval of the relationship on Woods' Instagram post with the following comment: "So happy for you both!"
The support from Ivanka carries particular significance given her previous close relationship with Vanessa. In a 2016 People magazine interview, she praised Vanessa's parenting abilities and referred to her as "Wonder Woman," highlighting her exceptional skill in managing her five children simultaneously.
The relationship announcement comes years after Vanessa's 2018 divorce from Donald Trump Jr. Prior to their split, Vanessa had earned high regard within the Trump family, particularly from Ivanka, who openly admired her parenting capabilities and strong family values.
Woods' romantic life has seen significant changes since his highly publicized divorce from Elin Nordegren. The golf champion shared his feelings about his new relationship in an Instagram post:
Love is in the air and life is better with you by my side! We look forward to our journey through life together. At this time we would appreciate privacy for all those close to our hearts.
Following his divorce from Nordegren, Woods dated Olympic skier Lindsey Vonn in the 2010s and later Erica Herman, who was present during his 2019 Masters victory. His relationship with Herman ended in a public separation that involved sexual harassment allegations and legal disputes over an NDA.
Tiger Woods and Vanessa Trump's relationship has emerged as a significant development in both sports and social circles, bringing together two prominent families through their shared connection to golf.
The relationship, confirmed through Woods' Instagram announcement, has received positive feedback from Ivanka Trump and numerous followers. As their children continue their competitive golf careers and the couple moves forward with their relationship, they have requested privacy while navigating their new life together.