Democratic leaders and Big Tech giants are on edge as Steve Bannon, a key figure in the MAGA movement, makes his controversial return to Spotify. The former White House strategist’s podcast, “WarRoom,” resumed broadcasting after a five-year suspension, reigniting debates over free speech and corporate control in the digital age.
According to the New York Post, Bannon’s reinstatement follows constructive discussions with Spotify, but his return has already sparked heated reactions. Known for his hard-hitting rhetoric and fierce criticism of Big Tech, Bannon’s reemergence on the platform signifies his growing influence as a leading voice of populist nationalism.
Bannon’s podcast, which produces four hours of content six days a week, has not toned down its approach. Instead, it has doubled down on its focus, drawing in millions of listeners and intensifying its critical stance against what Bannon calls the “oligarchy power” of Big Tech companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google.
Despite a lengthy exile from major streaming platforms, “WarRoom” has maintained its unapologetic tone. Removed in 2020 after Bannon suggested metaphorical punishments for Anthony Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray, the podcast remained available on Apple Podcasts and grew its audience during Donald Trump’s presidency and Bannon’s jail sentence.
In an interview with the New York Post, Bannon emphasized that his content remains hard-hitting and relevant. “I think our content’s the same, probably more hard-hitting than ever,” Bannon, 71, remarked. He attributes his podcast’s appeal to its detailed coverage of geopolitics, economics, and grassroots movements, topics often dismissed by mainstream media.
Bannon insists that his controversial comments, which led to his initial ban, were taken out of context. He explained, “I made a comment two days before about Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons, where they put his head on a pike, and we said it metaphorically about Christopher Wray and Dr. Fauci.”
Bannon’s return to Spotify indicates his determination to challenge what he calls the monopolistic practices of Big Tech companies. He has repeatedly criticized platforms like Amazon, Facebook, and Google, arguing that they suppress free speech and wield unchecked influence over public discourse.
“Big Tech, I think, is the most dangerous thing in the country,” Bannon declared, stressing the need to dismantle these corporations to protect free speech. While he acknowledges their potential benefits, he believes their current power dynamics pose a significant threat to democracy.
Bannon’s criticism extends to Elon Musk, whom he labels an “apostate of the left” and a “parasitic illegal immigrant.” Although Musk’s acquisition of X (formerly Twitter) has been seen as a win for the political right, Bannon warns that Musk’s unpredictability could make the platform unreliable for conservatives.
“If you mention getting rid of H-1B work visas, you’ll see how suppressed you become,” Bannon explained, highlighting what he sees as ongoing censorship despite X’s supposed shift toward free speech.
While Bannon is focused on domestic issues, his ambitions extend far beyond U.S. borders. With Spotify’s global presence in over 180 countries, he hopes to amplify the populist nationalist sovereignty movement worldwide.
“At least an hour we try to give over to just the international populist nationalist sovereignty movement,” Bannon said. His podcast frequently highlights countries like Hungary, Poland, and Romania, which he sees as models of resistance to globalist agendas.
Bannon’s return to Spotify also marks his growing presence in mainstream media. He has appeared on left-leaning platforms such as California Governor Gavin Newsom’s podcast and Bill Maher’s Real Time, seizing the opportunity to engage with audiences traditionally outside the MAGA base.
“I can give a punch and I can take a punch — the MAGA movement prides itself in being resilient,” Bannon stated, describing his ability to adapt and thrive despite years of censorship and bans.
Steve Bannon’s reinstatement on Spotify has reignited debates about censorship, free speech, and corporate influence. After five years of exile, Bannon is more determined than ever to challenge Big Tech giants and expand his conservative populist message globally. His podcast, “WarRoom,” continues to attract millions of listeners, and his critical stance on companies like Amazon and Facebook underscores his broader campaign to dismantle monopolistic corporate power.
Justice Clarence Thomas has once again voiced his frustration with the Supreme Court, this time over its refusal to hear a case challenging Maryland’s controversial ban on AR-15 rifles. The conservative justice’s remarks have reignited a heated debate about Second Amendment rights and the role of the judiciary in protecting them.
According to the Washington Examiner, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a petition from a pro-gun rights group seeking to overturn Maryland’s 2013 law banning various semiautomatic firearms, including the AR-15. The law, which labels these firearms as illegal “assault weapons,” was upheld by a lower appeals court in a 10-5 decision. The high court’s refusal to hear the case leaves the ban in place.
In a dissenting opinion, Thomas sharply criticized the court for what he sees as its negligence in addressing a critical constitutional issue. His remarks also targeted the appeals court for placing what he called an excessive burden on challengers of the Maryland law.
Thomas’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision was unflinching. He argued that the AR-15, one of the most popular firearms in the United States, deserves protection under the Second Amendment. For him, the court’s avoidance of the issue suggests a troubling inconsistency in how constitutional rights are upheld.
“I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,” Thomas wrote. “That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade.” He further argued that failing to address the matter relegates the Second Amendment to “a second-class right.”
Thomas also took issue with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which upheld Maryland’s ban. He criticized the court’s reasoning, stating that it unfairly shifted the burden of proof onto those challenging the law, rather than requiring Maryland to justify the legality of its prohibition.
Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas in dissenting from the decision to deny the petition. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while not formally dissenting, also expressed concerns about the lower court’s ruling. In a statement, Kavanaugh made it clear that the Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case should not be interpreted as an endorsement of Maryland’s law.
“Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court’s ultimate decision-making on the AR–15 issue,” Kavanaugh wrote. He suggested that similar petitions are likely to come before the court in the near future, and he expressed hope that the issue would be addressed “in the next Term or two.”
The Firearms Policy Coalition, the group that brought the challenge, echoed these frustrations. In a statement, the organization accused the Supreme Court of lacking the “judicial courage” to uphold the Constitution and vowed to continue fighting against bans on semiautomatic firearms.
The pro-gun movement has long argued that bans like Maryland’s unfairly target law-abiding gun owners and fail to address the root causes of gun violence. The Firearms Policy Coalition, in particular, views the AR-15 as a symbol of Second Amendment rights and has made it a focal point of its legal battles.
“Like millions of peaceable gun owners across the country, we are frustrated that the Court continues to allow lower courts to treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right,” the group said in its statement. Declaring their resolve to “eliminate these immoral bans,” they promised to return to the Supreme Court with similar cases in the future.
The group’s frustration highlights a broader concern among conservatives: that the judiciary has become too hesitant to defend gun rights. For activists, the AR-15 ban represents more than a single law—it is a test of whether courts will uphold their interpretation of the Second Amendment.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has declined to take up a major gun rights case, but the justices’ recent rulings have suggested a willingness to revisit Second Amendment issues. In 2022, the court struck down a New York law restricting concealed carry permits, signaling a potential shift toward broader gun rights protections.
The Maryland case, however, reveals lingering divisions among the justices. While Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch appear eager to expand Second Amendment protections, others on the bench seem more cautious. Kavanaugh’s statement suggests that the court may be waiting for a more favorable case—or additional input from lower courts—before taking a definitive stance on AR-15 bans.
In the meantime, Maryland’s law will remain in effect, along with similar bans in other states. The Supreme Court also declined on Monday to hear a separate case challenging Rhode Island’s ban on high-capacity magazines, further frustrating gun rights advocates.
Demands for a tougher U.S. stance on Iran’s nuclear program are reaching a fever pitch after Defense Reporter Wallace White revealed major developments involving top American and Iranian officials. President Donald Trump, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and Iran’s regime are now at the center of a deal that’s rattling Washington’s foreign policy hawks.
According to The Daily Caller, the Biden-era ban on uranium enrichment in Iran is on the chopping block. Instead, a new proposal would reportedly permit Iran to enrich civilian-grade uranium under international oversight—a move that critics say is a dangerous gamble with global security.
Sources told the outlet that on Saturday, Witkoff floated a deal to Iranian officials: Iran could enrich uranium up to 3% purity at above-ground sites but with strict International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision. In exchange, Iran would gain relief from some U.S. sanctions—but only if it proves it is following American and IAEA guidelines.
Iran’s nuclear program has been a source of global tension for decades, with the regime repeatedly accused of hiding the extent of its uranium enrichment. According to confidential IAEA reports cited by Reuters, Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%—dangerously close to weapons-grade—now stands at over 400 kilograms. Experts warn that with such reserves, Tehran could theoretically build a nuclear weapon in as little as three weeks.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), brokered during the Obama administration, restricted Iran to civilian-level enrichment and allowed for IAEA inspections. Conservatives, however, have long blasted the JCPOA as a toothless deal, pointing to its expiration clauses and Iran’s history of deception as fatal flaws. Many advocates on the right have pushed for a “Libyan model” approach, in which Iran would have to surrender all enrichment capability in exchange for sanctions relief.
But Iran’s leaders have consistently rejected such proposals, viewing their nuclear program as a matter of national pride and security. Recent revelations that Iran had under-reported its enrichment activities at three separate sites in the early 2000s have only intensified suspicions in the West.
Trump administration figures and conservative lawmakers are voicing outrage over the reported concession. They argue that the deal would embolden Iran, undermine America’s allies in the Middle East, and potentially trigger a regional arms race. Former Trump officials have repeatedly insisted that no deal with Iran should allow for any domestic uranium enrichment, warning that such a move would open the door to nuclear weapons development.
On Monday, both the State Department and the White House declined to comment on the specifics of the ongoing negotiations. Instead, they referred all questions to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who reiterated President Trump’s longstanding red line:
President Trump has made it clear that Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb. Special Envoy Witkoff has sent a detailed and acceptable proposal to the Iranian regime, and it’s in their best interest to accept it. Out of respect for the ongoing deal, the Administration will not comment on details of the proposal to the media.
Opponents of the new approach warn that loosening restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program could backfire. Some national security experts caution that reducing American leverage now may only embolden hardliners in Tehran, making it harder to prevent weaponization in the future.
Proponents of a tougher line against Iran argue that only a zero-enrichment standard—like those followed by many U.S. allies with nuclear power programs—can guarantee global security. They note that most nations with peaceful nuclear energy import their enriched uranium rather than producing it domestically, precisely to prevent the risk of weapons proliferation.
Meanwhile, foreign policy realists and some defense analysts argue that demanding zero enrichment is unrealistic and could push the U.S. into a costly confrontation. Justin Logan of the CATO Institute previously warned that such demands might leave America with only two choices: “If you say our goal is to get zero enrichment in Iran, then you’re either going to let Iran get nuclear weapons or you’re going to go to war with Iran, or both.”
Iranian officials have yet to respond publicly to the reported offer. However, the regime’s public displays of military hardware and nuclear achievements suggest that any agreement will be closely scrutinized at home for signs of capitulation or weakness.
The stakes are high not just for Washington and Tehran, but also for Israel and other U.S. allies confronting Iran’s growing power in the region. Israel has repeatedly threatened to take preemptive action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, should diplomacy fail. Any change in the U.S. position could force a dramatic shift in regional security calculations.
Sanctions relief remains a critical bargaining chip. Iran’s battered economy is desperate for a break from years of economic pressure, but U.S. officials insist that any relief will only come if Iran demonstrates “real commitment” to following international rules.
As negotiations continue, conservative critics warn the administration not to repeat what they see as the mistakes of the past. The coming weeks could determine whether the U.S. can secure meaningful restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program—or whether the world will be forced to confront a new and more dangerous nuclear reality.
President Donald Trump and his administration challenge Joe Biden’s handling of Iran, setting off a new round of fierce debate in Washington. Trump’s latest remarks have both his critics and supporters talking as he weighs in on a controversial report about the future of Iran’s nuclear program.
According to the Daily Mail, President Trump has flatly denied that any new U.S. nuclear deal with Iran would permit the regime to enrich uranium, even at low levels. The president’s sharp rebuke came after Axios reported a proposal allegedly allowing some enrichment for a limited time, sparking immediate backlash from both sides of the political aisle.
As the story continues to unfold, Trump’s pointed criticism of Biden and his insistence on a tough approach toward Iran have placed American foreign policy in the spotlight. Questions remain about the details of the deal, the intentions of Iran, and the true stance of the White House as negotiations move forward.
President Trump wasted no time in pinning the blame on Joe Biden for what he called America’s “Iran woes,” reviving his familiar criticism of the Democrat’s leadership. Trump used the nickname “autopen” for Biden, mocking him for allegedly being disengaged and letting others sign off on major decisions, a jab that has become a staple of Trump’s rhetoric.
Trump’s remarks came after Axios published reports claiming a “secret” U.S. proposal would allow Iran to enrich uranium to low levels for an undefined period. This would mark a significant shift from Trump’s own hardline position after he withdrew from President Obama’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which placed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear activities.
Notably, the White House did not immediately dispute the Axios report, leaving room for speculation about whether the administration’s public statements match ongoing negotiations. Publicly, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have insisted any deal would bar Iran from enrichment, but critics remain unconvinced.
Details from the reported proposal reveal a complex approach to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions while allowing for some domestic enrichment under tight restrictions. The proposal, presented by Envoy Witkoff, would reportedly prohibit Iran from constructing new enrichment facilities and require dismantling “critical infrastructure” used for uranium conversion and processing.
Iran’s research and development of advanced centrifuges would have to stop, with above-ground facilities limited to producing fuel for civilian nuclear reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversight. Iran would also need to reduce its enrichment concentration to 3 percent upon signing, a level far below weapons-grade but still contentious among critics.
Sanctions relief would only follow if Iran demonstrated “real commitment” to compliance, both to the U.S. and the IAEA. Still, even the possibility of limited enrichment has triggered alarm for some American allies, particularly Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long demanded the strictest possible terms on any nuclear agreement with Tehran.
The Trump administration has maintained that any deal with Iran will include robust safeguards to prevent the regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Axios the president’s position was unambiguous: Iran must never be allowed to build a bomb.
“President Trump has made it clear that Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb,” Leavitt said in a statement. “Special Envoy Witkoff has sent a detailed and acceptable proposal to the Iranian regime, and it’s in their best interest to accept it.”
A White House official echoed this view in an email to the Daily Mail, defending the administration’s negotiating stance. “President Trump is speaking the cold, hard truth,” the official said. “The terms we gave Iran were very tough and would make it impossible for them to ever obtain a nuclear bomb.”
Despite the administration’s assurances, critics argue the deal’s reported terms are a departure from Trump’s original “maximum pressure” policy, which aimed to deny Iran any path to enrichment. Some see the willingness to allow even minimal enrichment as an unnecessary concession that could embolden Iran and jeopardize regional security.
Meanwhile, Biden's allies contend that little was achieved during Trump’s first term after the U.S. exited the Obama-era deal in 2018. They blame Trump for weakening America’s leverage and creating a diplomatic vacuum that made it harder to rein in Iran’s nuclear advances.
Tensions have only escalated since the U.S. targeted and killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020, with Iran allegedly plotting assassinations against Trump and his former administration officials. As new talks proceed under Witkoff’s leadership, the administration faces pressure from both hawks and doves to prove its approach will deliver real results without handing Tehran unnecessary advantages.
Puerto Rico’s top court just made a surprising move, thrusting the island territory into the national spotlight. Six residents took their fight for recognition all the way to the highest bench, igniting a debate over personal identity, legal rights, and government power.
According to the Washington Examiner, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico ruled on May 30 that nonbinary people may now select an “X” as their gender marker on official birth certificates. The Court’s ruling, which stemmed from a lawsuit, orders government forms to include a nonbinary option for the first time in Puerto Rican history.
The case was triggered by a group of six individuals who argued their birth certificates did not reflect their gender identity. While transgender people in Puerto Rico have been able to change their gender marker from male to female or vice versa since 2018, nonbinary individuals—those who identify as neither—were left out. The plaintiffs claimed this exclusion was unconstitutional and discriminatory.
Before this historic decision, Puerto Rico’s policy only allowed for male or female gender markers on birth certificates. Nonbinary citizens argued this policy forced them to misrepresent themselves in official documents. They challenged the government’s refusal, citing violations of the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court took their claims seriously. In its ruling, the justices emphasized their obligation to ensure equal protection for all Puerto Ricans. The court’s filing read, “Since 2018, transgender individuals in Puerto Rico have been permitted to amend the gender marker on their birth certificate, from either male to female or from female to male. But the Plaintiffs in this case are nonbinary, meaning that their gender identity is neither male nor female. Their request is simple: to be permitted to have a gender marker on their birth certificate that reflects their true gender identity, like everyone else.”
Notably, the court concluded that there was no rational reason to deny the request. It found the policy was arbitrary and provided no justification for treating nonbinary individuals differently.
The decision has sparked a flurry of reactions, especially among those concerned about social and legal implications. Some critics argue that expanding gender categories on official documents could pose problems for government record-keeping, public safety, and traditional values.
Conservative voices have described the ruling as another example of activist courts overruling the will of the people. They warn that making legal sex markers a matter of personal choice rather than biology could create confusion and open the door to abuses. Others believe the court has gone beyond its mandate by compelling the government to recognize identities that are not biologically defined.
Still, the court’s decision aligns Puerto Rico with at least seventeen states on the mainland that already allow a nonbinary “X” marker on birth certificates. Supporters say this is a step toward affirming the dignity and rights of all people, regardless of gender identity.
Puerto Rico’s government has indicated it will comply with the Supreme Court’s order, but implementation details remain unresolved. Governor Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon acknowledged the ruling and said her administration is awaiting recommendations from the Justice Department before moving forward with the changes.
In practical terms, the government must amend its Application for Gender Change form to include the “X” option. This will allow nonbinary individuals to update their birth certificates, marking a significant shift in official policy. The court also noted that the federal courts must act to guarantee equal protection when state policies treat certain groups unfavorably.
As authorities work out the administrative steps, some lawmakers and advocacy groups are watching closely. They are eager to see how the new policy will be applied and whether it will lead to further changes in other areas of law and government documentation.
This ruling comes seven years after a U.S. federal court required Puerto Rico to allow transgender residents to change their birth certificates. The Supreme Court’s latest decision could set a precedent, encouraging activists elsewhere to push for similar reforms in other U.S. territories and states.
Supporters of the ruling argue that it upholds fairness and reflects evolving understandings of gender. They see it as an overdue recognition of people who have long existed but were denied legal acknowledgment. Detractors, on the other hand, caution that such changes could have unforeseen consequences in everything from sports to prisons to family law.
For now, the focus remains on Puerto Rico as it navigates the complexities of implementing the new policy. As debates continue, the case highlights the ongoing tension between individual rights and collective standards in American society.
A Harvard Law Review editor who exposed alleged discrimination against white men at the prestigious publication has landed a coveted position working under White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. David Wasserman's journey from campus whistleblower to federal employee has sparked intense scrutiny over his role in a Justice Department investigation targeting Harvard's practices.
According to the Washington Examiner, the Department of Justice revealed Wasserman served as a "cooperating witness" in their ongoing investigation into claims of discrimination at the student-run law journal. Justice officials have accused the Harvard Law Review of destroying evidence during their probe into allegations of bias against white male applicants and staff members.
Wasserman received his White House job offer on April 25, the same day discrimination allegations against the law journal surfaced in a Washington Free Beacon report. He began working under Miller on May 22 and graduated from Harvard on Wednesday, completing a rapid transition from student editor to federal employee amid the controversy surrounding his former publication.
Justice Department officials launched an aggressive campaign to protect their cooperating witness from retaliation by Harvard Law Review editors. During their search for the source of leaked information, journal leadership accused Wasserman of downloading tens of thousands of documents and issued him a formal reprimand for his alleged actions.
Federal prosecutors demanded immediate retraction of all disciplinary measures taken against Wasserman before his scheduled graduation ceremony. DOJ letters sent on May 13, 21, and 23 explicitly ordered the law review to permanently expunge any record of discipline against their cooperating witness.
Officials also commanded the publication to "retract any instructions to Mr. Wasserman or others to delete responsive documents." Justice Department correspondence emphasized that all punitive actions against Wasserman must be reversed prior to his May 29 graduation date, demonstrating federal determination to shield their informant from academic consequences.
Trump administration officials strongly defended Wasserman's recruitment while praising his courage in exposing alleged discrimination at Harvard. Senior administration sources told the New York Times that Wasserman was considered for employment well before the Justice Department investigation began, dismissing any suggestion of improper coordination between the hiring and the federal probe.
White House spokesman Harrison Fields characterized Wasserman as an exemplary figure who courageously challenged illegal discrimination practices. Fields emphasized that Harvard's alleged violations of federal law warranted investigation and commended the student's willingness to expose wrongdoing despite potential personal consequences.
Administration officials positioned the hiring as a recognition of Wasserman's integrity rather than compensation for his cooperation with federal authorities. The White House presented his employment as evidence that brave individuals who challenge institutional bias will find support in the Trump administration's commitment to fighting discrimination against all Americans.
Harvard Law Review now confronts mounting pressure from federal investigators demanding compliance with document preservation requirements. The Justice Department's accusations of evidence destruction have escalated tensions between the prestigious publication and federal authorities pursuing discrimination claims.
University officials must navigate the complex challenge of responding to federal demands while maintaining the law review's editorial independence and academic freedom. The investigation places Harvard in the uncomfortable position of defending its student publication against serious federal allegations while managing potential legal and financial consequences.
Legal experts suggest the case could set important precedents for how federal civil rights enforcement applies to student-run publications at major universities. The outcome may influence future investigations into alleged discrimination at elite academic institutions and establish new standards for cooperation between universities and federal civil rights investigators.
David Wasserman has transitioned from Harvard Law Review editor to White House policy advisor working under Stephen Miller, one of President Trump's most trusted immigration and policy strategists. His appointment represents a significant career advancement for the recent graduate who exposed alleged discrimination at one of America's most prestigious legal publications.
The Justice Department's investigation into Harvard Law Review continues as Wasserman begins his federal service, with prosecutors maintaining their demand for full cooperation from the student publication. Federal officials have made clear their determination to pursue civil rights violations regardless of the institutional prestige of the accused organization.
Wasserman's case demonstrates the Trump administration's commitment to protecting individuals who report discrimination against white Americans, signaling a broader shift in federal civil rights enforcement priorities. His successful transition from campus whistleblower to White House employee may encourage others to report similar allegations at elite academic institutions across the country.
Democrats and Republicans are trading blows once more, but this time, the fight is over Joe Biden’s mental and physical fitness during his time in office. Bill Clinton is now defending Biden against serious accusations in a new book that claims White House insiders were forced to take control as Biden’s faculties faded.
A new report from the New York Post reveals that Clinton flatly rejected claims made in “Original Sin,” a book alleging that Biden’s decline left him unable to lead, forcing family members and senior aides to effectively run the country. Clinton told CBS Sunday Morning he was “never” concerned about Biden’s ability to do the job.
Clinton’s remarks come at a time when Democrats are still reeling from Biden’s failed reelection bid and a disastrous debate performance that led to his withdrawal from the race. With Trump back in the White House, Democrats and Republicans are using Biden’s health as ammunition for their own political arguments while everyday Americans watch the back-and-forth with growing skepticism.
Bill Clinton, now 78, made his case clear during a recent interview, saying that he personally witnessed no evidence of mental decline in Joe Biden. Clinton insisted that his interactions with Biden left him with no worries about the 82-year-old’s competence as commander-in-chief.
Clinton said, “I saw President Biden not very long ago, and I thought he was in good shape.” When challenged about explosive allegations made in “Original Sin”—which claims a “council of confidants” was forced to step in and run the White House—Clinton doubled down, stating he never left a meeting with Biden thinking, “he can’t do this anymore.”
The former president also confirmed that he did not read the controversial book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. Clinton dismissed the allegations as politically motivated and irrelevant, given Biden is no longer president and, in Clinton’s words, “did a good job.”
“Original Sin,” published in May, paints a dire picture of Biden’s final year in office. According to the book, a so-called “politburo” of trusted Biden advisers—along with his wife Jill Biden and son Hunter—took the reins as the president’s ability to focus diminished. The book goes further, alleging the White House actively concealed Biden’s decline during his unsuccessful second-term campaign.
The book’s release coincided with public reports that Biden had been diagnosed with “aggressive” prostate cancer. Critics argue that this diagnosis and the claims of hidden decline show a pattern of secrecy and mismanagement at the highest level of government.
Biden supporters, however, are not letting these accusations go unchallenged. Jill Biden, the former first lady, told “The View” that the book’s authors “were not in the White House with us, and they didn’t see how hard Joe worked every single day.” She called the book’s claims baseless and out of touch with the reality she witnessed.
Despite Clinton’s defense, questions about Biden’s fitness persist. Clinton acknowledged that he did have one concern—not about Biden’s mind, but about the sheer demands of the presidency for someone approaching their mid-eighties. “The only concern I thought he had to deal with was, could anybody do that job until they were 86?” Clinton noted, referencing Biden’s potential age at the end of a second term.
Clinton emphasized that Biden was always “on top of his briefs” during their conversations and dismissed the notion that he was a mere figurehead. Nevertheless, the book’s depiction of a struggling president has added fuel to critics’ arguments that the Democratic Party kept voters in the dark.
Biden’s final months were marked by a widely panned debate performance against Donald Trump, after which he withdrew from the race in July. The fallout from his exit has left Democrats divided, with some blaming Biden and his team for mishandling the campaign, while others point fingers at the media and political opponents for exploiting his health issues.
With Trump now back in the Oval Office, the Democratic Party faces a reckoning over how it handled Biden’s decline and the extent to which it was kept from the public. Allies of the former president insist Biden’s work ethic never faltered, but critics—including many Republicans—are demanding accountability for what they see as a cover-up.
Clinton, for his part, says that attempts to blame Biden for Trump’s victory are misguided. He argued that the challenges the country faces are bigger than one man’s health and suggested that the book’s authors are using Biden’s decline as a scapegoat for broader political failures.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party is seizing on the controversy, arguing that the Democratic establishment’s lack of transparency should disqualify them from future leadership. The back-and-forth shows no signs of stopping as both sides dig in for what is sure to be a contentious political season.
A diplomatic powder keg has erupted after Ukraine’s military pulled off a stunning assault against Russia’s so-called “doomsday” nuclear bombers, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Donald Trump thrusting themselves into the center of the world’s most dangerous standoff. For those closely watching Washington, the next move could shape the fate of Europe—and test America’s resolve on the global stage.
According to the New York Post, Rubio doubled down on Trump’s call for urgent peace talks between Ukraine and Russia just hours after Kyiv’s audacious military operation left over 40 Russian strategic bombers destroyed or damaged. As both sides exchange fire and accusations, the world is left wondering if these latest attacks will force adversaries to the negotiating table—or push them further toward catastrophic escalation.
Ukraine’s bold attack, codenamed “Operation Spider’s Web,” reportedly took a year and a half of planning and struck at least four key Russian air bases. Moscow’s retaliation was swift, with the Kremlin unleashing the largest barrage of drones and missiles since the war began, according to Ukrainian officials. The violence has left dozens dead or wounded on both sides, and the United States is under pressure to guide the region toward peace while keeping American interests at the forefront.
Ukrainian forces stunned the world on Sunday with a coordinated series of drone strikes that wiped out or damaged 41 Russian nuclear-capable bombers. The aircraft, known as “doomsday” bombers for their role in Moscow’s nuclear deterrence strategy, were hit deep inside Russian territory at multiple airfields—a feat that military analysts are calling one of the most significant blows to Russia’s air power in decades.
Kyiv’s attack, which was months in the making, demonstrated a level of operational sophistication that even Ukraine’s critics had to acknowledge. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his top security officials hailed the mission as a turning point, arguing that it would cripple Russia’s ability to launch long-range missile attacks on Ukrainian cities.
Russian officials, however, were quick to downplay the damage, insisting that their nuclear capabilities remain intact and warning that any further attacks on strategic assets would trigger “serious consequences.” Despite such bluster, independent analysis suggested Moscow had suffered a significant setback.
Even as Ukraine celebrated its success, President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio wasted no time urging both sides to sit down for peace talks. On Sunday, Rubio delivered a direct message to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, pressing for immediate negotiations “to achieve a lasting peace,” according to the State Department.
Trump, meanwhile, ramped up his rhetoric against Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling him “crazy” and vowing to impose even harsher sanctions if Moscow refused to engage in meaningful talks.
Zelensky signaled his willingness to negotiate, announcing that Ukrainian delegates would travel to Istanbul on Monday for a new round of direct talks with Russian officials. The Ukrainian leader also renewed his call for a 30-day, U.S.-backed cease-fire, hoping to lay the groundwork for an end to a war that has dragged on for more than three years.
The strikes on Russia’s nuclear bombers came as part of a weekend that saw the heaviest bombardment of Ukrainian territory since the conflict began. Russian forces fired more than 479 drones and missiles across the border, targeting both military and civilian sites, according to Ukraine’s air force.
One particularly deadly strike hit a Ukrainian army training base more than 620 miles from the front lines, killing at least 12 soldiers and injuring 60 more, Ukrainian officials said. The violence underscored just how far-reaching and destructive the war has become—and how difficult it may be to bring the combatants to the table.
Critics of the Biden-era foreign policy approach have argued that a tougher stance is needed to check Putin’s aggression. However, Trump’s supporters counter that only direct talks, backed by the threat of forceful sanctions, can achieve a durable peace. With both sides suffering heavy casualties, the stakes could not be higher.
With Ukraine’s surprise strike rattling Moscow’s nuclear arsenal, analysts are divided over how the Kremlin will respond. Some warn that Putin may escalate the conflict even further, seeking to reassert his strength and deter future attacks on strategic assets. Others argue that the loss of so many bombers could force Russia to the bargaining table, especially as Western economic pressure mounts.
Zelensky’s decision to send negotiators to Istanbul suggests that Kyiv is willing to test the diplomatic waters, but few expect a breakthrough without significant concessions from Moscow. Meanwhile, Rubio and Trump’s calls for peace talks reflect a desire to avoid further U.S. entanglement while still supporting Ukraine’s right to defend itself.
As the world watches, the question remains whether cooler heads will prevail—or if the fighting will spiral into even more dangerous territory. For now, both sides appear locked in a high-stakes game of brinksmanship.
Democratic operative David Hogg and ex-White House staffer Deterrian Jones just made jaw-dropping claims about the Biden administration’s inner workings. Their candid remarks, captured in a Project Veritas undercover video, are sparking heated debate over who actually held power during Joe Biden’s presidency.
According to Breitbart, Hogg alleged that Anthony Bernal, Jill Biden’s chief of staff and a longtime Democratic insider, exercised unchecked power behind the scenes. The video further suggests that Bernal’s influence often eclipsed that of President Biden himself, raising new questions about transparency and accountability at the highest levels of government.
Hogg’s claims are not isolated. The story quickly gained traction after ex-Biden staffer Deterrian Jones described Bernal as a “shadowy Wizard of Oz-type figure” who, despite being unknown to the general public, wielded “incredible power.” This narrative fits with broader suspicions that President Biden’s inner circle—rather than the president—was calling the shots as questions about his fitness for office mounted.
Hogg, currently vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, outlined how the president’s close advisors, rather than Biden himself, were managing the country’s affairs. He pointed to Bernal’s “enormous amount of power” and alluded to a White House where loyalty and proximity to Biden’s family outranked official titles or responsibilities.
Deterrian Jones, who worked with the Biden administration, reinforced Hogg’s assertions. He claimed that Bernal’s influence was an “open secret” in Washington. According to Jones, Bernal’s ability to shape policy and daily decisions placed him at the center of power, far from public scrutiny.
The Breitbart report also highlighted previous allegations of outside influence over Biden’s administration. In 2023, Tablet magazine reported that former President Barack Obama was quietly directing policy through a network of former staffers embedded in the White House. This pattern of alleged shadow governance has fueled speculation among conservatives and critics of the Democratic Party.
Anthony Bernal is no stranger to the political world, having served as a senior adviser to Jill Biden for years. Still, his name rarely surfaces in mainstream coverage, and most Americans would not recognize him if he walked down the street. The video’s depiction of Bernal as a “shadowy” figure has added to suspicions about the true power dynamics inside the Biden administration.
Breitbart included images of Bernal alongside both President Biden and the First Lady at public events, underscoring his proximity to the nation’s top leaders. But, according to Hogg and Jones, Bernal’s real work happened out of the spotlight through “hidden channels” of decision-making and influence. This revelation is sparking new calls for transparency from critics who say the American people deserve to know who is really making decisions in the White House.
Public reaction has been divided. Supporters of the Biden administration argue that close advisers are a normal part of any presidency. Critics, however, see the situation as evidence that Biden was not fit to govern and that unelected aides and family members stepped in to fill the leadership vacuum.
The claims about Bernal come on the heels of earlier reports that Barack Obama, not Joe Biden, was the key decision-maker during much of the Biden presidency. Tablet magazine’s 2023 exposé alleged that Obama maintained significant control through his former staffers, who now occupied influential posts in the administration. According to the narrative, the Biden White House became an extension of Obama’s political network.
Axios reporter Alex Thompson added fuel to the fire, telling MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that Biden’s closest advisors—including Bernal, the First Lady, and others—were essentially “running the country.” Thompson pointed out that this inner circle had the most access to Biden, shaping his schedule and influencing key decisions.
While Democrats have dismissed these allegations as partisan attacks, conservatives argue that the evidence is mounting. The repeated appearance of names like Bernal, Donilon, Riccheti, and Reed in discussions of White House power only deepens skepticism about who was truly in charge.
The Project Veritas video has already triggered calls for further investigation into the Biden administration’s internal operations. Republicans and conservative watchdogs are demanding answers about how much authority unelected aides like Bernal exercised and whether this violated norms of democratic accountability.
Hogg’s remarks—particularly his admission that “the inner circle around Biden” was the real power—are being cited by critics as proof that Biden was a figurehead. Jones’s comparison of Bernal to the “Wizard of Oz” resonates on social media, fueling a narrative that the public was kept in the dark about who was really running the country. Deterrian Jones said, “He was scary. The general public wouldn’t know what he looked like, but he wielded incredible power.”
As the story continues to unfold, Democrats are scrambling to defend the administration’s decision-making process. However, with the 2024 election in the rearview and President Donald Trump back in office, these revelations are sure to fuel ongoing debate about transparency and the dangers of unelected power in Washington.