Democratic insiders are quietly admitting what many on the Right have long suspected. Alex Thompson, a reporter for Axios, revealed on “Fox News Sunday” that some aides to then-President Joe Biden believed extraordinary measures were justified during his term.
According to The Daily Caller, a longtime Biden aide told Thompson that White House staff rationalized doing “undemocratic things” out of fear that Donald Trump posed an “existential threat to democracy.” The admission is fueling debate over whether partisan beliefs have trumped democratic norms at the highest levels of government.
Thompson’s reporting exposes a mindset within Biden’s inner circle, where certain unelected staffers saw themselves as the real decision-makers. Their rationale, as described on national television, has conservatives and critics questioning the legitimacy of the administration’s decision-making process.
Staffers take charge behind closed doors
During his appearance, Thompson recounted how Biden’s aides shielded him from scrutiny and managed the presidency largely out of public view. He explained that access to Biden was tightly controlled by a select group of staffers, who determined who could speak to the president and when.
One quote from the unnamed Biden aide captured the attitude: “When you’re voting for president, you’re voting for the aides around him.” This statement underlines concerns about unelected officials wielding unchecked power, especially when the elected president’s public appearances are limited.
Thompson also reported that a senior staffer admitted, “He’d only have to show proof of life every once in a while. His aides could pick up the slack.” The implication is clear: staffers acted as gatekeepers, filtering information and shaping Biden’s schedule to suit their own agenda.
Existential threat justification
The justification for these actions, according to Thompson’s sources, was rooted in a deep-seated belief that Trump represented a unique danger to American democracy. Many staffers, he said, sincerely believed that the stakes justified extraordinary measures.
“If you believe — and I think a lot of these people do sincerely believe — that Donald Trump was and is an existential threat to democracy, you can rationalize anything, including sometimes doing undemocratic things,” Thompson told Fox News’ Shannon Bream.
Alex Thompson told Shannon Bream,
If you believe — and I think a lot of these people do sincerely believe — that Donald Trump was and is an existential threat to democracy, you can rationalize anything, including sometimes doing undemocratic things.
This mindset has sparked debate about the dangers of rationalizing undemocratic behavior, even in the name of “saving democracy.” Critics argue that such thinking opens the door to abuses of power by unelected officials.
Critics and defenders speak out
Conservative commentators are seizing on the revelations as proof that the Biden administration operated in a manner inconsistent with democratic principles. They say the idea of “saving democracy” cannot justify undemocratic conduct from those in government.
Some, like independent Senator Bernie Sanders, have voiced concerns about the Democratic Party’s direction. In a related segment, Sanders agreed with the notion that Democrats themselves could be seen as a “threat to democracy,” highlighting fractures within the party.
Others defend the staffers’ motives, claiming that the unprecedented political climate under Trump required bold action. They argue that the existential threat posed by Trump’s rhetoric and policies warranted unusual measures to protect democratic institutions.
Questions raised about transparency
Thompson’s reporting also sheds light on the extent to which Biden’s public presence was managed by his aides. Critics contend that voters were not fully aware of how much control was exercised by unelected staffers during Biden’s presidency.
Transparency advocates warn that such arrangements undermine the principle of accountability. When decisions are made by those not chosen by the American people, trust in government suffers — especially when those actions are later described as “undemocratic.”
Speaking to reporters in Morristown, N.J., Trump expressed clear frustration over the deadly Russian attacks but also leveled pointed criticism at Zelensky and U.S. leadership.
According to The Hill, Trump condemned Putin for Russia’s missile and drone barrage on Ukrainian cities that left at least a dozen people dead and many more wounded. He did not hold back his views, calling Putin’s actions “needlessly killing a lot of people” and suggesting that something fundamental had changed with the Russian leader.
Trump’s unusually tough words for Putin, coupled with his sharp rebuke of Zelensky, highlight the complexities of America’s response to the war in Ukraine. The president’s remarks come as pressure mounts in Washington about how best to support Ukraine while holding Russia accountable.
Putin’s actions under fire
In his remarks Sunday, Trump made it clear he was disturbed by the scope and brutality of Russia’s latest attack. “Yeah, I’ll give you an update, I’m not happy with what Putin’s doing. He’s killing a lot of people and I don’t know what the hell happened to Putin,” Trump told journalists, referencing the ongoing missile attacks on Kyiv and other cities. These attacks, among the largest Russia has carried out, have left a grim toll on Ukraine’s civilian population.
Trump’s relationship with Putin has long drawn scrutiny, but his most recent statements marked a notable shift. While the president stated, “I’ve known him a long time. Always gotten along with him,” he did not hesitate to criticize the Russian leader’s decisions. He emphasized that he is “not happy at all” with Putin and that he is “surprised at what he’s seeing,” suggesting that new U.S. sanctions on Russia could be forthcoming.
As Russia continues to target Ukrainian cities with rockets and drones, Trump’s comments have resonated with many Americans concerned about the stability of Europe and the need for strong U.S. leadership.
Zelensky criticized for response
Later Sunday, Trump expanded on his views in a post on Truth Social, where he again called out both Putin and Zelensky. While reiterating that Putin “has gone absolutely CRAZY!” and is “needlessly killing a lot of people,” Trump also took aim at Zelensky for what he described as unhelpful rhetoric.
Trump wrote that Zelensky “was doing his country ‘no favors by talking the way he does,’” apparently referring to Zelensky’s sharp criticism of the U.S. and the West for their silence after the latest attacks. According to Zelensky, Russia launched nearly 300 attack drones and dozens of ballistic missiles overnight, targeting Kyiv and 11 other regions.
The Ukrainian president has argued that these attacks prove Russia is not interested in peace, stating, “The world may go on a weekend break, but the war continues, regardless of weekends and weekdays. This cannot be ignored.” Trump, however, countered that Zelensky’s approach was counterproductive and insisted the war would never have started if he were in office.
War of words escalates
Trump’s rhetoric on Sunday drew attention not only for its strong tone against Putin but also for his repeated claim that he bears no responsibility for the war. In his Truth Social post, Trump wrote, “This is a War that would never have started if I were President. This is Zelensky’s, Putin’s, and Biden’s War, not ‘Trump’s,’ I am only helping to put out the big and ugly fires, that have been started through Gross Incompetence and Hatred.”
Critics of Trump argue that his comments downplay the seriousness of Russia’s aggression and risk diminishing U.S. support for Ukraine at a crucial time. Supporters, however, say Trump is right to pressure both sides and to demand more accountability from America’s allies.
While Trump’s earlier approach to Putin was often more measured, his recent remarks suggest a growing impatience with the Russian leader’s actions. His call for a 30-day ceasefire reportedly discussed with both Putin and Zelensky, has yet to yield results as Russian attacks have continued.
Washington weighs next steps
Trump’s tough talk has led to ra enewed debate in Washington over how to respond to the war in Ukraine. The president’s willingness to consider new sanctions on Russia signals a potential shift in U.S. policy, though he has not yet outlined specific measures.
Many lawmakers have called for a stronger U.S. response, while others caution against further escalation. Trump’s criticism of Zelensky has also sparked discussion about the best path forward for Ukraine, with some warning that American unity is vital for standing up to Russian aggression.
As the conflict rages on, Trump’s comments have underscored the challenges facing policymakers in the U.S. and abroad. The president’s remarks have put a spotlight on the delicate balance between supporting Ukraine, holding Russia accountable, and ensuring American interests are protected.
Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin is raising eyebrows after comments on national television stirred speculation about the fate of President Donald Trump’s latest budget proposal. During an appearance on CNN, Johnson spoke candidly about the internal GOP resistance brewing in the Senate.
According to The Daily Caller, Johnson predicted that enough Republican senators are prepared to stall Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” unless their demands for spending cuts are addressed. His remarks highlight growing divisions within the party, even as Trump urges Republicans to pass his narrow House-approved package.
Johnson’s warning arrived just days after the bill barely cleared the House by a single vote. With the Senate on the horizon, the budget’s prospects now hinge on whether GOP critics will force major concessions or risk derailing a top White House priority.
House drama sets up Senate clash
Tensions over the budget began escalating last Thursday when Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” squeaked through the House with a 215-214-1 vote. Republican representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio joined Democrats in voting no, while House Freedom Caucus leader Andy Harris voted present. The narrow outcome underscored deep unease about the bill’s spending levels.
On Sunday, during CNN’s “State of the Union,” host Jake Tapper pressed Johnson for insight on how many GOP senators might join him in opposing the bill. Johnson didn’t offer a specific number but insisted there were enough to “stop the process until the president gets serious about spending reduction and reducing the deficit.”
Johnson’s comments are significant because Senate Majority Leader John Thune has acknowledged he can’t afford to lose more than three Republican votes if the package is to pass. The fate of the legislation may depend on whether party leaders can satisfy conservative holdouts demanding substantial fiscal reforms.
Spending fight exposes GOP split
For Johnson and like-minded senators, the issue goes beyond politics. He argued that the current budget process is fundamentally flawed, warning that the country faces an “unprecedented level of increased spending, 58% since 2019, other than World War II.”
Johnson insists this is a pivotal moment to cut spending back to pre-pandemic levels. He told Tapper:
This is our moment. We have witnessed an unprecedented level of increased spending, 58% since 2019, other than World War II. This is our only chance to reset that to a reasonable pre-pandemic level of spending.
He criticized the legislative routine of rushing through complex appropriations with little transparency. Johnson warned that relying on Congressional Budget Office projections without considering the broader context, such as an estimated $22 trillion in additional deficit over the next decade, was “completely out of context with anything that really we ought to be talking about.”
Trump, allies push back on dissent
President Trump and his allies have pressed for swift passage, emphasizing the bill’s importance for border security and defense. Despite this, some Senate Republicans are standing firm. In addition to Johnson, Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, John Curtis of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota have all expressed concerns about various provisions.
Johnson’s position is not new. Earlier this month, he wrote in The Wall Street Journal that the bill’s “unsustainable federal spending” should prompt Congress and the president to reconsider. He advocated for a two-step process: first, pass a bill based on the Senate’s original budget resolution to secure $850 billion in spending reductions, then extend current tax law to avoid automatic increases and prevent default with a modest debt ceiling hike.
Senate Majority Leader Thune remains optimistic, recently stating there’s a “workable path” to 51 votes by July 4. Still, he faces the challenge of uniting a fractured caucus without further alienating members demanding budget discipline.
Stakes high as vote nears
The upcoming Senate vote puts both the White House and congressional Republicans under the microscope. For Trump, securing passage of the bill is vital to demonstrating control of the legislative agenda and delivering on campaign promises to his base. For Johnson and fellow skeptics, the moment offers a rare opportunity to demand meaningful spending restraint.
If Johnson and his allies succeed in delaying or amending the bill, it could reshape the fiscal debate in Washington for years to come. Alternatively, failure to resolve the impasse could risk a government shutdown or force another round of tense negotiations.
With the Senate poised for what could be a dramatic showdown, all eyes turn to how party leaders manage the competing pressures. The coming weeks will test not only the resolve of fiscal conservatives but also the unity of the GOP as Trump’s presidency enters a critical legislative phase.
A Memorial Day weekend in South Carolina turned chaotic as reports of gunfire in the beach town of Little River left residents and visitors stunned. As details emerged, authorities scrambled to respond to a rapidly developing and unsettling scene.
According to Daily Mail, at least 11 individuals were transported to local hospitals after a mass shooting erupted Sunday night. Law enforcement and emergency crews swarmed Watson Avenue, a mostly residential street about 20 miles from Myrtle Beach, as the community grappled with yet another instance of holiday violence.
Police have stated that the incident appears to be isolated and say there is no further risk to the public. Several people, however, were taken to hospitals in personal vehicles before emergency responders arrived, and authorities continue to investigate the motive and seek potential suspects.
Residents describe chaos and panic
As the sun set over Little River, what should have been a peaceful Sunday evening quickly devolved into panic and confusion. Police say shots rang out just after 9:30 pm, with the Horry County Police Department and county fire rescue teams responding within minutes. Video footage captured the urgency of the moment, showing a flood of emergency vehicles converging on the scene.
Stunned residents took to social media to share their experiences, with many reporting that they heard the unmistakable sound of gunshots. Some described seeing people running for cover as authorities tried to secure the area.
Community members were urged to stay away from Watson Avenue while the active investigation continued. Police have not confirmed how many of the victims sustained gunshot wounds versus other injuries during the chaos.
Police response under scrutiny
Horry County Fire Rescue confirmed that at least 11 individuals were taken to area hospitals, but the total number of those injured remains unclear. Law enforcement officials said they received additional reports of victims being transported in private vehicles, raising concerns about the true scale of the incident.
Authorities released an update at 11 pm, emphasizing that the shooting was likely an isolated event. They reassured the public there was no ongoing threat, but details remain scarce as investigators comb through evidence and interview witnesses.
While emergency responders worked to help the wounded, a separate incident added to the night’s tension. North Myrtle Beach Police reported that one of their officers, responding to an unrelated call in the Little River area, accidentally shot himself in the leg. The officer was hospitalized in stable condition, with officials confirming that no one else was hurt by the unintentional discharge.
Holiday celebrations marred by violence
This shooting occurred shortly after another major disruption in the area. On Saturday night, a stampede broke out during a Memorial Day concert at Black Bike Week in Atlantic Beach, which is roughly nine miles from Little River. According to interim Town Manager Linda Cheatham, several fights broke out at the event, sparking panic and leading to multiple injuries as attendees rushed to safety.
Cheatham stated, “There were a couple of fights that broke out causing panic in the crowd and several people were injured trying to leave the area.” She added that police and medical teams responded quickly, pausing the music but allowing the festival to continue until its scheduled end at 3am.
Black Bike Week, also known as the Black Pearl Cultural Heritage and Bike Festival, draws more than 400,000 visitors each year. This year marked the event’s 45th anniversary, making the violence particularly striking for organizers and attendees.
Uncertainty and questions remain
As of Monday, authorities had not identified any suspects in the Little River shooting. The Horry County Police Department reiterated that the investigation was ongoing and encouraged anyone with information to come forward. Officers continued to monitor the area and collect statements from witnesses.
Community reactions have been mixed, with some expressing frustration over the apparent lack of immediate answers while others voiced support for law enforcement’s swift response. Many residents remain concerned about the safety of holiday gatherings and question what steps can be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Meanwhile, officials are urging the public to stay vigilant and cooperate with investigators. The sense of unease in Little River lingers as families and visitors come to terms with the events of a weekend meant for remembrance and celebration.
An American man was arrested at John F. Kennedy International Airport, accused of plotting to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and making threats against Donald Trump.
According to the Daily Mail, Neumayer, 28, was taken into custody at John F. Kennedy International Airport after being deported from Israel. Authorities allege he threatened to assassinate President Donald Trump and attempted to bomb the U.S. Embassy branch in Tel Aviv.
Federal prosecutors now face a high-profile case involving social media threats, Molotov cocktails, and international law enforcement cooperation. The case raises serious concerns about security for American officials abroad and at home.
Social media posts spark alarm
Neumayer arrived in Israel in April, authorities said. His actions came to a head on May 19, when he reportedly spit on a security guard outside the U.S. Embassy branch office in Tel Aviv. After allegedly breaking free from the guard, Neumayer left a dark-colored backpack behind, which sparked an immediate police response.
Inside the abandoned bag, investigators discovered three Molotov cocktails—homemade incendiary devices commonly associated with violent attacks. Israeli police and bomb squad personnel quickly secured the scene and arrested Neumayer at his hotel soon after.
Law enforcement officials say his social media activity was equally alarming. On the same day as the embassy incident, Neumayer allegedly posted online: “Join me as I burn down the embassy in Tel Aviv. Death to America, death to Americans, and f**k the west.” Other posts reportedly included explicit threats against President Trump and high-profile figures such as Elon Musk.
U.S. officials respond to threats
After his arrest in Israel, Neumayer was deported back to the United States. Upon his arrival at JFK Airport on Sunday, U.S. authorities immediately took him into custody. The Justice Department charged him with attempting to destroy the U.S. Embassy branch in Tel Aviv by means of fire or explosive.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi issued a strong statement regarding the case. "This defendant is charged with planning a devastating attack targeting our embassy in Israel, threatening death to Americans, and President Trump’s life. The Department will not tolerate such violence and will prosecute this defendant to the fullest extent of the law,” Bondi said.
If convicted, Neumayer faces a minimum of five years and a maximum of 20 years in prison, according to prosecutors.
Political tensions and public reaction
The incident comes at a time of heightened political tension, both in the United States and internationally. Supporters of President Trump have expressed outrage at the threats, demanding the harshest possible penalties for anyone who targets American leaders or interests.
U.S. Attorney Joseph Nocella for the Eastern District of New York emphasized the seriousness of the charges. “His arrest and prosecution clearly show that my Office and the Department of Justice will not tolerate violence in our homeland or violence targeting U.S. interests abroad,” Nocella stated.
FBI Director Kash Patel echoed that sentiment, vowing that the FBI and its partners “will bring him to face justice for his dangerous actions.” Conservative commentators argue that this case highlights the need for vigilance against threats to American institutions, regardless of where those threats originate.
Broader context and related incidents
Neumayer’s arrest was not the only violence involving Americans and Israelis in recent days. Just days earlier, a gunman in Washington, D.C., killed a young Israeli couple as they left an event at the Capital Jewish Museum. That suspect, Elias Rodriguez, reportedly shouted “Free Palestine” after the shooting, adding another layer of complexity to an already tense international climate.
Some observers draw connections between these incidents, raising concerns about the influence of online rhetoric and the risks faced by American diplomats and political leaders. Critics of current security policies argue that more must be done to prevent such attacks—whether in the Middle East or in the United States.
Others caution against drawing broad conclusions from individual cases, pointing out that law enforcement acted swiftly in both situations. The debate over free speech, online radicalization, and foreign policy continues to shape public discourse.
Jessica Tarlov stunned viewers with a rare admission about the state of American cable news. The Fox News host, known for her liberal voice on the network’s popular show “The Five,” issued a sweeping apology that quickly triggered backlash and reignited debate over media accountability.
During a recent appearance on the Prof G podcast, Tarlov said she was sorry “to the entire world” for the content exported by cable news. As reported by Daily Mail, her confession came during a discussion with University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato and podcast co-host Scott Galloway, leading to sharp reactions from supporters and critics.
Tarlov’s remarks, made in the context of a broader conversation about the impact of TV news on political discourse, quickly spread online. Many conservatives and Fox News viewers expressed outrage, while others saw her comments as a rare moment of candor about the media landscape.
Tarlov’s apology sparks debate
Tarlov’s apology came when Larry Sabato was asked about the issue that most frustrates him. Sabato responded by lamenting the influence of cable news on public anger, saying he now watches more TV news than ever and believes it amplifies what’s popular on social media. Tarlov agreed, telling the panel, “As someone who’s on cable news, I apologize to the entire world for what we export.”
Her statement was met with laughter from Sabato, who then criticized the role of social media in shaping political debates. Tarlov did not clarify which specific aspects of cable news she found troubling, leaving room for interpretation. Still, her words were enough to ignite a heated response across social media platforms, especially among conservative audiences.
The timing of Tarlov’s apology coincided with renewed criticism of her performance on “The Five.” Some viewers demanded Fox News fire her, while others defended her right to express regret over the network’s output. The clash illustrated the deep divisions over how media figures should address perceived shortcomings in their own industry.
Controversy over Trump comments
The uproar over Tarlov’s apology was amplified by fresh controversy from a recent episode of “The Five.” On Friday, the panel discussed rumors that the Biden White House had concealed a cancer diagnosis. Tarlov shifted the conversation to President Donald Trump’s cryptocurrency dinner, alleging—incorrectly—that Trump made 40 percent of his wealth from crypto during his presidency.
Panelists Greg Gutfeld and Jesse Watters sharply rebuked her for changing the subject and accused her of making false claims. In response, Tarlov insisted she was pointing out corruption and profit in public office, an argument that failed to sway her critics.
Online, conservatives called for her removal from Fox News, with some describing her as unqualified and accusing her of spreading misinformation. Critics argued that Tarlov’s comments about Trump were both inaccurate and off-topic, while others speculated she was intentionally stirring controversy.
Social media backlash and defense
Social media users quickly seized on Tarlov’s apology and her Trump remarks. Some accused her of being a “paid actress,” suggesting her views were so extreme they could not be genuine. Others questioned why Fox News continued to employ her, given what they saw as repeated missteps and divisive rhetoric.
One user wrote, “Why does Fox News even employ her? She brings nothing to the table and Jessie and Greg call her out on all her lies, dumb liberal!!!” Another claimed, “Trump is the only president to lose money in office and the only one to donate his salary.”
Despite the criticism, some defended Tarlov’s role as the lone liberal voice on “The Five,” arguing that her presence ensures a diversity of perspectives on the panel. These supporters contended that her apology was a necessary reflection on the broader problems facing cable news, not just Fox News.
Broader concerns about cable news
Tarlov is not alone in voicing concerns about cable news. Other prominent media figures, including former “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd and former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, have criticized the industry in recent years. Todd described cable news as dominated by attempts to “game an algorithm,” while Kelly said the format remains “stilted, guided, fake.”
Larry Sabato, for his part, has argued that cable networks often avoid holding President Trump accountable, instead opting for “both-sides coverage” to avoid retribution. He warned that this approach allows powerful figures to intimidate media organizations and stifle genuine scrutiny.
Media executives have reportedly urged other hosts, such as those on ABC’s “The View,” to moderate their criticism of Trump, fearing potential backlash. These developments underscore the complex relationship between news outlets, their audiences, and the politicians they cover.
A failed display of North Korean naval power has put Kim Jong Un’s leadership under a rare public spotlight, with satellite images revealing an embarrassing disaster at the hands of his military’s own engineers.
According to Fox News, new satellite photos show a 5,000-ton North Korean destroyer lying mangled and half-submerged at the port of Chongjin, shrouded in a blue tarp after a botched launch in front of top officials.
The warship, intended to showcase North Korea’s growing military might, instead became a symbol of technical failure and leadership frustration, with Kim Jong Un reportedly “fuming” over what state media called a “serious accident.” The embarrassing setback was captured by Maxar Technologies’ satellite imagery, which documented both the pristine vessel before the launch and its aftermath.
Kim Jong Un’s anger erupts
Kim Jong Un’s reaction to the failed launch was swift and severe, as North Korean state media reported his open fury directed toward military officials, scientists, and shipyard operators. He labeled the incident a “criminal act caused by absolute carelessness, irresponsibility and unscientific empiricism,” signaling that those responsible may face harsh consequences.
According to reports, Kim’s anger was not limited to behind closed doors. He demanded immediate repairs to the destroyer and insisted that everything must be completed before the upcoming meeting of the communist Working Party in June. The dictator, well-known for his secretive and often brutal rule, warned that the “irresponsibility of the relevant officials” would be investigated at the party’s gathering.
This rare moment of public embarrassment for the regime has led to questions about the state of North Korea’s military-industrial capabilities and Kim’s grip on power. Critics note that Kim’s fierce response is aimed at preserving his image of control and competence as the regime faces growing pressure both internally and abroad.
Launch failure shakes regime
The failed launch unfolded at the northeastern port of Chongjin, where the destroyer—one of North Korea’s largest—was to be unveiled as a testament to the country’s technological progress. Instead, mechanical failure during the launch process sent the warship into a disastrous tailspin, with its hull crushed and its stern left partially submerged in the harbor.
Satellite images published by Maxar Technologies clearly show the extent of the damage, with the warship concealed under a blue tarp in an apparent attempt to hide the scale of the disaster from the public and foreign observers. Prior to the launch, the destroyer had been displayed in pristine condition, ready for its first mission.
State media coverage of the incident, while candid in describing Kim’s outrage, has been less forthcoming about the specific technical failures that led to the accident. Outside observers say this secrecy is typical of the regime, which often tries to control the narrative around sensitive military issues. The failed launch, however, was too big to hide, given the satellite imagery now circulating globally.
North Korea’s military ambitions
The failed destroyer launch comes at a time when Kim Jong Un has been ramping up North Korea’s military ambitions, including claims of developing a nuclear submarine and testing AI-powered “suicide drones.” In March, Kim personally oversaw trials of unmanned explosive drones, calling for increased production to counter what he describes as Western aggression.
North Korea’s show of force has not been limited to military hardware. In a major development since the Korean War, an estimated 15,000 North Korean troops were reportedly sent to Russia to support its war in Ukraine, according to South Korean officials. Of those, 600 are said to have been killed, underscoring the regime’s willingness to project power beyond its borders.
Despite the setback with the destroyer, Kim remains focused on his long-term goal of expanding North Korea’s military arsenal. The regime frequently cites external threats as justification for its relentless military buildup, and Kim has made clear he expects complete loyalty and competence from those involved in these efforts.
Repairs, investigations, and global scrutiny
Kim Jong Un’s demand for immediate repairs highlights both the urgency and the stakes for those responsible for the failed launch. The dictator has ordered that the warship be restored before the June party meeting, and he has signaled that a thorough investigation will follow, with consequences likely for those found at fault.
Kim’s statement directly targeted his own leadership team, as reported by North Korean state media:
Kim reportedly blamed military officials, scientists and shipyard operators for a "serious accident and criminal act caused by absolute carelessness, irresponsibility and unscientific empiricism."
Observers say this response fits a pattern of authoritarian regimes seeking to shift blame downward in moments of crisis. Critics of the North Korean government argue the episode exposes vulnerabilities in the country’s tightly controlled military-industrial complex, while supporters insist the nation will rebound stronger.
A new tell-all book alleges longtime Biden associates quietly made major decisions behind closed doors—sometimes without even consulting key Cabinet secretaries.
According to Daily Mail Online, the revelations come from Jake Tapper’s latest book, “Original Sin,” which draws on more than 200 interviews and uncovers a secretive inner circle, dubbed the “politburo,” that allegedly took the reins as the president’s cognitive health deteriorated.
The book names Donilon, Ricchetti, and Reed as the core trio, with Klain and Annie Tomasini also playing significant roles at times. The author claims even Biden’s wife, Dr. Jill Biden, and his son Hunter were ever-present influences, raising new questions about who was truly in charge during the Biden years.
Central players called the shots
At the heart of Tapper’s account is a portrait of power concentrated in a handful of hands. These insiders, veterans of Democratic politics and close Biden allies, reportedly made sweeping decisions about the nation’s direction, often without input from the president’s own Cabinet. According to Tapper and his co-author Alex Thompson, one insider told them, “Five people were running the country, and Joe Biden was at best a senior member of the board.”
The book paints Bruce Reed as the “real domestic policy adviser,” Mike Donilon as the “actual political director,” and Steve Ricchetti as the force behind legislative affairs. Ron Klain, who served as Biden’s chief of staff, is described as wielding influence over virtually every White House matter. The group allegedly bypassed official channels and even key officials when major economic calls were made, sidelining figures like Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
Aides and critics alike are depicted as alarmed by this closed-circle approach. One unnamed source told the authors, “I’ve never seen a situation like this before, with so few people having so much power. They would make huge economic decisions without calling Secretary Yellen.”
Biden family’s influence under the microscope
Adding further intrigue, the book claims that both Jill and Hunter Biden were “prominent and permanent fixtures” within the president’s circle of trust. Hunter’s involvement, in particular, is described as outsized and controversial, with Tapper remarking in interviews that “Hunter was driving the decision-making for the family in a way that people—he was almost like a chief of staff of the family.”
Tapper doesn’t mince words about Hunter’s reputation, either. He describes Hunter as “provably demonstrably unethical, sleazy, and prone to horrible decisions,” referencing scandals and personal problems that have dogged the president’s son. Despite this baggage, Hunter’s presence in high-level family and political decisions apparently remained undiminished, even as some aides blamed him for Biden’s “rapid deterioration.”
Tapper said, “It’s bizarre because I think he is provably demonstrably unethical, sleazy, and prone to horrible decisions. After his brother died, he cheated on his wife with his brother’s widow and then got her addicted to crack.”
Jill Biden, meanwhile, is portrayed as fiercely protective of her husband and a crucial voice in the inner circle. The book claims her role was so central that aides sometimes deferred to her judgment over other staffers.
Critics question transparency and process
The book’s allegations have already sparked debate about transparency and proper governance. The group’s nickname, “politburo” (a term usually reserved for communist party leadership), has fueled concerns about unchecked power and lack of accountability in the Biden administration’s highest ranks.
Congressional Republicans have taken notice. House Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer recently attempted to subpoena three key aides, including Annie Tomasini, only to be thwarted by what he called White House “obstruction.” The committee’s investigation focused on the use of the president’s autopen and other issues tied to the aides’ influence.
Some Democrats and former President Barack Obama himself reportedly worried about the “hangers-on” in Biden’s close circle, a subtle jab at the tight-knit nature of the group. The controversy underscores long-running tensions between Biden’s loyalists and the wider Democratic establishment.
What comes next for Biden’s inner circle
The book’s claims have arrived at a critical time, reigniting questions about the president’s capacity and who truly set the agenda in the White House during his term. For critics, the account is further evidence that a handful of unelected staffers and family members were running the show while the president’s health was in decline.
Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti, Bruce Reed, Ron Klain, Jill Biden, and Hunter Biden now face intensifying scrutiny, with observers demanding answers about decision-making and transparency at the highest levels of government. The White House has yet to respond directly to many of the book’s most pointed allegations.
The trial of Michail Chkhikvishvili, a notorious leader of a white supremacist cult, has begun in Brooklyn federal court after his extradition from Moldova.
According to The Daily Caller, Chkhikvishvili led the white supremacist group “Maniac Murder Cult” and allegedly orchestrated a shocking plot to distribute poisoned candy to children celebrating New Year’s Eve in Brooklyn. Authorities say the intended targets included minority children and students at a Jewish school.
This extradition follows nearly a year of detention in Moldova and marks a critical moment for US counterterrorism efforts. Chkhikvishvili’s arrival in Brooklyn federal court on Friday is the latest chapter in a sprawling investigation that has drawn in multiple federal and international law enforcement agencies.
International manhunt leads to arrest
Chkhikvishvili became a wanted man after US authorities linked him to a series of violent crimes stretching across multiple countries. Federal officials allege that his criminal network planned not just the New York attack but also bombings and mass casualty events targeting Jews and racial minorities. His activities, according to prosecutors, were fueled by an extremist neo-Nazi ideology.
After an extensive manhunt, Moldovan authorities arrested Chkhikvishvili in July 2024. Since then, he remained in custody as the US government worked through diplomatic channels to secure his extradition. American officials have praised Moldova for its cooperation and adherence to international law, crediting the swift transfer to close coordination between the FBI, DOJ, and foreign partners.
Chkhikvishvili’s case has captured the attention of counterterrorism experts who warn that loosely organized hate groups are increasingly using online networks to recruit, radicalize, and plot attacks. Investigators allege that Chkhikvishvili not only masterminded the New York plot but also recruited cult members to commit violence abroad.
Links to global terror incidents
Court filings and law enforcement briefings tie Chkhikvishvili and his “Maniac Murder Cult” to a string of violent incidents outside the United States. According to authorities, the cult leader is a suspect in a January 2023 school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee, where a 17-year-old gunman broadcast his attack on Antioch High School before his suicide. He is also reportedly linked to an August 2024 knife attack in Turkey and an April 2022 murder in Romania.
Prosecutors say these connections highlight the global reach of Chkhikvishvili’s network and the urgent threat posed by extremist groups that cross international borders. Law enforcement officials warn that the group used encrypted messaging apps and online forums to spread hate, plan crimes, and evade detection.
The Department of Justice has charged Chkhikvishvili with soliciting hate crimes and planning mass casualty attacks. US Attorney General Pam Bondi condemned his actions, calling him “a white supremacist, [who] recruited others to participate in a violent campaign of hatred against racial minorities and the Jewish community and to engage in the mass killing of children and others in these communities using poison, suicide bombs, firearms, arson fires, and vehicle explosions.”
US Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a Friday press release:
This case is a stark reminder of the kind of terrorism we face today... online networks plotting unspeakable acts of violence against children, families, and the Jewish community in pursuit of a depraved, extremist ideology.
Law enforcement coordination praised
Federal and local officials have lauded the successful extradition as proof of American law enforcement’s resolve. FBI Director Kash Patel publicly thanked Moldovan officials for their role in the transfer, while Christopher Raia, FBI Assistant Director in the Counterterrorism Division, emphasized the broader message sent by the arrest.
Raia stated that the extradition “is a clear sign the FBI, our Joint Terrorism Task Force, and law enforcement partners are committed to protecting our nation and city and will bring any individual desiring to enact racially motivated violence to justice,” according to the Justice Department’s press release.
In New York, NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch acknowledged the interagency collaboration that made the extradition possible. Tisch said, “This extradition demonstrates the reach and the determination of American law enforcement agencies to track down the most dangerous and depraved of criminals.”
Chkhikvishvili faces federal trial in Brooklyn
Michail Chkhikvishvili, known as “Commander Butcher,” now faces federal terrorism charges in Brooklyn following his extradition from Moldova. Prosecutors allege he orchestrated a deadly plot to poison children and target minorities while also recruiting followers for bombings and violent attacks both in the US and abroad.
The accused neo-Nazi leader’s case is seen as a major test for international law enforcement collaboration, with American officials heralding the transfer as a model for future operations. As the case proceeds, all eyes will be on the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where Chkhikvishvili’s fate will be decided in the coming months.
An All Nippon Airways flight from Tokyo to Houston turned into a tense ordeal early Saturday when a medical emergency involving an unnamed passenger forced the jet to land unexpectedly in Seattle. Fellow travelers and crew acted quickly as the situation unfolded, but questions remain about what led to the dramatic midair incident.
According to The Daily Caller, ANA Flight 114 was diverted to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport after a passenger reportedly attempted to open an emergency exit door while the plane was flying high above the Pacific Ocean. The individual, who was experiencing what authorities later described as a "medical crisis," was subdued and restrained by crew and other passengers before the aircraft landed safely.
Federal officials have not released the identity of the individual at the center of the disturbance. The incident highlighted both the professionalism of the crew and the unpredictable nature of international air travel as authorities and airline leaders worked to restore order and ensure the safety of all on board.
Passengers respond to midair chaos
Witnesses say the disturbance nearly ten hours into the flight from Japan’s Haneda Airport was sudden and alarming. Port of Seattle Police confirmed the passenger tried to open an emergency exit door, a move that could have had catastrophic consequences if not for the intervention of those nearby. Crew members and fellow travelers jumped in to restrain the passenger, stabilizing the situation until the plane could be landed safely.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) representatives described the incident as a "passenger disturbance," acknowledging that such events, while rare, demand rapid and decisive action by airline staff. Once the plane landed at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, police, and medical personnel met the flight, taking the individual into custody and transporting them to a local hospital for evaluation.
Airline spokespeople later confirmed that the disturbed passenger was experiencing a medical crisis, but details about the nature of the episode were not disclosed. No information has been released regarding the individual’s identity or their current condition, and the FAA has not yet announced whether charges will be filed.
Additional passenger complications on the ground
As authorities handled the initial crisis, a second passenger was also removed from the plane while it remained on the ground in Seattle. Both police and airline officials described this person’s behavior as "unruly," though they clarified that it was unrelated to the initial emergency involving the exit door. Details about this second incident remain sparse, and officials have yet to elaborate on what prompted the removal.
The double removal added an unexpected layer of complexity to the day’s events. While the first passenger’s actions prompted the emergency landing, the second removal underscored the challenges airlines face in maintaining order and safety on long-haul international flights. Passengers on board expressed relief when normalcy was restored and the flight was cleared to resume its journey.
After both individuals were removed, ANA Flight 114 continued on to Houston without further incident. Flight tracking data from FlightAware.com indicated the plane landed at George Bush Intercontinental Airport around 12:42 p.m. Central Time, several hours behind its original schedule.
Airline and authorities praise response
All Nippon Airways issued a statement following the incident, emphasizing its commitment to passenger safety and commending the actions of local law enforcement. The airline wrote, "The safety of our passengers and crew are our top priority and we applaud the efforts of local law enforcement for their support." This sentiment was echoed by many travelers, who said the quick thinking of both crew and fellow passengers likely prevented a more serious outcome.
The FAA, which is overseeing the ongoing investigation, has yet to confirm whether any criminal charges will result from the incident. Authorities are seeking to determine exactly what happened in the moments leading up to the attempted door opening and whether additional measures should be taken to prevent similar events in the future.
Security experts note that incidents involving attempts to open emergency exits midflight, while extremely rare, are taken very seriously by both airlines and regulatory bodies. The ability of modern aircraft to withstand such attempts, combined with robust crew training, is credited with helping to avert disaster in situations like this one.
Investigation continues and safety concerns raised
Officials have not provided a timeline for when more information might be released about the passenger’s condition or possible motives. The lack of detail has prompted speculation about whether mental health, substance use, or other factors played a role. For now, authorities are urging patience as they work through the facts of the case.
Some travelers and aviation analysts have called for renewed attention to airline screening procedures and the importance of mental health resources, both for passengers and crew. Others have questioned whether enough is being done to prepare for and respond to medical or psychological emergencies during long-haul flights, especially as global travel increases.
Meanwhile, the removal of the second, unrelated passenger in Seattle has sparked debate about what constitutes "unruly" behavior on flights and how airlines should manage difficult situations. The incident serves as a reminder of the complexities airline staff face in keeping hundreds of people safe and calm under stressful conditions.
