Democratic lawmakers have accused Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard of unlawfully interfering with the independence of intelligence oversight. Their allegations center on controversial personnel decisions that could threaten the autonomy of the Intelligence Community Inspector General's office.
According to The Washington Post, Gabbard has placed a senior adviser in the inspector general's office and fired its acting general counsel, actions that former officials claim may compromise the integrity of independent oversight of America's intelligence agencies.
The dispute escalated Monday when top Democratic legislators sent Gabbard a letter demanding she "immediately cease your illegal interference into the ICIG's operations." The letter emphasized that "the ICIG must remain independent of political influence" and promised continued opposition to any attempts to "interfere with its work, or silence its conclusions."
The confrontation involves several high-ranking Democrats ,including Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, who lead minority Democrats on congressional intelligence committees. They were joined by Senator Chris Coons of Delaware and Representative Betty McCollum of Minnesota, ranking Democrats on defense appropriations subcommittees.
Gabbard's spokesperson, Olivia Coleman, had previously accused the acting inspector general Tamara Johnson and her staff of politicization. Coleman claimed the office failed to fulfill "the responsibility to be an independent organization unbeholden to partisan interests" and had "bucked President Trump's directives" regarding diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
The dispute centers on the Intelligence Community Inspector General's office, established by Congress in 2010 to provide independent oversight of America's 18 intelligence agencies. President Trump has repeatedly demonstrated hostility toward inspectors general, firing one of Johnson's predecessors in 2019 and dismissing most Cabinet agency inspectors general this January.
Democratic lawmakers revealed they had received communication from Johnson directly contradicting Gabbard's explanation for the personnel changes. Johnson disputed Gabbard's claim that she had agreed to fire acting general counsel Stephanie McDonald.
The lawmakers' letter cited Johnson describing Gabbard's actions as "contrary to law" and "never sufficiently explained." They emphasized that the 2010 legislation establishing the inspector general's office grants the ICIG "final approval" on personnel decisions specifically to safeguard its independence.
On May 9, Gabbard installed Dennis Kirk, one of her senior advisers, in the inspector general's office. Kirk previously served in the Office of Personnel Management during Trump's first term and co-authored a section of the conservative Project 2025 blueprint focused on federal workforce reforms.
The controversial dismissal of McDonald reportedly occurred just 48 hours after she inquired about the legal justification for Kirk's appointment. This timing has raised concerns about potential retaliation against staff questioning Gabbard's actions.
Democratic legislators have requested Gabbard provide legal justification for her personnel decisions, along with all correspondence with the inspector general's office since February 12. They also demanded the names of all officials involved in meetings regarding Kirk's appointment and McDonald's firing.
As minority party members in both chambers of Congress, Democrats may face challenges compelling Gabbard to comply with their requests. The political dynamics limit their institutional leverage in forcing disclosure or changes to her actions.
Senator Warner has previously called for Gabbard's resignation over separate allegations involving her top aide, Joe Kent. Warner accused Kent of pressuring intelligence analysts to modify a report about Venezuela's government and the Tren de Aragua cartel.
The original intelligence assessment concluded Venezuela's government did not direct the cartel's activities. This conclusion undermined President Trump's justification for deporting suspected gang members without due process under the Alien Enemies Act.
Warner expressed his views bluntly on the "SpyTalk" podcast, stating: "It's inexcusable. I think that Gabbard should resign." This call represents one of the most direct challenges to Gabbard's leadership from a senior Democratic legislator.
President Donald Trump has ordered approximately 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles as tensions escalate over immigration enforcement operations. The deployment comes as anti-ICE protests featuring foreign flag-waving demonstrators continue to spread across the city, leading to clashes with law enforcement.
According to Breitbart, the Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Division will "seamlessly integrate with the Title 10 forces under Task Force 51 who are protecting federal personnel and federal property" in Los Angeles.
The Marine deployment follows Trump's decision to federalize 2,000 California National Guard members over the weekend, a move that has sparked fierce criticism from Democratic leaders. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed the deployment was in response to "increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings."
Social media has captured numerous incidents of protesters throwing rocks at law enforcement officers and attacking Border Patrol vehicles. Some demonstrators have been documented looting businesses, burning vehicles and American flags, and shooting fireworks at mounted police officers.
The Marines deployed to Los Angeles are coming from Camp Pendleton and the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center. Multiple sources confirmed to CNN that while Trump federalized 2,000 National Guard members, only about 300 have actually been deployed to Los Angeles streets so far.
Officials emphasized that the Marines "won't engage" with rioters directly. Their primary mission appears focused on protecting federal personnel and property as immigration enforcement operations continue throughout the region.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has sharply criticized Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard, calling the move "purposefully inflammatory." The governor has also filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming it "illegally acted to federalize the National Guard."
Former Vice President Kamala Harris joined in the criticism, issuing a statement Sunday that characterized the National Guard deployment as a "dangerous escalation." Democratic leaders have questioned whether the federal response is proportionate to the situation on the ground.
The partisan divide over the response highlights the deeply polarized views on immigration enforcement. While Republicans have largely supported Trump's decisive action, Democrats have expressed concern about potential civil rights violations and escalation of tensions.
The initial 300 National Guard members who reached Los Angeles streets were already participating in routine drill exercises when mobilized, explaining their rapid deployment. Military officials note it typically takes up to 72 hours for additional Guard personnel to be fully activated and deployed.
U.S. Northern Command confirmed that the Marines would be working alongside National Guard forces under the Title 10 authorization. This legal framework allows federal troops to conduct certain law enforcement activities that would normally be prohibited under the Posse Comitatus Act.
One source familiar with the deployment told CNN the Marines "will be augmenting the Guard presence on the ground" in Los Angeles. The deployment is described as temporary, though no specific timeline has been provided for how long the Marines might remain in the city.
The deployment represents the latest escalation in an increasingly contentious relationship between the Trump administration and California state officials. Trump has directed the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense to "liberate" Los Angeles, stating that "illegals will be expelled."
Governor Newsom's lawsuit challenging the federalization of the National Guard signals a significant legal battle ahead. The dispute centers on the president's authority to deploy federal forces in states without gubernatorial consent during civil disturbances.
As the Marines arrive in Los Angeles, the city faces an uncertain path forward with federal forces, state officials, and protesters locked in a tense standoff that shows few signs of quick resolution. The deployment underscores the complex and often fraught relationship between federal immigration enforcement and local communities affected by these policies.
Terry Moran, ABC News' senior national correspondent, was suspended after an aggressive social media post targeting White House adviser Stephen Miller amid high tensions over border disputes in Los Angeles.
As reported by the New York Post, ABC News cited concerns over objectivity and impartiality as the reason for Moran's suspension following his late-night attack on Stephen Miller and President Trump.
The post, which was widely criticized by members of the Trump administration and social media users, was initially published during a time of escalated civil unrest. Eye-catching phrases describing Miller’s supposed inclination towards hatred were shared, painting him as a central figure in what Moran dubbed "Trumpism."
The suspension of Moran comes as ABC News reaffirms its commitment to balanced and fair reporting. An official statement was released, emphasizing the network's dedication to impartiality and declaring the correspondent's posts as unreflective of ABC's values.
These events unfolded concurrently with heightened tensions in Los Angeles, where protests against the Border Patrol's actions resulted in unruly demonstrations. In response, President Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops, heightening the stakes for both law enforcement and residents.
Stephen Miller, to whom Moran’s comments were directed, denounced the protests in Los Angeles as an “insurrection.” His firm stance on immigration and border control has been a cornerstone of the administration’s policies.
Vice President JD Vance also weighed in on the matter, criticizing Moran's posts and questioning the objectivity in ABC's reporting. His response underscores the broader issues of media bias that have permeated discussions about coverage of the Trump administration.
Moran, who has been a prominent voice in political reporting, had foreseen Trump's electoral victories in both 2016 and 2024. This prediction aligned with his portrayal of Trump as a figure disconnected from traditional party ideologies, identifying him instead as a nationalist.
Underlining this context is an interview conducted by Moran with Trump during his first 100 days in office. The discussion centered on policies affecting individuals like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose deportation was a focal point in talks about immigration reform and enforcement.
In a more extensive backdrop, ABC had previously settled a defamation lawsuit with Trump for $15 million. This lawsuit, linked to a civil sexual abuse case involving George Stephanopoulos, reflects the fraught history between the media network and the Trump administration.
The original posts by Moran were swiftly removed; however, the fast-paced nature of social media allowed screen-shotted copies to circulate broadly. The controversy surrounding these statements serves as a reminder of the enduring influence of both digital platforms and journalistic integrity within public discourse.
Looking ahead, it remains uncertain how Moran's suspension will impact ABC News’ broader programming and coverage. Internally, this decision stands as a testament to the network’s dedication to maintaining a reputation for unbiased reporting in an era marked by polarization.
Ultimately, this incident highlights ongoing challenges within the media landscape. As journalists navigate the fine line between personal expression and professional responsibility, the need for deliberate reflection and adherence to ethical standards persists.
Former President Donald Trump made a headline-grabbing appearance at UFC 316 in Newark, sparking excitement among fans and figures from the political world, as the Daily Mail reports. His presence marked a twist in the ongoing narrative involving his public fallout with tech mogul Elon Musk over political differences amplified on social platforms.
Trump attended the Ultimate Fighting Championship series as a special guest of Dana White, the UFC's president, which highlighted his continued involvement in a popular sporting event even amid political engagements. With a backdrop of recent tensions and accusations involving Musk, Trump nonetheless seemed at ease as he arrived at the event in the Prudential Center. As a guest of honor, Trump, accompanied by White, entered the venue and took his seat at the cage-side.
In attending UFC 316, Trump found himself in the company of prominent personalities such as boxing legend Mike Tyson and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. As the event unfolded, Trump and Rubio exchanged a friendly fist bump, punctuating the unique blend of sports, politics, and celebrity the UFC event had drawn. Trump also greeted other notable attendees, including former NFL players Will Compton and Taylor Lewan, further highlighting his continued influence and celebrity among different circles.
Throughout the evening, fans and fighters alike expressed enthusiasm over Trump's appearance. UFC competitors such as Kevin Holland sought out Trump to celebrate their victories, with Holland sharing a high-five with the former president. This public approval mirrored Trump's broader appeal within UFC circles, a testament to his regular appearances at such events.
Yet, while Trump basked in the positivity at UFC 316, the week leading up had been marked by a deterioration in his relationship with Elon Musk. The tensions, rooted in political disagreements, had escalated with Trump criticizing Musk's potential support for Democratic Party candidates. Trump's remarks during the preceding weekend indicated his belief that financial backing for Democrats from Musk could lead to "very serious consequences."
For months, the previously cordial relationship between Trump and Musk had been unraveling, exacerbated by online exchanges and public comments. Trump's harsh words outlined his views on the implications if Musk continued down a political path divergent from Trump's own. Despite this, Trump acknowledged the tech billionaire's past financial contributions, amounting to at least $250 million, to his campaign, adding another layer of complexity to their strained association.
The former president's long-term camaraderie with White was once again on display at UFC 316. White has been vocal in his support of Trump, stating fondly that Trump delivered as president during his term and expressing optimism for the future. White, however, has been clear about his lack of interest in personal political ambitions.
Meanwhile, Trump's relationship with Musk took another hit after a now-deleted post by Musk insinuated ties between Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Trump quickly dismissed Musk's suggestion as outdated fake news, but the incident marked another rift between the two figures. Despite the public spat, it seemed by Friday night they extended mutual well wishes, though the depth of their bond appeared irreparably altered.
With a mixture of political figures alongside sports enthusiasts, UFC 316 provided an intriguing stage for the intersection of Trump's political and social endeavors. Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner were also spotted among the crowd, showcasing a family interest in the mixed martial arts event.
Following the excitement of the UFC, Trump was scheduled to continue his weekend with a retreat at Camp David. The gathering, intended to address various political discussions, was to include notable attendees such as Vice President JD Vance. For Trump, the occasion reflected ongoing political commitments amidst the tumultuous personal relationships with figures like Musk.
The UFC event emphasized Trump's enduring popularity within the sporting community and his strategic alliances, like that with White, which continue to support his public image. Trump’s ability to draw attention and stir public interest remains evident, underscoring his influential presence in both the political arena and popular culture.
White's steadfast support, juxtaposed with Musk's distancing, paints a picture of the ever-evolving allegiances surrounding Trump. Regardless of political turmoil elsewhere, Trump's appearances at UFC events seem to solidify his standing with select audiences, even amid broader controversies.
As the evening concluded, fans, fighters, and political figures went home from UFC 316 with memories of an event where sports and politics vividly intersected. Whether it signaled an end or a new chapter in Trump's various affiliations, the event added a vibrant note to Trump's intricate tapestry of relationships and influence.
President Donald Trump has officially declared that mending fences with Elon Musk is not on his agenda.
Emphasizing that his focus is on international tensions and economic challenges, Trump dismissed the potential for reconciliation efforts with Musk after a recent public falling out, as The Hill reports.
The announcement came Friday, as Trump dismissed the possibility of smoothing over relations with Musk, who exited the government role he held. The animosity between the two grew after Musk allegedly linked Trump to controversial figures and challenged his policies. Trump, speaking aboard Air Force One, emphasized his commitment to addressing issues of greater national and global concern rather than ruminating on the strained relationship with Musk.
As part of his efforts to communicate his current priorities, Trump highlighted his dedication to tackling weighty international matters, such as relations with China, Russia, and Iran. Amid this focus, he took the opportunity to criticize Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve Chair, noting that lower interest rates could be a viable option if approached differently. Additionally, he underscored that economic stabilization could be achieved with strategic adjustments.
Despite the ongoing tension, Trump redirected his attention away from Musk's previous government role, indicating that their disagreement would not detract from his core focus. Musk had vacated his position heading the Department of Government Efficiency, commonly known as DOGE, and criticized the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act. While Musk's criticism did not escape Trump's notice, the president refrained from further escalating the discord.
Trump's comments on his relationship with Musk, artfully sidestepping personal attacks and instead centering on larger national interests, showcased his broader agenda. By emphasizing his priorities abroad, Trump downplayed the notion that personal conflicts would impede his responsibilities as president. He acknowledged that Musk's work within DOGE was noteworthy, though unfinished, and unimportant compared to pressing world affairs.
The president tactfully avoided delving into recent controversy surrounding Musk's alleged drug use, as reported by reputable outlets, instead offering a measured response. By expressing cautious neutrality toward the allegations, Trump maintained the focus on more critical issues. His approach indicated a desire to remain above personal insinuations.
Trump's recent remarks also revealed he might review federal contracts and subsidies linked to Musk's companies. Such considerations underscored his commitment to reevaluating economic partnerships to better serve national interests without placing personal vendettas at the forefront.
In addressing these financial and contractual dynamics, Trump remained firm in his stated objective to put national interests first. Even as he expressed no immediate interest in patching things up with Musk, Trump succinctly reaffirmed his desire for Musk's professional success, particularly with Tesla.
Remaining hopeful for the economic achievements of Musk’s ventures, he underscored the potential benefits that successful private enterprises can bring to the country. Throughout this discourse, Trump was quick to shift his words back to the broader framework that included other pressing diplomatic engagements.
During discussions about global conflicts, leadership in Washington remained a pivotal aspect, overshadowing the personal discord with Musk. Trump's emphasis lay increasingly on international stability, reflecting his vision of maintaining U.S. influence on such platforms.
Acknowledging the longstanding friendship and prior government collaboration that had been soured, Trump continued underscoring that the United States could endure the absence of any individual, himself being the exception, he humorously remarked. This statement, while partly in jest, served as a robust reminder of his enduring confidence in his leadership throughout ongoing presidential decisions.
As the boundaries of personal disagreements and professional responsibilities intertwined, Trump's comments indicated an intent to prioritize long-term international strategies. His references to China, Russia, and Iran showcased a commitment to maintaining American influence in critical foreign affairs, aligning with his leadership blueprint.
By remaining clear-headed and unyielding, he demonstrated an unapologetic drive to advance the United States' stature on the world stage. Ultimately, Trump's departure from engaging in further public dispute with Musk reaffirmed his focus on national stability, illustrating a deep commitment to his presidential responsibilities.
The president's approach solidified his place at the helm of American leadership in global discourse, potentially reshaping endeavors domestically and internationally in years to come.
American gunmakers just won a sweeping legal victory at the highest level, and the international fallout is only beginning. On Thursday, Justice Elena Kagan and the rest of the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling in a case that pitted the government of Mexico against some of the most powerful names in the U.S. firearms industry.
According to Breitbart, the Supreme Court found that federal law prohibits Mexico’s attempt to hold American gun manufacturers liable for gun violence driven by cartel activity south of the border. The decisive opinion puts to rest years of legal wrangling that had drawn in political leaders from both countries.
Mexico’s lawsuit named Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Century Arms, Colt, Glock, Ruger, Barrett, and the distributor Interstate Arms as responsible for fueling criminal violence by “actively facilitating the unlawful trafficking” of firearms to drug cartels. The Mexican government argued that 70–90% of guns recovered at crime scenes there originated from the United States, laying blame at the feet of U.S. companies for failing to control their products.
The legal showdown began in August 2021, when Mexico filed its sweeping complaint in a U.S. federal court, seeking to hold gun manufacturers liable for what it described as “massive damage” caused by weapons trafficked to criminals. American gunmakers countered by invoking the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a law specifically designed to shield the industry from lawsuits arising from crimes committed with their products.
A district court agreed with the manufacturers in September 2022, dismissing Mexico’s claims under the PLCAA. However, the First Circuit Court of Appeals later breathed new life into the case, finding that Mexico’s complaint plausibly alleged a type of claim that may be exempt from the law’s shield in certain situations. This set the stage for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen led a coalition of 26 state attorneys general in support of the gun industry, arguing that “American firearms manufacturers should not and do not have to answer for the actions of criminals.” Critics of Mexico’s lawsuit argued that the country’s own policies have fueled gun violence and that the United States should not be responsible for crimes committed abroad.
The case took on added significance as it progressed, with advocates on both sides warning of far-reaching implications. In March 2025, Smith & Wesson attorney Noel Francisco compared Mexico’s claims to holding beer makers responsible for car accidents involving underage drinkers—a line of argument that resonated with the justices.
On June 5, Justice Elena Kagan delivered the unanimous opinion. Kagan’s decision cited the PLCAA as the controlling authority, making clear that Congress intended to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits “resulting from the misuse of their products by others.”
Kagan also addressed Mexico’s allegations that manufacturers intentionally supplied firearms to unscrupulous dealers. As she wrote for the court, “In asserting that the manufacturers intentionally supply guns to bad-apple dealers, Mexico never confronts that the manufacturers do not directly supply any dealers, bad-apple or otherwise.”
The ruling closes the door on Mexico’s attempt to use U.S. civil courts as a tool to address cartel violence, and it reaffirms the legal insulation provided to the American gun industry.
While the gun industry and its supporters are celebrating the outcome, critics of the ruling are voicing concern about its consequences. Gun control advocates argue that the PLCAA has created a legal vacuum, preventing victims of gun violence from seeking justice and accountability from manufacturers. They claim that the law allows companies to avoid responsibility for reckless business practices that may contribute to illegal trafficking.
Supporters of Mexico’s lawsuit say the Supreme Court’s decision ignores the devastating impact of American-made firearms on Latin American countries. They point to the high percentage of crime guns traced to the United States as evidence of the need for stronger oversight and legal remedies.
Mexican officials have not ruled out seeking other means of pressuring American companies or the U.S. government to stem the flow of weapons across the border. International critics argue that Thursday’s decision will embolden the gun industry and weaken efforts to curb transnational crime.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling, authored by Justice Elena Kagan, marks a significant victory for Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt, Glock, and the other defendants. Mexico’s attempt to hold American gunmakers liable for cartel violence has been blocked by the federal courts, reinforcing the PLCAA’s legal protections.
With this decision, the American firearms industry remains largely immune from foreign lawsuits over the criminal misuse of their products. The Mexican government, for now, must look elsewhere to address the cross-border trafficking of guns and its deadly consequences.
Chief Justice John Roberts, alongside Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, just made a move that is certain to spark debate across America. Their surprising alignment with liberal justices has many conservatives questioning what’s next for gun rights in the United States.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban, leaving the law—and similar bans in eight other states—intact. According to Breitbart News, the high court’s refusal means the August 2024 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which upheld Maryland’s ban, remains in effect.
This decision drew immediate attention because Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in rejecting the case. Meanwhile, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas openly voiced their disagreement, signaling a deep divide within the Court on Second Amendment rights.
For many conservatives, the most shocking development was the decision of Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett to side with the liberal bloc. These justices have often been seen as reliable defenders of constitutional gun rights, making their refusal to take up the challenge particularly noteworthy.
Justice Kavanaugh, while siding with the majority, issued a statement clarifying his view. He emphasized the widespread ownership and legality of the AR-15 rifle, the primary firearm implicated in Maryland’s ban. Kavanaugh wrote, “This case primarily concerns Maryland’s ban on the AR–15, a semi-automatic rifle. Americans today possess an estimated 20 to 30 million AR–15s. And AR–15s are legal in 41 of the 50 States, meaning that the States such as Maryland that prohibit AR–15s are something of an outlier.”
His statement also acknowledged the petitioners’ “strong argument that AR–15s are in ‘common use’ by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment under Heller.” Despite this, he ultimately agreed with the decision not to hear the case, frustrating many gun rights supporters.
Justice Thomas went further, expressing his disappointment with the Court’s inaction. He warned that by refusing to decide on this matter now, the Supreme Court risks allowing more restrictive federal measures in the future.
Gun owners and Second Amendment advocates reacted swiftly, warning that the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene could embolden lawmakers to pursue even stricter gun control measures. With bans remaining in place in states like California, New York, and Illinois, critics argue that the Court missed an opportunity to clarify the constitutional limits on state power.
Breitbart News noted that Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas would have taken the case, highlighting the ideological split. Thomas noted, “I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade.”
Many see the Maryland law as a test case for broader state and federal gun restrictions. Critics argue that Maryland’s ban targets commonly owned firearms by law-abiding citizens, directly challenging Supreme Court precedents like Heller, which affirmed the right to keep arms “in common use.”
Supporters of the ban, however, contend it is a necessary step to curb gun violence and prevent mass shootings. They argue that states should have the authority to pass laws tailored to public safety, even if it means restricting certain types of firearms.
The high court’s decision leaves the door open for future legal battles over firearms. Justice Thomas warned that deferring action could allow for “more egregious ban[s] at the federal level,” suggesting that the issue is far from settled.
The fact that AR-15s remain legal in 41 states but banned in nine highlights the patchwork nature of gun laws across the country. Kavanaugh’s own words acknowledged this divide, noting that Maryland is an “outlier” in its sweeping prohibition.
The Associated Press reported that Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas “publicly noted their disagreement” with the majority’s refusal, indicating that the gun rights debate will continue to be a source of friction within the Supreme Court. As more cases work their way through the lower courts, pressure is likely to mount for a definitive ruling on the scope of the Second Amendment.
Observers point to the unusual coalition of justices as evidence that the Court remains unpredictable on hot-button issues. With President Donald Trump in office, many conservatives expected a stronger defense of gun rights from the bench.
Democrats are circling the wagons after Ashley Biden, daughter of Joe Biden, let loose on Instagram about recent reports questioning her father’s mental fitness. Her comments come as critics continue to seize on President Biden’s public stumbles, and the new book “Original Sin” ignites debate over the former president’s capacity.
According to Fox News, Ashley Biden dismissed the mounting coverage as “DAMN disrespectful and untrue,” calling out what she described as “fake news” and “noise” surrounding her father’s health. She insisted the only “coverup” in her family was a “BEACH coverup,” mocking the allegations that the Biden family has been shielding the public from the truth.
Ashley Biden’s Instagram post featured a family photo on the beach, where she expressed gratitude for her parents and frustration with the media narrative. She pushed back hard against books and news reports suggesting her father suffered any mental decline while in office, even as critics point to mounting evidence and eyewitness accounts cited in the recent bestsellers. The Biden family, now facing renewed scrutiny after the president’s recent prostate cancer diagnosis, is fighting to control the narrative—while political rivals and members of the press are doubling down.
Ashley Biden’s response did not hold back. She called the coverage “bulls---” and said that while her father “aged, YES! As we all do!” he remained, in her words, “MORE than capable of doing the job.” She described the presidency as a demanding role and insisted her father worked harder than anyone she had ever known.
On Monday, Ashley wrote, “He took his duty and sacred obligation to this country very seriously.” Her post targeted recent reporting by journalists and authors, notably the book “Original Sin” by Axios’ Alex Thompson and CNN’s Jake Tapper. The book claims there were “frantic efforts” by the Biden administration to conceal signs of cognitive decline, relying on unnamed sources and leaked anecdotes from staffers and insiders.
The Biden family’s public defense extends beyond Ashley. Naomi Biden, Hunter Biden’s daughter, also unloaded on the book in a recent social media post. She called it “political fairy smut for the permanent, professional chattering class,” adding, “Put simply, it amounts to a bunch of unoriginal, uninspired lies written by irresponsible self promoting journalists out to make a quick buck.” Both women have sharply criticized the use of anonymous sources and what they say are false narratives.
The Biden family’s aggressive reaction comes at a moment of intense political scrutiny. Biden’s fitness for office has been a recurring theme on campaign trails and in media coverage for years. Critics argue that the president’s frequent gaffes, apparent confusion, and physical missteps signal deeper issues, while defenders insist such moments are blown out of proportion by partisan actors.
Ashley Biden’s Instagram post was not just a personal defense; it was a broadside against the media. She wrote, “The noise is so DAMN disrespectful and untrue… AND, it’s just that – noise/static – created by those committed to perpetuating and profiting from some real BS. Get lost with your anonymous sources and fake news.” Her remarks echo a growing sentiment among Democrats that media coverage is unfair and driven by profit or political agenda.
Meanwhile, supporters of the book and its claims maintain that the American people have a right to full transparency about the health of their leaders. They argue that the “coverup” described in “Original Sin” and similar reports represents a serious breach of public trust, no matter how forcefully the Biden family disputes it.
Authors Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper, co-authors of “Original Sin,” allege in their book that top aides and family members went out of their way to hide the president’s declining abilities. Their reporting describes a White House environment where staff worked overtime to minimize the president’s exposure and shield him from situations that could reveal his condition.
Supporters of the book point to a pattern of concerning behavior and odd incidents that have played out in public view. They claim these stories, corroborated by anonymous sources, are not just partisan attacks but are worthy of public discussion. Conservative media personalities have amplified these claims, pressing the point that voters deserve to know if the president is up to the job.
Biden’s defenders, however, accuse critics of engaging in character assassination and exploiting the natural effects of aging for political gain. They highlight that the presidency is an extraordinarily stressful position and dismiss the health questions as politically motivated “noise.”
Ashley Biden’s Instagram outburst marks the latest salvo in the ongoing battle over her father’s legacy and fitness for office. The Biden family’s highly public defense comes as critics continue to raise questions and as campaign season heats up, ensuring the debate will not fade from the headlines anytime soon.
Ashley and Naomi Biden have both made clear they see the latest wave of reporting as not just unfair, but malicious and profit-driven. They insist that family support and gratitude outweigh the swirling rumors and that President Biden’s commitment to public service should not be overshadowed by what they call “fake news.”
As the election season intensifies, the Biden family’s responses and the ongoing criticism from political opponents and media sources are certain to shape the public’s perception. With the president’s health now a centerpiece of national conversation, both sides appear ready for a prolonged and bitter fight over the truth.
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.
Former ESPN and Fox Sports star John Brenkus, known for creating and hosting the Emmy award-winning "Sport Science" show, has died following a struggle with depression. The respected sports media personality was just 54 years old.
According to the Daily Mail, Brenkus passed away on May 31, 2025, with his family announcing the news on Sunday night. The announcement revealed that Brenkus had been battling depression for some time before his death.
In a statement, his family said: "It is with profound sadness that we share the news that John Brenkus has passed away. John, co-founder of Base Productions, Founder of Brinx.TV, and co-creator and host of the six-time Emmy award-winning 'Science,' had been battling depression."
Brenkus made his mark in the sports entertainment world as the creator and host of "Sport Science," a program that combined scientific analysis with athletic performance. The innovative show earned him and his team multiple Emmy awards during its run on both ESPN and Fox Sports Net.
Beyond television, Brenkus established himself as an accomplished author. In 2010, he published "The Perfection Point: Sport Science Predicts the Fastest Man, the Highest Jump, and the Limits of Athletic Performance," which became a best-seller among sports enthusiasts and science buffs alike.
His entrepreneurial spirit led him to co-found Base Productions and later establish Brinx.TV, a streaming platform where he continued to explore the intersection of sports, science, and entertainment. Former NFL defensive end Marcellus Wiley was his partner on the Brinx.TV venture.
In a revealing January 2023 interview with Marcellus Wiley, Brenkus opened up about his serious mental health challenges. The conversation provided insight into the depth of his struggle with depression, which ultimately claimed his life.
"I fell into a very deep depression," Brenkus disclosed during the interview. "I spiraled into a deep, deep depression and I was flat-out suicidal." In that same conversation, he credited his dog with saving his life during one of his darkest moments.
Brenkus had explained how his pet prompted a crucial moment of clarity: "He came to my rescue... and in my suicidal funk, I was like: 'What am I doing?' I literally picked up my phone, called my mom and said: 'There's something wrong with me. I am mentally lost.'" Following this realization, Brenkus described seeking professional help from multiple psychologists and psychiatrists.
News of Brenkus's death has prompted an outpouring of condolences from across the sports world, with many former colleagues and athletes expressing their shock and sadness at his passing.
Former NFL quarterback Robert Griffin III was among those who paid tribute on social media platform X (formerly Twitter). "Prayers up for John Brenkus and his family," Griffin wrote. "The man who gave us the Emmy Winning Sports Science lost his battle with depression."
Marcellus Wiley, Brenkus's colleague and friend, shared a simple but poignant message online, writing "RIP John Brenkus" accompanied by a prayer emoji. The brevity of his post reflected the raw emotion felt by many who worked with the sports science pioneer.
John Brenkus leaves behind a significant legacy in sports media, having revolutionized how audiences understand athletic performance through scientific analysis. His work on "Sport Science" changed the way fans appreciate the physical feats of professional athletes.
In their statement announcing his death, Brenkus's family encouraged "anyone who is struggling with depression to seek help." This call to action serves as a reminder of the seriousness of mental health issues and the importance of reaching out when in crisis.
The six-time Emmy winner's passing at just 54 years old highlights the devastating impact depression can have, even on those who have achieved remarkable professional success. His family has requested privacy as they mourn his loss, while his legacy in sports broadcasting continues to influence the industry.