Democratic Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani just lit a fuse under New York City’s policing debate—and NYPD leadership is firing back.
According to Breitbart, NYPD Chief of Department John Chell pushed back hard against Mamdani’s call to dismantle the Strategic Response Group (SRG), a specialized unit tasked with monitoring and managing protests. Chell called the suggestion “foolish” and said Mamdani “doesn’t know what he’s doing.”
The clash centers around the future of the SRG, which has become a lightning rod in the city’s policing conversation. Mamdani, a progressive lawmaker now running for mayor, has advocated for abolishing the unit, claiming it stifles civil liberties and fosters a militarized police presence. Chell, speaking on Fox Business’ Mornings with Maria, defended the SRG as a necessary force keeping order during volatile protests.
Chell said the NYPD has handled more than 6,000 protests since the Hamas attacks on October 7, many tied to international and domestic political unrest. He credited the SRG’s presence for preventing violence or chaos during large-scale demonstrations.
“Our SRG [is] highly trained, highly professional men and women who hold the line,” Chell stated. “In the last two years of protests, we’ve had no major incidents in the city.”
He emphasized the recent “No Kings” protest, where he claimed 500 demonstrators out of a crowd of 75,000 had intentions to “tear our city apart.” According to Chell, the SRG intervened and kept things under control without resorting to excessive force or major arrests.
Mamdani’s proposal stems from long-standing criticism of the SRG’s tactics, particularly during Black Lives Matter protests and more recent pro-Palestinian marches. Activists and civil rights groups argue that the SRG disproportionately targets political dissent and escalates tensions.
Mamdani has not walked back his remarks. Instead, he doubled down in campaign speeches and interviews, calling the SRG a “tool of suppression” and accusing it of intimidating peaceful demonstrators.
Progressive coalitions backing Mamdani have echoed his concerns. Several have demanded that funds allocated to the SRG be redirected to community outreach and public housing. These groups argue that public safety should be reimagined through social investment rather than aggressive policing.
Chell’s remarks come amid a larger political battle that could shape the 2025 mayoral election. Mamdani’s progressive platform, including his stance on policing, sets him apart from more moderate Democratic rivals.
“This is not just about policing,” a campaign strategist close to Mamdani told local reporters. “It’s about who gets to define safety in New York—communities or command centers.”
Meanwhile, law enforcement unions and conservative leaders have rallied behind Chell’s defense of the SRG. Many are calling Mamdani’s position a dangerous gamble that could erode the NYPD’s ability to respond to sudden unrest or politically charged gatherings.
During the Wednesday broadcast, Chell didn’t hold back in characterizing Mamdani’s proposal as uninformed and reckless. “To say you’re going to disband that kind of success in [a] unit, quite frankly, is foolish,” Chell said. “It’s someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing.”
He warned that removing the SRG could leave a dangerous vacuum in the city’s ability to manage mass protests safely. The NYPD, he said, has been under intense public scrutiny, yet units like the SRG have continued to operate with restraint and professionalism.
Chell's comments reflect frustration within the department as political pressure mounts and reform proposals gain traction ahead of the election season. He stressed that decision-makers should understand what these units do before eliminating them.
Elon Musk just took another swing at Washington’s political establishment, launching a blistering attack against President Donald Trump’s megabill and calling for the formation of a new political party to challenge what he calls a broken system.
According to The Hill, Musk denounced the $5 trillion Senate reconciliation bill as “insane spending” and labeled the current U.S. political landscape a “one-party country — the PORKY PIG PARTY!!” The billionaire tech mogul, who owns X, said it's time for a party “that actually cares about the people.”
The bill, which would raise the debt ceiling by a record amount, is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to add $3.3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade. Despite being touted by Trump as a “big, beautiful bill,” the legislation has drawn criticism from some fiscal conservatives — and now, Musk.
Once the head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk had championed deep spending cuts and bureaucratic reform. But since stepping away from the administration last month, he’s made clear that he views the megabill as a betrayal of those goals.
In multiple posts on X, Musk called the bill “utterly insane” and “political suicide” for the Republican Party. He claimed the legislation not only undoes DOGE’s efforts but also exposes the GOP’s willingness to embrace massive spending increases.
Musk also singled out members of the House Freedom Caucus, notably Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), saying, “How can you call yourself the Freedom Caucus if you vote for a DEBT SLAVERY bill?” His criticism sparked immediate backlash from Republican loyalists.
Musk’s condemnation of the bill has reignited speculation about his third-party ambitions. Earlier this month, he launched a poll on X asking whether Americans would support a new political party, proposing the name “The America Party.”
He pitched the party as a voice for “the 80% in the middle,” suggesting it would offer an escape from the polarized politics of Democrats and Republicans. The post quickly gained traction among centrists and independents, though some critics dismissed it as a vanity project.
Political analysts say Musk’s idea could tap into voter discontent, but note that third-party efforts historically struggle to gain national traction. Without formal infrastructure or policy backing, many see “The America Party” as more concept than movement — for now.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are engaged in a marathon “vote-a-rama” to push the reconciliation bill toward final passage. The White House has set a Friday deadline to get the legislation to Trump’s desk, framing it as essential for national growth.
The Senate version of the bill would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion — nearly $1 trillion more than the version passed by the House. That difference, along with the total deficit increase, has drawn scrutiny from budget watchdogs.
Despite Musk’s criticism, most Republicans are standing by the bill. They argue it delivers key investments in defense, infrastructure, and tax reform. Still, some lawmakers are privately concerned about the long-term fiscal impact and political fallout.
Elon Musk’s public opposition to Trump’s megabill — and his revival of third-party ambitions — could significantly disrupt the 2026 political landscape. No longer inside the White House, he’s positioning himself as an independent power player with a massive platform.
By attacking the GOP’s fiscal stance and promoting “The America Party,” Musk could draw support from disillusioned voters across the spectrum. Whether that translates into real political movement or remains a social media storm remains to be seen.
As the Senate races toward a critical vote and Musk doubles down on his criticism, the battle lines are shifting. Trump may get his legislation passed, but the growing divide with Musk could fracture conservative unity heading into the next election cycle.
Nebraska Representative Don Bacon sent shockwaves through Washington's political circles with an unexpected announcement about his future in Congress that highlights growing divisions within the Republican party.
According to Fox News, the GOP centrist declared on Monday that he will not seek re-election in 2026, citing his desire to spend more time with family after serving 30 years in the Air Force and 10 years in Congress.
The timing of Bacon's announcement comes during a crucial period as Congress works overtime to pass President Trump's comprehensive legislation package before the July 4 deadline, adding another layer of complexity to the already challenging political landscape.
Bacon's relationship with Trump's agenda has been notably complicated throughout his tenure in Congress. The Nebraska Republican has often found himself at odds with the president's positions, particularly on key issues like foreign policy and healthcare reform.
While Bacon ultimately supported the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last month, he expressed significant reservations about proposed Medicaid cuts and their potential impact on his constituents. His moderate stance has frequently put him in a delicate position between party loyalty and constituent interests.
The congressman's independent streak was further evidenced by his solo Republican vote against legislation to permanently rename the Gulf of America, as well as his outspoken criticism of Trump's position on the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
The announcement creates a significant void in Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District, which has become increasingly competitive in recent elections. Bacon's narrow victory margin in 2024, winning by less than two percentage points, reflects the district's evolving political landscape.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris's five-point victory in the district during the 2024 presidential election underscores its battleground status. Nebraska's unique system of splitting Electoral College votes by congressional district adds to the strategic importance of this seat.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has already signaled their intentions to aggressively pursue this seat, with spokesperson Madison Andrus suggesting that Bacon's retirement reflects broader challenges facing House Republicans.
Despite his impending departure, Bacon has outlined an ambitious agenda for his remaining time in office. As chair of the House Armed Services Committee's Cyber, Information Technologies and Innovation Subcommittee, he maintains a full plate of responsibilities.
The congressman has committed to advancing five agricultural bills as part of the Farm Bill package, focusing on strengthening food supply chain defenses and supporting new farmers. His ongoing work on the National Defense Authorization Act demonstrates his continued engagement in national security matters.
Bacon emphasized his dedication to serving his constituents until his final day, including efforts to establish a new VA hospital in Omaha. His military background continues to influence his legislative priorities.
The timing of Bacon's retirement announcement coincides with other significant changes in Republican congressional representation, including Senator Thom Tillis's decision not to seek re-election. These departures represent a broader trend of moderate Republicans stepping away from Congress.
Democrats view Bacon's retirement as an opportunity to flip this competitive seat in 2026. The district's demographic changes and voting patterns suggest a potentially favorable environment for Democratic candidates.
The contest for Bacon's successor will likely become one of the most closely watched races in the 2026 midterm elections, with both parties preparing for an intense battle that could help determine control of the House of Representatives.
North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis has made waves in Washington with his unexpected announcement not to seek reelection, following a heated dispute with President Donald Trump over the controversial Big Beautiful Bill.
According to Breitbart, Tillis revealed his decision on Sunday, emphasizing his pride in achieving bipartisan victories throughout his political career, including groundbreaking legislation on eugenics compensation and mental health reform.
The announcement comes after Tillis publicly opposed Trump's signature legislation, citing concerns about potential cuts to Medicaid funding that could severely impact North Carolina's healthcare system. His stance drew immediate criticism from the president, who quickly moved to seek potential primary challengers for the Senate seat.
President Trump took to Truth Social to lambast Tillis, accusing him of grandstanding and misunderstanding the bill's significance. The president's response highlighted the growing rift between moderate Republicans and Trump's base.
Trump's criticism extended beyond policy disagreements, as he announced plans to meet with potential primary candidates to replace Tillis. The president's involvement in state-level politics demonstrates his continued influence over the Republican Party.
The public exchange between Trump and Tillis has exposed deeper divisions within the GOP, particularly regarding healthcare policy and fiscal responsibility. This clash represents a broader struggle between traditional conservative values and Trump's populist agenda.
Tillis defended his opposition to the bill by citing specific concerns about its impact on North Carolina's healthcare system. He emphasized that the legislation could result in billions of dollars in lost funding for the state's hospitals and rural communities.
The senator's analysis suggested that hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians could lose Medicaid coverage under the proposed bill. This assessment played a crucial role in his decision to oppose the legislation, despite pressure from party leadership.
Healthcare experts and state officials have begun examining the potential consequences of the bill's implementation, particularly its effects on rural healthcare facilities and vulnerable populations. The debate has highlighted the complex balance between fiscal conservation and maintaining essential healthcare services.
Throughout his career, Tillis has positioned himself as a moderate Republican willing to work across party lines. His statement emphasized the increasing rarity of bipartisan cooperation in contemporary American politics.
The senator specifically referenced recent Democratic colleagues who faced similar challenges for their independent thinking and commitment to bipartisanship. These examples underscore the growing polarization in Congress and its impact on legislative effectiveness.
The timing of Tillis's announcement has sparked discussions about the future of moderate Republicans in an increasingly partisan political landscape. His departure represents a significant shift in North Carolina's political dynamics.
Senator Tillis will continue serving his constituents for the remaining 18 months of his term, during which time the political maneuvering for his replacement will intensify. His decision has already triggered intense speculation about potential candidates from both parties.
Trump's involvement in the candidate selection process suggests a highly competitive primary season ahead. The president's influence could significantly shape the Republican field and the overall direction of the campaign.
The upcoming Senate race in North Carolina is expected to become a pivotal battleground, reflecting broader national debates about the future of the Republican Party and its relationship with Trump's agenda. The outcome could have lasting implications for both state and national politics.
President Donald Trump recently expressed enthusiasm when a question about his potential success in outwitting financial markets with his tariffs was raised.
In a period of escalating trade talks and upbeat market confidence, the S&P500 and Nasdaq's milestone peaks have drawn positive attention to Trump's economic strategies, as the Daily Mail reports.
Questioned about the economic implications of his tariff strategy, Trump responded with visible satisfaction. When a reporter mentioned Torsten Sløk of Apollo Global Management, who speculated that Trump might have outmaneuvered the financial world, Trump was elated. He noted the substantial sums he believes his tariffs are bringing in without sparking inflation.
The conversation comes against a backdrop where Wall Street indices, the S&P500 and Nasdaq, recently set record highs. Analysts like Chuck Carlson have commented on the robustness displayed by the markets, considering the political and economic fluctuations. As investors have shown a tendency to chase gains, the buzzing stock market has put a spotlight on underlying economic policies.
Amid these financial developments, Sløk has contemplated the longevity and design of Trump's tariff structure. He proposed that if the administration maintains substantial tariffs on China while exerting lesser degrees on other nations, it stands to benefit U.S. taxpayers significantly. Such a strategy, he suggests, would boost U.S. revenue by hundreds of billions annually.
As trade tensions continue to play out, Trump recently called an end to talks with Canada over its impending tax on technology firms. Meanwhile, the anticipation has been building around potential adjustments in tariff rates, as mentioned by Sløk. Maintaining lower levels on non-China tariffs while allowing for market adjustment over time might be a potential route forward.
Federal Reserve policy expectations further highlight the economic landscape, with a possible rate cut speculated for September. This decision likely hinges on whether the maintained tariffs influence inflation, which remains a concern since it still exceeds the Fed's preferred threshold.
Washington's dialogue with Beijing underscores ongoing global trade negotiations. The expedited shipment of rare-earth elements before deadlines aligns with Trump's tariff pause agreements. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's comments about wrapping up trade deals with 18 significant trade partners by Labor Day underscore the administration's ongoing global economic negotiations.
The broader effects of tariffs on economic indicators are being closely scrutinized. The University of Michigan recorded gains in consumer confidence, reflecting current market sentiment. This positive outlook is symptomatic of the general optimism embraced by investors as stock markets soar.
Looking towards the coming months, Bessent's remarks about completion timelines for trade contracts provide insight into possible future scenarios. On the horizon looms the extension of tariff deadlines by a year, a move Sløk suggests could stabilize supply chains and market conditions.
Trump's recent comments not only highlight his satisfaction with current policies but underline ongoing economic debates. As the president cleverly interacted with reporters, his remarks resonated against a backdrop of complex trade discussions and market fluctuations.
In this ever-shifting economic arena, the balance between aggressive trade strategies and maintaining market stability remains crucial. Investors, policymakers, and economists remain engaged in analyzing these decisions' continued impact on a broader economic canvas.
As markets and negotiations continue to evolve, the enduring question remains: will these policies create the desired long-term economic boons that policymakers hope for, or will they signal new challenges ahead? Only time will tell how the strategies will manifest within the broader, ever-changing global economic landscape.
The Department of Homeland Security under the Trump administration has announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for about 520,000 Haitian nationals currently living in the United States.
This decision from the Trump White House will take effect on Sept. 2, marking the end of the TPS designations that are set to expire in August, as Fox News reports.
The move follows the Trump administration's broader effort to reevaluate and roll back Temporary Protected Status designations as part of its strategy to strengthen U.S. border policies. The DHS, after reviewing a report from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), concluded that conditions in Haiti have improved to a point that warrants the end of the special status. TPS, established by Congress through the Immigration Act of 1990, was designed to offer temporary refuge to people from countries afflicted by extraordinary situations such as natural disasters or conflict.
In their rationale for ending TPS for Haitians, the DHS cites improvements in the environmental situation in Haiti. While announcing the termination, a spokesperson for the DHS noted that this choice aims to "restore integrity" to the immigration system, emphasizing that TPS is intended to be temporary.
Further details from the DHS suggest that Haitians affected by this decision are encouraged to return home, utilizing resources made available by the Department. These resources include the CBP Home app, which facilitates safe departure, a free plane ticket, and an added $1,000 incentive on exiting the U.S.
The DHS also pointed out that Haitian nationals might explore other pathways to legal status if they meet eligibility requirements under different immigration benefit requests.
The termination of the TPS for Haitian nationals, contrasts with actions taken by then-President Joe Biden earlier this year. Under Biden's administration, TPS status was initially granted to Venezuelans in 2021, and this status was renewed on April 3, to extend until Oct. 2, 2026. The approach to TPS under Trump's administration shows a commitment to fulfilling campaign promises focused on immigration reform and border security.
The TPS status for Haiti initially provided sanctuary during times of severe natural disaster within the island nation. Recent reports from USCIS suggest significant recovery, enabling a safe return for many Haitians residing temporarily in the U.S.
The announcement instigates a transition period, allowing those affected by the decision to prepare for the upcoming changes. As the deadline approaches, Haitian nationals are encouraged to make necessary arrangements in line with the termination.
While ending TPS, the administration reiterates its commitment to supporting lawful pathways to immigration. Officials state that eligible Haitian nationals should consider other immigration benefits that might be applicable under U.S. law.
This step follows the administration's commonly emphasized goal of establishing a more controlled and consistent immigration policy. It highlights a clear intent on ensuring that Temporary Protected Status aligns closer with its foundational purpose.
The DHS's role in this process underscores its responsibility to assess qualifications and determine eligibility for statuses like TPS, based on current circumstances in respective countries.
Temporary Protected Status, as conceptualized, provides non-permanent relief from deportation to citizens from nations reeling under temporary but severe disruptions. This includes situations such as natural calamities and civil unrest, enabling affected individuals to live and work in the U.S. without fear of immediate deportation.
Haitians were initially granted TPS following a devastating earthquake, which rendered the country vulnerable and unstable. Over the years, conditions in Haiti have become substantially better, according to the DHS and USCIS assessments. As the Sept. 2 end date looms, Haitian nationals and those assisting them may face significant logistical and emotional challenges.
Community support and access to information and resources remain crucial. The TPS enjoys a nuanced place in U.S. immigration policy, being an issue of considerable debate and administrative focus. The capstone remains, ensuring that all decisions reflect current realities and do not extend protections beyond immediate necessity.
The former First Lady Michelle Obama sparked fresh speculation about her marriage to Barack Obama after making ambiguous comments during a recent podcast appearance that failed to definitively address ongoing divorce rumors.
According to Daily Mail, Michelle Obama's interview on NPR's Wild Card podcast, released Thursday, only added fuel to existing rumors about potential marital troubles when she deflected direct questions about her relationship status.
The 61-year-old former First Lady's vague responses and explanations about her public absences from major events have left many questioning the true state of her 33-year marriage to the former president.
"We are 60. We're 60, y'all. You just are not gonna know what we're doing every minute of the day," Michelle stated during the podcast, attempting to explain why she and Barack are rarely seen together in public nowadays.
Michelle's justification centered around their age and desire for privacy, claiming they don't take selfies or document their daily activities on social media platforms like Instagram. However, many observers found this explanation unconvincing.
Critics on social media quickly pointed out that couples much older than the Obamas still maintain active social lives together, casting doubt on Michelle's age-related reasoning for their limited public appearances as a couple.
Michelle's absence from several high-profile events earlier this year, including the presidential inauguration and former President Jimmy Carter's funeral, raised eyebrows among political observers and the public alike.
The former First Lady addressed these absences directly in the podcast, framing them as personal choices rather than signs of marital discord. She emphasized that staying away from these events was about defining her own path.
Her explanation that "those are my choices" and insistence that she had "no regrets" about missing these significant occasions has done little to quell speculation about deeper issues within the marriage.
Michelle previously attempted to dismiss speculation about her marriage during an appearance on The Diary of a CEO podcast, where she stated that if there were problems in her marriage, "everybody would know about it."
The former First Lady has also recently shown signs of establishing her own identity separate from her married name, requesting to be called simply "Michelle" rather than "Mrs. Obama" during public appearances.
These efforts at maintaining individual identity have coincided with their eldest daughter Malia's decision to drop the Obama surname professionally, now going by Malia Ann.
Social media reactions to Michelle's latest comments have been largely skeptical, with many users questioning the credibility of her explanations about their reduced public appearances together.
Critics have particularly focused on her age-related justification, pointing out numerous examples of couples in their 60s, 70s, and beyond who maintain active social lives and public appearances together.
The ongoing speculation has led to increased scrutiny of the couple's rare public outings, including their date nights in New York City and Washington DC earlier this year.
A controversy surrounding Democratic New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has erupted after his mother's past comments about his national identity have resurfaced, casting doubt on his allegiance to American values and principles.
According to The Western Journal, Mamdani's mother, filmmaker Mira Mamdani, had previously stated that her son "is not an American at all" and considers himself Ugandan and Indian, according to a 2013 interview with the Hindustan Times.
The revelation comes at a crucial time as Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative, emerges as the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, having secured victory in a competitive primary that included former Governor Andrew Cuomo among other candidates.
Mira Mamdani's interview painted a picture of her son as someone deeply rooted in his non-American identity, emphasizing that he speaks Hindustani at home and pursued studies in Arabic and politics. These details have raised concerns about his commitment to American values.
The timing of these resurfaced comments has sparked intense debate about cultural identity and political leadership in America's largest city. Critics argue that such statements could indicate divided loyalties at a time when strong, focused leadership is crucial for New York.
The controversy has drawn parallels to previous discussions about political figures' national identities, with some comparing it to debates surrounding former President Barack Obama's presidency and questions about cultural allegiance in American politics.
Mamdani's political platform has attracted scrutiny for its radical proposals, including plans to raise the minimum wage to $30 per hour and establish city-owned grocery stores. These policies align with his Democratic Socialist ideology.
His stance on international issues has also raised eyebrows, particularly his comments about wanting to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on International Criminal Court charges, despite the ICC having no jurisdiction in America.
The candidate's recent statements about "globalizing the intifada" have further fueled controversy, as he defended the term by comparing it to a movement for Palestinian human rights and equality.
Mamdani's rise represents a significant shift in New York City's political landscape, particularly given the city's history with the September 11 terrorist attacks. His emergence as a leading candidate marks a dramatic transformation in local politics.
The Democratic nominee has attempted to address concerns about his use of controversial language by arguing against banning certain words, comparing such restrictions to "Trump-style" leadership approaches.
His campaign has highlighted his experience as a Muslim man in post-9/11 America, arguing that Arabic words are often misinterpreted and distorted for political purposes.
The upcoming mayoral election presents New York voters with a clear choice between contrasting visions for the city's future. Mamdani faces potential challenges from both Andrew Cuomo, who might run under a different party banner, and current Mayor Eric Adams as an independent.
The controversy surrounding Mamdani's national identity and political ideology has intensified the debate about New York City's direction. His socialist platform and family background have become central issues in the campaign.
These developments have transformed what was already a highly consequential mayoral race into a referendum on not just leadership style but also on fundamental questions about American identity and values in one of the nation's most diverse and influential cities.
A firestorm of controversy has erupted around The View co-host Whoopi Goldberg after she made inflammatory comments comparing the experiences of Black Americans to life under Iran's authoritarian regime.
According to the Daily Mail, Goldberg sparked outrage during last Wednesday's show when she interrupted co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin's praise of American freedoms by declaring that life for Black Americans was "the same" as living under Iran's oppressive government.
The heated exchange began when Griffin stated, "The U.S. in 2025 is not as bad as Iran in 2025," prompting Goldberg to interject, "Not if you're black." The Oscar-winning actress, worth an estimated $60 million, went on to reference America's history of racial violence, telling Griffin "they used to just keep hanging black people" and insisting "there's no way I can make you understand it."
Dr. Sheila Nazarian, who fled Iran with her family in 1985 at age six, strongly criticized Goldberg's statements as dismissive of the brutal realities faced by millions under Iran's current regime. The plastic surgeon shared her perspective on Fox News, highlighting the stark differences between the two nations.
Social media erupted with similar condemnation, with many pointing out the irony of Goldberg's position. One TikTok user noted that Goldberg being "a multi-millionaire black woman on national television" itself demonstrated the fundamental differences between America and Iran's treatment of minorities and women.
The controversy has attracted criticism from across the political spectrum, with comedian Bill Maher calling on the Democratic party to "do something" about The View after playing the widely ridiculed clip on his show Friday.
Joy Behar addressed Goldberg's conspicuous absence on Monday's show, explaining that her co-host was in Italy accepting an award for her book "Bits and Pieces." However, the timing of her overseas trip has raised eyebrows given the intense backlash.
According to sources, Goldberg will not return to The View before its annual weeklong summer break next week. She is expected to resume her co-hosting duties on July 7th alongside her fellow panelists.
This extended absence comes amid reports that ABC News and parent company Disney have asked The View's hosts to tone down their political commentary, particularly regarding Donald Trump.
This is not Goldberg's first brush with controversy since taking over as moderator from Rosie O'Donnell in 2007. The actress faced a two-week suspension in 2022 after claiming the Holocaust was "not about race," comments that drew widespread condemnation from Jewish organizations.
During Wednesday's contentious segment, Goldberg also pushed back when Griffin referenced Iran's persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals, claiming, "Let's not do that because if we start with that, we have been known in this country to tie gay folks to the car."
The show's producers have declined to comment on whether any disciplinary action is being considered regarding Goldberg's latest inflammatory remarks.
The controversy emerges as top executives at ABC News and Disney have reportedly asked The View's hosts to moderate their political commentary. This follows several high-profile incidents, including a $15 million libel settlement with Trump and the firing of correspondent Terry Moran over social media posts.
While Goldberg maintains she was drawing valid historical parallels, critics argue her comments trivialize the systematic oppression faced by Iranian citizens. Her temporary absence from the show, though officially unrelated, has done little to quell the intense debate her statements have ignited.
The View will continue with its regular programming schedule, though viewers will have to wait until after the show's summer break to hear if Goldberg addresses the controversy directly upon her return.
Marjorie Taylor Greene surprised observers on Saturday, commenting on her bond with President Donald Trump in a sharply worded social media post.
According to the Daily Mail, Greene dismissed allegations of disloyalty as baseless and inflammatory, labeling them “nasty lies.” She asserted that rumors of any break between her and President Trump were completely unfounded and designed to foment division within the GOP.
In a bid to underscore their unity, Greene posted a graphic pairing her initials “MTG” and “DJT” with a heart emoji, followed by an American flag. She later shared a video call clip in which she abruptly ended an interview after a reporter pressed her on the matter.
On Saturday, the Georgia congresswoman lashed out at news outlets, suggesting she was distancing herself from the president. She accused the press of fabricating false narratives to drive clicks, insisting they were spreading “dirty rumors” about her allegiance to Trump’s agenda.
Greene wrote on her popular social media channel, “The press and some other nasty people would love to write lying headlines and create dirty rumors that there’s a break between me and President Trump. WRONG.” That emphatic message was meant to quash any notion of a political split.
After reaffirming her loyalty, Greene widened her critique to U.S. engagement abroad, arguing that taxpayer dollars would be better spent on pressing domestic challenges. She pointed to illegal immigration and cartel-related drug violence as immediate threats demanding attention from the federal government.
Greene’s vigorous defense of Trump came days after she voiced opposition to the president’s precision strikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites. She argued that Washington had no Americans directly harmed by Iran, contrasting it with the domestic toll of cartel violence and illegal crossings.
“I don’t know anyone in America who has been the victim of a crime or killed by Iran,” she wrote, “but I know many people who have been victims of crime committed by criminal illegal aliens or murdered by cartel and Chinese fentanyl/drugs.” Her blunt language highlighted her policy priorities.
Critics from within her own party accused Greene of undercutting Trump’s foreign policy at a time of heightened global tensions. But her supporters praised her willingness to voice independent views, arguing that elected officials must answer to domestic concerns before overseas conflicts.
The firebrand’s post generated a surprising wave of bipartisan responses, drawing unexpected praise from some liberal commentators. Podcast host Tommy Vietor of Pod Save America remarked that Greene’s empathy for the Iranian people had caught many Democrats off guard.
On Monday, President Trump announced on Truth Social that Iran and Israel had agreed to a ceasefire, declaring the “12 day war” would end within 24 hours. Although neither Tehran nor Jerusalem formally confirmed the deal, Trump touted it as a historic step toward regional stability.
Domestic policy advocates also seized on Greene’s emphasis on homefront issues, highlighting her calls for low inflation, affordable housing, and enhanced border security. Analysts suggested her stance could broaden her appeal among voters fatigued by perpetual foreign interventions.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, representing northwest Georgia, reiterated her allegiance to President Trump while unveiling a domestic agenda aimed at easing the cost-of-living crisis. She emphasized the need to secure housing affordability, lower interest rates, and bolster American manufacturing through smarter trade deals.
She insisted that federal dollars be devoted to veterans’ care, infrastructure upgrades, and improved public safety rather than regime-change operations abroad. Greene signaled plans to introduce or support legislation focusing on border enforcement, economic security, and local job creation in the next congressional session.
Observers will monitor whether Greene’s pivot influences GOP debates on war powers and domestic policy priorities. As a prominent Trump ally known for her outspoken tactics, she is poised to shape both party strategy and public discourse in Washington for months ahead.