A new political storm is brewing in Washington, and President Donald Trump is at the center of it. With his latest legislative push, Trump has reignited a fierce debate over taxpayer funding, transgender rights, and the future of Medicaid coverage.
President Trump’s ambitious “one big, beautiful, bill” has passed the House of Representatives by the slimmest of margins and now heads to the Senate. According to Breitbart News, the bill would strip Medicaid funding for all gender transition procedures, ending coverage for treatments ranging from puberty blockers to hormone therapy and surgery.
The measure, which originally focused on banning Medicaid coverage for minors, was amended late Wednesday to remove age restrictions. Now, the bill targets all Medicaid recipients seeking gender transition treatments, regardless of age. Supporters hail the move as a fiscal and cultural victory, while critics argue it’s a direct attack on a vulnerable population.
The House passed President Trump’s reconciliation budget by a razor-thin 215-214-1 vote early Thursday morning, demonstrating just how contentious the issue has become. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed deep emotions, with the bill’s substance and scope evolving until the last minute.
Initially, the measure sought to prohibit Medicaid from covering “gender transition procedures” only for minors. But a late-night amendment struck the words “minors” and “under 18 years of age,” sweeping all adults under the new regulations as well. This turn of events widened the bill’s impact significantly, raising the stakes for both its supporters and opponents.
A 2023 study cited in the debate found that 25 percent of gender-affirming surgeries in the United States were paid for by Medicaid, with over 12,000 out of 48,019 patients relying on the program. That figure underscores just how many Americans could be affected if the bill becomes law.
Supporters of Trump’s bill see it as a major victory for taxpayers and traditional values. Groups like the American Principles Project have praised the measure, arguing that taxpayer dollars should not be spent on what they call controversial medical procedures.
Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, applauded the bill’s passage, referencing public opinion on the use of government funds for gender transition treatments. He argued that most Americans are uncomfortable with taxpayer-funded gender-affirming care, especially for procedures involving children.
Proponents also argue that the measure will restore fiscal sanity to Medicaid, a program that has faced mounting costs in recent years. They view the bill as a necessary step to ensure government health programs focus on what they see as core medical needs.
On the other side, critics of the bill warn of dire consequences for thousands of Americans. Advocacy groups and medical professionals have argued that gender-affirming care is essential for transgender individuals and that stripping Medicaid coverage could lead to increased suffering and health disparities. Transgender comedian Stacy Cay was among those who spoke out forcefully, calling the move an “attempt of genocide.”
Many in the medical community have echoed these concerns, pointing to studies that show improved mental health outcomes for transgender individuals who can access gender transition care. They fear that eliminating Medicaid funding will make these treatments financially impossible for low-income Americans.
Opponents also criticize the decision to remove age restrictions from the bill, claiming that it disproportionately impacts adults who rely on Medicaid for their healthcare needs and who have no other options for covering these costly procedures.
As the bill heads to the Senate, both sides are preparing for a high-stakes showdown. Some senators have already signaled concerns about the impact on rural and low-income Americans, especially those living in red states where Medicaid is a critical healthcare lifeline.
In a statement, American Principles Project’s Terry Schilling praised the House version and urged senators to maintain its core provisions. Meanwhile, advocacy groups are mobilizing supporters, warning that the bill could set a precedent for further restrictions on transgender healthcare.
Senate Republicans are expected to push for swift passage, while Democrats and some moderates may seek amendments or attempt to block the bill entirely. With the country watching closely, the Senate’s decision could shape the national conversation on healthcare, gender, and government spending for years to come.
An all-night session and weeks of bitter infighting left Speaker Mike Johnson grinning in the Capitol halls while President Donald Trump celebrated a razor-thin legislative victory.
In a dramatic early morning vote, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives narrowly approved the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a sweeping legislative package advancing President Donald Trump’s tax and immigration agenda. According to ABC News, the measure passed 215-214, with just one Republican voting present and all Democrats in opposition.
The bill’s passage came after intense internal GOP negotiations, last-minute changes, and a marathon debate that stretched through the night. Speaker Johnson, flanked by Republican allies, declared the moment “morning in America again,” while President Trump took to social media to call it “the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!”
Deep rifts among House Republicans threatened the bill’s survival up until the final moments. Speaker Johnson, holding a fragile three-vote majority, was forced to appease both hardline conservatives and moderate members from high-tax states. The narrow margin reflected weeks of wrangling and highlighted the party’s ongoing struggle to unify behind Trump’s priorities.
Negotiations centered on Medicaid work requirements and the cap on state and local tax deductions, issues that nearly derailed the bill. Some Republican lawmakers, including Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted against the measure, while Rep. Andy Harris, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, voted present. The final tallies triggered an outburst of celebration among supporters, with Queen’s “We Are The Champions” briefly playing on the House floor.
President Trump and his aides worked behind the scenes to secure support, with the White House describing a critical meeting between Trump and House conservatives as “productive.” The president pressed the urgency of passing the bill before Memorial Day, framing it as essential for the nation’s economic and security interests.
The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” delivers on several of Trump’s campaign promises. It features major tax cuts, including the elimination of federal taxes on tips and overtime, expanded tax deductions for Americans who purchase vehicles made in the United States, and the creation of new “Trump Savings Accounts”—a rebranding of the originally proposed “MAGA Accounts.” The bill also raises the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 for households earning under $500,000, a key concession to members from states like New York and California.
Healthcare reforms are central to the package. The legislation accelerates the start of new Medicaid work requirements to no later than December 31, 2026, three years earlier than initially proposed. This change, demanded by budget hawks, is expected to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while a new incentive discourages states from expanding Medicaid coverage.
On immigration, the bill appropriates $12 billion for border security reimbursements to states for costs linked to Biden-era policies, with grants available through September 2029. The Department of Homeland Security gains new authority to assist with enforcement, reflecting a key priority for House Republicans.
House Democrats, unified in their opposition, denounced the bill as extreme and harmful to working-class Americans. They argued that the Medicaid changes would strip coverage from vulnerable groups and that the tax cuts would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Democratic leadership accused Republicans of prioritizing campaign promises over bipartisan solutions.
Some moderate Republicans also voiced concern, especially over the Medicaid provisions and the expedited phase-out of clean energy tax credits originally expanded under President Biden. The bill requires new clean energy projects to break ground within 60 days or be operational by the end of 2028 to access remaining credits, a move designed to offset the cost of other tax breaks.
Despite the House victory, the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where the Republican majority is expected to propose revisions in the coming weeks. Senate Republicans have signaled that Medicaid work requirements and state tax deduction changes may be points of contention. President Trump and Speaker Johnson have called for swift action, but the path forward remains fraught with political risk.
Speaker Johnson relished the moment after the vote, addressing the media alongside top House Republicans and committee chairs. He insisted that the bill’s passage proved doubters wrong and signaled a return to conservative priorities in Washington. “The bill gets Americans back to winning again, and it's been a long time coming,” Johnson said. “It quite literally is again morning in America, isn't it, all right?”
President Trump’s public praise for Johnson and House Republicans underscored the high stakes of the legislative battle. Trump wrote in a social media post: “Great job by Speaker Mike Johnson, and the House Leadership, and thank you to every Republican who voted YES on this Historic Bill!”
The House vote marks only the first stage of the legislative process. As the reconciliation bill moves to the Senate, both parties prepare for another round of debate and amendment. Republicans hope for a quick Senate turnaround, but Democrats have vowed to fight provisions they view as punitive or regressive.
President Donald Trump stirs controversy with an explosive social media post about Bill and Hillary Clinton's alleged involvement in numerous deaths over several decades.
According to Daily Mail, Trump shared a video on Truth Social titled "THE VIDEO HILLARY CLINTON DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE," which attempts to connect the former First Lady and President Bill Clinton to several high-profile deaths, including John F. Kennedy Jr., DNC staffer Seth Rich, and former White House lawyer Vince Foster.
The controversial footage pushes the "Clinton Body Bags" conspiracy theory, which has circulated since the 1990s.
The video suggests Hillary Clinton orchestrated JFK Jr.'s fatal plane crash in 1999 because he was reportedly a frontrunner for the New York Senate seat she later won. Trump did not provide any personal commentary alongside the post.
The video claims Mary Mahoney, a former White House intern during Bill Clinton's administration, was murdered in 1997 because she allegedly knew details about Clinton's sexual misconduct. It also questions the circumstances surrounding Vince Foster's death by suicide in 1993, highlighting that investigators never found the bullet.
James McDougal, a key witness for White House prosecutors, is another figure mentioned in the video. According to the footage, McDougal suffered a fatal heart attack in solitary confinement in 2015 before he was scheduled to testify before a grand jury.
The video also discusses former White House Chef Walter Scheib, whose body was found at the bottom of a river. Though his death was ruled an accidental drowning, the video suggests he "might have known too much."
This is not Trump's first time sharing controversial theories about the Clintons. In 2019, he retweeted posts suggesting Bill and Hillary Clinton were connected to Jeffrey Epstein's death in prison.
The 2019 retweets included claims that unsealed court documents revealed "top Democrats, including Bill Clinton, took private trips to Jeffrey Epstein's 'pedophilia island.'" Trump also shared posts from conservative actor Terrence K. Williams questioning Epstein's death while on suicide watch.
Fact-checkers have repeatedly debunked the claims presented in the video over the decades. However, the conspiracy theories continue to circulate among certain political circles.
The latest social media post from Trump comes as he continues his presidential campaign amid various legal challenges. The video specifically mentions seven deaths it claims are connected to the Clintons, including the most recent case of Seth Rich, a 27-year-old DNC staffer killed in Washington D.C. in 2016.
The conspiracy video suggests Rich was murdered in retaliation for allegedly leaking controversial DNC emails. It also mentions Sean Lucas, though details about his connection to the DNC case remain unclear in the footage.
While Trump's sharing of the video has generated significant attention, neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton have publicly responded to these latest allegations. The video's origin and creator remain unknown, though its claims align with long-circulating conspiracy theories about the political couple.
International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan has stepped aside as an external investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct moves forward.
The United Nations’ internal oversight office is examining claims against Khan, a development that coincides with heightened scrutiny of the ICC’s recent arrest warrants targeting Israeli and Hamas leaders, as Fox News reports.
The ICC confirmed Friday that Khan will be on leave until the investigation concludes. The inquiry is being led by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services, which serves as the U.N.’s internal watchdog. Khan has denied all allegations of inappropriate conduct.
Initial reports of the alleged misconduct surfaced last year in May, when two ICC staff members said a victim had privately shared accusations involving Khan. The ICC’s in-house watchdog launched a short inquiry, speaking with the alleged victim but ending the probe after five days when she declined to file a formal complaint.
Although the inquiry closed without a formal conclusion, the watchdog recommended Khan reduce direct interaction with the woman to help maintain confidence in the court. Khan himself was not interviewed during that initial review.
The situation escalated over the past week as media outlets, including the Associated Press and Fox News Digital, highlighted the unresolved misconduct claims. Fox News asked both the court and Khan if he would resign or face removal soon. Khan’s decision to pause his duties followed shortly after.
Women's rights organizations had previously pushed for Khan's resignation when the accusations first emerged. At the time, he refused. Now, with an external investigation under way, he has agreed to step back temporarily from his role. Attorneys from the British law firm Carter-Ruck Solicitors, who represent Khan, issued a statement denying all claims against him. They said he is cooperating fully with the UN-led inquiry and has done nothing wrong.
While the misconduct investigation was unfolding, Khan made international headlines with the ICC’s decision to seek arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three senior Hamas leaders. These charges follow the outbreak of war in October 2023, when Hamas militants entered Israel and killed more than 1,200 people, including several Americans.
Khan had reportedly canceled a planned visit to Israel and Gaza shortly before making the announcement, adding fuel to suspicions that the timing of the prosecutions may have been politically motivated. Critics have questioned whether Khan’s move was an attempt to redirect attention away from the allegations against him. Lawyers for Khan defended the prosecutorial decision, saying that the ICC's judges approved the arrest warrants after determining the evidence met legal requirements under the Rome Statute. They also rejected claims that the timing of the filing was influenced by personal matters.
Legal scholars have voiced sharp criticism of the court’s operations. Eugene Kontorovich, a constitutional law professor and expert on international law, claimed that Khan's departure doesn’t go far enough. He said that deeper institutional failings at the ICC have allowed such issues to persist unchecked. Kontorovich went further by arguing that the misconduct scandal jeopardizes not only the charges brought by Khan but also casts doubt on previous prosecutions. He cited the court’s limited success over its 25-year existence -- only six final convictions for atrocity crimes—to support his argument that the ICC should be shut down altogether.
Hillel Neuer, head of U.N. Watch, suggested that Khan’s leave is a strategic move to protect the court's image while continuing what he called politically driven legal actions against Israel. He emphasized that the controversy extends beyond any one individual, challenging the motives behind the court's recent high-profile prosecutions.
Israeli officials have requested the ICC withdraw the warrants filed against its leaders, labeling the court's decisions as biased and unjust. However, the ICC has made no public move to retract its actions. A spokesperson declined to speculate on the status of the warrants, citing a pending procedural request.
In one especially controversial twist, President Donald Trump imposed sanctions on Khan in February 2025. The move heightened tensions between the ICC and the U.S. and complicated global perceptions of the court's impartiality in prosecuting international crimes. Adding to the intrigue, critics highlighted past writings by Khan that seemed to contrast with his current actions. In 2013, he published an academic piece suggesting that prosecutions like Netanyahu’s would be legally flawed, as the ICC was unequipped to ensure fair judicial processes in such cases.
So far, the Office of Internal Oversight Services has not disclosed a timeline for the investigation’s conclusion. Meanwhile, Khan remains on leave, with court operations continuing under interim leadership. The outcome of the inquiry may shape the direction and credibility of the ICC for years to come. UN officials declined to weigh in on the matter, pointing to the International Criminal Court’s status as an independent body. While the U.N.’s inspector general office leads the investigation, the judicial institution makes decisions separately from U.N. political branches.
With both legal and public attention focused heavily on the court, the ICC faces growing pressure to demonstrate transparency, accountability and adherence to legal norms. The results of the misconduct inquiry and subsequent handling by court leadership may define how the institution moves forward in the wake of deepening controversy.
House Democrats have initiated a probe into former President Donald Trump's acceptance of a $400 million jet from Qatar, stirring discussions over constitutional implications and potential conflicts of interest.
Democrats are questioning whether the former president's acceptance of the jet contravenes the Foreign Emoluments Clause, with a legal memo authored by Attorney General Pam Bondi becoming a central focus, as Fox News reports.
The investigation, spearheaded by Rep. Jamie Raskin of the House Judiciary Committee, aims to scrutinize the circumstances surrounding the costly gift from the Qatari government to Trump.
A letter was dispatched to Bondi and White House counsel David Warrington, urging the disclosure of a legal memorandum reportedly validating Trump’s acceptance of the plane. This memo, according to the Democrats, clashes with the constitutional clause prohibiting presidents from receiving foreign gifts without Congress's sanction.
Democrats have expressed unease over the possibility that Trump or his close associates might have solicited what they describe as a bribe. This suspicion arises partly due to Trump’s displeasure with Boeing’s delays in delivering a new Air Force One, after which the Qatari plane was dubbed "a nice gesture" by Trump.
A planned donation to Trump’s presidential library following his term has also been highlighted, implying it could serve as a bribe, according to the Democrats. Additional documents and communications related to the plane’s transfer are being requested by House Judiciary Committee Democrats.
However, in the face of Republican majority control, compelling compliance presents a challenge. The Democrats are raising ethical concerns over Bondi’s involvement, as she previously lobbied for Qatar, earning substantial amounts of money for her advocacy.
In light of the investigation, Trump took to Truth Social to defend his actions, criticizing Democrats for their concerns over what he described as a transparent transaction. Trump pointed out that, even without the plane being for his personal use, Democrats should not be preoccupied with a gift received openly. His remarks suggested a tactic of redirecting the issue towards Democrats’ alleged inadequacies.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have expressed limited knowledge of the unfolding situation, while Speaker Mike Johnson refrained from delving into specifics. Speaker Johnson noted that gifts from other nations are routine, leaving further details to the administration, which is better versed in the matter. The probe comes amid Trump’s ongoing diplomatic visit to several Middle Eastern countries, including Qatar, adding another layer of complexity to the events.
The legal memo, allegedly composed by Bondi and Warrington, that deems the gift legally permissible, has become a fulcrum of the Democrats’ argument. They assert that any such memo flies in the face of constitutional mandates, which explicitly state that Congress holds the authority to endorse or reject gifts offered by foreign states to a sitting president. The role of the attorney general, as suggested by the Democrats, becomes problematic due to Bondi's earlier professional ties as a lobbyist for Qatar.
The situation has raised serious questions regarding potential conflicts of interest, as well as broader concerns about the potential influence of foreign powers in presidential affairs. The Democrats' assertion that Bondi’s past registration as an official agent for Qatar undermines her neutrality seeks to lead the inquiry into its next phase.
The plane's intended donation to his future presidential library draws attention not only to Trump himself but also to how he intends to shape his post-presidency legacy. The Democrats argue this could serve as further evidence of a conflict between personal benefits and national interests, especially when a foreign nation is involved in such a major transaction.
As the investigation proceeds, attention could shift towards further potential insights from the memo and whether it provides a solid enough legal basis to quell the current storm. For now, the dilemma remains whether the jet represents innocent statecraft or if it undermines the foundational values encapsulated in the nation's Constitution.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard removes two high-ranking officials from their positions at the National Intelligence Council, sparking concerns about political interference in intelligence matters.
According to NBC News, the dismissals of Michael Collins and Maria Langan-Riekhof came after their oversight of an intelligence assessment that challenged President Trump's claims about the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua's connection to the Maduro regime.
The intelligence assessment, which represented a consensus among intelligence agencies except the FBI, concluded that the gang does not operate under the direction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government. This finding contradicted the Trump administration's justification for invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used 1798 law, to expedite the deportation of suspected gang members without standard due process procedures.
The White House has maintained that Tren de Aragua operates as an extension of the Venezuelan government, using this claim to justify extraordinary measures for gang member deportation. The administration's unprecedented use of the Alien Enemies Act marks the first time the law has been employed outside of wartime circumstances.
Gabbard's office defended the dismissals through spokesperson Olivia Coleman, who emphasized the director's commitment to working with President Trump to prevent politicization within the Intelligence Community. Deputy Chief of Staff Alexa Henning specifically cited political bias as the reason for the officials' removal.
Far-right activist Laura Loomer had previously called for action against the National Intelligence Council, specifically targeting Collins in social media posts last month. Loomer, who claimed credit for the recent dismissal of NSA overseer Gen. Timothy Haugh, questioned the council's motives in challenging the administration's stance on the gang.
Former CIA Director John Brennan expressed serious concerns about the implications of the firings for the intelligence community. He warned that the dismissals send a threatening message to analysts throughout the intelligence sector.
It's clearly a signal to tell analysts throughout the intelligence community: 'you tell the truth, you provide objective analysis, as you're supposed to be doing, you are running the risk of getting fired. They are two of the most experienced, accomplished, and talented analysts in the entire U.S. intelligence community.
Jonathan Panikoff, a former National Intelligence Council analyst, emphasized the organization's crucial role in providing nonpartisan intelligence analysis. Democratic lawmakers have strongly criticized the move, with Senator Mark Warner describing it as a politically motivated purge.
Representative Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has taken formal action by demanding explanations from Gabbard. His letter requires evidence supporting the allegations of political bias against the dismissed officials within a week's deadline.
The House Intelligence Committee's involvement highlights growing concerns about proper notification procedures. Himes noted that such significant personnel changes should have been communicated to congressional intelligence committees as required by law.
Democratic legislators argue that the dismissals represent a dangerous precedent of punishing career intelligence professionals for producing analyses that contradict administration positions. The controversy has intensified debates about the independence of intelligence agencies under the current administration.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard terminated two senior intelligence officials after they oversaw an assessment challenging the White House's claims about Venezuelan gang connections. The dismissed officials, Michael Collins and Maria Langan-Riekhof, had decades of experience in intelligence analysis and were responsible for a memo that questioned the administration's justification for using the Alien Enemies Act against Tren de Aragua gang members.