President Donald Trump left UFC star Kayla Harrison visibly shocked when he greeted her victory celebration with a kiss on the cheek following her championship win at UFC 316. The intimate gesture came after Harrison exited the octagon to interact with the president, who was sitting cage-side.

According to a Daily Mail report, Harrison had just defeated Julianna Pena to claim her first UFC world title when she approached Trump, who was attending the event with his daughter, Ivanka Trump, and other family members.

The surprisingly personal interaction didn't stop at a kiss. Trump pulled the 34-year-old fighter in for a hug and placed his left hand on her exposed stomach during a photo opportunity. Harrison later draped her new championship belt over the president's shoulder as the pair pointed at each other to elicit cheers from the New Jersey crowd.

Olympic Champion's UFC Success

Harrison brings an impressive athletic pedigree to her MMA career. The two-time Olympic gold medalist represented the United States in judo, winning top honors in both the 2012 and 2016 Olympic Games before transitioning to mixed martial arts.

Her fighting career has been nothing short of remarkable. With 19 victories in 20 professional MMA bouts, Harrison has quickly established herself as a dominant force. Despite only making her UFC debut in April 2024, she has maintained an undefeated record within the promotion and rapidly climbed the rankings.

Saturday's championship victory over Julianna Pena at UFC 316 represented a significant milestone for Harrison. The submission win marked her third fight with the UFC and earned her first world title with the promotion, cementing her status as one of the organization's premier athletes.

Trump's UFC Appearances Continue

The president's attendance at UFC 316 represents the continuation of his close relationship with the mixed martial arts promotion. Trump was greeted with applause from fans upon his arrival at the New Jersey venue.

Before taking his seat near the cage, Trump stopped to shake hands with podcasters and former Tennessee Titans teammates Will Compton and Taylor Lewan. The presidential entourage included Trump's son Eric, son-in-law Jared Kushner, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with whom Trump shared a fist bump for nearby cameras.

Trump's previous UFC appearance came in April when he attended an event in Miami alongside billionaire Elon Musk. However, their relationship has reportedly deteriorated since then, with Trump recently warning that Musk would face "very serious consequences" if he began supporting Democratic candidates after a disagreement over Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill."

Celebrity Entourage Ringside

Ivanka Trump made a striking appearance at the event, wearing a long white dress as she joined her father for the evening of UFC action. The president's daughter was part of a high-profile group watching the fights from premium seats.

The presidential family members weren't the only notable figures in attendance. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was spotted alongside Trump, with cameras capturing the two sharing a fist bump during the event. Other family members, including Eric Trump and Jared Kushner, rounded out the president's entourage.

UFC fans and fighters alike showed enthusiasm for Trump's presence. Kevin Holland, who won his welterweight bout against Vicente Luque by submission, celebrated his victory by giving the president a high five, demonstrating the warm reception Trump typically receives at UFC events.

Presidential UFC Connection

President Donald Trump's appearance at UFC 316 highlighted his ongoing relationship with the mixed martial arts promotion. The 78-year-old commander-in-chief was treated to an impressive performance by Harrison, who defeated Julianna Pena to claim her first UFC championship.

The victory celebration took an unexpected turn when Harrison approached Trump after exiting the octagon. Rather than receiving a standard handshake, the fighter was pulled in for a hug and a kiss on the cheek, creating a moment that left Harrison visibly surprised.

Their interaction continued with a photo opportunity that saw Trump placing his arm around Harrison and his hand on her stomach, followed by Harrison draping her newly won championship belt over the president's shoulder as they acknowledged the cheering crowd together.

Elon Musk has voiced his opposition to the escalating pro-migration riots in Los Angeles, California, describing the situation as "not ok" as protesters wave foreign flags and clash with law enforcement. The billionaire entrepreneur's comments come amid growing tensions following immigration raids conducted by federal officials.

According to Breitbart, Musk shared screenshots of social media posts from President Donald Trump, who called on California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to apologize for their handling of the violent demonstrations. Trump accused the Democratic officials of doing an "absolutely horrible job" in quelling the unrest.

The tech mogul also reposted content from Vice President JD Vance, which referenced Trump's announcement directing the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and Attorney General Pam Bondi to "take all such action necessary to liberate Los Angeles" as the situation deteriorates.

Musk's shifting political stance

Musk's apparent support for the Trump administration's response to the riots marks a notable shift in his public positioning. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO had previously engaged in a highly publicized feud with President Trump, stemming from disagreements over legislation.

Their conflict centered around Musk's strong opposition to what he termed a "pork-filled" and "disgusting abomination" piece of legislation known as the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill." During the height of their dispute, Musk went as far as threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft.

The billionaire's criticism of Trump had escalated to serious allegations, including claims that Trump was "in the Epstein files" and even calls for the president's impeachment. This context makes Musk's current alignment with the administration's approach to the Los Angeles riots particularly noteworthy.

Federal response intensifies

Trump signed a presidential memorandum on Saturday deploying 2,000 National Guard troops to address the violence in Los Angeles. The decision represents a significant escalation in the federal response to the civil unrest.

Social media has been flooded with images and videos documenting protesters setting fire to California Highway Patrol vehicles, throwing rocks at Border Patrol units, and defacing federal buildings. The demonstrations have grown increasingly destructive as they continue to spread throughout parts of the city.

The riots erupted following immigration enforcement actions, with more than 40 people arrested on Friday as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents conducted raids and served search warrants. Federal authorities have indicated that many of those detained include individuals with serious criminal backgrounds.

Law enforcement warning

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino issued a stern warning to potential rioters, stating that federal law enforcement would be actively investigating any assaults on federal officers amid the ongoing unrest.

"If you choose violence," Bongino warned, the FBI would be "investigating and pursuing all available leads for assault on a federal officer, in addition to the many arrests already made." The statement signals a tough stance from federal authorities as they attempt to restore order.

Meanwhile, Democratic officials in California have taken a different approach. Governor Newsom has reportedly challenged Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Tom Homan to arrest him for opposing the raids, while Mayor Bass suggested that "if immigration raids had not happened here, we would not have the disorder."

Ongoing immigration tensions

The violent demonstrations in Los Angeles represent the latest flashpoint in America's contentious immigration debate, with federal enforcement actions triggering significant backlash from pro-migration activists and some local officials.

President Trump's decision to federalize National Guard troops and threat to deploy Marines indicates the administration's determination to assert federal authority in response to the riots. The president characterized his actions as necessary to "liberate" Los Angeles, language that has intensified the political divisions surrounding the crisis.

These events unfold as Musk appears to be repositioning himself after his previous criticism of Trump. The billionaire's father reportedly characterized his son's earlier "betrayal" of Trump as a "mistake," suggesting family pressure may be influencing Musk's current stance.

In a decisive move, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles on Saturday, and the deployment came as a reaction to riots sparked by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the city, leading to a clash between local and federal authorities over the response, as the Daily Caller reports.

The unrest began following an ICE raid conducted at a Home Depot in Los Angeles County, escalating tensions in the area. This incident, highlighted in a report by Fox News, quickly spiraled into widespread riots. As the situation deteriorated, the White House issued a statement denouncing the chaos and emphasized its zero-tolerance stance toward the violence directed at law enforcement officers.

On Saturday night, Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum authorizing the military deployment. This decision aimed to curb the disturbances ignited by actions the federal government considered essential for combating illegal immigration. Trump directed strong words at state officials, demanding action and expressing frustration over perceived inaction by California's leaders.

Federal, local leaders clash

The conflict between the Trump administration and California's Democrat officials surfaced prominently with comments on various platforms. Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles publicly criticized the ICE operations, expressing concerns that such tactics instill fear within her city's immigrant communities. Similarly, Gov. Gavin Newsom voiced his opposition to the National Guard deployment, suggesting that the move could exacerbate tensions rather than calm them.

Newsom's opposition was part of a larger pattern of disagreement with the federal government's approach. Unyielding, President Trump used social media to chastise Newsom and Bass, suggesting federal intervention was inevitable if they could not manage the situation themselves.

Amid these criticisms, the Department of Homeland Security and other federal officials defended their position. They insisted that the operations were critical to national security and emphasized that the recent violence against law enforcement could not be tolerated.

Democrats decry federal intervention

Assistant secretary of Homeland Security for public affairs, Tricia McLaughlin, vocally condemned the violence targeting ICE and federal agents. She placed partial blame on Democrat leaders, alleging that their negative portrayal of ICE contributed to the volatile environment. McLaughlin stressed the need for state and local leaders to prompt an end to the aggressive actions of rioters.

In contrast, Trump’s statement on Truth Social underscored his administration's stern position regarding the unrest. The president's remarks implied skepticism toward the ability of Los Angeles and California’s leadership to handle such incidents effectively. The federal stance was articulated further by border czar Tom Homan, who supported ICE's initiatives during a televised appearance.

Homan argued that the backlash against ICE stemmed from false narratives about their mission and that their operations were essential for public safety. He maintained that these efforts were not an overreach but necessary measures to manage immigration-related concerns along the southern border.

Historical context of Trump stance

Trump's first term in office marked a significant policy shift with his issuance of executive orders focused on immigration. These included radical measures that labeled certain gangs and cartels as foreign terrorist entities, reflecting a broader agenda aimed at tightening border security.

In this context, Trump's deployment of the National Guard was consistent with his administration’s overarching policies that aim to curtail illegal immigration through strict enforcement strategies. The latest step was presented as a continuation of this strategy, albeit one greeted by sharp division among state and federal entities.

The ongoing tension between federal directives and state responses highlighted a profound divide on how best to address complex immigration challenges without creating further instability. As the situation develops, it remains unclear how the conflicting approaches will be reconciled to restore order in Los Angeles and beyond.

Ultimately, the immediate focus remains on quelling the violence and riots incited by the recent ICE operation. Moving forward, the discourse between federal and state leadership will play a crucial role in determining the outcome of this ongoing conflict. Whether collaboration or continued discord will dominate remains a pressing concern for policymakers and citizens alike.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed two significant legislative bills targeting sanctuary cities amid a blend of partisan and bipartisan activity.

In closely watched deliberations, the House managed to advance two new measures, garnering some support from Democrats for the effort aimed at reshaping policy on sanctuary cities, as Fox News reports.

On Thursday, the House passed the first bill by a margin of 211 to 199. This legislation mandates the shift of Small Business Administration (SBA) offices from areas designated as sanctuary jurisdictions. Sanctuary cities, known for policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, have faced criticism from Republican quarters. Five Democrats, despite their party's leadership urging opposition, joined the GOP in supporting this relocation measure.

The five Democrats were Reps. Henry Cuellar, Laura Gillen, Don Davis, Jared Golden, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. Their support lent a bipartisan sheen to the passage of the bill amid noticeable internal conflict within the Democratic Party. The leadership had firmly directed their members against supporting this initiative, yet the vote underscores varying individual positions on the issue.

Second bill targets SBA loans

The House passed a second bill the following Friday morning. This legislation prohibits illegal immigrants from accessing loans through the SBA, and it garnered slightly broader bipartisan support, with eight Democrats in favor. This significant addition to financial policy was aimed at curtailing any federal economic benefits to unauthorized immigrants.

The Democrats supporting the second measure included Cuellar, Gillen, and Davis, along with Tom Suozzi, Josh Harder, Marcy Kaptur, and Kristen McDonald Rivet. Notably, there was no clear directive from the Democratic leadership regarding how lawmakers should vote on this particular bill, representing a perhaps telling lapse in party cohesion.

Republican reactions have been broadly positive. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer praised the efforts, stating, "House Republicans are holding these cities accountable for their refusal to follow immigration law and protect their citizens." This sentiment reflects a concerted push from the GOP to secure what they perceive as adherence to strict immigration enforcement.

Bipartisan support, controversy emerge

The passage of these bills occurs within the broader political context of the Trump administration's hardline stance on immigration. This administration asserted its commitment to ending illegal immigration. Support from both Democrats and Republicans signaled alignment with this overarching agenda, at least regarding sanctuary city policies.

Another figure voicing support was Kelly Loeffler, administrator of the SBA. In alignment with the legislative move to relocate SBA offices, she remarked on the intention to shift federal resources "into safer, more accessible communities that comply with federal law." Her comments echo the core arguments behind the legislation: upholding the law and safeguarding American citizens.

Rep. Brad Finstad introduced the first bill focusing on the SBA office relocation. While Rep. Beth Van Duyne introduced the follow-up measure dealing with SBA loan accessibility. The legislative duo underscores their motto, encasing multi-faceted policy approaches to ensure that sanctuary city policies align with broader federal immigration laws.

Varied reactions, future implications

The passage of these bills remains contentious within political debates, echoing concerns and accolades. Emmer castigated sanctuary cities for allegedly prioritizing illegal aliens, underscoring the philosophical divide driving forward such legislation.

Meanwhile, supporting Democrats seems to represent a nuanced viewpoint, balancing district concerns and broader national policy considerations. This dynamic unveils the varying dimensions of partisanship, encouraging a more bipartisan consideration beyond simple party lines.

Strong sentiments prevail in reinforcing federal control in immigration matters, with these bills emphasizing what proponents consider integrity and prioritizing American resources for citizens.

Broader impact awaited

These legislative developments mark a potential shift, setting the stage for possible changes in how federal infrastructure interacts with sanctuary cities. By attempting to push economic and logistical resources away from these jurisdictions, the legislation could tangibly pressure cities maintaining sanctuary policies.

The bipartisan vote on these issues is a clear sign of nuanced political landscapes where party lines are sometimes crossed. As these bills progress legally, their long-term efficacy in adjusting sanctuary city strategies will be closely monitored. Regardless, these measures reflect a compelling intersection of immigration enforcement, local governance, and federal oversight, pledging to impact several dimensions of American policy formulation.

Senator Chuck Grassley has raised serious concerns that former FBI Director Christopher Wray misled Congress about the extent of a controversial memo targeting "radical traditionalist Catholics." According to Just the News, this may represent part of a broader pattern of Biden administration officials obstructing congressional oversight.

The Iowa Republican's recent letter to current FBI Director Kash Patel reveals that, contrary to Wray's 2023 congressional testimony describing the memo as "a single product by a single field office," newly released documents show the memo was widely distributed throughout the bureau and followed by at least 13 additional documents using similar terminology.

FBI documents indicate the Richmond Field Office memo was accessed by nearly 20 intelligence analysts from 13 different field offices and distributed to more than 1,000 FBI personnel in February 2023, raising questions about whether traditional Catholic groups were placed under wider suspicion than previously acknowledged.

Wray testimony under scrutiny

Grassley directly challenged Wray's previous statements to Congress in his letter to Director Patel, suggesting the former director may have been deliberately deceptive about the scope and distribution of the controversial memo.

"The FBI under Director Wray obstructed my investigation by not providing these answers for many months," Grassley wrote. "Congress needs to know who participated in this obstruction and why the FBI obstructed an inquiry into a memo it had already repudiated."

While the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz ultimately cleared the bureau of malicious intent, his investigation found the memo "lacked sufficient evidence" and "evinced errors in professional judgment" in linking traditional Roman Catholicism with violent extremism.

Pattern of Biden administration obstruction

The FBI memo controversy represents just one example of what congressional Republicans characterize as a pattern of Biden administration officials providing misleading testimony or obstructing legitimate congressional inquiries.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas faced allegations of perjury after telling Congress the border was secure from illegal aliens with terrorist ties, despite reports the FBI was "struggling to locate more than 12 migrants" smuggled into the country by an ISIS-tied smuggler.

House Republicans attempted to impeach Mayorkas with charges alleging he willfully failed to comply with federal immigration law and "breached the public trust" over his statements to Congress, though Senate Democrats successfully dismissed the articles without a trial.

Autopen controversy raises constitutional questions

House Republicans are now investigating the Biden administration's use of an autopen to sign official documents, including pardons, raising questions about who was actually making presidential decisions.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer announced his committee would gather testimony from former senior Biden advisors, including Michael Donilon, Anita Dunn, Ron Klain, Bruce Reed, and Steve Ricchetti, to determine "President Biden's cognitive state and who was calling the shots."

President Trump has also ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether individuals "conspired to deceive the public about Biden's mental state and unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the President."

Congressional accountability efforts intensify

Despite these various oversight efforts, Republicans have faced challenges in holding Biden administration officials legally accountable for alleged misrepresentations to Congress.

The House failed to hold former Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt after he refused to produce audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur's interview with President Biden that had been subpoenaed by congressional committees.

Biden pushed back against the autopen investigation on Wednesday, stating: "Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false."

A rising social media star’s career just came to a shocking halt. Guava Shuishui, who gained fame online for her unconventional beauty product reviews, is making headlines for reasons nobody expected.

As reported by Daily Mail, Guava Shuishui, a Taiwanese beauty influencer known for eating makeup products during her videos, died last week at just 24 after a “sudden illness.” Her family made the announcement on her Instagram account.

Followers of Guava Shuishui, also known as Guava Beauty, were familiar with her unique approach to beauty content—she would not only test makeup products but also taste them, sometimes consuming entire items in front of the camera. Her death has sparked heated debate over the risks and ethics of content creation in the age of social media.

Mukbang trend pushes boundaries

Guava Shuishui’s videos were part of the “mukbang” trend, a genre where online creators record themselves eating large quantities of food, or in her case, non-food items like lipstick and face masks. Her willingness to eat makeup products, blush, and even cotton pads drew thousands of followers and curious viewers.

Critics raised concerns as her popularity soared. Many are worried about the potential toxicity of cosmetics when ingested, especially by impressionable young fans. Some of her most viral videos included warnings stating that her content was not suitable for children under six. Still, critics and concerned viewers regularly urged her to stop, warning she was setting a dangerous example.

In one late 2024 video that gained particular attention, Guava Shuishui used a fork to scoop out and eat an entire jelly blush product. Fans flooded the comments section, expressing fears about the consequences of such stunts.

Fans and family react

News of Shuishui’s death hit her community hard. Her family shared a statement on her social media account, expressing gratitude for the support she received throughout her career. They described her as hard-working, serious, and shining even in difficult moments and thanked everyone who had supported and interacted with her online.

Many followers left messages of love and concern, reminiscing about her dedication to her craft. Her final post, published on May 24, signaled an abrupt end to her online presence: “Logging out from the world. Setting off on a new journey. All business collaborations are suspended.”

Her pinned videos continued to receive attention even after her passing, with commenters debating whether such risky content should ever have been allowed on social platforms.

Debate grows over influencer responsibility

Guava Shuishui’s death has reignited debates about the responsibilities of online influencers. Critics argue that creators who push boundaries for views and attention can unintentionally encourage risky, unhealthy, or outright dangerous behaviors. Some experts warn that normalizing the ingestion of non-food items, especially in the name of entertainment, poses significant health and ethical risks.

Supporters of content regulation point to Shuishui’s case as a clear example of social media’s darker side. They believe platforms should do more to enforce age restrictions and content warnings, particularly in genres like mukbang, which have become increasingly extreme in recent years.

Yet others defend the freedom of online creators, stressing the importance of personal choice and warning against overregulation. They argue that viewers carry responsibility for their own actions and that creators like Shuishui should be remembered for their creativity rather than blamed for broader social trends.

Online influencer’s legacy and next steps

Guava Shuishui, a 24-year-old Taiwanese beauty influencer, became known for eating makeup products on camera, a practice that ultimately led to controversy and concern from fans and critics. She died on May 24 after a sudden illness, according to her family, ending a career defined by her unconventional content and devoted following.

Her passing took place just as debates around influencer responsibility and the limits of online entertainment reached new heights.

As her family and followers mourn, calls are growing for clearer guidelines and greater accountability on social platforms to protect both creators and their audiences in the future.

Tom Thibodeau's second stint as New York Knicks head coach has come to an abrupt end following one of the franchise's most successful seasons in decades. The dismissal comes just weeks after the team's Eastern Conference Finals defeat to the Indiana Pacers.

According to the Daily Mail, Knicks President Leon Rose announced the decision in a statement emphasizing the organization's championship aspirations. Rose thanked Thibodeau for his dedication while explaining the team would pursue a different direction moving forward.

The firing marks a stunning reversal for Thibodeau, who guided the Knicks to their first Eastern Conference Finals appearance since 2000. Despite reaching the playoffs in four of five seasons under his leadership, including back-to-back 50-win campaigns for the first time since the 1990s, organizational pressure for championship success ultimately cost him his position.

Championship expectations drive decision

President Leon Rose delivered a clear message about the franchise's elevated standards in his official statement regarding Thibodeau's dismissal. Rose expressed gratitude for the coach's commitment while emphasizing that championship pursuit necessitated organizational changes.

Rose stated in his announcement: "Our organization is singularly focused on winning a championship for our fans. This pursuit led us to the difficult decision to inform Tom Thibodeau that we've decided to move in another direction." The president acknowledged Thibodeau's contributions while maintaining that difficult decisions were necessary for title aspirations.

The decision reflects heightened expectations following the team's recent success under Thibodeau's guidance. After seven consecutive seasons without playoff appearances before his arrival, the Knicks transformed into legitimate contenders during his tenure, making the organizational standards significantly more demanding.

Player support emerges amid coaching change

Several Knicks players and prominent supporters publicly defended Thibodeau following news of his dismissal. Swingman Josh Hart immediately took to social media to express appreciation for his former coach's impact on the organization.

Hart's social media post read simply: "Forever Grateful. Thank You!" The message reflected widespread player sentiment regarding Thibodeau's influence on team culture and competitive success. Support extended beyond the roster to include celebrity fans and former players who witnessed the transformation firsthand.

Actor and longtime Knicks supporter Ben Stiller offered extensive praise for Thibodeau's contributions to franchise revival:

I am a Tom Thibodeau fan. He brought this team back. I felt he gave every bit of himself and was always looking to improve. I will always be grateful for how far he brought the Knicks. They are relevant again. They are championship contenders again. The Knicks became winners again with him. Thank you COACH THIBS.

Coaching candidates emerge for vacancy

Multiple potential replacements have already surfaced in early speculation surrounding the Knicks' coaching search. Former Denver Nuggets coach Mike Malone represents an intriguing option, given his New York roots and recent championship experience with the 2023 title-winning Nuggets squad.

Jay Wright's name has generated significant fan interest due to his connections with current Knicks players from his Villanova coaching days. The presence of former Wildcats stars Jalen Brunson, Josh Hart, and Mikal Bridges createsa  natural appeal for Wright's potential candidacy among supporters.

Surprisingly, former NBA player Metta World Peace threw his hat into the ring through social media commentary. The Queens native and former St. John's star declared himself "the perfect choice for head coach" despite limited coaching experience, adding an unexpected element to early speculation.

Future uncertainty surrounds roster construction

Thibodeau's dismissal coincides with growing questions about the team's roster composition and potential trades during the upcoming offseason. Center Karl-Anthony Towns faces trade speculation after reportedly frustrating teammates and coaches with defensive inconsistencies throughout the season.

According to reports, players and coaching staff grew increasingly frustrated with Towns' defensive lapses and apparent unwillingness to address fundamental problems. These concerns have sparked rumors about potential roster changes as the organization seeks championship-caliber personnel.

The Knicks reportedly join multiple NBA teams interested in pursuing Milwaukee Bucks superstar Giannis Antetokounmpo should he become available. Such pursuit would require significant roster restructuring and potentially involve trading current core players to create necessary salary cap space for a championship-level acquisition.

CNN’s lead national security correspondent, Alex Marquardt, announced his sudden departure from the network after eight years, sparking widespread speculation. The journalist, known for his on-air reports on global crises, shared the news in a brief post on X (formerly Twitter) on Monday morning, describing his time at CNN as “terrific” but offering no specific reason for his exit.

According to Daily Mail Online, Marquardt’s departure comes just four months after a defamation lawsuit cost CNN a reported $5 million. The lawsuit stemmed from a 2021 segment that falsely implicated Navy veteran Zachary Young in profiteering during the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The veteran, who filed his lawsuit in 2022, successfully argued that Marquardt’s reporting damaged his reputation and misrepresented his actions. CNN has since retracted the segment and issued an apology, but the fallout has significantly impacted its reputation and newsroom dynamics.

Lawsuit exposes editorial failures

The segment in question aired on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” and painted a grim picture of the situation in Afghanistan during the Taliban’s resurgence. Marquardt alleged that desperate Afghans attempting to flee faced exploitation through exorbitant “black market” evacuation fees. The report included a LinkedIn post from Young, a security consultant, which was tied to claims of illegal profiteering.

However, Young denied any wrongdoing and maintained that he relied on corporate sponsorships and nongovernmental organizations to fund evacuations. He insisted that he never accepted money from Afghan civilians in need of rescue. Despite CNN’s retraction, Young pursued legal action, claiming the report caused irreparable harm to his reputation.

Court proceedings revealed internal texts and emails that painted Marquardt in an unflattering light. In one message, the correspondent wrote, “We’re gonna nail this Zachary Young mf**ker,” a remark that jurors found indicative of a vendetta-driven narrative. The jury ultimately sided with Young, ordering CNN to pay $5 million in damages.

Fallout from the defamation case

The defamation case not only tarnished CNN’s credibility but also raised questions about its editorial judgment. During depositions, senior staffers argued that the apology to Young was unnecessary, as Marquardt had not explicitly accused him of profiteering. Still, jurors were unconvinced, citing the inflammatory nature of the texts and the lack of evidence supporting the claims made in the segment.

Juror Katy Svitenko, a retired schoolteacher, described Marquardt’s demeanor in court as “arrogant” and dismissive. She noted that his refusal to acknowledge any error in the report was a key factor in the jury’s decision.

“[Marquardt] was arrogant. He acted as though he really didn’t need to be there,” Svitenko told Fox News after the trial. “At that point, it seemed as though he had put a target on Mr. Young’s back, and he was not going to let up until he reached his goal.”

Marquardt’s controversial career

Marquardt’s career trajectory has been marked by high-profile assignments and controversies. Before joining CNN, he worked as a foreign correspondent for ABC News and briefly served as a page for NBC. With a degree in science, technology, and international affairs from Georgetown University, he built a reputation as a hard-hitting journalist unafraid to tackle contentious topics.

However, his approach has drawn criticism, particularly in the wake of the defamation lawsuit. The texts and emails revealed during the trial suggested a combative attitude that some viewed as crossing ethical boundaries.

Marquardt’s cryptic farewell on X avoided mention of the lawsuit or the controversy surrounding his reporting. Instead, he thanked his colleagues and described his time at CNN as an “honor.” The network, for its part, declined to comment on his departure, citing it as a “personnel matter.”

What’s next for Marquardt and CNN?

Alex Marquardt’s exit marks the end of a contentious chapter for CNN, which is still grappling with the aftermath of the defamation lawsuit. His departure underscores the challenges facing the network as it seeks to rebuild its reputation and restore public trust.

The Navy veteran at the center of the case, Zachary Young, has emerged vindicated after a lengthy legal battle. He successfully demonstrated that the report misrepresented his actions, and the court’s decision serves as a reminder of the importance of journalistic integrity.

Marquardt has yet to announce his next steps, leaving questions about his future in journalism. As CNN continues to navigate the fallout, the incident serves as a cautionary tale for news organizations about the perils of rushing to air stories without thorough vetting.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is making waves in Washington as the Senate gears up to debate President Donald Trump’s latest tax bill. With talk swirling about GOP opposition, Paul’s remarks have brought new attention to a bill that’s already fueled heated arguments among Republicans.

According to the Washington Examiner, Paul revealed that at least four Senate Republicans are opposed to the “big beautiful bill” in its current form, raising questions about whether the legislation will clear the upper chamber without significant changes. This comes as President Trump applies pressure, warning Paul that a vote against the bill would be seen as standing with the “Radical Left Democrats.”

Paul’s latest comments come as the bill, which has already cleared the House with only one Republican in opposition, now faces scrutiny from a growing group of GOP senators. While Paul insists he wants to support the tax cuts, he’s adamant that he will not back a measure that adds trillions to the national debt—a point of contention that’s now at the center of intra-party negotiations.

Republican divide grows

GOP unity on tax reform is in question as Paul publicly acknowledged resistance from within his own ranks. Speaking in a Sunday CBS interview, Paul explained that “there are four of us at this point,” expressing surprise if the bill is not amended “in a good direction.” He underscored his support for tax cuts but drew the line at what he described as irresponsible fiscal policy.

The pushback is not limited to Paul. While he has not named all the dissenters, reporting by Politico and cited in the Examiner points to several key senators, including Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Susan Collins (R-ME), as harboring concerns. Other names floated include Ron Johnson (R-WI), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Rick Scott (R-FL), indicating that skepticism about the bill’s debt impact is widespread.

Paul’s main sticking point is the proposal’s inclusion of a $5 trillion debt ceiling increase. He clarified that his vote would swing to “yes” if the debt ceiling provision were removed. This hard stance reflects a broader concern among fiscally conservative Republicans, who argue that any gains from tax cuts could be wiped out by ballooning deficits.

Trump steps up pressure

President Trump wasted little time responding to Paul’s wavering support. In a sharp post on Truth Social over the weekend, Trump warned that if Paul votes against the bill, he would be “voting for, along with the Radical Left Democrats, a 68% Tax Increase and, perhaps even more importantly, a first time ever default on U.S. Debt.”

Trump did not hold back, implying that such a move would be unforgivable to Kentuckians. He maintained the administration’s position that economic growth, paired with future spending cuts, would resolve debt concerns. Trump’s message was clear: party unity is crucial for passing what he calls a transformative piece of legislation.

Despite his tough talk, Trump signaled a willingness to negotiate. As reported by the Examiner, he told reporters last week, “I want the Senate and the senators to make the changes they want. It will go back to the House, and we’ll see if we can get them. In some cases, the changes may be something I’d agree with, to be honest.”

Fiscal hawks push back

Paul’s fiscal arguments are resonating with Republicans wary of unchecked spending. He has voiced discomfort with blending tax cuts and debt ceiling increases, telling CBS, “Look, I want to vote for it. I’m for the tax cuts … but at the same time, I don’t want to raise the debt ceiling $5 trillion.”

He also raised concerns about Trump’s tariff policies, saying after a recent conversation with the president, “Republicans used to be for lower taxes. Tariffs are a tax. So if you raise taxes on the private sector, that’s not good for the private sector.” This criticism echoes a longstanding conservative skepticism about tariffs as economic policy.

The House version of the bill passed on May 22, with only Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) voting no. Like Paul, Massie’s opposition springs from concerns over the national debt, underscoring a rift between Republicans who see tax cuts as inherently pro-growth and those who believe fiscal discipline must come first.

Uncertain path in Senate

Paul’s announcement has brought attention to the fragile coalition behind Trump’s tax agenda. The bill’s fate now rests on whether Senate leaders can bridge the gap between tax-cut advocates and deficit hawks. If the debt ceiling increase remains, Paul and others could tank the bill. If eliminated, the legislation could advance but may face new hurdles in the House.

With Trump signaling flexibility, negotiations are likely to continue behind closed doors. Both sides appear determined to secure changes, leaving open the possibility of a revised bill returning to the House for another vote. The next steps will determine not only the future of the tax bill but also the tone of the Republican Party’s fiscal message.

Republican senators, including Paul, are preparing for intense discussions ahead of any final vote. The coming days promise high drama as lawmakers weigh the political risks—and rewards—of siding with the president or standing firm on fiscal principles.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) is pushing back against claims that she orchestrated the creation of fake social media accounts to boost her image, calling the accusations frivolous and lacking evidence.

Allegations against Mace suggest her staff created fake online personas to support her politically, an accusation she firmly denies, prioritizing instead her legislative agenda in technology and women's rights, as Fox News reports.

The claims surfaced in an article by Wired magazine, which cited testimony from former aides and political consultants. Wesley Donehue, a political consultant, provided a deposition mentioned in the report. In response to these allegations, Mace dismissed them as opportunistic and claims they came from "bitter exes."

Article ignites controversy

Mace criticized the reliance on unnamed sources in the Wired article. She expressed skepticism over the claims, stating there wasn't any real evidence backing them. "When a story relies on ‘anonymous former staffers,’ it’s journalist-speak for ‘We didn’t have anything real, so we called the bitter exes,’" she said.

Undeterred, Mace reiterated her dedication to her legislative work. Emphasizing her position as chair of the House Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation, she noted her focus on areas like cybersecurity, data protection, and women's rights. Known for her tech-savvy background as a self-educated computer coder, Mace took pride in her understanding of tech intricacies, saying it offered her an edge over many of her Washington peers.

Advocacy in the spotlight amid criticism

Mace has consistently advocated for policies shielding sexual assault survivors and safeguarding women's and parental rights. Earlier this month, she made headlines again, opposing a transgender activist accused of directing threats towards her. Her commentary on the matter has sparked both support and debate.

Addressing criticism, Mace extolled the virtues of accountability and directness in political discourse. She remarked on the transparency of her communication, contrasting it with the alleged clandestine behavior detailed in the Wired article. "Unlike some folks, I don’t need a burner phone to tell the truth. I say what I mean, I mean what I say, and I post it from my real account, with my name on it. Accountability starts there," she asserted, underscoring her stance on openness.

Firing back at claims

Mace's technological proficiency became a focal point in her defense against these claims. "It turns out writing code teaches you to spot bugs in software and in political BS," she quipped, highlighting how her skills translate into her political life. She also addressed the article’s premise humorously, suggesting the accusations were as credible as the number of burner phones she owns. "About as many burner phones as Wired has credible sources for ‘burner-gate,’" she remarked, dismissing the speculation with humor.

In a lighthearted acknowledgment of the situation, Mace took to social media, joking about having "multiple berners," which resonated with her followers and defused some of the tension surrounding the allegations.

Assessing media credibility

Through these events, Mace emphasized the importance of facing facts head-on. "I lead with facts, I speak for the people who sent me here and I don’t hide behind consultants or filtered statements," she declared, maintaining that transparency remains at the heart of her political ethos.

The issue of media reliance on anonymous sources also drew her ire, as she criticized their tendency to give undue weight to unverified claims. Mace lamented this trend, noting its potential to distract from genuine discourse and legislative priorities. Despite the controversy, Mace's resolve remains focused on her goals. "I’ll keep telling the uncomfortable truth. And if it makes you squirm, good. That means you’re finally paying attention," she concluded, reiterating her commitment to honest dialogue.

Broader themes persist

As conversation about the allegations continues, Mace's stance exemplifies a dedication to accountability and truthfulness in politics. Her comments suggest a willingness to confront issues directly, rooted in both her political and technological expertise.

The issues raised in Wired’s article underscore broader themes of transparency and accountability in modern political arenas, highlighting the complexities of public discourse in an era of rapid information dissemination.

Independent conservative news without a leftist agenda.
© 2025 - American Tribune - All rights reserved
Privacy Policy
magnifier