A significant political shift occurred in Kentucky as state Sen. Robin Webb announced her departure from the Democratic Party to join the Republican ranks.
This party switch has notable repercussions for Gov. Andy Beshear and the state's Democratic Party, adding to their challenges ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, as Fox News reports.
Webb, who represents Kentucky's 18th Senate District -- an area deeply rooted in coal country -- has been a longstanding member of the Democratic Party. She rose to her current position after initially earning a seat in the Kentucky State House back in 1998.
This was achieved by winning against Republican opponent Ramona Gee, indicative of a time when Democrats had a firm grasp on the region, backed by strong support from unionized sectors and coal industry groups.
Webb has been vocal about her reasons for changing her affiliation, emphasizing a growing disconnect between her principles and those of her former party. "The Democratic Party continues its lurch to the left, focusing on policies that hurt the workforce and economic development in my region," Webb stated in explaining her decision.
This dissatisfaction led her to conclude that remaining a Democrat had become untenable and counterproductive for her constituents.
The Kentucky Democratic Party has expressed its discontent with Webb's decision. Colmon Elridge, chair of the group, accused her of aligning with a party intent on undermining public services critical to state residents.
Upon revealing her party switch, Webb received a warm reception from Robert Benvenuti, the Republican Party of Kentucky Chairman. Praising Webb for her thoughtful approach to issues, Benvenuti welcomed her into the Republican fold, echoing the sentiments of many Kentuckians who have similarly felt disillusioned by the Democratic Party's contemporary stances.
In contrast, Democratic Party voices, like that of Elridge, highlighted concerns over the priorities represented by Webb's new political alignment. They conveyed skepticism about her ability to serve the interests of Kentuckians under her new party umbrella, particularly regarding the impact on health care and education.
This party switch not only affects Webb's legislative role but also poses strategic challenges for Beshear. Although Beshear operates as a Democrat, his administration has faced ongoing resistance from a predominantly Republican-controlled state government, including the attorney general's office and both legislative chambers.
Beshear, who is rumored to be considering a presidential run in 2028, may find these local shifts impacting his aspirations. His ability to effectively mobilize the Democratic Party base in Kentucky, already a challenging task given the state's current political climate, is now further complicated by Webb's departure.
Kentucky's political landscape is deeply rooted in history, where Democrats have traditionally enjoyed support from coal mining communities and labor groups. However, the recent trend has seen a rightward shift, with many voters feeling disenfranchised by the national Democratic Party's shift in ideological focus. This has opened doors for Republicans to make inroads in previously Democratic strongholds, including Webb's rural district.
Webb's move could presage further shifts in Kentucky's political dynamics. Her decision may encourage other Democrats feeling similarly disenfranchised to reassess their political affiliations, adding complexity to the upcoming electoral contests.
As Webb joins the Republican Party, she emphasizes her intrinsic connection to her community, stating, "First and foremost, I’m a mother, a rancher and a lawyer with deep personal and professional roots in Kentucky’s coal country." Her focus, she insists, is on pursuing what she perceives to be the best interests of her constituents.
In a state where political affiliations have historically been strongly tied to industry and economic pressures, Webb's switch underscores a broader ideological reevaluation among Kentucky's politicians and voters. This shift not only accentuates the existing political rift but also sets the stage for the upcoming electoral battle lines in the lead-up to the midterm elections.
In a significant ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court has reined in judicial authority to block infrastructure projects based on environmental concerns. The 8-0 decision establishes clearer boundaries for courts reviewing federal agencies' environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
According to Fox News, the ruling centered on a Utah railway project designed to transport crude oil from the Uinta Basin to a national railway network. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the opinion, which establishes that courts must defer to federal agencies' environmental reviews unless they fall outside a "broad zone of reasonableness."
The decision comes amid the Trump administration's ongoing criticism of what it views as judicial overreach in infrastructure and environmental matters. The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, addressed whether federal agencies must consider environmental impacts beyond the specific project under review.
The controversy began when the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) sought approval from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to construct an 88-mile railway in Utah for transporting crude oil. The federal agency conducted an environmental impact statement as required by law.
Opponents in Eagle County, Colorado challenged the review, arguing the STB failed to adequately consider all environmental effects, particularly those that might occur outside the immediate project area. They claimed this oversight violated NEPA requirements for comprehensive environmental assessment.
A D.C. Circuit Court initially ruled in favor of the opponents, ordering a more thorough environmental review before the project could proceed. This decision effectively halted the infrastructure development, prompting SCIC to petition the Supreme Court in March 2024.
Justice Kavanaugh's opinion clarified that NEPA does not require agencies to consider the environmental effects of separate projects, even if the current project might lead to their construction or increased use. The justices emphasized courts should not "micromanage" agency decisions.
"NEPA does not allow courts, 'under the guise of judicial review' of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand," Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion.
The ruling was joined in full by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a separate concurring opinion.
Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado voiced strong opposition to the decision, warning about potential long-term environmental damage resulting from the ruling. She specifically highlighted risks to the Colorado River.
"This decision lays the groundwork for an environmental catastrophe," DeGette said. "As the harsh impacts of the climate crisis increase the vulnerability of the Colorado River, the risk of an oil spill along this train route is unacceptable."
Environmental advocates fear the ruling could weaken environmental protections by limiting the scope of impact statements, potentially allowing projects with significant cumulative effects to proceed with less scrutiny. They argue this could particularly affect communities along transportation routes.
The ruling comes at a time when the Trump administration has repeatedly criticized what it describes as judicial overreach through universal injunctions that have blocked various executive policies. The administration has argued such sweeping judicial actions exceed proper court authority.
"Universal injunctions are an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power," Senator Charles Grassley, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital earlier this month. He cited recent examples of district judges blocking presidential executive orders, arguing that "Judges are not policymakers."
The Supreme Court is expected to address the broader issue of universal injunctions in a separate case in the coming weeks. Legal experts suggest Thursday's decision signals the Court's willingness to place limits on judicial intervention in administrative matters.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton found himself in the middle of an unexpected confrontation in Austin this week after being asked to step away from the House floor by state officials. The encounter, which played out in the waning days of the legislative session, involved several Republican lawmakers and has set off a heated debate about House rules and political protocol.
According to Breitbart, House officials instructed Paxton to exit the floor because he did not have the required invitation to be present during a session. Although some Republican members had asked Paxton to join them for a photo op, the House Sergeant at Arms intervened and enforced the rule.
The rules of the Texas House of Representatives do not grant the Attorney General, or even former House members, automatic access to the floor during session. House Administration Committee Chairman Charlie Geren confirmed that Paxton was directed to the Members’ Lounge instead, where he later posed for photos with lawmakers away from the public eye.
The incident has exposed divisions within the Texas GOP, with some members frustrated about what they see as overly rigid enforcement of House protocol. Supporters of Paxton argue that the decision to remove him, especially after an invitation from Republican colleagues, was unnecessary and heavy-handed.
Paxton himself expressed surprise at the move, stating he believed his previous service in the Legislature gave him authority to be on the floor. However, House staff clarified that current rules only grant such privileges to those explicitly listed, and the Attorney General is not among them. Critics of Paxton say the rules are clear and were applied fairly, regardless of political affiliation.
On the other hand, some see the episode as another example of the ongoing power struggle within the Texas Republican Party, particularly between House leadership and statewide officials like Paxton. Supporters note that the incident could have been handled with more discretion rather than making a public display in the session’s final days.
Charlie Geren, who chairs the House Administration Committee, was quick to explain the basis for the decision. He shared the relevant portion of the House rules with the press, showing that only a specific list of individuals have automatic access to the floor while the House is in session. The list notably excludes the Attorney General.
Geren clarified to the Quorum Report’s Scott Braddock that Paxton was not banned from the chamber, just the floor itself. The Members’ Lounge, where Paxton was escorted, is a VIP area adjacent to the chamber where officials and guests can meet more privately. The disputed photo op eventually took place there, away from the House proceedings.
Paxton acknowledged the authority of both Geren and House Speaker Dade Phelan to grant or deny permission for non-members to be on the floor. Still, he questioned the necessity of the action, suggesting it was blown out of proportion. As Paxton put it: “They made a big deal out of it. They didn’t need to do that.”
While critics of Paxton say the rules are non-negotiable and applied to all, his allies believe the episode is part of a larger pattern of tension between Paxton and House leadership. The Texas Attorney General has been a polarizing figure in state politics, especially after recent high-profile legal and political battles.
Some conservative activists argue the decision to remove Paxton was politically motivated. They point to what they see as ongoing efforts by certain House leaders to sideline outspoken conservatives. For these supporters, the incident is less about House rules and more about intra-party politics.
Meanwhile, observers outside the Republican Party see the event as a simple matter of enforcing long-standing procedures. They argue that the House has an obligation to maintain order and ensure the rules are respected, regardless of the individual’s position or popularity. For them, the controversy should serve as a reminder that no official is above the rules of the chamber.
Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General, found himself asked to leave the House floor during a legislative session after being invited by Republican lawmakers for a photo opportunity.
House officials, citing explicit rules that do not grant floor access to the Attorney General, directed Paxton instead to the Members’ Lounge, where the photo was ultimately taken.
The incident has ignited debate among Texas Republicans about House protocol and the handling of such situations, highlighting deeper divisions within the party. As the legislative session ends, all eyes will be on how House leadership and statewide officials navigate their strained relationships moving forward.
Demonstrators filled the steps of the Supreme Court on May 15 as President Donald Trump’s executive decisions and conservative policies took center stage. The justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, now face a term with high-stakes cases that could impact the future of birthright citizenship, transgender care for minors, and the influence of religion in public schools.
As reported by CNN, these cases reflect a growing national debate over federal power, individual rights, and the boundaries of presidential authority. With more than half the term’s argued cases still awaiting decisions, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is poised to make rulings that will reverberate well beyond Washington.
Key legal battles involve Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, and a challenge by parents seeking religious exemptions from LGBTQ+ books in schools. Each case has attracted intense political and public scrutiny.
President Trump’s executive order to limit birthright citizenship is the first major appeal argued this term. The Justice Department contends that lower courts overreached by issuing nationwide injunctions blocking the president’s order. This has sparked a heated legal debate about the judiciary’s power to halt executive actions.
At the heart of this case is whether a president can overturn more than a century of precedent and the clear language of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. Critics argue Trump’s move undermines the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Supporters believe executive power should not be stymied by broad judicial injunctions.
During oral arguments on May 15, both conservative and liberal justices showed hesitation about immediately allowing Trump’s policy to take effect. The outcome could redefine the balance of power between the judiciary and executive branches, with implications that extend far beyond immigration policy.
Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for minors, known as US v. Skrmetti, is another major case before the court. Republican lawmakers argue that decisions about irreversible medical treatments should be reserved for adulthood and that states have the right to regulate medical care for minors. The law restricts puberty blockers and hormone therapy, imposing civil penalties on doctors who violate it. Notably, surgeries are not an issue in this case.
Supporters of the ban say it protects children from making life-altering decisions at a young age. Opponents, including LGBTQ+ advocates and medical organizations, say it denies necessary medical treatment and singles out transgender youth for discrimination. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared inclined to side with Tennessee during December’s oral arguments.
Recent years have seen both the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers move to reverse political and legal gains made by transgender Americans. The outcome of this case is expected to set a national precedent on whether states can restrict such care for minors.
Parental rights have become a flashpoint in a case involving Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland. Parents sued the district after officials refused to let them opt their children out of reading LGBTQ+ themed books, including “Prince & Knight,” as part of the English curriculum. The parents claim this violates their religious beliefs and constitutes government overreach.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, during arguments in late April, showed sympathy for the parents’ position. This continues a trend of expanding religious rights in recent years. The case arrives amid wider clashes between families and school districts over what content children are exposed to in public schools.
Critics of the parents’ lawsuit argue that public education should be inclusive and reflect a diversity of experiences. Supporters counter that parental rights and religious liberty should be protected against government mandates. The ruling could reshape the boundaries of religious accommodation in public education.
The Supreme Court is also considering significant cases about the power of federal agencies. One involves the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services mandate, which covers screenings and medications like PrEP at no cost to patients. The justices are evaluating who can appoint members of the board that decides what services must be covered, a decision that could affect access to care for millions.
Another case challenges the Universal Service Fund, a program that funds broadband and phone service in rural and low-income areas. A conservative group argues that Congress unconstitutionally delegated its taxing authority to the agency overseeing the fund. The court’s decision could limit or uphold how agencies operate without direct congressional approval.
Since Trump began his second term in January, the court has faced more than a dozen emergency appeals on policies including transgender military service, deportation protections for Venezuelans, and presidential control over independent agencies. While Trump has often criticized the courts, he has won most recent emergency rulings, showing the court’s willingness to support executive authority.
Speaking to reporters in Morristown, N.J., Trump expressed clear frustration over the deadly Russian attacks but also leveled pointed criticism at Zelensky and U.S. leadership.
According to The Hill, Trump condemned Putin for Russia’s missile and drone barrage on Ukrainian cities that left at least a dozen people dead and many more wounded. He did not hold back his views, calling Putin’s actions “needlessly killing a lot of people” and suggesting that something fundamental had changed with the Russian leader.
Trump’s unusually tough words for Putin, coupled with his sharp rebuke of Zelensky, highlight the complexities of America’s response to the war in Ukraine. The president’s remarks come as pressure mounts in Washington about how best to support Ukraine while holding Russia accountable.
In his remarks Sunday, Trump made it clear he was disturbed by the scope and brutality of Russia’s latest attack. “Yeah, I’ll give you an update, I’m not happy with what Putin’s doing. He’s killing a lot of people and I don’t know what the hell happened to Putin,” Trump told journalists, referencing the ongoing missile attacks on Kyiv and other cities. These attacks, among the largest Russia has carried out, have left a grim toll on Ukraine’s civilian population.
Trump’s relationship with Putin has long drawn scrutiny, but his most recent statements marked a notable shift. While the president stated, “I’ve known him a long time. Always gotten along with him,” he did not hesitate to criticize the Russian leader’s decisions. He emphasized that he is “not happy at all” with Putin and that he is “surprised at what he’s seeing,” suggesting that new U.S. sanctions on Russia could be forthcoming.
As Russia continues to target Ukrainian cities with rockets and drones, Trump’s comments have resonated with many Americans concerned about the stability of Europe and the need for strong U.S. leadership.
Later Sunday, Trump expanded on his views in a post on Truth Social, where he again called out both Putin and Zelensky. While reiterating that Putin “has gone absolutely CRAZY!” and is “needlessly killing a lot of people,” Trump also took aim at Zelensky for what he described as unhelpful rhetoric.
Trump wrote that Zelensky “was doing his country ‘no favors by talking the way he does,’” apparently referring to Zelensky’s sharp criticism of the U.S. and the West for their silence after the latest attacks. According to Zelensky, Russia launched nearly 300 attack drones and dozens of ballistic missiles overnight, targeting Kyiv and 11 other regions.
The Ukrainian president has argued that these attacks prove Russia is not interested in peace, stating, “The world may go on a weekend break, but the war continues, regardless of weekends and weekdays. This cannot be ignored.” Trump, however, countered that Zelensky’s approach was counterproductive and insisted the war would never have started if he were in office.
Trump’s rhetoric on Sunday drew attention not only for its strong tone against Putin but also for his repeated claim that he bears no responsibility for the war. In his Truth Social post, Trump wrote, “This is a War that would never have started if I were President. This is Zelensky’s, Putin’s, and Biden’s War, not ‘Trump’s,’ I am only helping to put out the big and ugly fires, that have been started through Gross Incompetence and Hatred.”
Critics of Trump argue that his comments downplay the seriousness of Russia’s aggression and risk diminishing U.S. support for Ukraine at a crucial time. Supporters, however, say Trump is right to pressure both sides and to demand more accountability from America’s allies.
While Trump’s earlier approach to Putin was often more measured, his recent remarks suggest a growing impatience with the Russian leader’s actions. His call for a 30-day ceasefire reportedly discussed with both Putin and Zelensky, has yet to yield results as Russian attacks have continued.
Trump’s tough talk has led to ra enewed debate in Washington over how to respond to the war in Ukraine. The president’s willingness to consider new sanctions on Russia signals a potential shift in U.S. policy, though he has not yet outlined specific measures.
Many lawmakers have called for a stronger U.S. response, while others caution against further escalation. Trump’s criticism of Zelensky has also sparked discussion about the best path forward for Ukraine, with some warning that American unity is vital for standing up to Russian aggression.
As the conflict rages on, Trump’s comments have underscored the challenges facing policymakers in the U.S. and abroad. The president’s remarks have put a spotlight on the delicate balance between supporting Ukraine, holding Russia accountable, and ensuring American interests are protected.
The Texas House took a significant step toward bolstering state-federal cooperation on immigration policy by approving Senate Bill 8, which mandates that sheriffs work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by serving federal immigration warrants at local jails.
Senate Bill 8, receiving an 89-50 vote, was amended to encompass all Texas counties and requires another House vote before its consideration by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, as Fox News reports.
Initially presented to apply only to counties with populations exceeding 100,000, Senate Bill 8 was broadened by GOP state Rep. David Spiller, who sponsors the legislation.
This adjustment ensures that all counties in Texas are subject to the requirements, fortifying the statewide initiative to address immigration enforcement within local jurisdictions.
The legislation instructs county sheriffs to initiate 287(g) agreements with ICE. Such agreements authorize local law enforcement to perform immigration enforcement duties within their jurisdictions, both within jails and as part of their routine activities.
The bill also includes provisions for the Texas attorney general to take legal action against sheriffs who fail to comply with these agreements.
At present, 72 law enforcement agencies within Texas have entered into 287(g) agreements with ICE. An additional four agreements are pending, highlighting a growing trend among local authorities to engage in federal immigration enforcement efforts.
Around 20% of these agreements implement a "task force model," which extends immigration enforcement to routine policing duties.
To facilitate the transition and mitigate associated expenses, grants will be provided to sheriffs. These grants are designed to cover costs associated with the enforcement duties that are not reimbursed by the federal government.
Abbott, through his Deputy Press Secretary Eduardo Leal, has expressed the administration's support for complete cooperation with federal immigration efforts. "Gov. Abbott has made it clear that cities and counties across Texas must fully cooperate with the federal government efforts to arrest, jail, and deport illegal immigrants," Leal stated, indicating that the Governor will review the legislation if it reaches his desk.
Despite the legislative momentum, there are notable concerns from advocacy groups representing the interests of immigrants. Some worry that the bill could lead to racial profiling and instill fear among undocumented individuals residing in Texas. These groups argue that the broader enforcement scope may disproportionately affect certain communities based on racial or ethnic lines.
Spiller, advocating for the bill's passage, asserted that the legislation aims to enhance border security. "This bill is not immigration reform," he clarified, emphasizing its role as a component of wider security measures rather than a standalone immigration policy.
Senate Bill 8 now awaits a final vote in the Texas House. Should it pass, the bill will return to the Texas Senate. The Senate must either agree to the changes made by the House or negotiate any differences between the two chambers. Once both legislative bodies reach consensus, the bill will be forwarded to Abbott for his review and potential approval.
In a significant move that could reshape America's energy landscape, President Donald Trump has signed executive orders to quadruple U.S. nuclear power by 2050, sparking both support and controversy.
Trump’s orders aim to significantly increase the nation's nuclear energy capacity while reforming safety regulations, leading to divided responses, as The Hill reports.
On Friday, Trump delivered sweeping mandates designed to bolster the United States’ nuclear power. The orders include easing some health and environmental requirements that have traditionally governed the industry. Among the notable stipulations is a directive criticizing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's stringent radiation safety standards.
The executive orders challenge the commission's safety models, which state that there is no safe radiation exposure threshold and suggest harm is directly proportional to exposure levels. These models have been described in the order as lacking scientific basis and leading to irrational policy outcomes.
The orders advocate for reassessing these standards, specifically the "as low as reasonably achievable" approach, and suggest reassessing the assumed linear relationship between radiation exposure and cancer risk. In accelerating nuclear licensing processes, the executive orders demand that decisions on nuclear reactor licenses occur within 18 months, which is significantly faster than the current multi-year review process.
Additionally, the orders direct the commission to reduce the staffing and functions of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
These measures form part of a broader ambition to ramp up nuclear energy capacity from the current 100 gigawatts to 400 gigawatts by mid-century. President Trump has also outlined a goal for the construction of 10 new large nuclear reactors by 2030. Moreover, the administration is also pushing for increased domestic production of nuclear energy from both nuclear and fossil fuels.
In particular, one directive utilizes the Defense Production Act to facilitate uranium procurement. The Department of Energy has received orders to produce a plan within 120 days to expand domestic uranium enrichment efforts.
The orders have stirred heated debate. Advocates of the decision highlight the need for energy security and economic competitiveness. "With these actions, President Trump is telling the world that America will build again, and American nuclear renaissance can begin," remarked White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios.
Conversely, critics express grave concerns over the potential relaxation of safety measures. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) condemned the executive orders as risky, arguing that they could jeopardize nuclear safety in the United States. He stressed the importance of maintaining stringent standards for nuclear reactors crucial to reducing carbon emissions.
"The White House should not be playing with the safety of nuclear reactors," Pallone emphasized in his statement. The potential impact of these orders has become a focal point of public and political discourse.
Meanwhile, Trump stressed the modern safety and environmental achievements of the nuclear industry. He praised it as a vibrant sector, underscoring the safety innovations and environmental benefits that come with advancements in nuclear technology.
Although the executive orders are primarily focused on nuclear energy, another order concerning scientific research was anticipated from the president. This reflects a broader agenda embracing domestic production and innovation within the energy frontier.
As these directives unfold, attention will focus on how they impact the nation's energy strategy, safety protocols, and environmental considerations. The president's actions could signify the beginning of a new era characterized by a revitalized nuclear industry combined with pioneering energy policies.
As debate continues to ripple through political, environmental, and scientific communities, the full implications of these executive orders are yet to unfold, leaving many to speculate on the future of energy regulation in the U.S.
The passage of President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" in the House of Representatives has sparked a heated debate among Republicans over America's mounting national debt. Reps. Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson put themselves squarely in the spotlight, refusing to back President Donald Trump’s celebrated “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”
According to Fox News, Massie and Davidson took to social media on Thursday, May 22, to explain their “no” votes on the high-profile legislation, citing grave concerns over the nation’s $36 trillion debt crisis. Their opposition came even as the House passed the bill by a razor-thin margin, giving Speaker Mike Johnson and President Trump a hard-fought legislative victory.
The bill, a sweeping package that advances Trump’s priorities on taxes, immigration, energy, and defense, promises to cut $1.5 trillion in government spending. But critics, including these two Republican holdouts, warn it will actually swell deficits in the short term and fail to address the immediate fiscal crisis facing the United States.
Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio wasted no time clarifying their positions to constituents and colleagues alike. Davidson, voicing frustration just before the vote, made clear that promises of future spending cuts were not enough.
He stated, “While I love many things in the bill, promising someone else will cut spending in the future does not cut spending. Deficits do matter and this bill grows them now. The only Congress we can control is the one we’re in. Consequently, I cannot support this big deficit plan. NO.”
Massie echoed Davidson’s stance, emphasizing that serious action was needed immediately, not in some distant future. On the House floor, Massie delivered a sober warning about the bill’s fiscal impact, stating:
I’d love to stand here and tell the American people, ‘We can cut your taxes and increase spending and everything is going to be just fine.’ But I can’t do that because I'm here to deliver a dose of reality. This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near-term, but promises our government will be fiscally responsible five years from now. Where have we heard that before?
Despite the coordinated push for party unity from House leadership, the close vote and vocal dissent from Massie and Davidson highlighted the ongoing rift within Republican ranks over how to address the national debt.
The White House was quick to respond to the opposition. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized Massie and Davidson’s votes, suggesting they should face primary challenges for bucking the party’s key agenda item. Leavitt pointedly asked, “Did they want to see a tax hike? Did they want to see our country go bankrupt? That’s the alternative by them trying to vote ‘no.’ The president believes the Republican Party needs to be unified.”
As Trump allies celebrated passage of the bill, Massie took to social media to fundraise off the backlash, writing on X, “The big beautiful bill has issues. I chose to vote against it because it’s going to blow up our debt. For voting on principle, I now have the President AND his press Secretary campaigning against me from the White House podium. Can you help me by donating?”
The political tension was further stoked by former Rep. Bob Good, who lost his seat after supporting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over Trump in the 2024 primaries. Good warned that “The Big Ugly Truth is that the Big Ugly Bill will push the Big Ugly Debt over $60 trillion,” underscoring how Trump’s critics within the GOP remain deeply concerned about fiscal responsibility.
For fiscal conservatives, the numbers remain alarming. Even with $1.5 trillion in planned spending cuts, the United States’ national debt stands at over $36 trillion, with the Treasury Department reporting an additional $1.05 trillion spent over government receipts in the current fiscal year. The House Republican leadership’s win, while celebrated, is viewed by some as a temporary reprieve rather than a lasting solution.
Massie, wearing his trademark national debt clock pin, described the legislation as a “debt bomb ticking,” painting a dire picture for those who believe the bill will do little to curb runaway spending.
According to Fox News Digital columnist David Marcus, the American public’s indifference to the deficit may be one of the greatest challenges facing lawmakers who want real reform.Rep. Thomas Massie said on the House floor: “This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near-term, but promises our government will be fiscally responsible five years from now. Where have we heard that before?”
Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson, two vocal House Republicans, stood apart this week as they voted against President Trump’s signature legislation, citing what they see as a looming fiscal crisis. Both lawmakers used social media to explain their votes, warning that the bill’s promises of future savings do not counteract the immediate reality of rising deficits and an ever-growing national debt.
The House passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act by a single vote, but the debate over how to address the $36 trillion debt is far from over. As President Trump and House leadership move forward, the fate of fiscal hawks like Massie and Davidson—and the voices of their supporters—will remain a key storyline as Republicans continue to wrestle with America’s debt and spending challenges.
An explosive new poll is casting a harsh spotlight on top media figures and their coverage of former President Joe Biden’s mental health.
According to Breitbart, a Rasmussen survey found that 63 percent of likely voters believe “major media journalists were aware of Joe Biden’s declining mental condition, but covered it up.” The poll, conducted from May 19 to 21, surveyed 1,012 likely voters about their perceptions of both the media and Biden’s inner circle.
The poll’s results come at a tense moment in American politics under President Donald Trump, with debates over press credibility intensifying. The findings suggest a broad skepticism toward mainstream media’s handling of Biden’s presidency and highlight divisions not just among political parties but also within demographic groups.
A significant majority—63 percent—of respondents told Rasmussen they believe prominent journalists, including CNN anchor Jake Tapper, actively concealed information about Biden’s alleged cognitive decline. Only 27 percent called such a cover-up “unlikely,” suggesting widespread distrust in mainstream newsrooms. Breitbart’s coverage emphasized that this skepticism is not limited to traditional Republican bases.
The breakdown is striking: 57 percent of Black voters and 66 percent of Hispanic voters polled agreed with the claim that media knowingly hid information on Biden’s health. Even among Democrats, 43 percent said they thought major media outlets participated in a cover-up. Such cross-demographic agreement is rare, especially in today’s polarized environment.
Media critics argue that the press had a duty to thoroughly investigate and report on Biden’s fitness for office. They point to persistent rumors, viral video clips, and speculation about Biden’s memory and acuity as evidence that legitimate questions went unasked or underreported by establishment journalists.
The issue of a media cover-up was not the only area of concern for voters. When asked about the seriousness of claims that Biden’s own staffers were aware of his decline and actively worked to hide it, 72 percent of respondents said this was a serious matter. Just 23 percent downplayed its significance.
Observers note that the gap between public trust and media self-assurance continues to widen. Breitbart’s John Nolte wrote that “the corporate media damaged Democrats a whole lot more than Republicans with this gaslighting campaign,” arguing that had the press been more forthcoming, Democrats would have had time to prepare a new candidate for the 2024 presidential race.
Nolte further asserted that the situation has created difficulties for potential 2028 Democratic presidential hopefuls, such as Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, and Gavin Newsom, who had publicly defended Biden’s capabilities. Navigating the fallout from these allegations could become a major challenge for their political futures.
Beyond the Biden controversy, Breitbart’s coverage listed a series of what it called “media hoaxes”—stories or narratives promoted by major outlets that critics allege were exaggerated, misleading, or outright false. Examples cited included the “Russia Collusion Hoax,” “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot,” and the “Covington KKKids Hoax.”
Nolte accused mainstream outlets of repeatedly “gaslighting” the public, sometimes in service of political agendas. He wrote, “Look at how the media have shamelessly whored out their credibility, and to what end?” He went on to suggest that the next Gallup poll on media trust would be “interesting,” given the mounting skepticism.
The poll’s findings and the accompanying critical commentary underscore a broader crisis of confidence in American journalism. Supporters of legacy media insist that coverage of Biden was fair and based on available evidence, while critics accuse outlets of sacrificing objectivity for political expedience. The debate over what constitutes responsible journalism has rarely been more intense.
The revelation that 63 percent of likely voters believe major journalists concealed President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline is reverberating through both the media world and political circles. Critics argue that this perceived lack of transparency not only undermined trust in journalists but also may have affected the Democratic Party’s ability to prepare for future elections.
With the Rasmussen poll showing skepticism across demographic and partisan lines, the controversy over Biden’s health and the media’s responsibility is unlikely to fade soon. Claims about a cover-up by both journalists and Biden’s staffers are now fueling wider questions about accountability and transparency at the highest levels of American politics and media.
As the nation looks ahead, the issue of trust—both in elected officials and those tasked with holding them accountable—remains central. The poll’s results and the sharp reactions they have provoked suggest that debates over press integrity and political honesty will continue to shape public discourse in the months and years to come.