The Trump administration has cleared the way for construction to resume on a major offshore wind farm off the New York coast after a month-long halt.
According to Fox Business, the $5 billion Empire Wind project, led by Norwegian energy company Equinor, has been allowed to re-commence work following the lifting of a federal stop-work order originally issued in April due to environmental analysis concerns.
On April 16, 2025, U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum halted all construction on the Empire Wind project, citing an environmental review that he said lacked adequate analysis. The decision surprised stakeholders and raised fears of financial instability within the renewable energy sector.
Empire Wind, which aims to supply electricity to half a million New York homes, had already completed 30 percent of its development when the stop-work order was issued. During the suspension, Equinor reported losses of $50 million per week to keep the project on standby.
The project had initially been granted its lease in 2017, during President Donald Trump’s first term. It later received final federal approval in 2023, while President Joe Biden was in office, as part of a broader effort to increase renewable energy capacity nationwide.
When issuing the stop-work order, Burgum referenced concerns from an internal report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The report raised possible risks to marine mammals and fishing activity in the region, leading the department to pause offshore work until additional assessments were completed.
Although President Trump has been critical of wind energy, describing some projects as costly eyesores that endanger wildlife, his administration eventually decided to allow construction on the Empire Wind site to resume. Equinor leadership actively engaged with both U.S. and Norwegian officials during the suspension to seek a resolution.
Equinor CEO Anders Opedal praised the Trump administration’s decision, saying it prevented further job losses and sustained critical infrastructure investments. Opedal also thanked Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere and Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg for advocating on behalf of the project.
Equinor noted that the project's offshore installation is still scheduled to begin later in 2025. The company plans to reach full commercial operation by 2027 despite the temporary delay in development caused by the federal pause.
The energy firm is currently conducting an updated economic evaluation of the Empire Wind effort during the second quarter of 2025. This review aims to better understand the long-term financial and operational impacts brought on by the government-mandated interruption.
The company is also coordinating closely with both suppliers and regulatory agencies to minimize the long-term effects of the construction delay. Officials say this collaboration will help maintain the project’s overall momentum without compromising compliance and safety standards.
According to Equinor, New York Governor Kathy Hochul played a vital role in restarting the project by working alongside state and federal authorities during negotiations. The company said her efforts helped bridge concerns between environmental regulators and energy developers.
The Empire Wind initiative is part of a broader growth of offshore wind in the U.S., although Trump has largely excluded wind power from his new domestic energy strategy. On January 20, 2025, the president signed an executive order pausing new leases and permitting wind developments nationwide.
Despite that order, there are currently four offshore wind farms operating in the U.S., with three additional ones under construction: Sunrise Wind and Revolution Wind in the Northeast, both led by Orsted, and the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project managed by Dominion Energy.
The Empire Wind project represents one of the largest renewable energy investments on the East Coast. Totaling $5 billion in value, the project is expected to transform the clean energy outlook for New York, reducing dependency on fossil fuels and creating new employment opportunities. Even with the resumption of work, the temporary shutdown added significant challenges. Equinor warned early in May that the pause could lead to losses amounting to billions of dollars if a timely resolution was not reached.
In a dramatic reversal, the U.S. Department of Education has canceled a $37.7 million penalty previously imposed on Grand Canyon University, clearing the institution of any misconduct.
Breitbart News reported that the nation's largest Christian university was formally cleared by the Education Department after a case accusing it of misleading students about program costs was dismissed with prejudice.
The fine — the largest ever proposed against a university — was levied in 2023 during the Biden administration following an investigation into whether GCU had misled students about the cost of its doctoral programs. At the time, federal officials claimed that more than 7,500 students had been affected. The department accused the university of failing to adequately disclose the requirements and total expenses of the program, charges GCU vehemently denied.
GCU’s leadership pushed back against the allegations from the start, calling them unfounded and asserting that the university had always provided full cost information. In response to the fine, the university stated it would take all necessary measures to challenge what it described as false claims. The administration insisted its communication with students adhered to federal standards and transparency rules.
On Friday, the Department of Education’s Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a formal Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, closing the case with prejudice. This legal designation means the case cannot be reopened or filed again in the future. The decision was first reported on Monday by the Daily Caller.
The dismissal explicitly stated that there were no findings of wrongdoing against the university or any of its employees, agents, or representatives. It also confirmed that no fines would be imposed as part of the case outcome. The Education Department found that GCU had not violated any Title IV federal student aid regulations, the legal foundation for the prior enforcement action.
Brian Mueller, president of Grand Canyon University, welcomed the decision and underscored the university's commitment to ethical practices. “The facts clearly support our contention that we were wrongly accused of misleading our Doctoral students,” Mueller told Fox News. “We appreciate the recognition that those accusations were without merit.”
The initial fine became a point of contention among groups who believed the Biden administration was unfairly scrutinizing religiously affiliated institutions. Critics argued that faith-based colleges, like GCU, were being held to stricter standards than other schools. A 2024 report from Breitbart News claimed the Biden-Harris administration had disproportionately investigated Christian and religious colleges while giving less attention to elite nonreligious universities.
In response to the case’s dismissal, a spokesperson for the Trump-era Department of Education said that future enforcement actions will focus on evidence, not ideology. “Unlike the previous Administration, we will not persecute and prosecute colleges and universities based on their religious affiliation,” said DOE spokesperson Ellen Keast. “The Trump Administration will continue to ensure every institution of higher education is held accountable based on facts – but Department enforcement will be for the purpose of serving students, not political bias.”
The fine attracted attention not only because of its size but also because of the implications it had for how federal oversight is applied across different types of institutions. GCU officials maintained that the enforcement measure was not only excessive but also rooted in flawed or misleading interpretations of their practices.
Grand Canyon University consistently maintained that its doctoral program disclosures were honest and transparent. In a previous five-page statement, which followed the announcement of the fine, the school accused the Department of making “lies and deceptive statements.” The administration emphasized that its cost breakdowns were clear and made available to students throughout the admissions process.
The case’s resolution marks the end of what had been a months-long effort by GCU to restore its reputation. The university serves tens of thousands of students and stands as the country’s largest Christian institution of higher learning. The exoneration removes a cloud that had loomed over the school since the initial allegations were made public in 2023.
“Grand Canyon University categorically denies every accusation in the Department of Education’s statement,” the university said after the original fine was announced, as reported by the Associated Press. “We will take all measures necessary to defend itself from these false accusations.”
The $37.7 million fine was the largest single enforcement action attempted under Title IV, which governs how federal student aid is administered. That level of financial penalty emphasized the seriousness with which the Biden-era Department of Education pursued the case. But with the dismissal now in place, it serves instead as one of the most significant reversals in the department’s recent history.
For GCU, the decision allows the university to move forward without the shadow of government sanction. The case’s dismissal affirms GCU's longstanding position that its communications with students were accurate and that the charges against it lacked merit. Whether this changes how similar cases are handled in the future remains to be seen.
President Donald Trump took aim at Walmart over the weekend, accusing the retail giant of unjustifiably raising prices in response to U.S. tariff policies.
The clash follows Walmart’s announcement that it will increase prices as early as next month, citing financial pressures from tariff-related costs and a notable drop in quarterly profits, as The Hill reports.
On Thursday, Walmart revealed plans to begin raising prices sometime next month, attributing the move to mounting expenses caused by a series of tariffs implemented on Trump's order. The announcement was part of the company's quarterly earnings release, which noted a decline in profit compared to the same period last year.
According to Walmart, its first-quarter earnings fell to $4.45 billion, or 56 cents per share -- a decline from the $5.10 billion, or 63 cents per share, reported a year earlier. The company also withheld a future profit forecast, citing the unpredictability of today’s economic environment. Commenting during an earnings call, Walmart CEO Doug McMillion explained that the retail chain was “not able to absorb all the pressure” stemming from the tariffs, referencing the tight operating margins that are common in the retail sector.
By Saturday, Trump had issued his personal response via his Truth Social platform, lashing out at Walmart’s explanation for the upcoming price increases. He accused the corporation of pointing fingers at tariff policies instead of managing cost internally.
“Walmart should STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain,” Trump posted. He went on to highlight Walmart’s profitability, stating, “Walmart made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS last year, far more than expected.”
The president suggested that Walmart should deal with the extra costs itself rather than shifting them to shoppers, writing that Walmart and China alike should "EAT THE TARIFFS." He added, “I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!”
In response to Trump’s criticisms, a Walmart spokesperson issued a statement to The Hill on Saturday, emphasizing the company’s long-standing efforts to minimize costs at checkout. “We have always worked to keep our prices as low as possible and we won’t stop,” the spokesperson said.
The company further explained that although they aim to shield consumers from price escalations, they can only continue doing so within the constraints of thin retail profit margins. “We’ll keep prices as low as we can for as long as we can given the reality of small retail margins,” the spokesperson added. Retail experts have warned for months that the tariff landscape could translate into added costs for American consumers, particularly in the household goods and apparel markets where Walmart commands substantial market share.
Adding another layer to the economic discussion, the Trump administration earlier in the week enacted a significant change in its approach to tariffs on Chinese goods. The White House reduced those tariffs from a peak of 145% to 30% for a temporary 90-day window.
In response, the Chinese government also eased its retaliatory measures, bringing its tariff rate down from 125% to 10%. This mutual decrease in trade penalties marked a notable reversal in the international tariff policy pursued in past years.
These adjustments followed a pattern of shifting trade strategies during Trump’s presidency, with occasional exemptions applied to Chinese imports and a rollback of a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico. A 90-day pause on “reciprocal” tariffs affecting various other countries was also introduced as part of the broader reassessment.
Despite the short-term relief from lowered tariffs, Walmart's leadership remains cautious about future financial outlooks. The absence of a profit forecast for the current quarter reflects the instability businesses face amid evolving fiscal policies and global trade dynamics.
Walmart is one of the largest private employers and retailers in the United States, and its pricing decisions can have a ripple effect across the broader retail landscape. Whether the company’s upcoming price adjustments will impact its customer base remains to be seen.
As consumers prepare for potential changes at store shelves, the public dispute between Trump and Walmart underscores the broader debate over who ultimately bears the burden of international trade decisions: corporations or shoppers.
Vice President JD Vance is positioning himself as the leading contender for the 2028 Republican presidential primary, as demonstrated by recent survey results.
In a recent poll by J.L. Partners, Vance topped his peers, marking a significant early lead over other potential Republican candidates for the nomination, as the New York Post reports.
The poll, which surveyed 975 registered voters on May 13-14, revealed Vance enjoying the support of 46% of respondents. This number sets him apart from potential competitors, none of whom managed to achieve double-digit support in the poll. Among these candidates, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis secured 8%, with Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy following at 7%. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Senator Ted Cruz each earned 6% support, and former Ambassador Nikki Haley attained a support level of 5%.
Vance, who gained nationwide recognition with his memoir Hillbilly Elegy, marked a significant presence as Trump's running mate at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. His campaign seems to benefit from his position as Vice President, combined with his popularity within the party's ranks. It's worth noting that Vance and Rubio have sustained a particularly amicable relationship, with Vance referring to Rubio as possibly his "best friend" in the administration during an interview with Fox News.
Rubio, an experienced player in Republican circles, currently serves as a trusted cabinet member handling various national security roles. President Donald Trump praised Vance and Rubio's contributions to the party earlier this year, highlighting a talented roster of individuals ready to continue Republican leadership. The race for the Republican nomination is still in its nascent stages, with many potential candidates assessing their chances.
On the Democratic Party side, former Vice President Kamala Harris emerged as a strong contender with 30% support from those polled, creating a notable political landscape as the parties prepare for future elections. Other Democrat figures in the survey included former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Govs. Josh Shapiro and Gavin Newsom, with all trailing Harris in voter support.
Despite the Democrat challengers gaining a portion of the electorate, Vance appears consistently on the ascent within Republican forecasts. Caroline Mulvaney, research manager at J.L. Partners, mentioned that Vance might find additional backing from those supporting candidates less likely to secure a place on the Republican ticket. There is also potential for converting support from undecided voters, promising future growth in his coalition.
The concept of Trump stepping in for another term may float around among some party members, despite constitutional restrictions and opposition from congressional Republicans. Vance, however, remains a key figure, with even the brief mention of Donald Trump Jr. impacting voter support only marginally.
Trump Jr., when appended to the same candidate list within the poll, gathered a respectable 14% support yet could not budge Vance's leading position. The Daily Telegraph, a U.K. publication, was among the first to report these findings, stirring discussions about the potential Republican field as the election cycle approaches.
As attention continues to gravitate towards 2028, President Trump's remarks highlight the depth within the Republican Party. In March, he praised a selection of party members, signaling confidence in their capabilities as potential leaders of the Republican ticket.
The poll indicates that there is widespread enthusiasm within the GOP ranks, setting the tone for upcoming strategies toward securing the presidency. Whether emanating from Trump allies or new voices emerging within the party, each contender plays a role in shaping the direction of the Republican platform.
The key question remains how GOP contenders will strategize moving forward. Will candidates like Vance successfully consolidate their power, or will there be hurdles set by lesser-known candidates capable of rallying substantial support?
Long before official campaign launches, these rumors and insights provide a snapshot of future ambitions. The political landscape continues to evolve, reflecting candidate positioning and voter sentiment as the Republican Party matches energies against its Democratic Party counterparts.
President Trump's administration implements new measures to identify and separate transgender service members from the U.S. military forces.
According to The Hill, the Defense Department has issued a directive requiring gender dysphoria screening during annual physical examinations as part of its broader initiative to remove transgender individuals from military service.
The Pentagon's acting head of personnel and readiness signed a memorandum instructing senior officials to begin identifying affected service members through the Defense Department's Periodic Health Assessment. This new screening process represents a significant shift in military health evaluation procedures, directly targeting service members who may experience gender dysphoria, a condition where individuals do not identify with their biological sex.
President Trump's January executive order declared gender dysphoria "inconsistent" with military readiness, effectively reversing a Biden-era policy that had permitted transgender individuals to serve openly. The administration has not provided specific evidence demonstrating how gender dysphoria impacts military fitness or deployment capabilities.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's initial attempts to implement the policy faced legal challenges. However, a recent Supreme Court decision has cleared the way for the administration to proceed with enforcing the transgender service ban.
The Pentagon estimates approximately 4,200 service members may be affected by this policy change, significantly higher than the 1,000 individuals who have self-identified as having gender dysphoria.
Active-duty service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria have until June 6 to voluntarily separate from the military, while reserve forces face a July 7 deadline. Those choosing voluntary separation before these dates may qualify for separation pay.
The Defense Department has established a two-tier system for separation benefits. Service members who leave voluntarily within the specified timeframe will receive more favorable separation packages compared to those who remain past the deadlines.
Unit commanders have been granted authority to identify service members showing "symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria" for medical review, adding another layer to the identification process.
The military's annual health assessment will now include specific questions designed to identify service members with gender dysphoria. This systematic screening approach represents an unprecedented step in military medical evaluations.
Military medical personnel will conduct individualized medical record reviews for service members identified through the screening process or by their commanding officers.
The Pentagon's chief spokesperson Sean Parnell has indicated that affected service members who do not voluntarily separate may face forced removal with reduced benefits.
The Defense Department's implementation of gender dysphoria screening during annual physicals marks a decisive step in President Trump's military transgender ban. This policy affects thousands of service members, with the Pentagon identifying 4,200 potentially impacted individuals. As the June and July deadlines approach, transgender service members must decide whether to separate voluntarily with full benefits or risk forced removal with reduced compensation.
A House Republican from Missouri takes the lead in a bipartisan push to restrict stock market activities among members of Congress and their spouses.
According to Fox News, Rep. Mark Alford plans to introduce legislation mirroring Sen. Josh Hawley's "PELOSI Act" that would prohibit lawmakers and their spouses from trading individual stocks while serving in Congress.
The proposed legislation allows a 180-day grace period for current and newly elected lawmakers to comply with the restrictions. While individual stock trading would be banned, the bill permits investments in diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, and U.S. Treasury bonds.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has endorsed the trading ban initiative, emphasizing the need to restore public trust in Congress. The Republican leader acknowledged that "a few bad actors" have damaged Americans' confidence in their elected officials regarding stock trading activities.
President Donald Trump has also thrown his support behind the proposed legislation. During a recent interview with Time magazine, Trump expressed his willingness to sign such a ban if it reaches his desk, specifically referencing Nancy Pelosi's trading activities.
Democratic leadership has joined the chorus of supporters, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries backing the proposal last week. This cross-party consensus signals growing momentum for reform in congressional trading practices.
Under Alford's bill, lawmakers who violate the trading restrictions would face significant penalties. Any profits from prohibited transactions must be surrendered to the U.S. Treasury Department.
The House and Senate ethics committees would have the authority to impose additional fines on violators. These penalties could amount to 10% of each wrongful transaction's value.
Rep. Alford explained the rationale behind the strict measures in a statement:
As public servants, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and avoid the mere appearance of corruption. Unfortunately, too many members of Congress are engaging in suspicious stock trades based on non-public information to enrich themselves. These gross violations of the public trust make clear: we must finally take action to ban members and their spouses from owning or selling individual stocks.
The legislation maintains several investment avenues for lawmakers to manage their portfolios while serving in Congress. These options are designed to minimize potential conflicts of interest.
Representatives can still invest in diversified financial instruments that reduce the risk of insider trading. The allowed investments include mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, and government securities.
This approach aims to balance the need for ethical governance with lawmakers' ability to participate in financial markets through broader, less controversial investment vehicles.
Rep. Mark Alford's House bill represents a significant step toward implementing comprehensive stock trading restrictions for members of Congress. The Missouri Republican's legislation builds upon Senator Hawley's Senate version while garnering support from major political parties. The proposed reforms would fundamentally change how elected officials manage their investments during their tenure in Congress. With backing from House leadership, the president, and opposition party figures, the bill stands as a notable attempt to address public concerns about potential conflicts of interest in congressional stock trading.
Ed Martin, a nominee for U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, expresses his disappointment with Sen. Thom Tillis's unexpected reversal of support for his nomination.
According to Breitbart, Martin revealed during a Breitbart News Daily appearance that Senator Tillis initially indicated support for his nomination before abruptly changing his position, citing concerns over January 6 views.
The controversy stems from a 90-minute meeting between Martin and Tillis, where the senator reportedly assured Martin of his willingness to advance the nomination through committee. However, within hours of their discussion, Tillis reversed his stance, effectively blocking Martin's path to becoming the U.S. Attorney for DC.
Martin expressed strong criticism of Tillis's position on the January 6 events, suggesting the senator had been influenced by what he terms the "J6 hoax." He argues that this perspective has led to the unjust prosecution of American citizens who have spent years in jail based on what he considers false charges.
The nominee emphasized that he had secured enough votes on the Senate floor to confirm his position. However, Tillis's committee-level opposition prevented the nomination from advancing to a full Senate vote.
Martin currently holds a significant role within the Department of Justice despite the blocked nomination. He suggests that some powerful figures in Washington opposed his nomination due to his stance against corruption.
Martin shared details about his conversation with Tillis during the interview. He recalls:
I respected the process that I was supposed to do go: through the Senate. I was surprised that Thom Tillis would say publicly he would back me for any position in the country but DC, you know, that's what he said. I don't understand that. When I met with him, it was 90 minutes. He clearly has a problem with January 6.
The nominee further elaborated on his perspective regarding the January 6 investigations and prosecutions:
The J6 hoax is when you believe all the media and all of Liz Cheney's lies about an insurrection instead of recognizing there was some, you know, rioting going on. And when you hit a cop, you should be held accountable. But when you have this massive lie spread, and then offices like mine, the U.S. Attorney's Office in DC, my predecessor, he targeted American citizens. He put them in jail for years.
Martin's blocked nomination highlights ongoing tensions between Trump administration priorities and certain Republican senators. The situation demonstrates the continuing influence of January 6-related positions on political appointments.
The development has implications for the Department of Justice's leadership structure, particularly in the politically sensitive DC jurisdiction. Martin's subsequent appointment to another DOJ position suggests alternative pathways for administration nominees faced with Senate opposition.
The controversy adds to existing discussions about the role of Senate confirmations in shaping key justice system positions. It also reflects broader debates about the interpretation and aftermath of the January 6 events.
Ed Martin's nomination for U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia was blocked in committee by Senator Thom Tillis, despite having President Trump's backing and potentially sufficient votes for confirmation in the full Senate. The decision centered on disagreements over January 6 interpretations and their implications for justice system leadership.
The blocked nomination led to Martin's assignment to a different Department of Justice position while raising questions about Senate confirmation processes and the ongoing influence of January 6 perspectives on political appointments. The situation highlights continuing divisions within the Republican Party regarding interpretations of the Capitol events and their aftermath.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard takes decisive action against a controversial domestic terrorism policy implemented during Biden's administration.
According to Just the News, Gabbard has terminated a June 2021 policy memo that allowed federal agencies to investigate Americans for "concerning non-criminal behavior," calling it an abuse of power that targeted conservatives and citizens with dissenting views.
The recently declassified memo reveals that under Biden's administration, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security were granted authority to surveil and question Americans without the traditional requirement of establishing a reasonable factual basis for criminal activity.
This significant departure from long-standing investigative protocols has drawn criticism from legal experts and members of Congress who argue it endangered civil liberties.
The 2021 National Security Council directives instructed agencies to pursue various initiatives, including legislative action to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The policy also focused on monitoring active-duty service members for potential terrorism recruitment and addressing what they termed "xenophobic disinformation."
The controversial program included the creation of the Disinformation Governance Board under DHS, which was discontinued in 2022 after facing widespread criticism. Nina Jankowicz, who was selected to lead the board, faced significant public backlash before the program's termination.
FBI officials have acknowledged the shift in priorities under new leadership. A Bureau spokesperson stated:
The last administration appeared more focused on investigating Americans for their opinions than addressing actual criminal activity. Under new leadership, the Bureau is actively reviewing and revising its guidance to ensure our efforts are focused where they belong: on making America safe.
Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, expressed support for Gabbard's decision to declassify and terminate the policy. He emphasized the importance of transparency in government operations affecting constitutional rights.
Gabbard's statement outlined her perspective on the previous administration's approach:
Disguised as an attempt to curb 'domestic terrorism,' Biden's plan actually functioned as a partisan playbook on how the Biden Administration would weaponize government and intelligence against everyday Americans whose 'offense' was supporting President Trump, or daring to disagree with or oppose their policies. To ensure transparency and accountability, I declassified and released the document, so Americans could see the truth about the Biden Administration's weaponization and politicization of our government against Americans.
The Trump administration has moved away from the controversial tactics outlined in the 2021 memo. Domestic terrorism has been removed as a top threat from the intelligence community's national threat assessment, marking a significant shift in national security priorities.
The previous investigative standard required agents to establish "an articulable factual basis" indicating a crime or national security threat before opening an investigation. The Biden-era memo had substantially lowered this threshold, allowing probes based solely on agent concerns without evidence of criminal activity.
Tulsi Gabbard, as Director of National Intelligence, has taken steps to restore traditional investigative standards that require concrete evidence of criminal activity before launching federal investigations. The declassification of the 2021 memo has brought to light the extent of surveillance powers granted to federal agencies during Biden's presidency.
The policy reversal reflects the current administration's commitment to balancing national security concerns with civil liberties protections. This change signals a return to established investigative protocols that require substantial evidence before initiating probes into American citizens while maintaining focus on genuine security threats.
Georgia Republican firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene made waves with her latest political announcement concerning her future aspirations in Congress.
According to FOX 5 Atlanta, the controversial congresswoman from Georgia's 14th District declared she won't challenge Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff in 2026, expressing her dissatisfaction with the Senate's structure and the Republican Party's leadership.
Greene's announcement came through a strongly worded open letter on social media, where she outlined her reasons for declining the Senate bid. The declaration arrived just days after she hinted at considering higher office during an interview with FOX 5 Atlanta, including a potential gubernatorial run.
The congresswoman delivered a pointed message to wealthy Republican donors who recently gathered at Sea Island. She accused them of attempting to manipulate the candidate selection process and undermining the MAGA movement.
In her characteristic direct style, Greene attacked what she called the "elite donor class" and political consultants within the Republican Party. She claimed these groups were working against Trump's interests while pretending to support the MAGA agenda.
Greene asserted that winning against Ossoff would be straightforward but emphasized that her decision stemmed from deeper concerns about the Senate's effectiveness. She criticized the chamber's 60-vote threshold and Republican senators, who she believes obstruct meaningful legislation.
In her open letter, Greene outlined her frustrations with the Senate's operational structure. She explained how the current system, in her view, serves to protect establishment interests rather than advance the will of the people.
Greene wrote:
I love my home state of Georgia so much. The people here may not be rich with the world's riches, but they are overflowing with kindness, love, family values, and a deep sense of joy, whether they're sitting on the front porch or the tailgate of a pickup truck. These are the people I fight for.
The congresswoman specifically targeted Republican Senate leadership, accusing them of supporting President Biden's nominees while actively working against Trump's policy initiatives. She described the current political landscape as being controlled by wealthy interests through polling firms and super PACs.
Greene's announcement has sparked speculation about her next political move. During her recent FOX 5 interview, she expressed confidence in her ability to win a Republican primary for governor.
The congresswoman concluded her message with a direct challenge to party insiders, warning them about her commitment to genuine conservative values. She emphasized that any future political endeavors would align strictly with her principles.
Her parting message to Senator Ossoff maintained her characteristic boldness while displaying an unexpected touch of civility.
Marjorie Taylor Greene's decision not to pursue a Senate seat in 2026 marks a significant moment in Georgia's political landscape. The controversial congresswoman's announcement, delivered through a detailed social media post, outlined her frustrations with the Republican establishment and the Senate's structural inefficiencies. While closing the door on a Senate run, Greene has kept her options open for other political opportunities, particularly hinting at a potential gubernatorial campaign, suggesting her influence in Georgia politics remains far from diminished.