House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green has announced his early departure from Congress. The Tennessee Republican revealed Monday he plans to step down after the House votes on President Trump's reconciliation package, often referred to as the "big, beautiful bill."
According to Fox News, Green cited an enticing private sector opportunity as the reason for his unexpected resignation before the end of his term.
The four-term congressman expressed mixed emotions about leaving his position representing Tennessee's 7th Congressional District, which he has held since 2019. Green described his congressional service as "the honor of a lifetime" while acknowledging his commitment to seeing Trump's border security measures through to completion.
Green has played a significant role in crafting the border security provisions within Trump's reconciliation package. His expertise in homeland security matters positioned him as a key figure in advancing the administration's immigration enforcement priorities through Congress.
As chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Green led Republicans' impeachment of former Biden administration DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. This high-profile effort underscored his commitment to border enforcement and immigration policy reform.
Though Green had previously planned to retire at the end of the last Congress, he chose to remain in office specifically to help ensure Trump's border security agenda would succeed. "I stayed to ensure that President Trump's border security measures and priorities make it through Congress," Green stated in his announcement.
The exact nature of Green's next career move remains undisclosed. His statement only mentioned "an opportunity in the private sector that was too exciting to pass up," leaving speculation about which industry might have attracted the Army veteran and physician.
Green's decision comes as Republican leadership aims to complete consideration of Trump's massive agenda bill by the Fourth of July or shortly thereafter. The timing of his departure appears strategically aligned to fulfill his commitment to border security legislation while transitioning to his next chapter.
The reconciliation package narrowly passed the House with a 215-214 vote and is currently under Senate consideration. Green indicated he will remain in Congress through the final House vote on the Senate-modified version before Trump can sign it into law.
Green's departure will trigger a special election in Tennessee's heavily Republican 7th District. The district voted for Trump by more than 20 percentage points over former Vice President Kamala Harris in the last election, making it likely to remain in Republican hands.
"After that, I will retire, and there will be a special election to replace me," Green confirmed in his statement. The timing of this special election will depend on when Green officially submits his resignation following the reconciliation package vote.
Tennessee state law outlines specific procedures for filling congressional vacancies, with the governor required to call a special election. The district includes parts of Middle and West Tennessee, encompassing areas known for their strong conservative voting patterns.
Green reflected proudly on his legislative accomplishments during his time in Congress. He highlighted achievements, including historic tax cuts, border security efforts alongside President Trump, and defending pro-life policies.
The chairman specifically acknowledged the staff members who supported his work both in his district office and on the Homeland Security Committee. Their contributions helped advance his conservative agenda and homeland security priorities throughout his tenure.
Green's impact on national security policy and border enforcement will likely remain influential even after his departure. His work on the reconciliation package's border security provisions represents a final legislative achievement before transitioning to private life.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris ignited a firestorm of criticism after characterizing violent anti-ICE demonstrations in Los Angeles as "overwhelmingly peaceful" while blaming the Trump administration for the unrest. The statement came as National Guard troops deployed to the city following days of escalating protests.
According to Fox News, Harris posted her remarks Sunday as riots continued across Los Angeles, where protesters opposed federal agents arresting illegal immigrants. President Donald Trump's decision to send in National Guard troops sparked additional controversy among Democratic officials.
Harris, who described Los Angeles as her home, claimed that deploying the National Guard represented "a dangerous escalation meant to provoke chaos" and accused the administration of pursuing a "cruel, calculated agenda to spread panic and division" rather than focusing on public safety.
Conservative critics immediately pounced on Harris's statement, with many suggesting her remarks exemplified why voters rejected her presidential bid last November. The backlash focused particularly on her characterization of the demonstrations as "overwhelmingly peaceful."
Fox News contributor Guy Benson wrote that "the country really dodged a bullet in November" and added, "Their official position is that they're appalled by what's happening in Los Angeles…because of Trump and ICE, not the violent rioters. In its current form, this party cannot be salvaged."
Fellow Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich expressed similar sentiments, thanking Americans for "employing brain cells and rejecting this woman's quest to become president of the United States." Other critics, including social media account LibsofTikTok, countered Harris's "mostly peaceful" claim by sharing images of burning cars and attacks on law enforcement.
White House officials forcefully rejected Harris's characterization of events, with Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson delivering a particularly pointed rebuke of the former vice president's comments.
"Everyone already knows that Kamala Harris supports violent criminal illegal aliens -- that's why the American people resoundingly rejected her in November," Jackson said in a statement to Fox News Digital. She added that Harris's tenure was "defined by one humiliating failure after another" and suggested she should "slink back into irrelevancy."
The riots erupted as ICE officials carried out plans to remove individuals illegally residing in Los Angeles, which had declared itself a "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants shortly before Trump's inauguration in January. According to ICE, the operation targeted "the worst of the worst" criminal illegal immigrants, including murderers and sex offenders.
The demonstrations quickly turned violent, with protesters targeting ICE officers with rocks and other projectiles while vandalizing property with graffiti calling for violence against federal agents.
U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael Banks shared a photo showing one agent's bloody hand after a rock shattered a windshield. Federal sources indicated that flying debris could have potentially killed agents, and several officers reported injuries during the confrontations.
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin questioned why Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass seemed more concerned about those being deported than public safety, saying, "These rioters in Los Angeles are fighting to keep rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals loose on Los Angeles streets."
Trump deployed approximately 2,000 National Guard troops to restore order, a move criticized by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom. Newsom characterized the immigration enforcement actions as "chaotic and reckless" while accusing Trump of eroding trust and tearing families apart.
The Los Angeles riots highlight the growing political divide over immigration enforcement policies in the United States, with the Trump administration pressing forward on deportation priorities while Democratic officials resist federal actions.
Harris's statement placed responsibility for the unrest squarely on Trump and ICE operations rather than on those engaged in violent activities. "Protest is a powerful tool — essential in the fight for justice," she wrote, adding that she continues "to support the millions of Americans who are standing up to protect our most fundamental rights and freedoms."
Barron Trump, the 19-year-old son of President Donald Trump, is reportedly dating, according to rumors circulating on his college campus. These whispers have sparked questions about how the first son navigates romance while under constant Secret Service protection.
According to People, an anonymous "friend" at New York University told NewsNation that "Barron has a really nice girlfriend and hangs out with her a lot," though no further details were provided. The president's youngest child recently completed his freshman year at the Manhattan-based university.
While dating with Secret Service agents constantly present might seem challenging for any teenager, sources indicate that the protection detail is not as restrictive as many might assume. One political insider told People that agents are "well-versed" in handling romantic relationships for their protectees.
Former first children have successfully navigated romantic relationships despite constant security presence, providing a roadmap for Barron's dating life.
Jenna Bush Hager, daughter of former President George W. Bush, has been particularly vocal about her dating experiences while under Secret Service protection. She's shared multiple stories about her now-husband Henry Chase Hager's awkward encounters with agents, including being caught by security when trying to "sneak out" of the White House after staying overnight.
In another incident Jenna has described as her "worst date," Henry's car ran out of gas on a hill and rolled backward into the Secret Service vehicle following them. Even Henry's marriage proposal on a mountaintop included an agent standing nearby, with Jenna noting that the agent was "the first person to find out about the proposal."
Despite his privileged upbringing and high-profile family, sources describe Barron as surprisingly down-to-earth and socially active during his first year of college.
"He met a lot of new people at NYU and made some friends," one source told People. "He is no slouch and attracts the attention of girls. And not just at college. He had female friends in high school in Florida. He gets along well with his female friends."
Another source whose daughter knew Barron in high school described him as "a regular guy who was well-liked" and who "didn't hold court and act like he was better than the others." This contrasts with his father's more bombastic public persona, with one Trump source noting, "It's hard to believe he is Donald Trump's son as he is more laid back, but he does have some of his moxie in a low-key way."
The political source interviewed by People dismissed concerns that Secret Service protection would prevent Barron from dating or having normal relationships.
"He can have a girlfriend as the Secret Service guys are well-versed on how to handle this," the source explained. "Anyone who says being under Secret Service protection would keep him from dating is way off." The same source added that agents protecting first families have seen it all when it comes to romantic entanglements, quipping that "their stories could fill an X-rated novel!"
While the Secret Service's primary mission is protection, they've developed protocols that allow protectees to maintain some semblance of normal life, including dating. As Jenna Bush Hager once noted, their job is keeping people from "coming in" to secure areas—not preventing first children from "hooking up."
Despite the dating rumors, sources close to Barron suggest that romance might not be his primary focus at this stage of his life.
One Trump source believes that Barron isn't currently seeking a serious relationship. "He definitely wants to go out in the world and make money," the source said. "That is more important to him now than anything long-term in the romance department. But he is still young with more school ahead."
Barron follows in the footsteps of other modern first children who navigated their young adult years in the public eye, including Susan Ford, Chelsea Clinton, the Bush twins, and the Obama sisters. Each found ways to develop friendships and relationships despite the security challenges.
Vice President JD Vance recently criticized Elon Musk for allegations involving President Donald Trump and the infamous Jeffrey Epstein files, labeling Musk's actions as a "huge mistake."
The VP warned that a conflict between the high-profile leaders amounts to an error that could negatively affect the nation, not to mention Musk personally, as Fox News reports.
On Thursday, Musk accused Trump of being implicated in the undisclosed documents related to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. These allegations emerged as part of Musk's broader critique of Trump and other Republican leaders concerning a budget reconciliation bill. Musk chose the social media platform X to express his allegations, hinting at Trump's involvement with the files as the reason for their lack of public disclosure.
Vance, speaking on Saturday, stressed the potential consequences of Musk's assertions. He voiced his concerns over the possible escalation of tensions between Musk and Trump. "I think it's a huge mistake for [Musk] to go after the president," Vance commented, warning of the implications for both the country and Musk himself.
Vance continued, noting that a feud between the influential figures would be detrimental not only to national interests but also to Musk's standing. He also highlighted Musk's recent difficulties with his various business ventures, suggesting these challenges might have driven Musk's uncharacteristic comments.
Musk's social media commentary was pointed and direct, accusing Trump of entanglement with the Epstein documents. He implied that Trump's alleged involvement is the hidden reason the files remain a mystery to the public. This bold assertion drew immediate attention and provoked discussions on both sides of the political aisle.
Moreover, Vance came to Trump's defense, asserting that the president had done nothing wrong in relation to Epstein. Vance described Musk as facing relentless scrutiny and attacks on his businesses, mentioning the fact that Musk's enterprises are under continuous pressure.
Vance mentioned incidents involving Musk's products, as well as the broader business climate that may have contributed to Musk's frustration. "They're literally like firebombing some of his cars," Vance noted, underscoring the challenges Musk faces.
Additionally, Vance acknowledged Musk's concerns about the congressional budget reconciliation bill, recognizing it as a source of Musk's grievances. While praising the legislation's efforts to avoid significant tax hikes, Vance admitted the bill lacks perfection and is understandably aggravating for business figures like Musk.
Vance's remarks highlight the tension between supporting business interests and navigating contentious political relationships. His critique of Musk's approach underscores the delicate balance necessary when engaging with powerful political leaders.
In today's charged political atmosphere, public figures, especially those as prominent as Musk and Trump, play influential roles. Allegations such as those made by Musk can have wide-ranging effects, potentially affecting market stability and public perception.
Vance's defense of Trump reflects the ongoing support within the administration, despite Musk's high-profile accusations. His emphasis on avoiding unnecessary conflicts underscores the broader message of cooperation over division.
By addressing Musk's grievances with the reconciliation bill, Vance attempts to bridge gaps between political objectives and business interests. It's a complex negotiation, as the economic policies affect corporate stakeholders and political allies alike.
As the nation watches these developments unfold, the impact of Musk's assertions remains an active topic of discussion. The interplay between Musk's business pressures, political strategies, and public statements continues to shape the narrative.
The road ahead may prove challenging for those involved, and careful navigation of these issues will be crucial. As events progress, observers will keep a keen eye on possible reconciliations or escalating tensions in this high-stakes saga.
President Donald Trump has announced plans to construct a new ballroom on the grounds of the White House at his own expense, and the addition, according to Trump, has been a long-discussed project, dating back over a century and a half, although it has never materialized until now.
Trump shared the news of the ballroom's planned construction at the White House via a post on Truth Social on Friday, as the Daily Mail reports.
The president noted his history of planning large-scale and ornate ballrooms, drawing on his relevant experience from developing properties such as Mar-a-Lago and the Old Post Office in Washington, D.C. The ballroom is intended to fulfill an enduring need for such a facility at the White House.
Trump first mentioned his interest in a White House ballroom over a decade ago. In 2011, he publicly criticized the then-Obama administration for resorting to using a tent for official state dinners instead of having a dedicated ballroom space.
More recently, in February of his second term, during a large event held in the East Room, Trump mooted the idea again. In his post on Truth Social, Trump expressed that for 150 years, there had been a desire for a ballroom to complement the White House, yet previous administrations had not pursued it.
Citing his own experience in constructing such venues, Trump optimistically stated that the ballroom would be built quickly and be congruent with the elegance of the White House.
A White House official suggested that the East side of the White House complex is likely to be the site for the new ballroom. Details regarding the ballroom’s size and architectural plans are still pending.
The official mentioned that more announcements would follow once these final decisions are made, highlighting that discussions are ongoing. Trump, who emphasized his personal funding for the project, has sparked some controversy over his claim.
Former Obama advisor David Axelrod expressed doubt, indicating he did not recall Trump ever stating his intention to personally cover the cost.
The timing of Trump’s announcement is notable as it follows a public disagreement with Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. Despite this context, Trump assured his followers that his focus remains on fulfilling his presidential duties while embarking on the ballroom project.
Trump drew an analogy to global concerns such as the U.S. economy and international diplomatic matters, showing a continued awareness of broader issues. He referred to the ballroom as a "fun" project that would not detract from his responsibilities as president.
A former East Wing aide has suggested the feasibility of constructing the ballroom as an extension of the existing White House infrastructure. This recommendation could see the ballroom integrated with the East Wing, which would bring both practical and aesthetic benefits.
The anticipated ballroom would add a unique feature to the compound, echoing Trump's signature style found in his previously owned estates. Trump’s vision of the ballroom suggests it will be a unique addition that aligns with the White House’s rich tradition.
As the ballroom project takes shape, anticipation grows regarding its design details and impact. Trump’s advocacy of the ballroom reflects his ongoing commitment to significant and symbolic construction endeavors. The proposal indicates Trump's intent to leave a physical legacy in the presidential sphere.
The decision, effectively executing a vision that has lingered for 150 years, signals an ambitious stride in White House modernization under Trump's leadership. As further details emerge, the ballroom promises to be a focal point not just for presidential events but also a representation of Trump's priorities during his time in office.
A rising social media star in Pakistan was fatally shot in her home in what authorities are describing as a targeted attack. Sana Yousaf, who had celebrated her 17th birthday just days before the incident, was killed by an intruder who had previously made unwanted advances toward her online.
According to the New York Post, the shooting occurred Monday night at Yousaf's residence in Islamabad when the suspect entered her home after waiting outside. Police report that the assailant fired multiple shots, with two bullets striking and killing the teenager instantly.
Following the attack, the suspect stole Yousaf's phone and fled the scene. Law enforcement has since apprehended a 22-year-old man in connection with the murder and recovered both the weapon used in the shooting and the victim's stolen phone.
Islamabad police chief Syed Ali Nasir Rizvi attributed the killing to Yousaf's consistent refusals of the suspect's advances. The police investigation revealed a pattern of unwanted contact from the man toward the teenage content creator.
"The boy was trying to reach out to her time and again," Rizvi told reporters at a press conference addressing the case. "It was a gruesome and cold-blooded murder," he added, emphasizing the calculated nature of the attack that has shocked the community.
Officials noted that the murder sparked significant public outcry across Pakistan, placing "immense" pressure on law enforcement to quickly identify and apprehend the perpetrator. The case has highlighted concerns about stalking and violence against women, particularly those with public profiles on social media platforms.
Yousaf had built a substantial following of 1.5 million on TikTok, where she regularly posted content advocating for women's rights in Pakistan. Her outspoken stance on gender equality resonated with many young followers in the country.
The teenager's father, Syed Yousaf Hassan, told the BBC that Sana was his only daughter. He described her as "very brave" and revealed that she had never mentioned the suspect or any threatening behavior prior to the fatal incident, suggesting she may have been attempting to handle the situation privately.
Syed also shared that Yousaf's aunt was present in the home when the attack occurred. The suspect allegedly threatened to shoot the aunt before fleeing the residence with Yousaf's phone, adding another layer of terror to the already tragic event.
In a heartbreaking coincidence, a scheduled post appeared on Yousaf's TikTok account hours after her death. The video showed the teenager celebrating her 17th birthday with friends, eating pizza on a rooftop terrace and cutting a cake.
The posthumous post has since garnered significant attention from followers mourning the young activist's untimely death. The contrast between the joyful celebration and the violent end to her life has intensified public grief over the incident.
Yousaf has been laid to rest in Chitral, approximately 250 miles from Islamabad. Her father confirmed the burial took place shortly after authorities released her body following initial investigation procedures.
The murder of Sana Yousaf has focused renewed attention on the dangers faced by young influencers, particularly women who gain prominence on social media platforms. Her death at the hands of someone who repeatedly contacted her despite rejection underscores the potential real-world consequences of online harassment.
Police have not released detailed information about the suspect beyond his age and the confirmation of his arrest. Authorities continue to investigate the full timeline of events leading up to the killing, including the extent of previous contact between Yousaf and the man accused of her murder.
The case has prompted calls for stronger protections for content creators and more effective responses to reports of stalking or harassment. As a vocal advocate for women's rights, Yousaf's death has struck a particularly painful chord among those who followed her activism and content.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Navy Secretary John Phelan are at the center of a stormy political clash that has Washington, D.C. on edge. Their decision about a U.S. Navy ship’s name has ignited fierce debate across the country.
According to Breitbart News, Hegseth has instructed the Navy to remove the name of slain gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk from the oiler USNS Harvey Milk. The move comes as top defense officials say they are aligning with President Donald Trump’s priorities and seeking to “reestablish the warrior culture” in the armed forces.
The order, confirmed by multiple sources and reported by outlets such as Military.com and ABC News, came with a memo detailing the rationale for the controversial change. The timing, coinciding with Pride Month, has only fueled the controversy, with critics and supporters trading accusations and praise in equal measure.
Supporters of Hegseth’s order argue that the Navy should stick to honoring military figures and traditions, not activists. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the change is about reflecting the Commander-in-Chief’s priorities and the country’s “history.” Hegseth’s backers claim that renaming the ship fits with “reestablishing the warrior culture,” a phrase that appears in the Navy’s internal memorandum on the issue.
Critics, however, see the move as a calculated insult to LGBTQ Americans and to Milk’s legacy. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called the decision “spiteful,” arguing it weakens the armed forces: “Our military is the most powerful in the world – but this spiteful move does not strengthen our national security or the ‘warrior’ ethos,” Pelosi wrote on X. She continued, “It is a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream.”
Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) joined Pelosi, questioning the practical impact on defense. “How, exactly, does this make our warfighters any safer?” Coons posted on X, highlighting the skepticism among many Democrats about the rationale for the decision.
The USNS Harvey Milk was named in 2016 by then-Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and formally christened in November 2021. Milk, a Navy veteran, became California’s first openly gay elected official in 1978 and was assassinated less than a year into office. The Department of Veterans Affairs describes Milk as embodying “the values of honor, courage and commitment as he fought to expand gay rights.”
Yet, conservative commentators and some activists have seized the spotlight to attack Milk’s legacy. Mary Rice Hasson of the Ethics and Public Policy Center did not mince words: “Harvey Milk was a pedophile. This is the right thing to do.”
Joy Pullmann, an editor at the Federalist, echoed those sentiments in a post on X, alleging Milk “had sex with underage boys” and insisting, “He doesn’t deserve any honors anywhere, ever.” These accusations have intensified the debate, drawing sharp lines between those who see Milk as a civil rights hero and others who believe his name has no place on a military vessel.
Hegseth’s directive arrived after discussions with Navy Secretary John Phelan and with President Trump’s views in mind. According to the memorandum cited by Breitbart News, the ship’s renaming is intended to bring “alignment with president and SECDEF objectives and SECNAV priorities of reestablishing the warrior culture.” The decision follows a broader trend by the Trump administration to revisit military honors and names across the Department of Defense.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell made clear the administration’s priorities: “Hegseth was ‘committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief’s priorities’ and the country’s ‘history.’” This statement underscores a deliberate effort to shape the military’s future identity in line with the Trump administration’s values.
While some see these changes as necessary corrections, others view them as erasures of hard-won progress for minorities and marginalized groups. The debate is now playing out in real time, with activists, veterans, politicians, and commentators all weighing in.
The fallout from Hegseth’s order has been swift and divisive. Democrats and LGBTQ advocates have condemned the move as a step backward for inclusion and diversity in the armed forces. Meanwhile, conservative voices are celebrating what they see as a return to military tradition and discipline.
The controversy has also reignited past debates about how the military should honor individuals and the criteria for such recognition. The case of Harvey Milk has become a flashpoint for larger cultural battles playing out across the country during Pride Month.
As the Navy prepares to implement the renaming order, questions remain about what name will replace Harvey Milk on the oiler and how service members will respond to the change. For now, both sides appear entrenched, with little sign of compromise.
Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California is under scrutiny after Federal Election Commission revelations about her campaign finance practices. The longtime congresswoman's violations dwarf the alleged infractions that led to 34 felony counts against President Donald Trump during the 2024 election cycle.
According to The Western Journal, Waters violated multiple campaign finance rules totaling over half a million dollars. Federal Election Commission reports released Monday detailed violations including misstatements of receipts and disbursements, acceptance of excessive contributions, and unlawful cash disbursements.
Waters' campaign committee agreed to pay a $68,000 fine while essentially admitting guilt to the violations. Her team stated that any errors were accidental and that steps had been taken to prevent future occurrences, according to the FEC report.
The Federal Election Commission report outlined three specific categories of violations committed by Waters' campaign committee. Misstatements of receipts and disbursements accounted for $262,391 in receipts and $256,165 in disbursements. Additionally, the committee accepted $19,000 in excessive contributions and made $7,000 in unlawful cash disbursements.
Combined, these violations totaled $544,556, representing a significant breach of federal campaign finance regulations. Waters' committee did not deny the allegations but characterized the violations as unintentional mistakes rather than deliberate misconduct.
During the audit process, Waters' team filed amended reports to correct past errors and refunded some excessive contributions. The remainder of excessive contributions were disgorged to the U.S. Treasury as required by federal law.
The contrast between Waters' treatment and Trump's legal challenges during the 2024 election cycle reveals a stark disparity in enforcement approaches. Trump faced 34 felony counts related to alleged hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, with the total alleged campaign finance violation amounting to $130,000. Trump has consistently denied any affair with Daniels occurred.
Waters' admitted violations of $544,556 represent more than four times the amount of Trump's alleged violation. Despite this significant difference, Waters received a fine representing roughly 12.5% of her violation total, while Trump endured months of legal proceedings and felony charges.
The cases differ in their specific legal frameworks and circumstances, making direct comparisons complex. However, the disparity in consequences has drawn criticism from conservative observers who argue that Democratic politicians receive more lenient treatment for campaign finance violations.
Waters' violations come amid broader concerns about campaign finance compliance among Democratic members of Congress. The California representative, known for her outspoken criticism of Republican policies, now faces questions about her own adherence to federal election laws.
Her committee's statement acknowledging the violations while characterizing them as accidental reflects a common defense strategy in campaign finance cases. However, the substantial dollar amounts involved raise questions about oversight and compliance procedures within her campaign organization.
The timing of these revelations, following closely after Trump's legal challenges, has amplified discussions about equal application of campaign finance laws. Conservative critics argue that the disparity demonstrates a two-tiered justice system that favors Democratic politicians over their Republican counterparts.
Representative Waters now confronts scrutiny over campaign finance practices that resulted in violations exceeding half a million dollars.
The Federal Election Commission's findings detail systematic issues with her campaign's financial reporting and contribution handling, leading to a $68,000 fine that her committee agreed to pay without contesting the allegations.
The case highlights ongoing debates about campaign finance enforcement consistency across party lines. While Waters characterizes her violations as accidental errors, the substantial amounts involved and the comparison to Trump's treatment during the election cycle continue to fuel political controversy over prosecutorial fairness and accountability standards for elected officials.
Whitney Purvis, a former star of MTV’s “16 and Pregnant,” has shared devastating news about the tragic loss of her son Weston, who passed away at the age of 16. The 33-year-old reality star expressed her heartbreak in an emotional social media post, leaving fans and loved ones stunned.
According to the New York Post, Purvis revealed that her son died unexpectedly on Monday. In her heartfelt tribute, she described Weston as her “beautiful son” and expressed her disbelief over the tragedy.
The announcement has sparked an outpouring of sympathy for Purvis and her family as details emerge about Weston’s health struggles and the impact of his passing.
In her Facebook post, Purvis shared the depth of her grief, calling Weston’s death her “worst nightmare come true.” She wrote, “This is so hard to write. My beautiful son, Weston has passed away. He was only 16 years old. Life is so cruel and unfair. I just don’t understand.”
Weston, born on April 2, 2009, rose to public attention when Purvis was featured on MTV’s “16 and Pregnant.” At the time, Purvis was navigating the challenges of teenage motherhood alongside Weston’s father, Weston Lewis Gosa. Tragically, the joy of Weston’s early years has now been overshadowed by this unimaginable loss.
While Purvis did not reveal the cause of her son’s death, Weston’s stepmother, Amy Gosa, provided some insight. She disclosed that the teenager had been battling several health issues, including diabetes, and that efforts to resuscitate him on Monday morning were unsuccessful.
The loss of Weston has left both Purvis and her family in shock. Amy Gosa shared additional details, explaining that Weston was found unresponsive at 7 a.m. on Monday. Despite attempts by family members and paramedics to revive him, he was pronounced dead at a hospital in Gordon County, Georgia.
Gosa described the pain of losing Weston as unparalleled, stating in her post, “We are completely heartbroken and in shock. It was so unexpected. Losing a child is the most painful thing I have ever experienced and I hope I never experience it again.”
She added: “He was the most amazing son I could have asked for. He was brilliant, smart, funny and had so much potential in life. It doesn’t feel real.” Gosa also mentioned that an autopsy is planned in the coming days to better understand what led to Weston’s tragic passing.
Purvis’ journey as a teen mother was documented during the first season of MTV’s “16 and Pregnant” in 2009. The show highlighted the struggles and triumphs of young parents, and Purvis’ story resonated with many viewers. She welcomed Weston with her then-boyfriend Weston Lewis Gosa, but their relationship was marked by challenges.
In 2014, Purvis gave birth to her second son, River, but the couple ultimately split. Over the years, both parents faced legal troubles. Purvis lost custody of her children in 2024 after being arrested for failing to pay child support, per TMZ reports. Weston Sr. also had run-ins with the law, including charges for driving on a suspended license and damaging electronics.
Despite these difficulties, Purvis’ love for her son remained unwavering. In her post, she expressed her pride in the young man Weston was becoming, writing, “God, I love you so much. You are my heart. I was so proud of the young man you were becoming. I just can’t go on without you.”
The tragedy of Weston’s passing has drawn attention to the challenges of parenting and the unpredictable nature of life. Purvis, in a follow-up Facebook post, shared a touching photo of herself with Weston, accompanied by the heartbreaking caption, “Rest in Peace, my baby Weston. I love you forever, precious. I’ll never understand why life has to be so cruel. You’ll always be my baby.”
The grieving family has asked for prayers and support during this difficult time. “Please keep our family and Whitney in your thoughts and prayers as we mourn such a brilliant, amazing life that was our son,” Amy Gosa wrote.
As Purvis and her family await the results of the autopsy, they continue to grapple with their immense loss. The teenager’s death serves as a somber reminder of life’s fragility and the enduring pain of losing a child.
Democrats and Republicans are trading blows once more, but this time, the fight is over Joe Biden’s mental and physical fitness during his time in office. Bill Clinton is now defending Biden against serious accusations in a new book that claims White House insiders were forced to take control as Biden’s faculties faded.
A new report from the New York Post reveals that Clinton flatly rejected claims made in “Original Sin,” a book alleging that Biden’s decline left him unable to lead, forcing family members and senior aides to effectively run the country. Clinton told CBS Sunday Morning he was “never” concerned about Biden’s ability to do the job.
Clinton’s remarks come at a time when Democrats are still reeling from Biden’s failed reelection bid and a disastrous debate performance that led to his withdrawal from the race. With Trump back in the White House, Democrats and Republicans are using Biden’s health as ammunition for their own political arguments while everyday Americans watch the back-and-forth with growing skepticism.
Bill Clinton, now 78, made his case clear during a recent interview, saying that he personally witnessed no evidence of mental decline in Joe Biden. Clinton insisted that his interactions with Biden left him with no worries about the 82-year-old’s competence as commander-in-chief.
Clinton said, “I saw President Biden not very long ago, and I thought he was in good shape.” When challenged about explosive allegations made in “Original Sin”—which claims a “council of confidants” was forced to step in and run the White House—Clinton doubled down, stating he never left a meeting with Biden thinking, “he can’t do this anymore.”
The former president also confirmed that he did not read the controversial book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. Clinton dismissed the allegations as politically motivated and irrelevant, given Biden is no longer president and, in Clinton’s words, “did a good job.”
“Original Sin,” published in May, paints a dire picture of Biden’s final year in office. According to the book, a so-called “politburo” of trusted Biden advisers—along with his wife Jill Biden and son Hunter—took the reins as the president’s ability to focus diminished. The book goes further, alleging the White House actively concealed Biden’s decline during his unsuccessful second-term campaign.
The book’s release coincided with public reports that Biden had been diagnosed with “aggressive” prostate cancer. Critics argue that this diagnosis and the claims of hidden decline show a pattern of secrecy and mismanagement at the highest level of government.
Biden supporters, however, are not letting these accusations go unchallenged. Jill Biden, the former first lady, told “The View” that the book’s authors “were not in the White House with us, and they didn’t see how hard Joe worked every single day.” She called the book’s claims baseless and out of touch with the reality she witnessed.
Despite Clinton’s defense, questions about Biden’s fitness persist. Clinton acknowledged that he did have one concern—not about Biden’s mind, but about the sheer demands of the presidency for someone approaching their mid-eighties. “The only concern I thought he had to deal with was, could anybody do that job until they were 86?” Clinton noted, referencing Biden’s potential age at the end of a second term.
Clinton emphasized that Biden was always “on top of his briefs” during their conversations and dismissed the notion that he was a mere figurehead. Nevertheless, the book’s depiction of a struggling president has added fuel to critics’ arguments that the Democratic Party kept voters in the dark.
Biden’s final months were marked by a widely panned debate performance against Donald Trump, after which he withdrew from the race in July. The fallout from his exit has left Democrats divided, with some blaming Biden and his team for mishandling the campaign, while others point fingers at the media and political opponents for exploiting his health issues.
With Trump now back in the Oval Office, the Democratic Party faces a reckoning over how it handled Biden’s decline and the extent to which it was kept from the public. Allies of the former president insist Biden’s work ethic never faltered, but critics—including many Republicans—are demanding accountability for what they see as a cover-up.
Clinton, for his part, says that attempts to blame Biden for Trump’s victory are misguided. He argued that the challenges the country faces are bigger than one man’s health and suggested that the book’s authors are using Biden’s decline as a scapegoat for broader political failures.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party is seizing on the controversy, arguing that the Democratic establishment’s lack of transparency should disqualify them from future leadership. The back-and-forth shows no signs of stopping as both sides dig in for what is sure to be a contentious political season.