A New York judge has delayed former President Donald Trump’s sentencing in the hush money case led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Justice Juan Merchan rescheduled the sentencing -- in which Trump could receive prison time -- for Nov. 26, moving it beyond the presidential election, as Just the News reports.
The sentencing stems from Trump’s conviction earlier this year on 34 counts of falsifying business records. These charges are related to a 2016 payment made by Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, to adult film star Stormy Daniels. The payment was made in an effort to keep Daniels from publicly discussing her alleged affair with Trump, a claim the former president has consistently denied.
The sentencing was originally scheduled for July 11, but was first postponed to Sept. 18. Now, in a second delay, the new date has been set for November 26. This timing moves it to just after the upcoming presidential election, in which Trump is once again seeking to win the White House.
Trump’s legal team had sought to delay the sentencing further while filing motions to dismiss the charges. His attorneys argue that the former president’s actions should have been protected under presidential immunity, given that the payment to Daniels was made during his 2016 campaign. This legal strategy has sparked debate among legal experts and political commentators.
A hearing was also scheduled for Sept. 16 to address Trump’s claims to immunity, but that has also been postponed. The hearing could play a significant role in the trajectory of the case moving forward.
In addition to seeking delays, Trump has asked the court to dismiss the guilty verdict entirely. His legal team contends that critical evidence and testimony should have been excluded, citing a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that could influence the former president's claims of presidential immunity.
Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that the payment to Daniels was a personal matter and not a violation of campaign finance laws. He has framed the case as politically motivated, suggesting that the charges were part of a broader effort to derail his 2024 campaign.
The delay in sentencing gives Trump more time to focus on his presidential run without the immediate distraction of a legal ruling hanging over his head. However, the ongoing legal battles ensure that the case will remain a significant part of the political landscape.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, under Bragg, has indicated it will continue to pursue the case vigorously. Bragg has faced significant pressure from both political supporters and detractors, many of whom argue that the case has broader implications for the rule of law and the accountability of elected officials.
For Trump, the delay represents both a temporary reprieve and an ongoing challenge. While he avoids immediate sentencing, the legal questions surrounding the case will likely remain a focus as his campaign progresses.
As the Nov. 26 sentencing date approaches, the intersection of Trump’s legal troubles and his political ambitions will continue to be a topic of significant public interest. Both his critics and supporters will be watching closely to see how the case unfolds and what impact, if any, it has on the broader election campaign.
The former president’s future, both in the courtroom and on the campaign trail, remains uncertain as legal battles continue to swirl around him.
Donald Trump's presidential campaign has quietly altered its strategy, withdrawing resources from three previously targeted states following a surge in support for Democratic nominee Kamala Harris.
According to The Guardian, the Republican candidate has reduced efforts in Minnesota, Virginia, and New Hampshire, states he had confidently claimed he could win when Joe Biden was the presumptive Democratic nominee.
The tactical shift comes as recent polling data suggests these states may now be out of reach for Trump. The campaign has instead chosen to focus its resources on a smaller number of battleground states, particularly the "blue wall" states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which were crucial to Biden's victory in 2020.
Trump's campaign has significantly adjusted its resource allocation, moving funds and attention away from states that were once considered potential flips. The focus has now shifted to states deemed critical for securing an Electoral College victory in November.
Pennsylvania, with its 19 electoral votes, has become a primary target for the Trump campaign. A recent CNN poll shows that Trump and Harris are tied at 47% each in the state, underscoring their importance in the upcoming election. Additionally, the campaign is intensifying efforts in North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona - Sun Belt states where Trump's previously substantial leads over Biden have narrowed since Harris became the Democratic nominee.
Maga Inc., a Super PAC supporting Trump, has invested $16 million in advertising in North Carolina alone. This substantial expenditure comes as polls indicate Harris is close to drawing even in a state that Democrats have only carried once in presidential elections since 1980.
The shift in campaign strategy marks a significant change from the optimism displayed at the Republican National Convention in July. At that time, Trump's campaign team spoke confidently about winning Minnesota, Virginia, and New Hampshire, all of which have been carried by Democrats in recent presidential elections.
An internal Trump campaign memo, drafted before the June debate in Atlanta, had outlined potential pathways for Trump to win Minnesota and Virginia. The campaign's optimism was partially based on the presence of independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose campaign was initially thought to pose a greater threat to Biden.
However, the political landscape has shifted dramatically since then. Harris replaced Biden as the Democratic nominee and chose Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate, bolstering local support. Additionally, Kennedy has suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump, further altering the electoral calculus.
The ascension of Kamala Harris to the top of the Democratic ticket has had a profound impact on the race. Her nomination has energized Democratic supporters, leading to a surge in popularity that has given her a small but consistent national poll lead.
Harris's campaign has also experienced a significant boost in fundraising, raising $540 million in August alone. This financial advantage has allowed the Democratic campaign to expand its operations and advertising efforts in key states. Lou Gargiulo, the co-chair of Trump's campaign in New Hampshire, commented on the shift in focus: "This election is going to be won in those seven swing states. That's where the effort's got to be put."
The statement reflects the Trump campaign's recognition of the need to concentrate resources on a narrower set of battleground states where the race remains competitive.
The reallocation of resources by the Trump campaign signifies a recognition of the changing electoral map. States that were once considered potential pickups are now being deprioritized in favor of defending traditionally competitive swing states. This strategic pivot also highlights the impact of Harris's nomination on the race. Her presence on the ticket has not only solidified Democratic support in some states but has also put pressure on Trump in areas where he previously held advantages.
According to The Hill, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has taken aim at Vice President Kamala Harris's candidacy while defending his decision to endorse former President Donald Trump.
In an interview with NewsNation's Chris Cuomo, Kennedy expressed his concerns about Harris's ability to lead the country and explained his reasons for supporting Trump in the 2024 election. Kennedy's comments come as he shifts his campaign strategy in battleground states.
Kennedy, who recently suspended his campaign in swing states, criticized Harris's qualifications for the presidency. He argued that the country needs a leader who can articulate a clear vision, defend their policies, and engage in unscripted debates. This criticism comes as Harris faces scrutiny over her limited media appearances since becoming the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee.
Kennedy explained his decision to back Trump, citing obstacles he faced in his own independent campaign. He pointed to his exclusion from debates and what he perceived as unfair treatment by mainstream and liberal media outlets.
Kennedy told Cuomo, "Well, it became clear to me, Chris, that I was not going to be allowed on the debating stage, which was really my only path to victory. I was already being boycotted by all of the mainstream media, by the liberal media."
The environmental lawyer also expressed concern that staying in the race would lead to a Harris victory, an outcome he wanted to avoid.
Kennedy's campaign strategy has shifted dramatically in recent weeks. He announced plans to remove himself from swing-state ballots where he could potentially influence the outcome of the presidential race. However, this effort has faced challenges, with officials in Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina indicating that his name will likely remain on their ballots.
The situation has created an ironic twist, as Kennedy pointed out in his interview:
The Democrat Party, which was suing us to keep us off the ballot in those states, is now suing us to force us to be on the ballot. I mean, it's, if we're talking about principles here, you know, I think that we ought to, I ought to be able to be on the ballots where I want to be on and not be on the ballot where I don't want to be on.
This development highlights the complex legal and political landscape surrounding ballot access in the upcoming election.
Kennedy's recent partnership with Trump has fueled speculation about a potential position for him in a second Trump administration. The two appeared together at an Arizona rally, and Kennedy revealed he was asked to join Trump's transition team.
When questioned about a possible role in the Trump administration, Kennedy clarified:
I'm not … we're not talking about a particular position for me in the government. What our agreement [is] about, it's about a unity party, about unifying our party over certain objectives. And this will allow me to continue to disagree with President Trump on issues that I don't agree with him on, and him to disagree with me.
This statement suggests a nuanced relationship between Kennedy and Trump, focused on shared goals rather than specific governmental positions.
In conclusion, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s criticisms of Vice President Kamala Harris and his endorsement of Donald Trump have added a new dimension to the 2024 presidential race. His efforts to remove himself from swing-state ballots have encountered legal challenges, complicating his campaign strategy. While speculation about a potential role in a Trump administration persists, Kennedy emphasizes that their agreement focuses on unity and shared objectives rather than specific governmental positions.
Former President Donald Trump has opened up about the aftermath of a shooting incident at one of his rallies, revealing that he has not sought counseling despite suggestions from friends.
In an exclusive interview with Daily Mail, Trump discussed the impact of the event on his life and campaign, six weeks after a bullet grazed his ear during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Trump, 78, mentioned that the incident had not affected him mentally and that he did not see a need for counseling. He expressed surprise at his own resilience, saying, "A couple of people have asked me that, and I have had no impact. It's just amazing." The former president went on to describe the incident in spiritual terms, suggesting it reinforced the importance of his political mission.
The shooting occurred in July while Trump was addressing a crowd at a rally in Pennsylvania. A gunshot echoed through the audience, and Trump raised his hand to his bloody ear before being quickly shielded by Secret Service agents. Despite the potential trauma of such an event, Trump claimed he had experienced no flashbacks or bad dreams typically associated with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Trump resumed his trademark rallies a week after the incident, initially holding them indoors before returning to outdoor venues with the added protection of a bulletproof screen. He emphasized that he doesn't dwell on the shooting, stating, "I don't want to think about it a lot, but I've had ... no it's had no impact. It healed up."
The former president also shared a more metaphysical interpretation of the event. He suggested that divine intervention may have played a role in his narrow escape from serious injury.
During the interview at his Mar-a-Lago home, which serves as his political headquarters, Trump discussed various aspects of his campaign and family life. He expressed satisfaction with the state of his campaign, noting recent developments such as winning the endorsement of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who had ended his independent run.
Trump also touched on the involvement of his wife, Melania, and youngest son, Barron, now 18, in his campaign efforts. While specific details of their roles were not provided, the mention suggests a continued family presence in his political endeavors.
The former president addressed the changing landscape of the 2024 presidential race, acknowledging that his once solid lead in the polls had diminished following Joe Biden's decision to step aside and allow Vice President Kamala Harris to become the Democratic nominee.
Trump expressed a belief that the shooting incident may have had a higher purpose, linking it to his political ambitions and vision for the country. He stated:
And you know what I'd love to think, I would love to think it's God, and it's God doing it because he wants to save America. He sees what's happening. God sees what's happening in America.
The former president continued to elaborate on this perspective, suggesting that divine intervention may have saved him for a greater purpose:
You look at the charts, and I would like to say that it is God that saved me. It wasn't just just luck, but the reason would be that he saved me, because I can save this country. I hope that's right.
These statements reflect Trump's view of his political role as a mission with potentially spiritual significance, framing his campaign and survival of the shooting incident within a broader context of national destiny.
Donald Trump's reflections on the shooting incident reveal a complex narrative intertwining personal resilience, political ambition, and spiritual beliefs. He dismissed suggestions of counseling, maintained his campaign momentum, and interpreted the event through a lens of divine purpose. Trump's comments provide insight into his mindset as he continues his 2024 presidential campaign, balancing personal experiences with broader political goals.
K.C. Fox, a renowned set decorator, has passed away at the age of 70. According to Deadline, Fox died on August 28 due to pancreatic cancer.
Throughout her illustrious career, Fox worked on numerous films and television shows, including "Speed," "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo," and "The 40-Year-Old Virgin."
Fox was a highly respected figure in the film industry, known for her keen artistic eye and clever wit. She was a founding member of the Set Decorators Society of America (SDSA) and a recipient of the Earl Cooperman Lifetime Achievement Award in 2024.
Fox's work spanned four decades, during which she earned two Art Directors Guild Awards for her work on "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and HBO's "Little Britain USA."
Fox began her career in the film industry in the 1980s, working as an art department coordinator for production designer James Cameron.
She later transitioned to set decorating, working on teen films and eventually art directing and decorating for commercials, music videos, and movies of the week. After 12 years of hard work, Fox made it into the union and continued to excel in her field.
Fox's work on "Gypsy," starring Bette Midler, earned her an Emmy nomination for Outstanding Individual Achievement in Art Direction for a Miniseries or a Special.
Her contributions to the film industry were recognized by her peers, who praised her generosity and willingness to offer career advice and mentorship.
Fox's love for her work was evident in her statement,
I love what I do … can’t imagine not doing it. It is such a gift we are given to create characters and define spaces in a world of imagination. Self-taught as I am, I have learned to keep my eyes open and soak it up. Most importantly: do the research. Go the extra mile. Trust your instincts. Don’t try to fix something with a Band-Aid, get to the root of the problem and re-invent the solution.
The Set Decorators Society of America (SDSA) and IATSE Local 44's Set Decorator Steering Committee paid tribute to Fox's memory, praising her generosity, spirit, and contributions to the film industry. The SDSA wrote,
Known for her joie de vivre, keen artistic eye, belly laugh, and clever wit, she was beloved by her crew and colleagues. K.C. generously offered career advice, mentored through the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and served on many Boards and Committees at the SDSA and AMPAS.
Fox's legacy will live on through her work, which continues to inspire and influence new generations of set decorators and filmmakers. Her contributions to the film industry will not be forgotten, and her memory will be cherished by those who knew her and worked with her.
K.C. Fox, a talented and respected set decorator, has passed away at the age of 70. Throughout her career, Fox worked on numerous films and television shows, earning numerous awards and nominations for her work.
She was a founding member of the Set Decorators Society of America and a recipient of the Earl Cooperman Lifetime Achievement Award in 2024. Fox's legacy will continue to inspire and influence new generations of filmmakers, and her memory will be cherished by those who knew her and worked with her.
A Delta Airlines passenger was reportedly removed from a flight at Sarasota Bradenton International Airport due to his controversial t-shirt.
According to the New York Post, the incident occurred on Saturday morning when the man's shirt, featuring former President Donald Trump and a reference to a viral meme, was deemed offensive by airline staff.
The t-shirt in question depicted Trump wearing American flag-colored sunglasses and making an obscene gesture with both hands. It also included text referencing the "hawk tuah" meme, which has gained notoriety online. The situation escalated quickly, leading to the passenger's removal from the aircraft just before takeoff.
According to a Reddit post by user SKBeachGirl, the incident began when the passenger was waiting to board the flight. A Delta employee approached him, stating that someone had complained about his shirt. The passenger was given the option to either change his attire or be denied boarding.
In response to this initial warning, the man reportedly turned his shirt inside out, which allowed him to board the plane along with other passengers. This compromise appeared to resolve the situation temporarily, allowing the boarding process to continue as planned.
However, the situation took an unexpected turn just before the flight was set to depart. Despite the earlier compromise, it seems the passenger decided to revert his shirt to its original state, displaying the controversial design once again.
As the plane was preparing for takeoff, a Delta employee boarded the aircraft and escorted the passenger off the flight. This action suggests that the airline staff deemed the shirt's content sufficiently problematic to warrant removal, even after the initial compromise had been reached.
The passenger's reaction to being removed was captured on video and shared on social media. As he was leaving the plane, he can be heard saying: "I'm getting kicked off because of my shirt."
He also made a comment about a flight attendant named Wendy, referring to her as "stupid-ass Wendy" as he was being escorted off the plane. This outburst indicates the passenger's frustration with the situation and the airline's decision to remove him from the flight.
Delta Airlines' Contract of Carriage outlines the company's right to remove passengers from flights under certain circumstances. The policy states that removal can occur at Delta's discretion for various reasons, including passenger comfort, safety, or to prevent damage to property.
Specifically, the contract mentions that a traveler can be removed when their "conduct, attire, hygiene or odor creates an unreasonable risk of offense or annoyance to other passengers." This clause provides the airline with the authority to make judgments about appropriate attire and behavior on their flights.
This incident is not the first time Delta has faced controversy over passenger attire. Earlier in the year, a passenger named Lisa Archbold claimed she was nearly removed from a flight for not wearing a bra. Archbold stated that a gate agent escorted her off the plane and demanded she cover up despite her breasts not being visible through her loose white t-shirt.
A Delta Airlines passenger was removed from a flight in Sarasota due to wearing a controversial t-shirt featuring Donald Trump and a viral meme reference. The incident began with a complaint about the shirt, leading to an initial compromise where the passenger turned it inside out. However, he was ultimately escorted off the plane when he reverted the shirt to its original state. This event highlights the ongoing debate about appropriate attire on flights and the extent of airlines' authority in enforcing dress codes.
Donald Trump has issued a bold allegation against Vice President Kamala Harris.
Trump has accused Harris of fabricating her story about working at McDonald's, a claim that has drawn significant scrutiny and an alarming lack of supporting evidence, as the Daily Mail reports.
The former president made this accusation during the Moms for Liberty convention held in Washington on Friday. He cast doubt on Harris's narrative of having been employed at the fast-food giant during her college years.
Trump asserted that Harris's story about working at McDonald's was a fabrication. Referring to an investigation, he sarcastically commented that it only took 20 minutes to discover that she allegedly never worked there.
Harris had previously shared her experience working at McDonald's on The Drew Barrymore Show in April. She detailed her tasks of handling fries and serving as a cashier during the summer following her freshman year at Howard University. This claim was intended to highlight Harris's middle-class roots, portraying herself as having experienced the challenges of ordinary Americans. However, she had not previously mentioned this job during her campaign or in any of her two memoirs.
Critics have pointed out inconsistencies in Harris's narrative. Her 2019 memoir, The Truths We Hold, which delves into her college jobs, does not mention her time at McDonald's. Additionally, two biographies about Harris also fail to reference her alleged fast-food job. Dan Morain, author of Kamala's Way: An American Life, stated that he was not aware of Harris working at McDonald's.
Scrutiny intensified when it was found that Harris did not list McDonald's on a job application submitted a year after graduating from college. This revelation has led critics to question the authenticity of her claim.
Lauren Hitt, a campaign spokeswoman for Harris, reiterated the vice president's assertion. She emphasized Harris's modest upbringing and the necessity of working for extra money during college.
In a recent campaign event, Harris and her running mate Tim Walz, both highlighted their middle-class backgrounds. Harris's summer job at McDonald's was presented as part of this narrative.
However, a report from Politico noted that an earlier campaign ad had overstated Harris's need for the job, which was later corrected by staffers to indicate that it was for extra spending money, rather than financial necessity.
Trump contrasted Harris's claims with his own background, referencing his upbringing as the son of a wealthy New York developer who never faced financial hardship. Walz added a pointed comment, questioning the likelihood of Trump ever working at McDonald's himself.
As the debate over Harris's biographical claim continues, questions about the accuracy of political narratives remain a focal point of scrutiny. Both supporters and detractors are closely examining the details and discrepancies surrounding Harris's story.
In conclusion, Donald Trump's accusation against Kamala Harris has ignited a heated debate over the authenticity of her claim about working at McDonald's. Harris's statements have been met with skepticism due to the absence of this job in her previous accounts and the lack of corroboration from her biographies. Her campaign, however, continues to affirm her narrative. The controversy highlights the importance of biographical accuracy in political discourse.
Polling expert Frank Luntz has expressed concern over Kamala Harris's recent interview performance, predicting that she would struggle in a debate against former President Donald Trump.
Luntz, a well-known political consultant, appeared on CNBC’s Squawk Box on Friday to critique Harris’s performance during a CNN interview, suggesting it revealed weaknesses that could hurt her in future political engagements, as The Blaze reports.
Luntz did not hold back in his assessment, noting multiple shortcomings in Harris’s interview. He criticized her for focusing on her values rather than addressing priorities that resonate with voters, a mistake he labeled as significant.
He further suggested that Harris seemed unprepared for questions about her plans if she were to take office, which left him unimpressed.
"I was not impressed," Luntz remarked, emphasizing that Harris did not meet the expectations for someone in her position with ample time to prepare. He added that she spoke as though delivering a convention speech, failing to provide the detailed policy explanations that Americans deserve from a presidential candidate.
Luntz's critique extended beyond just the content of her responses. He pointed out that Harris has a historical issue with authenticity dating back to her 2018 campaign. This, he argued, remains a significant barrier to her success, particularly in the high-pressure environment of a debate.
The CNBC appearance saw Luntz questioning whether Harris could effectively compete against Donald Trump in a debate setting. He cited her recent interview as evidence that she might come up short when placed side by side with the former president. "What's gonna happen in this debate is that they're gonna see them side by side. And based on last night's performance, Harris is gonna come up wanting," Luntz stated.
Luntz underscored the importance of voters comparing candidates directly, noting that "it is not a race in a vacuum." His comments reflect a broader concern that Harris’s perceived weaknesses in communication could become more pronounced when contrasted with a seasoned debater like Trump.
In his final assessment, Luntz graded Harris's performance a C, a middling mark that suggests room for improvement. He made it clear that if Harris hopes to be competitive in the upcoming election, she must sharpen her debate skills and address the concerns raised by her interview performance.
Throughout his critique, Luntz repeatedly emphasized the need for Harris to be more authentic and better prepared. He argued that her focus on values over practical priorities was a significant misstep. "And she did not do what she needed to do to put those concerns to rest," he said, pointing out that this approach could alienate voters who are more interested in tangible plans than abstract ideals.
Luntz’s surprise at Harris’s performance was evident. "I was surprised," he admitted, reflecting a sense of disappointment from someone who had expected more from a candidate with her experience. This sentiment underscores the pressure on Harris to step up her game in future appearances, particularly in debates where the stakes will be higher.
The political consultant’s comments suggest that Harris has significant work to do if she hopes to convince voters of her capability to lead. His critique serves as a warning that without a shift in strategy, she may struggle to make the case for her candidacy against a formidable opponent like Trump.
In conclusion, Frank Luntz's criticism of Kamala Harris's CNN interview performance highlights several areas where she fell short, particularly in her communication and debate preparedness. He warned that without improvements, Harris might not stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate, emphasizing the need for authenticity and a clear focus on priorities.
Vice President Kamala Harris' previous openness to expanding the Supreme Court during her 2019 presidential campaign has come back into focus.
According to a report by Fox News, Harris expressed willingness to consider adding justices to the nation's highest court, a position that contrasts with her more recent statements on the matter.
During her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, Harris indicated she was open to the idea of "court packing," a term used to describe increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court.
This stance has resurfaced as the Biden administration faces questions about potential reforms to the judicial branch.
In March 2019, Harris was asked about the possibility of adding justices to the Supreme Court during a campaign event. Her response at the time suggested an openness to the idea, which was gaining traction among some progressive Democrats.
Harris' willingness to consider court expansion was part of a broader conversation within the Democratic Party about potential reforms to the Supreme Court. Some candidates and activists were advocating for structural changes to the court in response to concerns about its ideological balance.
The topic of court reform became a significant issue in the Democratic primary, with various candidates offering their perspectives on how to address perceived imbalances in the judicial system.
Since becoming Vice President, Harris has aligned herself with the Biden administration's more cautious approach to Supreme Court reform. The White House has not endorsed expanding the court; instead, it has opted for a commission to study potential changes.
This shift in messaging has drawn attention from political observers and critics alike. The contrast between Harris' past openness to court expansion and the administration's current position highlights the evolving nature of political stances.
Some have questioned whether this change reflects a genuine evolution in Harris' views or a strategic alignment with the administration's priorities.
The resurfacing of Harris' past comments on court expansion comes at a time when discussions about Supreme Court reform continue to simmer in political circles. While the Biden administration has not pursued court expansion, the topic remains a point of debate among Democrats.
Harris' earlier stance may influence how some voters and political analysts perceive the administration's approach to judicial issues. It also underscores the challenges politicians face when reconciling past positions with current roles and responsibilities.
As discussions about potential reforms to the Supreme Court continue, Harris' evolving stance on the issue may remain a point of interest for both supporters and critics of the administration.
In conclusion, Vice President Kamala Harris' past openness to expanding the Supreme Court during her 2019 presidential campaign has resurfaced, contrasting with her current alignment with the Biden administration's more cautious approach. This shift in position highlights the evolving nature of political stances and the challenges of reconciling past views with current roles. As debates about judicial reform continue, Harris' stance on the issue may remain a topic of discussion in political circles.
Former President Donald Trump visited Arlington National Cemetery to pay respects to fallen troops, but the event was marred by reports of an altercation between Trump campaign staff and cemetery officials.
According to Fox News, a U.S. veteran who witnessed the ceremony praised Trump's conduct, describing it as "respectful and solemn."
The Monday event commemorated the 13 U.S. service members killed during the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan. While some lauded Trump's presence, controversy arose over allegations that his campaign staff clashed with cemetery personnel over photography restrictions.
Lucas O'Hara, a former member of the Presidential Honor Guard, took to social media to defend Trump's behavior at the event. Having served at Arlington for three years and witnessed numerous ceremonies, O'Hara commended the former president's demeanor.
O'Hara stated:
I have witnessed over 75 wreath laying ceremonies performed by politicians and conducted 524 funerals in this cemetery during the time I served in the Presidential Honor Guard for three years. What I got to witness yesterday was the most respectful and solemn ceremony I have seen. There were no speeches, no angles, no weird photo ops just our elected officials and the 45th President respectfully and solemnly honoring the fallen and their families.
Despite the positive account from O'Hara, reports emerged of a confrontation between Trump campaign staff and Arlington National Cemetery officials. The dispute centered on the presence of campaign photographers at the event.
According to NPR, two Trump campaign staff members allegedly "verbally abused and pushed" a cemetery official who attempted to prevent them from filming and taking photos. A defense official also informed The Associated Press that the campaign had been warned against photography at the event.
Arlington National Cemetery released a statement reiterating federal law prohibiting political campaign activities within Army National Military Cemeteries. The statement confirmed an incident occurred, and a report was filed.
In response to the allegations, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung offered a different perspective on the incident. Cheung argued that the campaign had received permission to bring a photographer to the event.
He characterized the cemetery staffer's actions as a "mental health episode," stating, "The fact is that a private photographer was permitted on the premises and, for whatever reason, an unnamed individual, clearly suffering from a mental health episode, decided to physically block members of President Trump's team during a very solemn ceremony."
This statement from the Trump campaign directly contradicts the accounts provided by cemetery officials and other sources, adding a layer of complexity to the unfolding story.
Despite the controversy surrounding the event, family members of the soldiers killed in the Kabul bombing expressed appreciation for Trump's presence. Five of these family members released a statement following the ceremony. They wrote:
We are deeply grateful to the president for taking the time to honor our children and for standing alongside us in our grief, offering his unwavering support during such a difficult time. His compassion and respect meant more than words can express.
In conclusion, Trump's visit to Arlington National Cemetery to honor fallen troops was marked by conflicting accounts. While a veteran praised the former president's respectful conduct, reports of an altercation between Trump's campaign staff and cemetery officials emerged. The Trump campaign denied wrongdoing, claiming they had permission to photograph. Despite the controversy, families of the fallen expressed gratitude for Trump's presence at the solemn event.