Far-left Colombian President Gustavo Petro acknowledged Monday that the 14-year-old boy who shot conservative Senator Miguel Uribe Turbay was previously enrolled in his administration's "Youth in Peace" social program. The shocking revelation adds a controversial dimension to Saturday's assassination attempt that left the vocal government critic fighting for his life.
According to Breitbart, President Petro admitted the troubled teen was identified by the district government and subsequently transferred to the administration's program. The young assailant, reportedly named Juan Sebastián Rodríguez Casallas, shot Senator Uribe three times during a presidential campaign event in Bogotá.
The attack left Uribe with two gunshot wounds to the skull and one to his left leg. As of Tuesday morning, the senator—a potential presidential candidate for the right-wing Democratic Center party in 2026—remains in critical but stable condition, showing "little medical response" to emergency medical procedures.
President Petro described the young assailant's brief participation in the "Youth in Peace" program in a post on his official Twitter account. The program is part of his administration's broader "Total Peace" plan, which aims to reduce violent crime through negotiation with criminal organizations and social rehabilitation.
"There, according to the report I have from the professionals, he demonstrated a completely troubled personality, with no ability to form interpersonal bonds," Petro stated about the teen. "He lasted two months, did not attend any classes, and voluntarily withdrew."
The "Youth in Peace" program, launched in January 2023, provides money stipends and education to impoverished Colombian youth, aiming to transform them into "peace managers" who can mediate conflicts in their communities. However, reports published in May indicated the program faced significant "operational and administrative difficulties" after a review by Colombia's Equality Ministry revealed numerous implementation irregularities.
The 14-year-old suspect reportedly shouted, "I did it for money, for my family!" when authorities apprehended him after the attack. Officials have maintained strict confidentiality regarding his identity in accordance with Colombian law, but international outlets have published his name.
Astrid Cáceres Cárdenas, head of the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare (ICBF), told reporters Monday that the minor is cooperating with authorities. "He is in full collaboration, and also in an attitude of assuming responsibilities," Cáceres Cárdenas said, adding that special protection measures have been implemented for his safety.
El Colombiano reported Tuesday that a man identifying himself as the child's uncle revealed the boy's difficult family situation. The man stated the minor's father is in Poland and his mother died when she was 23, leaving the boy to live with an aunt in Bogotá's Engativá district. "The young man is immersed in such a family uprooting that it seems he was easy prey for the criminals who instrumentalized him," the newspaper wrote.
The firearm used in the attack has raised additional questions about how it reached the young assailant's hands. Investigations have revealed a concerning international dimension to the case.
Sources linked to the investigation told El Tiempo that the weapon had been purchased at an Arizona sporting goods store in August 2020 by a man identified as Charles Joe Anderson. How the firearm traveled from the United States to Colombia remains unclear.
Ballistic studies confirmed the weapon is not registered with Colombia's Department of Arms, Ammunition and Explosives Control, and Commerce. This revelation has prompted authorities to expand their investigation beyond the young shooter to identify potential accomplices who may have supplied the weapon.
Senator Miguel Uribe Turbay remains hospitalized in critical condition as doctors at the Santa Fe Foundation of Bogotá continue their efforts to save his life. The senator, known for his vocal criticism of President Petro's government, was campaigning as a potential presidential candidate when the attack occurred.
Under Colombian law, the 14-year-old suspect must face two separate judicial procedures—an administrative process with a public defender and another with a family defender. The Ombudsman's Office and Attorney General's Office are supervising these proceedings.
The attempted assassination highlights growing political tensions in Colombia as the country approaches the 2026 presidential elections. It also raises serious questions about the effectiveness of Petro's "Total Peace" initiatives, which Interior Minister Armando Benedetti admitted in April "has not turned out well."
President Donald Trump indicated his border czar, Tom Homan, should arrest California Governor Gavin Newsom as riots continue to rage in Los Angeles following immigration enforcement operations. The president's comments came during an exchange with Fox News reporter Peter Doocy, who asked Trump about Newsom's public challenge to the border czar.
According to The Daily Caller, Trump responded to Doocy's question about whether Homan should arrest Newsom with a smirk, saying, "I would do it if I were Tom."
The exchange follows escalating tensions between federal and California state officials after ICE raids in Los Angeles led to the arrest of 100 illegal immigrants, including alleged gang members and drug traffickers. The enforcement action has sparked violent protests that have included arson, vandalism, and attacks on law enforcement officers.
The conflict between Homan and Newsom began after NBC News aired footage of the border czar warning that government officials could face federal charges for obstructing immigration enforcement. This prompted a defiant response from the California governor.
"Come after me, arrest me. Let's just get it over with, tough guy," Newsom challenged in his response to Homan. "You know, I don't give a damn. But I care about my community, I care about this community. The hell are they doing? These guys need to grow up, they need to stop and we need to push back."
Homan has disputed NBC News' characterization of his comments, claiming the network edited his interview in a "dishonest" manner that took his words out of context. NBC News has stood by its reporting of Homan's remarks that sparked the confrontation.
The unrest in Los Angeles began Friday following Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that targeted illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds. What started as protests quickly deteriorated into widespread violence.
Rioters have burned cars, throwing Molotov cocktails, rocks, and fireworks at authorities, and defaced property with anti-ICE slogans. Some buildings and vehicles have been tagged with messages like "KILL ICE," demonstrating the intensity of anti-enforcement sentiment among protesters.
Trump responded to the escalating situation on Saturday by deploying 2,000 National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles, a move that drew immediate criticism from both Governor Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.
While suggesting Homan should arrest the California governor, Trump also took the opportunity to criticize Newsom's performance in office, despite claiming to personally like him.
"Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing. He's done a terrible job," Trump said during the exchange with Doocy. "Look, I like Gavin Newsom. He's a nice guy, but he's grossly incompetent. Everybody knows all you have to do is look at the little railroad he's building. It's about 100 times over budget."
The president's comments appear to reference California's high-speed rail project, which has faced significant cost overruns and delays during Newsom's administration. Trump has used this project repeatedly as an example of what he characterizes as poor governance in California.
The heated exchange between Trump, Homan, and Newsom represents the latest chapter in an ongoing confrontation between federal immigration authorities and California's leadership over immigration enforcement priorities.
Newsom's defiant challenge to federal authorities comes as Los Angeles experiences some of its worst civil unrest in years. The violence has prompted a significant federal response, with Trump deploying National Guard troops despite opposition from state and local leaders.
As the situation unfolds, tensions between federal officials and California leadership show no signs of easing. Trump's suggestion that his border czar should arrest the sitting governor of the nation's most populous state marks a significant escalation in rhetoric between the administration and state officials.
Florida Republican leader Ileana Garcia has publicly criticized President Trump's immigration enforcement strategy, highlighting growing tension within the party over recent deportation practices. In a strongly worded social media post, the state senator and Latinas for Trump co-founder declared the administration's tactics "unacceptable and inhumane."
According to The Hill, Garcia took aim at what she described as "arbitrary measures" targeting immigrants who are following legal procedures, including those with credible fear claims who are attending their scheduled immigration hearings.
The Republican state senator specifically objected to reports that immigration officials in southern Florida have been making arrests in immigration courts and targeting individuals who are otherwise complying with legal orders. Her rebuke represents a significant break from a prominent Trump ally on one of the president's signature policy initiatives.
Garcia expressed her continued general support for Trump while drawing a clear line regarding current enforcement tactics. Her criticism directly targeted Stephen Miller, the White House homeland security adviser and deputy chief of staff, who has been a driving force behind the administration's immigration policies.
"I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings—in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims—all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal," Garcia wrote on social platform X.
The Florida state senator emphasized her longstanding support for Trump while making it clear she could not back the current approach, declaring, "This is not what we voted for." Her comments reflect growing concerns among some Republicans about the humanitarian impacts of the administration's deportation strategy.
The White House quickly responded to the criticism, defending its policies as both legally sound and politically popular. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson emphasized that all deportation proceedings include due process protections.
"Any illegal alien who is deported from the United States receives due process, and if they have pending asylum claims they are adjudicated by USCIS prior to any removal," Jackson stated in response to the criticism. The administration appears determined to maintain its aggressive enforcement posture despite the internal party dissent.
Jackson also cited electoral support for the policy, noting that "President Trump was the first Republican Presidential candidate in nearly 40 years to win Miami-Dade county, and polling ahead of the election showed massive support among Hispanic voters for deportations." The administration characterized its actions as fulfilling campaign promises that voters endorsed.
Garcia's comments follow similar concerns expressed by Rep. María Elvira Salazar, another Florida Republican who has been vocal about the administration's immigration enforcement. Salazar described herself as "heartbroken" over recent actions that have "left thousands exposed to deportation."
The congresswoman specifically defended the right to due process for asylum seekers, particularly those fleeing what she described as "the three most brutal regimes in our hemisphere" – Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. She characterized these countries as "sworn enemies of the United States," suggesting the administration's approach could be counterproductive.
Both Garcia and Salazar have indicated they plan to engage directly with administration officials on the issue. Salazar announced upcoming meetings with White House representatives, while Garcia stated firmly that she "will not stand down" in her opposition to the current tactics.
Garcia's criticism appears deeply rooted in her personal background and constituency. As she explained in her statement, her perspective is informed by her heritage and the district she represents.
"As the state senator who represents her district and the daughter of Cuban refugees, who are now just as American, if not more so than Stephen Miller, I am deeply disappointed by these actions," Garcia wrote in her social media post. This personal framing adds emotional weight to her policy objections.
The public break between the Trump administration and prominent Latino Republican supporters in Florida highlights growing tensions over immigration enforcement. While both Garcia and Salazar expressed support for deporting individuals with criminal records, they have drawn a line at targeting those following legal procedures or seeking asylum.
The recent dispute between President Donald Trump and SpaceX's Elon Musk has led to significant reevaluations in the partnerships NASA and the Pentagon maintain with private space companies.
The administration -- specifically the Pentagon -- is distancing itself from Musk's enterprises, exploring potential collaborations with other firms like Blue Origin and RocketLab to mitigate the risks associated with heavy reliance on a single contractor, as the Daily Mail reports.
This shift comes after Musk's public threat to pull SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft from critical operations, essential for the International Space Station (ISS). The threat was a response to Trump's intention to rescind SpaceX's government contracts, which could have disrupted vital space missions. Although Musk has withdrawn his threat, the incident heightened concerns over SpaceX's dominance in the national space program.
The tension has prompted NASA and the Department of Defense to increase outreach efforts to alternative space companies, such as Blue Origin, RocketLab, Sierra Space, and Stoke Space. NASA's desire to prevent overdependence on SpaceX has also shone a spotlight on Boeing's Starliner capsule despite its numerous setbacks and required testing procedures. Additionally, within the corridors of Congress, there have been growing calls for updates on the Starliner's readiness and any potential delays.
Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin is seen as a potential frontrunner in this transition, despite historically trailing behind SpaceX in performance and delivery. The focus has shifted toward Jeff Bezos's New Glenn vehicle, which, although still in developmental stages, is rapidly gaining more attention. Fatih Ozmen of Sierra Space noted that NASA's decision to diversify their partnerships reflects their desire not to place all their eggs in one basket.
The Pentagon's strategy to diversify its collaborators in space exploration proves to be a timely move as the governmental landscape moves toward more sustainable practices. A former NASA official indicated that Musk's unpredictable actions could lead to substantial operational disruptions. Such views were intensified by past incidents, including Elon Musk's 2018 behavior on a podcast, which prompted reviews into SpaceX’s safety protocols.
RocketLab CEO Peter Beck provided a practical perspective on the situation and emphasized the importance of reliability when managing national security missions. "At the end of the day," Beck said, the ultimate responsibility lies with the company leaders to ensure consistency and trust.
There is a shared sentiment across the space community that this pivot signifies both a cautionary measure and a strategic realignment. Former NASA astronaut Garrett Reisman echoed the sentiment of uncertainty that trickles into the astronaut community, reflecting on the ramifications of these developments concerning the future of manned spaceflight. Reisman's words resonate with aspiring astronauts whose careers hinge on dependable transport to and from space.
Similarly, Suni Williams, speaking to the delays encapsulating Boeing's Starliner capsule, sees the continuation of testing as a prudent step. Acknowledging the constraints and expectations faced by all parties involved, Williams stressed the rationality of NASA's demands.
Todd Harrison, a defense analyst, drew attention to the broader implications of SpaceX withdrawing from governmental relations, suggesting that critical defense operations could be held in jeopardy due to Musk's unpredictable social media habits. If critical systems like the nation's missile defenses were wrapped up in current partnerships, the stakes become even higher, Harrison suggests.
Meanwhile, industry leaders like Ozmen of Sierra Space remain optimistic and ready to step in as viable alternatives to Musk’s space juggernaut. With a strategic eye toward future collaborations, the message from all players is clear: the government’s interest in a diverse array of partners aligns with an overarching agenda for predictability and security.
As traditional space giants and emerging firms elevate their readiness, the government's evolving position marks a significant period in the private-public space collaboration sphere. This could eventually see an expanded competitive field and, theoretically, accelerated innovation across the board.
The ongoing situation between Musk and Trump hints at deeper systemic concerns over dependency on singular entities. By diversifying, the U.S. aims to shelter its space ambitions from potential disruptions, ensuring that the path to Mars and other extraterrestrial endeavors remains unfragmented by personal public disputes.
The FBI has uncovered electronic devices linked to Dr. Anthony Fauci, marking a significant advance in the investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The discovery was confirmed by FBI Director Kash Patel, who indicated the devices could shed light on Fauci's role in key pandemic-related decisions and the purported ties between his agency and the Wuhan laboratory, as the Daily Mail reports.
The devices, which include hard drives and a cell phone, were integral to the ongoing investigation concerning the federal response during the COVID-19 outbreak. The investigation is focusing particularly on decisions related to lockdowns, mask mandates, and the controversial Wuhan lab theory.
The seizure occurred ahead of Patel's appearance on the popular podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. During this interview, he expressed his view that finding these devices represented a "great breakthrough" and a "victory for the American people." However, details about the timing of when these devices were used, the means through which they were verified, or how they were obtained, were not disclosed by Patel. He noted that while the discovery was significant, it is crucial to be cautious, as some data may be absent or erased.
Nevertheless, the FBI director emphasized that these seized devices could provide the best evidence available, asserting that such evidence is often best derived from the creators themselves. This statement reflects the potential of these devices to reveal crucial information about Dr. Fauci's actions and decisions.
The context of this investigation aligns with multiple ongoing inquiries being carried out by federal agencies into the pandemic's inception. Both the FBI and CIA have publicly leaned toward the conclusion that the virus likely originated from a lab incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Dr. Fauci, during his tenure, had overseen grants for complex coronavirus studies at the Wuhan laboratory before the pandemic's onset. These studies, and their links to the lab-leak theory, remain under substantial scrutiny and investigation. Fauci, however, categorically denied the accusations of a cover-up and dismissed any deliberate suppression of lab-leak theories as "preposterous."
Internationally, various intelligence agencies have validated the lab-leak hypothesis with considerable confidence, further fueling the ongoing debate. The German intelligence agency, BND, is one notable organization that has aligned with this position.
In addition, Robert Redfield, a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director, stated his belief that COVID-19 originated from a lab accident. In contrast, Fauci, as late as 2021, labeled the lab-leak possibility as exceedingly improbable.
Despite these divergent perspectives, Patel remains committed to transparency. He emphasized his dedication to uncovering and presenting the truth, regardless of the outcome or who it might involve.
The recent retrieval of Fauci's devices is likely to spark further discussion and investigation into the origins and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. For many, this development represents a vital step in determining the events that transpired at the outset of the global health crisis.
Patel articulated the importance of clarity on this matter, questioning whether Dr. Fauci had potentially misled the world, which may have led to catastrophic consequences. These are answers that, according to Patel, are owed to the public.
The ongoing investigations underscore the complexity and sensitivity surrounding the pandemic's origins. As these efforts continue, the discourse among scientists, political figures, and intelligence agencies reflects the challenging task of achieving a comprehensive understanding of this unprecedented health event.
Further findings from Dr. Fauci's electronic devices could provide invaluable insights and implications for understanding the initial stages of the pandemic and the governmental responses. The broader ramifications could influence how future public health crises are managed and investigated.
While the current status of the devices and the specifics of any obtained data remain ambiguous, the acknowledgment from the FBI has heightened attention around this central issue. The preceding months are expected to reveal more definitive evidence and conclusions as the investigation progresses.
Elon Musk and President Donald Trump have ignited a new political firestorm that has lawmakers and pundits on both sides scrambling for answers. A recent social media post by Musk has triggered fierce responses—and a rare moment of unity—among Republican members of Congress.
As reported by Fox News, Musk stunned Washington by suggesting Trump was linked to the infamous Jeffrey Epstein files, a claim that most GOP lawmakers quickly condemned as unfounded and reckless. The tech billionaire’s public feud with Trump, already simmering over government spending, is now spiraling into one of the year’s most controversial political showdowns.
Republican leaders are rallying around Trump, calling Musk’s remarks a distraction and questioning his motives. Some even suggest that if evidence existed tying Trump to Epstein, it would have already surfaced during past election cycles.
House Republicans have wasted no time denouncing Musk’s claims, characterizing his comments as not only unwarranted but also damaging to the GOP’s legislative agenda. Musk, who posted on X that Trump is “in the Epstein files,” drew sharp rebukes from lawmakers representing a spectrum of the party’s ideological wings.
Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, was direct in his disapproval, saying, “Hopefully we never have to answer questions about tweets like that from Elon again.” He called Musk’s comments “not helpful,” a sentiment echoed by several of his colleagues. The controversy comes as Republicans attempt to focus on passing a significant budget reconciliation bill, which Musk also criticized.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, did not mince words, telling Fox News Digital, “Elon crossed the line today.” GOP lawmakers see Musk’s allegations as a distraction from their efforts to address the national debt, which is approaching $37 trillion.
Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, called Musk’s move “too far,” urging that such conversations “should be taking place behind closed doors.” Many lawmakers agree that unsubstantiated public accusations threaten to derail the party’s focus and legislative progress.
Some GOP lawmakers are questioning why Musk would raise such explosive claims now, especially given the lack of new evidence. The reaction from members of Congress suggests deep skepticism about the timing and substance of Musk’s statements.
Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., argued that if Trump truly appeared in Epstein’s logs, “there’s no question it would have come out during the campaign.” He added, “I don’t know what’s prompting it. I think it’s all unfortunate.” Critics within the party believe Musk’s comments play into the hands of political opponents eager for any damaging information about Trump.
Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., pointed out the inconsistency in Musk’s behavior, questioning why Musk would allow his son to spend time with Trump if he believed the president was closely tied to Epstein. Burchett suggested, “Why would he let his kid hang out with the president if that was true? That just doesn’t make any sense. And now he’s calling for his impeachment. I mean, it’s just going off to the deep end.”
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., who heads a task force on declassifying federal investigations, including Epstein’s, told reporters she doubts Musk’s suggestion. She said that any credible allegation would have surfaced during the primaries.
Not every Republican dismissed Musk’s claims outright. A small but vocal group within the party is using the controversy to demand more openness regarding the Epstein files. Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., distinguished himself by calling for transparency, stating, “Facts will bear out whatever they will. The Epstein files are bound to come out, and let it come out. We ought to see it. America has a right to know, just like they do with the John F. Kennedy files, the Bobby Kennedy files.”
While most lawmakers reject the notion that Trump’s name in the Epstein files implies guilt, some point to the need for the full release of the documents to end speculation. A source familiar with Trump’s relationship with Epstein noted that Trump had permanently banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago for inappropriate behavior, a fact previously reported in the book “The Grifter’s Club.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt attributed Musk’s online tirade to frustration over Trump’s proposed economic legislation, suggesting Musk’s business interests were not adequately addressed in the bill. She stated that the president remains focused on passing the legislation for working- and middle-class tax relief.
The dispute between Musk and Trump shows no immediate signs of cooling. With social media fueling the feud and each side digging in, it remains to be seen whether more information will emerge or if the controversy will fade as quickly as it began. Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., said he could not speculate on Musk’s motivations but emphasized the GOP’s commitment to avoiding a tax hike on Americans. Meanwhile, Trump’s allies maintain that any mention of his name in the already-released Epstein files is not new and does not reveal any criminal connection.
Hollywood icon Clint Eastwood has found himself at the center of a peculiar controversy that’s stirring debate among fans and industry insiders alike. At 95, the legendary actor and director is no stranger to the spotlight, but this time, it’s not for a new film or award—it’s for something he claims never even happened.
The crux of the story revolves around a supposed interview where Eastwood allegedly criticized Hollywood’s reliance on remakes and franchises. As reported by Breitbart, the veteran star has come forward to declare the entire piece as fabricated, sparking questions about media authenticity in the digital age.
Reports of the interview painted Eastwood as disillusioned with modern cinema, supposedly lamenting the lack of originality in an industry obsessed with recycling old ideas. Yet, Eastwood’s team insists no such conversation took place, raising alarms about how easily false narratives can spread, especially when tied to a figure as revered as he is among conservative audiences who often share his traditional values.
Addressing the issue head-on, Clint Eastwood’s representatives have categorically denied the existence of any interview where he trashed Hollywood’s current trends. They labeled the story as “entirely phony,” suggesting it was crafted out of thin air to capitalize on his name. This isn’t the first time a celebrity has had to combat misinformation, but for someone of Eastwood’s stature, it hits particularly hard.
Conservative fans, who often admire Eastwood for his rugged individualism and classic filmmaking style, might see this as another example of media overreach or agenda-driven reporting. Many in this camp feel that Hollywood and certain outlets frequently misrepresent traditional voices like his. The frustration is palpable, as they argue that such fabrications undermine trust in journalism at a time when truth is already hard to discern.
On the flip side, some skeptics wonder if there’s more to the story. Could this be a miscommunication or an exaggerated report based on a kernel of truth from past comments? While no evidence supports this, critics of Eastwood’s denial suggest that his age or limited public appearances might make it easier for false stories to gain traction unchecked. Regardless, the lack of a verifiable source for the interview leans heavily in favor of his team’s stance.
Shifting focus to the content of the alleged interview, the fabricated quotes attributed to Eastwood reportedly slammed Hollywood’s fixation on remakes and sequels over fresh storytelling. This narrative, though false in this instance, touches on a real grievance many share about the industry. For conservative audiences, this resonates as a decline in cultural creativity, often blamed on progressive agendas prioritizing profit over substance.
Indeed, the film industry has seen a surge in reboots and franchise extensions, from endless superhero sagas to reimagined classics. Supporters of this trend argue it’s driven by audience demand and nostalgia, providing a safe bet in a risky market. However, detractors—including those who might have believed Eastwood’s supposed words—feel it stifles innovation and buries the kind of gritty, original narratives Eastwood himself once championed.
Balancing these views, it’s clear the debate isn’t black-and-white. While remakes can reintroduce beloved stories to new generations, the sheer volume often overshadows independent projects struggling for funding. For Eastwood’s fans, even a fake quote might echo their disappointment in an industry they feel has strayed from the values of cinematic pioneers like him.
Turning to the broader implications, this incident spotlights the growing issue of media accountability in an era of rapid information spread. Eastwood’s camp calling out the interview as a hoax raises valid concerns about how easily unverified claims can shape public perception.
Critics of the media argue that the rush to publish sensational stories, especially about polarizing figures like Eastwood, can lead to sloppy fact-checking or outright fabrication. They worry that such practices erode public trust, particularly when the target is someone whose views might not align with
On the other hand, some media defenders note that not every outlet ran with the alleged interview, and those who did may have believed they had credible sources. Mistakes happen, they argue, and the digital landscape makes it harder to trace the origins of misinformation. Still, for many, this defense falls flat without concrete evidence of the interview’s authenticity, leaving the burden on publishers to rebuild credibility.
Revisiting the heart of this story, Clint Eastwood, a 95-year-old Hollywood titan, has publicly refuted a supposed interview criticizing the industry’s remake culture as completely fabricated. The incident unfolded through reports that gained traction online, only to be debunked by his team as a falsehood with no basis in reality.
Why this matters, especially to conservative readers, lies in the trust placed in figures like Eastwood and the media’s role in shaping narratives about them.
Where this happened—across digital platforms—and what comes next remain unclear, though it’s likely calls for stricter verification standards will grow louder. The next steps may involve legal action or public statements from Eastwood’s camp to deter future misrepresentations
President Donald Trump's choice of iPhone lock screen photo has ignited a firestorm of reactions online, revealing an unexpected glimpse into his personal device preferences that are dividing supporters and critics alike.
According to Daily Mail, Trump was photographed holding his iPhone on Friday after departing Air Force One from Pittsburgh, displaying a lock screen image of himself from July 2019 that shows him pointing straight ahead in a commanding pose.
The image was originally captured by Getty Images photographer Chip Somodevilla when the president was heading to a fundraiser at his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey. Internet sleuths had previously tracked down this specific photo in 2020 when it first appeared in social media shots.
Democrat Harry Sisson took to X to voice his strong disapproval of Trump's phone customization choice. "Trump's lock screen was spotted on his phone last night—and it was a photo of himself. Is that not one of the most narcissistic, self-absorbed things you've ever seen??? Not his family, not his kids, but himself," Sisson wrote.
The lock screen choice sparked heated discussions online, with critics pointing out that Trump opted for a self-portrait rather than photos of his extensive family, including his five children and eleven grandchildren. Many expressed surprise at the omission of family photos, particularly given recent additions to the Trump family.
Trump's latest grandchild, Alexander, born just last month to daughter Tiffany and son-in-law Michael Boulos, was notably absent from the president's phone display, further fueling critics' arguments about his personal priorities.
Conservative influencer Benny Johnson shared the lock screen image with a fire emoji, demonstrating enthusiastic support for Trump's personal choice. His post sparked a wave of positive responses from Trump's base.
Supporters on social media quickly rallied behind the president, with many describing the lock screen as "based" and claiming it possessed "aura." These defenders viewed the choice as a power move rather than a sign of narcissism.
The contrasting interpretations of Trump's phone customization highlighted how even the most personal aspects of the president's life become fodder for political debate and division among Americans.
The viral photo inadvertently revealed more than just Trump's lock screen preferences. A text message from Roger Stone, Trump's longtime advisor who received a presidential pardon during his first term, was visible in the notification area.
Stone's message contained a link to an article titled "Housing market chief Pulte sends blunt message on Fed interest rate cuts" from thestreet.com. The timing of this communication drew attention given Stone's controversial history with the administration.
The message referenced Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), who recently made headlines by alleging that New York AG Letitia James falsified banking documents, adding another layer of intrigue to the exposed communication.
The controversial lock screen photo's emergence coincides with the White House's release of a new official presidential portrait. This formal image shows Trump in a striking close-up shot against a dark background, marking a significant departure from previous presidential portraiture styles.
This new portrait replaced an earlier version that had drawn widespread comparisons to Trump's much-discussed mug shot, signaling a deliberate shift in how the president's image is being presented to the public.
These parallel revelations about Trump's photo preferences—both personal and official—demonstrate how the president's image choices continue to generate substantial public interest and spark intense debate among Americans of all political persuasions.