Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez confronts fellow representative Marjorie Taylor Greene over her suspicious stock market activities amid recent economic fluctuations.
According to the Daily Mail, Greene purchased between $21,000 and $315,000 worth of stocks just before President Donald Trump announced a pause on his controversial tariff policy, leading to significant market gains.
The revelation has sparked heated debate about potential insider trading in Congress, with Greene's stock purchases coinciding with Trump's social media post declaring "THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!" Her investments included shares in major companies like Apple, Devon Energy Corporation, and Merck & Company pharmaceuticals, all of which saw substantial increases following the tariff pause announcement.
Ocasio-Cortez, speaking at a "Fight Oligarchy" event in Idaho alongside Bernie Sanders, publicly challenged Greene about her financial gains. She emphasized the suffering of ordinary Americans during the market turbulence and questioned the timing of Greene's investments.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joined the criticism during an interview with Jen Psaki. He labeled Greene as "Exhibit A" of corruption within Congress and expressed his intention to push for legislation banning stock trading by sitting members.
The controversy stems from the dramatic market shifts following Trump's initial "Liberation Day" announcement and subsequent policy reversal. The stock market experienced its worst wipeout in history, losing $6.6 trillion in US stock value before rebounding after the tariff pause.
Greene's trading activities show a strategic pattern during the market volatility. She disposed of U.S. Treasury bills worth between $50,000 and $100,000 just before the tariff announcement, then made substantial stock purchases as the market bottomed out.
Ocasio-Cortez had previously raised concerns about potential insider trading on social media. She posted:
Any member of Congress who purchased stocks in the last 48 hours should probably disclose that now. I've been hearing some interesting chatter on the floor. Disclosure deadline is May 15th. We're about to learn a few things. It's time to ban insider trading in Congress.
Greene defended her actions through a spokesperson, who dismissed calls for investigation as "utterly absurd." The congresswoman maintains that her investments are managed by a financial advisor through a fiduciary agreement.
The timing of Greene's investments proved highly profitable as the market rebounded dramatically after Trump's policy reversal. The Nasdaq surged more than 12 percent while the S&P 500 gained 10 percent, marking their biggest jumps since October 2008.
Several of Greene's stock picks showed remarkable gains, including Palantir with a 19 percent increase and Advanced Micro Devices rising 21 percent since the tariff pause. These gains came after the market's worst performance since March 2020.
The White House attempted to frame the tariff pause as part of their strategic plan, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defending it as the "strategy all along." However, critics view the timing of Greene's trades as suspicious.
Representatives in Congress face mounting pressure over their stock trading activities. The current rules require members to disclose trades within 45 days, leading to the May 15 deadline for transactions made during the tariff announcement period. Greene's latest disclosures reveal 15 investments between March 16 and March 24, including three large transactions in U.S. Treasury Bills worth between $100,000 and $250,000 each. Her total Treasury investments during this period ranged from $300,000 to $750,000.
The Saint Louis Zoo community faces a heartbreaking loss as one of its most beloved residents takes his final breath.
According to Breitbart News, Othello, an Aldabra giant tortoise estimated to be over 100 years old, was humanely euthanized due to complications from a gastrointestinal health issue at the Saint Louis Zoo in Missouri.
The gentle giant arrived in the United States as a mature adult in 1938 alongside another Aldabra tortoise named Ray, who continues to reside at the zoo. Given that these tortoises require several decades to reach full maturity, zoo officials confirm that Othello had surpassed the century mark at the time of his passing.
Othello's remarkable life at the Saint Louis Zoo began during the Great Depression era, making him one of the oldest animals under the facility's care. His presence at the zoo witnessed numerous historical events and generations of visitors who formed special connections with him over the years.
The friendly tortoise became known for his sociable nature, often seeking interaction with his keepers and delighting countless zoo visitors. His personality helped create lasting memories for both staff members and guests throughout his extended lifetime.
The loss resonates deeply within the zoo community, where Othello served as an ambassador for his vulnerable species. The Aldabra giant tortoise population faces threats of extinction, representing one of the few remaining giant tortoise species globally.
The Saint Louis Zoo shared their emotional announcement through social media, acknowledging Othello's significant contribution to wildlife education and conservation efforts:
While we don't know his exact age, Othello was thought to be one of the oldest animals at the Saint Louis Zoo. Othello and Ray, another Aldabra giant tortoise still living at the Zoo, arrived in the U.S. as mature adults in 1938. Since it takes several decades for Aldabra giant tortoises to reach full size, Othello was well over 100 years old at the time of his passing.
These remarkable creatures have proven to be among Earth's most enduring species. According to the Smithsonian's National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, Aldabra tortoises potentially represent the longest-living animals, though precise documentation remains challenging as they frequently outlive their scientific observers.
The species continues to thrive in their native habitat on the Aldabra Atoll in the Seychelles, one of the world's largest coral islands. Their impressive size, with some individuals weighing over 575 pounds, makes them among the largest land tortoises on the planet.
Social media platforms have been flooded with tributes from visitors sharing their memories of Othello. Many expressed their appreciation for the exceptional care he received throughout his life at the Saint Louis Zoo.
Local residents have already begun suggesting ways to memorialize the celebrated tortoise, with some calling for the creation of a statue in his honor. The proposal reflects the deep impact Othello had on multiple generations of zoo visitors.
The zoo's dedication to providing outstanding care for Othello throughout his life demonstrates their commitment to wildlife conservation and education. His legacy will continue through ongoing efforts to protect and preserve his vulnerable species.
The Saint Louis Zoo's century-old resident, Othello the Aldabra giant tortoise, was humanely euthanized after developing severe digestive health issues. Having arrived at the zoo as a mature adult in 1938, he spent nearly nine decades delighting visitors and contributing to conservation awareness for his vulnerable species. The loss of this beloved ambassador leaves a lasting impact on the zoo community, while his companion Ray continues to carry on their shared legacy at the Saint Louis Zoo.
In a move generating both relief and resistance, the U.S. military is inviting former members discharged over the COVID-19 vaccine mandate to rejoin, but with a stipulation: they must affirm that their prior exits were voluntary.
Under the Trump administration's reinstatement policy, ex-servicemen who separated due to refusal to comply with the vaccine mandate can return with the same rank and pay, sparking debate over the nature of their departures, as Just the News reports.
The mandate, which commenced in August 2021, required military personnel to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in a rule that was subsequently rescinded in January 2023. However, as these former service members now face the question of whether to return, they are confronted with a requirement that they deny any claims of coercion surrounding their initial departures.
The December executive order by President Donald Trump initiated the reinstatement process. This order declared the vaccine mandate as "an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden.” As part of this move, Trump voiced that military personnel affected by the mandate should be reemployed, asserting his stance that a vaccine mandate should "have never happened."
On April 1, a detailed memo outlined that eligible former military members have until Feb. 28, 2026, to reenlist, provided they meet all existing military standards. This reinstatement, however, comes with the condition of volunteering for at least four more years of service upon their reentry.
An additional hurdle arises as returning members must sign an attestation form, affirming they left the service of their own volition and were not forced out. For some, this requirement has proven controversial and contentious. R. Davis Younts, a legal representative for many affected by the mandate, is at the forefront of challenging the fairness of this stipulation.
Younts has vocalized his concern that such an attestation is problematic for many former military members. He argues that the current guidance offers "a lot of bureaucratic resistance." Those who feel they were forced to exit under coercion find it difficult to truthfully sign a statement saying otherwise. For instance, Younts expressed particular frustration over guidance for the Air National Guard, noting that it seems to discourage members from making a return.
This process leaves former members at a crossroads: accept the terms and return to service or stand by claims of coercion and remain separated. Despite these challenges, some within the Army have taken the step of reinstating soldiers previously discharged over the mandate. Although the Army's actions set a precedent, it remains unclear how other military branches will follow suit in terms of numbers or procedures.
For others, like those within the Department of the Air Force, the requirements are clear, as noted by a spokesperson. Former airmen and guardians who choose to reenlist must give a written declaration that their original exit from the service was voluntary.
The procedural demands, entailing the waiver of coercion claims, have, unsurprisingly, rekindled debates over the initial vaccine mandate. With approximately 8,000 military personnel previously compelled to leave service and up to 250,000 affected by the mandate, the scope of grievance is significant.
Younts suggests that many of his clients have legitimate claims to contest what he describes as errors in administering justice. For these clients, agreeing to the stipulations may feel like a denial of their experiences. Consequently, Younts has found himself advising against signing the attestation in those instances.
The reinstatement policy, while welcoming service members back, does not offer back pay to those returning positions. This aspect is at odds with Trump's promise to provide backpay, a point notwithstanding in the current military procedures reported thus far.
As some former members weigh these conditions, the broader questions about the treatment of military personnel after enforced mandates persist. The current reinstatement plan has set a potential pathway for return, yet it equally highlights ongoing discord and dissatisfaction stemming from how the vaccine mandate was enacted and subsequently rescinded. These developments suggest that the resolution of these issues for many affected service members may still be a challenging prospect.
Prince Harry is embroiled in a challenging and emotional legal fight concerning his entitlement to police protection in the United Kingdom, bringing to light strained familial relationships and Harry's safety concerns.
The legal proceedings aim to restore Harry's police protection, withdrawn after his departure from senior royal duties in 2020, amid what he says are concrete and well-founded fears for his family's safety, as Fox News reports.
The case began following Harry's departure from royal roles five years ago, leading to the removal of his police protection in the U.K.
This decision was justified by authorities due to Harry's departure as a senior member of the royal family, prompting the prince to engage in a prolonged legal battle to regain what he perceives as essential security measures.
Harry's legal team argues that the absence of adequate protection poses a genuine risk to his safety, cementing his fears of a targeted action meant to facilitate his and Meghan Markle's exit from royal duties. His concerns resonate amid heightened security challenges, as his attorney Shaheed Fatima highlights the personal stakes involved, emphasizing the grave risks to Harry's life.
Living in Montecito, California, with Meghan and the pair's two children since 2020, Harry's distress is intensified by his estranged relationship with his father, King Charles III. Despite believing that his father is the only person capable of influencing the situation, Harry faces disappointment, as evident from his remarks on the emotional implications of the case. "People would be shocked by what’s being held back," he commented, expressing his dissatisfaction with the situation.
While the legal saga unfolds, Markle recently made a well-publicized visit to New York City, attending a Broadway show and sharing her enthusiasm online. The couple's shift to civilian life continues to capture public interest, with Meghan's social outings generating media attention amid their ongoing legal affairs.
Harry's relationship with the royal family remains strained, particularly with King Charles III, whose ability to align with Harry on the security issue is limited. A source from the palace noted that expectations of Charles intervening are "wholly incorrect," highlighting the complexities of governance and family dynamics.
The case underscores Harry's belief that the removal of protection was a calculated move to complicate their royal transition. With legal discourse focused on the tangible dangers posed by the lack of security, the court's decisions carry significant implications for Harry.
Harry summarized his concerns and frustrations by stating, "[My] worst fears have been confirmed by the whole legal disclosure in this case and that’s really sad." His struggle reflects broader issues of security and autonomy post his royal exit, reverberating through personal and public domains.
As tensions mount, Buckingham Palace has refrained from issuing any official statements, further emphasizing the sensitive nature of the matter. The absence of comment contributes to the ambiguity surrounding the implications for Harry and the royal family.
Ultimately, Harry's legal pursuit draws attention to the inherent conflicts between personal security needs and institutional constraints, a delicate balance for any public figure transitioning from royal life. As the case continues, Harry remains determined, confronting the challenges posed by his changed circumstances.
The public remains intrigued by the unfolding drama, keenly observing how the outcome will affect Harry's safety and familial connections. His journey illustrates the complexities of modern royal life, marked by personal choices and public responsibilities.
A new book reveals stunning details about Vice President Kamala Harris's behind-the-scenes efforts to secure her spot as Joe Biden's running mate in the 2020 presidential election.
According to Fox News, a recently published book titled "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House" claims Harris orchestrated a "dark-arts operation" to undermine other potential vice presidential candidates through targeted information campaigns.
The book, authored by NBC News journalist Jonathan Allen and The Hill's Amie Parnes, details how Harris's team strategically worked to diminish the prospects of several prominent Democratic women who were also under consideration for the vice presidential nomination. The revelations are based on extensive interviews with over 150 political insiders, offering unprecedented insight into the selection process.
One of Harris's advisers openly acknowledged their systematic approach to undermining competitors, specifically targeting Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, former UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams.
An advisor from Harris's team, speaking about their tactics, admitted to the systematic nature of their operation against other candidates. As quoted in the book:
We stabbed Karen Bass a little bit. We stabbed Susan Rice a little bit. We stabbed Stacey Abrams a little bit. We stabbed Gretchen Whitmer.
While the book exposes these aggressive campaign tactics, it's noteworthy that the targeted politicians maintained professional relationships with Harris, suggesting the political maneuvering didn't create lasting animosity.
Despite the revealed undermining efforts, many of the targeted politicians later showed public support for Harris. Bass endorsed her candidacy, while both Whitmer and Abrams participated in Harris's campaign events during the 2024 election cycle.
Susan Rice demonstrated her continued support for Harris by defending her against criticism. When Representative Ted Burchett described Harris as a "DEI hire," Rice forcefully rejected the characterization during a CNN interview.
The book's publication by William Morrow and Company on April 1 adds another layer to our understanding of the intense competition for the vice presidential nomination in 2020.
The book also explores former President Barack Obama's hesitancy to support Harris in the 2024 election. This reluctance stemmed from concerns about Biden's fitness for office and doubts about Harris's political capabilities.
These revelations about Obama's reservations provide additional context to the complicated dynamics within the Democratic Party's leadership during the transition period.
Harris has since signed with CAA Speakers, joining their roster of high-profile clients, though the agency has not commented on the book's claims about her vice presidential selection campaign.
Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign team executed a calculated strategy to secure her position as Joe Biden's running mate in 2020, employing targeted information campaigns against other potential candidates. The book "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House" reveals how Harris's advisers systematically worked to undermine competitors, including Gretchen Whitmer, Karen Bass, Susan Rice, and Stacey Abrams, through strategic information dissemination. Despite these aggressive campaign tactics, many of the targeted politicians maintained their support for Harris, demonstrating the complex nature of political relationships and alliances in modern American politics.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth embarks on a diplomatic journey to strengthen U.S.-Panama relations through military cooperation and regional security discussions.
According to Breitbart, Hegseth's two-day visit to Panama City starting Monday will focus on the 2025 Central American Security Conference and meetings with American troops stationed in the region.
The conference, co-hosted by the United States and Panama, aims to enhance regional defense capabilities through joint operations and cybersecurity initiatives.
U.S. Southern Command has organized extensive military training exercises involving 50 U.S. Marines, along with sailors and soldiers who will work alongside Panamanian service members from the National Aeronaval Service.
President Donald Trump has recently intensified efforts to secure better terms for U.S. access to the Panama Canal. The strategic waterway, which connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, has become a focal point of American foreign policy. Trump's administration has expressed concerns about potential Chinese influence over the canal's operations.
A significant development occurred on March 4 when Hong Kong-based CK Hutchinson Holding agreed to sell its controlling stake in canal port operations. The sale transferred control to a consortium including BlackRock, Inc., effectively placing the ports under American management. This transaction impacts 43 ports across 23 countries, including crucial facilities at both ends of the Panama Canal.
During his Joint Address to Congress in March, Trump outlined his vision for the canal's future. He emphasized the historical American investment in the waterway's construction and criticized the previous transfer agreement.
The ongoing military exercises showcase a comprehensive approach to regional cooperation. American forces will conduct specialized training in naval infantry skills, including marksmanship, land navigation, and jungle warfare tactics. The deployment includes four F-18 Hornets, a C-130 Hercules, a P-8 Poseidon, two Navy vessels, and a Coast Guard cutter.
Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell highlighted the significance of these bilateral meetings. The discussions aim to reinforce partnerships with Panama and other Central American nations. The ultimate goal remains achieving a secure Western Hemisphere through collaborative efforts.
The U.S. military presence in Panama has maintained continuity through various training exercises and exchanges. Special operations forces from both nations have recently participated in joint training programs, strengthening their operational capabilities.
Trump stated during his congressional address:
To further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal, and we've already started doing it. Just today, a large American company announced they are buying both ports around the Panama Canal and lots of other things having to do with the Panama Canal and a couple of other canals. The Panama Canal was built by Americans for Americans, not for others, but others could use it. But it was built at tremendous cost of American blood and treasure.
The strategic importance of the Panama Canal extends beyond military considerations. Trump has criticized the current transit fee structure, describing it as "exorbitant." The administration's focus on securing better terms reflects broader efforts to protect American interests in the region.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's visit to Panama marks a crucial step in strengthening U.S.-Central American security cooperation. The two-day diplomatic mission centers on the 2025 Central American Security Conference and military training exercises involving U.S. and Panamanian forces. These activities align with President Trump's broader strategy of asserting American influence over the Panama Canal, particularly following the recent acquisition of port operations by a U.S.-led consortium.
A veteran journalist's revelations about the Democratic Party's leadership decisions in 2024 have sparked renewed discussions about party dynamics.
According to The Daily Caller, journalist Mark Halperin disclosed on Fox News why Democrats found themselves unable to field alternatives to Joe Biden or Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential race.
The complicated situation emerged after Biden's poor debate performance against President Trump led to his withdrawal from the race. This decision came amid mounting pressure from Democratic politicians and a significant decrease in campaign funding, culminating in his departure on July 21.
Both Biden and former President Barack Obama reached a crucial agreement regarding Harris's electoral prospects. This consensus played a vital role in shaping the party's strategy during the critical pre-election period.
Halperin revealed during his appearance on "Special Report with Bret Baier" that despite concerns about Biden's cognitive abilities, a more complex dynamic was at play. The situation extended beyond simple observations about Biden's mental state.
Key Democratic leaders, including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, harbored serious doubts about both candidates' ability to secure victory against Trump. This created a challenging predicament for party leadership.
Top Biden aides had explicitly cautioned donors against replacing him with Harris. Their aggressive communication strategy highlighted what they perceived as Harris's significant limitations as a candidate.
The timing of these warnings proved critical as Biden's campaign faced mounting challenges. His team continued to assert his capability to win the general election, pointing to his previous victory over Trump in 2020.
Biden's withdrawal decision followed a substantial decline in campaign funding. The financial struggles coincided with increasing pressure from influential Democratic figures seeking his replacement.
The absence of alternative candidates willing to enter the race late in the process effectively secured Harris's position as the nominee. This occurred despite reservations from party leadership about her electoral viability.
The evolving situation created what Halperin described as a "horrible dilemma" for the Democratic Party. Each day that passed without Biden's withdrawal strengthened Harris's grip on the nomination, as potential challengers became increasingly hesitant to launch last-minute campaigns.
Obama's subsequent distancing from the party operations added another layer of complexity to the situation. This development left the Democratic Party struggling to maintain unity and direction during a crucial electoral period.
The Democratic Party's predicament stemmed from a combination of Biden's debate performance against Trump, internal party dynamics, and the absence of viable alternative candidates. These factors collectively led to Harris becoming the party's standard-bearer despite widespread concerns about her electoral prospects. The situation highlighted significant challenges within the Democratic Party leadership structures and decision-making processes. Party officials found themselves navigating between maintaining unity and addressing serious concerns about their presidential candidates' viability.
In a powerful 1996 speech on the House floor, Rep. Nancy Pelosi called for caution in granting trade advantages to China.
Decades later, her predictions appeared prescient as studies revealed the harsh impact on American manufacturing and job numbers stemming from free trade policies with China, as Breitbart reports, with some suggesting her current stance against Trump policies smacks of hypocrisy as a result.
In the mid-1990s, the U.S. Congress debated whether to continue offering Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status to China. During this period, Pelosi voiced her strong opposition, arguing that such a status harmed the economic interests of the United States. The growing trade deficit, which had ballooned from $3.5 billion after the Tiananmen Square crackdown to $34 billion by 1996, was a focal point of her argument.
Pelosi pointed out the disparity in tariffs, highlighting that China's 35% average MFN rate on U.S. goods was vastly higher than the U.S.'s 2% rate on imports from China. She noted that only a small fraction of American exports were permitted into Chinese markets, while Chinese products faced few barriers in the U.S. These trade imbalances, she argued, resulted in a significant loss of American jobs.
In her speech, Pelosi estimated that trade with China supported just 170,000 U.S. jobs compared to at least 10 million jobs in China. She criticized the policy as benefiting a regime she accused of human rights abuses and maintained it was harmful to American workers. Pelosi urged her colleagues to reconsider the arrangements, suggesting, "How much more repression, how big a trade deficit and loss of jobs...before members of this House...say, ‘I will not endorse the status quo?'"
Pelosi's concerns would find validation in subsequent years. A 2018 report by the Economic Policy Institute highlighted the consequences of the U.S.-China trade relationship, noting the country lost 3.4 million jobs from 2001 to 2017 due to the trade deficit with China. The manufacturing sector bore the brunt, losing over 2.5 million jobs during this period. States like California, Texas, and New York saw significant job losses.
Further examination by the U.S. International Trade Commission in 2022 shed light on the wider societal impact of trade policies. It concluded that such policies fueled offshoring, wage suppression, and devastated local communities and support industries. The fallout included increased mental health issues and other societal challenges in regions heavily dependent on manufacturing.
Beaver County, Pennsylvania, offered a poignant example of this economic upheaval. Plant closures there led to a series of business failures in the surrounding area, severing the economic lifeline for local families. Across the country, communities like those in Lansing, Michigan, and Lordstown, Ohio, were similarly affected by the shutdown of General Motors plants.
The Cooper Tire situation in Finley, Ohio, illustrated a broader challenge. Unfair competition from Chinese manufacturers put jobs at risk, leading to unstable work schedules and economic uncertainty. In northeast Ohio, once represented by Tim Ryan, roughly 25,000 manufacturing jobs vanished, and the area faced a staggering rise in drug-related deaths.
Formerly vibrant cities such as Youngstown, Ohio, suffered greatly, losing population and witnessing extensive neighborhood decay. Observers noted a vicious cycle of decline, exacerbated by former manufacturing workers moving away. Pelosi’s arguments in the ’90s echoed through these tales of economic distress.
In more recent times, Pelosi also leveled criticism at Trump over his proposed reciprocal tariffs, which she described as a catastrophe for the economy and families across America. She pointed to these as an ineffective strategy, labeling them as one of the largest proposed tax increases on American citizens.
The 2018 and 2022 reports underscored how trade policies contributed to widespread job losses. Local businesses, particularly those relying on affected workers, faced closures, and broader economic inactivity spread through the supply chains. A retired steelworker further argued these downturns also jeopardized pensions, affecting workers' long-term financial security.
Reflecting Pelosi's earlier warnings, union representatives and industry veterans observed how loopholes in trade policies often were leveraged by foreign countries to the detriment of U.S. workers. Communities that once thrived on industrial growth now faced adverse socioeconomic conditions, echoing Pelosi's 1996 concerns.