Category: Politics

‘He has to run because she can’t.’ 

‘She’ was Vice President Kamala Harris. ‘He’ was President Joe Biden. The message was clear: Biden had to run because his team didn’t believe she could. 

‘Then why did you pick her in the first place?’ I asked as I sank back into my seat on Brightstar, the first lady’s plane.   

Silence. Deflection. Business as usual. 

We were instructed to parrot one line — ‘No one runs for president for four years.’ That was the strategy. 

Harris’s forthcoming book, according to recently released excerpts, says what insiders whispered for years: the Biden bubble was full of bullies. The former vice president is finally saying the quiet part out loud. 

Biden won the most votes of anyone for president in our country’s history. But he never won the hearts and minds of the American people, and especially not of his own party. That fragile foundation collapsed fast.  

The Biden White House was filled with its share of cartoonist characters out of a badly cast high school version of ‘West Side Story.’ They thought they were a ‘BFD’ because they had worked in a previous administration or because our campaign defied the odds and beat expectations. But they had no instincts for the shifting media and political landscape — and no instinct for politics as it is now lived and practiced in the age of Donald Trump.  

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi was more direct, ‘I’ve never been that impressed with his political operation,’ referring to Biden’s team.  

There was no pragmatic truth-teller, because no one admitted that we weren’t a movement. We swaggered like we’d won President Barack Obama’s mandate or his congressional majorities. We hadn’t. We lost 13 Democratic House seats on our way in. From the moment Biden won the nomination, no one ever wanted to admit the obvious: Democrats felt stuck with us, not inspired by us. 

Inside the White House, the Regina Georges of Biden’s circle ruled like mean girls and policed loyalty. Staff weren’t serving a president and first lady — they were serving a cult. You never knew when Regina was in charge or when the Bidens were. It was all blurred. 

Joe and Jill Biden were warm, decent, empathetic. But they enabled some of the nastiest and most mean-spirted people I’ve ever encountered in politics. That contradiction defines the Biden era.  

I believed in Joe Biden once. After hearing him and Jill deliver barnburner speeches at the 2018 Human Rights Campaign gala, I was convinced he was the champion to take on Trump. As someone who endured relentless bullying growing up, Biden’s words about standing up for LGBT youth resonated. I left determined to join his effort. 

One year later, Biden was in the race, and I was chief spokesperson to his very influential and active spouse.

In the summer of 2020, Jill reintroduced herself to the country while launching ‘Joey,’ her children’s book about young Joe Biden — a natural leader who stood up to bullies. 

‘School was where the bullies were.’ He stood up for himself and ‘also defended others from bullies,’ Jill wrote. 

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi was more direct, ‘I’ve never been that impressed with his political operation,’ referring to Biden’s team. 

‘We were expected to stand up to bullies,’ Valerie Biden Owens wrote in her memoir, ‘Growing Up Biden.’ 

Biden’s final mission, he said, was to save the country from Trump — who Democrats consider to be the ultimate bully. 

But bullies are everywhere, even among Democrats, and despite his brand — even around Biden. 

When I entered the fraught world of part-time punditry, there were times I questioned the strategic direction of the Biden reelection effort. When the economic message was ‘Bidenomics is working,’ I explained why it was an error and pushed alternatives. When the polls were bad, I said so. How could I say the sky is red when we all know it’s blue?  

‘It will always feel like friendly fire to them,’ MSNBC television host Nicolle Wallace warned me. ‘But all you have is your credibility,’ she emphasized.  

I wanted to be taken seriously, not just another robot regurgitating thoughtless talking points. I balanced my love for and personal loyalty to the Biden family with candid and thoughtful analysis. 

But the president’s bullies didn’t see it that way. To them, I had taken off the team jersey by pointing out missed opportunities and mistakes, so they came for me.    

The example they tried to make of me was meant to serve as a warning to any Democrat who raised concerns ahead of 2024. The same bullies who claimed to serve a president who despised bullies were sending me a message: shut up or we’ll humiliate you. 

In time, however, the roots of their insecurity would be revealed to the entire world on a debate stage, one tragic June night in Atlanta. Biden’s bullies and their intimidation tactics would crumble over the course of four long, hot, summer weeks — along with their credibility.  

Bullies don’t win. They implode.  

Biden’s bullies dragged him down — and tried to drag Harris with him. Now, they’re out for her — again.   

Recently, we saw a glimpse of that vindictiveness when a few of my former teammates reacted with ugly, and of course, blind quotes to the release of Harris’s book excerpts. 

Inside the White House, the Regina Georges of Biden’s circle ruled like mean girls and policed loyalty.

But so far, Harris isn’t bending. Not this time. She sees what I saw. What we all eventually saw. And she is standing up to them. 

As she launches her book tour on MSNBC’s ‘Rachel Maddow,’ I hope she continues to speak with unfiltered candor about her experience.  

Take it from this Democrat. She’ll sleep better at night. 

NATO has been on high alert since Russia invaded Ukraine more than three and a half years ago, but a recent spike in the alliance’s airspace violations has security experts increasingly concerned that warnings of war with Moscow are no longer theoretical, but inevitable.

President Donald Trump on Thursday said the U.S. could ‘end up in World War III’ over Russia’s war in Ukraine and conceded that Russian President Vladimir Putin has ‘let him down’ over his refusal to end his military campaign. 

One day later, Russia sent three fighter jets over Estonia’s capital city of Tallinn in a direct and clear violation of its airspace, prompting another NATO member to spark Article 4 for the second time in as many weeks.

‘Russia is testing NATO again— dozens of drones in Poland last week, drones in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and now fighter jets in Estonian skies. These are deliberate provocations,’ Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovile Sakaliene told Fox News Digital. ‘They are deliberate tests—tests of our readiness, our resolve, and of the limits of our deterrence.’

Sakaliene said the Friday violation was just the latest in ‘an escalating pattern of pressure by Russia.’

‘For Estonia, for Poland, for Lithuania, for all of NATO’s eastern flank, this is a direct threat—not just to territorial integrity, but to citizen safety,’ she added.

The Lithuanian defense minister warned that the biggest line of defense NATO holds right now, apart from its actual military readiness, is showing a united front to dissuade Moscow from taking direct action against a NATO member and prompting what could become a global war. 

‘Our biggest risk currently is miscalculation by Russia,’ Sakaliene said. ‘Does Russia believe that NATO will not allow violations of its territory? Does Russia believe that Europe is going to strike back together with [the] United States?

‘That’s now the last line of defense between if and when [war with Russia happens],’ she added.

Concern over direct NATO conflict with Moscow escalated earlier this month after a swarm of at least 19 Russian drones not only flew over Polish airspace, but forced a multi-nation response when NATO, for the first time since the war began, fired upon Russian assets and brought down as many as four drones that posed a threat.

While Trump suggested that the drone swarm could have been a mistake, Poland refuted this and said it was ‘deliberate’ and a ‘planned provocation.’ 

Drone strikes have long been a favored wartime tool of Russia’s in its operation against Ukraine, with the number of strikes peaking in July with some 6,297 long-range drones fired across the country. 

That figure dipped to 4,216 drones fired in August. Though notably, the majority of those UAVs were fired between Aug. 16th and the 31st, when some 3,001 drones were deployed beginning the day after Trump met with Putin in Alaska on Aug. 15.

An American company, which sat less than 30 miles from two other NATO nations, Hungary and Slovakia, was also hit with ‘several’ cruise missiles in late August. 

‘The scope of air attacks from Russia to Ukraine is really rising. They are using more drones, more rockets, and they are still expected to rise,’ Sakaliene said.

‘We have to admit and adapt to this new reality. High intensity war by Russia against Ukraine is ongoing,’ the defense minister said. ‘That means that more and more UAVs are going to wander off into the territories of the bordering countries, and even further.’

Russia has increasingly turned to gray-zone tactics, which involve incidents that fall below the threshold of open warfare, but which allow Russia to test NATO’s resolve and response capabilities.

Over the last month, Poland saw three separate incidents in which its airspace was violated by Russian drones, including UAVs carrying explosive components that crossed into its airspace from both Ukraine and Belarus. 

Just three days after the drone swarm bombarded Polish air defense systems, a Russian drone crossed into Romanian airspace and prompted a French fighter jet and Polish helicopter to respond under NATO’s Operation Eastern Sentry – a defensive posture the alliance launched just one day prior. 

These events came after Lithuania in late July was forced to sound the alarm following two separate incidents in which Russian Gerber drones violated its borders, including one which was carrying explosives.

But these tactics are not the only threats that security experts in recent weeks have flagged as concerning behavior from Moscow. 

Earlier this month, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) based in Washington, D.C. drew attention to an op-ed published by former Russian president and current Security Council chair Dmitry Medvedev on Sept. 8 in the state-sponsored news outlet TASS, which used language that directly mirrored rhetoric by the Kremlin in the lead up to its invasion of Ukraine. 

In his article, Medvedev accused Finland of being ‘Russophobic’ and claimed, ‘the thirst for profit at the expense of Russia was installed in Finnish minds back in the days of Hitler.’ 

He further claimed that Helsinki has attempted to erase the ‘historical and cultural identity’ of ethnic Russians and said joined NATO under the ‘guise’ of defense, but in actuality, was covertly preparing for war against Russia, reported the ISW.

Medvedev’s comments were not stand-alone threats. Multiple Kremlin officials, including Putin who said ‘there will be problems’ after Finland joined NATO, have claimed the alliance will use Finland as a ‘springboard’ to attack Russia. 

‘Russia has been steadily setting conditions to attack NATO over the past several years: Moscow is standing up new divisions and optimizing its command and control headquarters on NATO’s eastern flank,’ George Barros, Senior Russia Analyst with ISW told Fox News Digital. ‘The Kremlin information warfare apparatus is fabricating claims and justifications for why Finland, the Baltic States, and Poland are not real countries. 

‘These are the prerequisite preparations for future war that Moscow is preparing,’ he warned. 

Sakaliene echoed these concerns and additionally pointed to Russia’s use of ‘soft power,’ often employed through social media and traditional media, to influence public perception, which she warned is ‘alarmingly effective.’

‘We see a picture of a very aggressive country which is investing a disproportionate amount of its funds into their military capacity,’ the defense minister said. ‘Despite heavy losses every week, every month, they are moving forward in Ukraine, and at the same time, they are expanding their capabilities. 

‘It raises considerable doubts if all that mass of military power is being accumulated only for Ukraine,’ Sakaliene said. 

Recently, Rebecca Taibleson appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearing to a Wisconsin-based seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, a key step toward further solidifying President Trump’s strong judicial legacy. In choosing Taibleson, Trump selected a standout from a highly qualified field. She’s not only a seasoned prosecutor and sharp legal thinker, but she’s a proven defender of the Constitution and conservative values.

Taibleson spent over a decade as a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, putting violent criminals behind bars. She doesn’t just theorize about public safety–she delivers it. She handles complex appeals and knows how to write strong legal arguments, and she wins cases and protects communities. Every day in her career, she applies the law with clarity, discipline, and purpose.

Most importantly, in her role as the co‑chief of the Appellate Division of that U.S. Attorney’s office for nearly a decade, not only did Taibleson imprison violent and dangerous criminals who were terrorizing the community, she ensured they stayed there. There are too many weak judges who free criminals when they should rot in prison for their crimes. Rebecca Taibleson is not one of them.

Her credentials speak for themselves. She clerked for the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia and then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh. She embraced a constitutionalist philosophy early in her career and never wavered. At her Senate confirmation hearing, she made it crystal clear: judges must interpret the law as written, not how they wish it were written. Judges must not rewrite laws based on personal views or political trends. She follows the original public meaning of the law and honors the Constitution.

Taibleson also knows how to stand her ground. During one of the most brutal nomination fights in recent memory, she stepped up and testified in support of her former boss Brett Kavanaugh, a nomination fight for which I helped lead the charge as Chairman Chuck Grassley’s chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee. While the left smeared and attacked, Rebecca Taibleson didn’t flinch. She stood firm in defense of the rule of law and the truth. That moment proved her courage and character.

She also served in President Trump’s solicitor general’s office — the top government appellate advocates. She fought and won legal battles at the Supreme Court. She defended Trump administration policies on immigration, religious liberty, and constitutional limits. She didn’t just serve under President Trump, she helped him win. Her record shows loyalty, competence, and backbone.

Some groups have raised concerns—and even opposition before they had a chance to watch her testimony at her Senate confirmation hearing. Some are fair points; most are not. They wanted someone else. They’re circulating misleading claims and ignoring facts. They’re criticizing a nominee who far exceeds the standard for confirmation. President Trump and his team reviewed many good candidates. Like with any nominee, they balanced all the pros and cons. While no nominee is ever perfect, Rebecca Taibleson proved through her long record and unflinching public testimony that she is outstanding. She has a proven track record of being bold and fearless.

Taibleson handled her confirmation hearing exactly the way a strong nominee should. She didn’t dodge questions or pander. She answered directly and confidently and laid out her commitment to textualism, originalism, and constitutionalism. She emphasized the separation of powers and reminded the Senate that judges don’t make policy. Elected officials do.

On precedent, she spoke with clarity. She said Dobbs v. Jackson controls abortion law, and she will follow it. She refused to play politics with hot-button issues, but she left no doubt about her commitment to the Constitution.

She also promised to bring civility and discipline to the bench. She won’t use opinions to take swipes at parties, public officials, or opposing views. She respects the role of the judiciary and knows the difference between law and politics. She pledged to uphold judicial restraint.

Taibleson’s background shows real-world depth. Early in her career, she worked with Israel’s national emergency medical, disaster, ambulance, and blood bank service Magen David Adom during the Second Intifada. She helped defend civilians from terrorist attacks. That experience gave her a deeper understanding of law, national security, justice, and what is at stake for Western civilization. It also showed her values: courage, service, and loyalty to free societies under attack.

Taibleson has answered the questions raised by her detractors from the left and the right. She addressed every issue and demonstrated exactly why she belongs on the Seventh Circuit. Her hearing and record proves her fitness. She showed strength, clarity, and deep legal knowledge. And she put to bed any concerns.

President Trump built the best judicial legacy in a generation. He transformed the Supreme Court into the first constitutionalist Court in 90 years. He reshaped the federal judiciary with principled, constitutionalist judges. He made those choices carefully, and he made the same careful decision here. Rebecca Taibleson fits that mold. She brings real experience, proven loyalty, and a first-rate legal mind.

The Senate must confirm this bold and fearless judicial nominee. She earned this seat by standing up when it counted. She served President Trump with distinction and fought for her country in the courts. She prosecuted criminals and protected communities. She embraces originalism and the rule of law.

President Trump chose right. The Senate must finish the job.

House Main Street Caucus Chairman Mike Flood, R-Neb., will refer Democratic colleague Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., for a House Ethics Committee investigation, he first told Fox News Digital.

It is the latest move in the GOP-led fallout over Omar’s response to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist who was shot and killed in Utah during a college campus speaking event last week.

‘I will be filing tomorrow … a complaint with the Committee on Ethics in the House of Representatives with 18 very concerning incidents and/or behaviors and/or statements that, on their face, reflect poorly on the House of Representatives,’ Flood said of Omar.

The top of the list of complaints will include the progressive Democrat’s ‘obnoxious, insulting and dismissive comments following the assassination of Charlie Kirk,’ he said.

‘Second, harboring illegal immigrants. I believe in February of this year that Omar hosted a workshop advising Somalians on how to avoid being deported after protecting the laws of the United States,’ Flood continued of his points. ‘No. 3, she’s used TikTok for mixed official and campaign content, which specifically violates other House rules.’

Flood was one of four House Republicans to help Omar narrowly avoid being censured by the House on Wednesday evening.

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., moved to force a vote on censuring Omar over her reaction to Kirk’s killing, but the move was quashed when four Republicans and all Democrats voted to table the measure.

Flood said at the time of his vote, ‘Ilhan Omar’s statements and social media posts are reprehensible and should be referred to the Ethics Committee. The appropriate time to consider a censure motion would be after ethics reviews her conduct.’

He told Fox News Digital on Thursday that initiating an ethics investigation would make a censure ‘far more credible.’

Flood pointed out that he similarly voted to table a censure threat against Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., for her conduct outside a New Jersey ICE facility before the ethics committee could issue a report on the matter.

‘And so I have gathered enough information, starting yesterday, before I voted to table, understanding that this was an issue,’ Flood said.

He also disagreed with the other three House Republicans who all said Omar’s comments were protected by the First Amendment.

‘This isn’t a free speech issue. This is a ‘Have you demonstrated that you are behaving at all times in a manner that reflects credibly on the House?’’ Flood said.

Omar specifically faced backlash over an interview with progressive news outlet Zeteo, in which she criticized Kirk’s past commentary and Republicans’ reaction to the shooting. She later accused Republicans of taking her words out of context, and she called Kirk’s death ‘mortifying.’

She previously told Zeteo days after Kirk’s assassination that he had ‘downplayed slavery and what Black people have gone through in this country by saying Juneteenth shouldn’t exist.’

‘There are a lot of people who are out there talking about him just wanting to have a civil debate,’ the ‘Squad’ member said. ‘There is nothing more effed up, you know, like, than to completely pretend that, you know, his words and actions have not been recorded and in existence for the last decade or so.’

She later posted on X amid the backlash, ‘While I disagreed with Charlie Kirk vehemently about his rhetoric, my heart breaks for his wife and children. I don’t wish violence on anyone. My faith teaches me the power of peace, empathy, and compassion. Right-wing accounts trying to spin a false story when I condemned his murder multiple times is fitting for their agenda to villainize the left to hide from the fact that Donald Trump gins up hate on a daily basis.’

Omar also reposted a video on X, where others not associated with the congresswoman said, ‘Don’t be fooled, these people don’t give a single s— about Charlie Kirk. They’re just using his death to further their Christo-fascist agenda.’

The Minnesota Democrat’s colleagues have vehemently defended her against Mace’s censure and Republican criticism.

Fox News Digital reached out to Omar’s office for a response to Flood but did not immediately hear back.

The U.S. on Wednesday once again took aim at Iran and targeted its Axis of Resistance by designating four Iraq-based militias as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

According to the State Department, the groups identified were Harakat al-Nujaba, Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, Harakat Ansar Allah al-Awfiya and Kata’ib al-Imam Ali – all four of which were previously designated by the Department of Treasury as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) in 2023. 

‘Iran-aligned militia groups have conducted attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and bases hosting U.S. and Coalition forces, typically using front names or proxy groups to obfuscate their involvement,’ Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in the statement.

According to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), the four groups are all backed by Iran and form the core of an umbrella organization known as the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (IRI), which gained prominence following the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, attack on Israel.

The IRI is believed to be responsible for hundreds of attacks in Iraq, Syria and Jordan, and was behind the killing of three U.S. service members during a drone attack in January 2024 in Jordan. 

‘The Trump administration broke the taboo during term one when it proved it could name, shame, and punish Iran-backed militias in Iraq without the country devolving into civil war,’ Behnam Ben Taleblu, Iranian expert and senior director of the FDD’s Iran program, told Fox News Digital. ‘Now in term two the administration is upping the ante continuing a campaign of designations against the agents of influence and terror of Iran in Iraq.’

The four terrorist groups also operate within the Popular Mobilization Forces, which is a coalition force of largely Shia groups that was formed to counter ISIS by the Iraqi government, but which is also strongly influenced by Iran. 

‘Tehran relies on these militias to literally have a state within a state in Iraq,’ Ben Taleblu said. ‘Sandwiching these and other Iran-backed terror groups between Treasury Department [Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons] SDN listings and State Department [Foreign Terrorist Organizations] FTO listings, as the Trump administration previously did with their patron, the IRGC, in term one is the right approach.’

President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump will receive a full royal welcome from King Charles III following their arrival to Windsor Castle on Tuesday night.

Wednesday’s festivities will kick off with Trump, the first lady and several top U.S. officials participating in a carriage procession with the king, queen and other members of the royal family. Ahead of the couple’s arrival, hundreds of staff worked through the halls and grounds of the nearly 1,000-year-old castle to ensure the monarch welcomed the couple in true royal fashion.

Trump is set to ride in the foremost carriage along with King Charles, while Melania will ride in a following carriage with the queen. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and special envoy Steve Witkoff will also ride in follow-up carriages.

Ahead of his visit, Trump hailed the ‘great honor’ of being hosted by his ‘friend’ at ‘the ultimate’ Windsor Castle for his second state visit, the U.K.’s Standard reported.

‘My relationship is very good with the U.K., and Charles, as you know, who’s now king, is my friend,’ Trump told reporters, quoted by the outlet. ‘It’s the first time this has ever happened where somebody was honored twice. So, it’s a great honor.’

‘And this one’s at Windsor,’ Trump added. ‘And I don’t want to say one’s better than the other, but they say Windsor Castle is the ultimate, right? So, it’s going to be nice.’

‘Primarily it’s to be with Charles and Camilla,’ he continued. ‘They’ve been friends of mine for a long time, long before he was king, and it’s an honor to have this king.’

The centerpiece of Trump’s visit is set to be the banquet in St. George’s Hall. The Waterloo Table, about half the length of a football field, can seat up to 160 guests. The Associated Press reported it takes five full days to set the table, which is laid with more than 4,000 pieces, including 200-year-old silver.

The visit comes as the U.S. and U.K. continue trade negotiations, though the White House has not indicated that any deals will be announced during the event.

Trump is the first U.S. president to be invited for two state visits by a British monarch. The late queen hosted him and Melania in 2019 during his first administration.

Fox News’ Stephanie Nolasco contributed to this report

As questions swirl about FBI Director Kash Patel’s leadership of the agency, particularly in the immediate hours after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Senate Republicans appear ready to back him.

Patel is due before the Senate Judiciary Committee for an annual oversight hearing of the FBI on Tuesday morning, but the timing comes at a crucial moment for him as scrutiny mounts over a wave of firings at the agency and his handling of the investigation into Kirk’s alleged killer.

There is also a new face in FBI management — former Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who was sworn in on Monday in a power-sharing role with FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino.

But Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee intend to look at Patel’s track record as a whole over the last nine months, and they signaled that they still have confidence in him.

Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News Digital that he just planned to talk about oversight of the FBI during the hearing.

When asked if he felt there should be increased scrutiny of Patel, Grassley said, ‘Well, that’s why we have an oversight hearing, we do it once a year.’

The top Democrat on the panel, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., however, signaled that he would be going after Patel, particularly in the wake of a lawsuit from three former senior FBI officials last week, who alleged they were fired from the agency for political reasons, and Patel’s firing of former Salt Lake City FBI field office head Mehtab Syed.

Durbin said it was unclear what kind of impact Syed would have had on the investigation, but he noted her lengthy career and specialty in counterterrorism.

‘We do know that the person who pushed her out, Director Patel, quickly took to social media and falsely announced that the suspect was in custody,’ Durbin said on the Senate floor. ‘Remember that? Only to be forced to walk back those claims shortly after.’

Patel has again come under the microscope for a post he made on X in the hours after Kirk was killed where he wrote, ‘The subject for the horrific shooting today that took the life of Charlie Kirk is now in custody.’

However, that individual and another were caught and released before law enforcement nabbed 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, some 33 hours after the shooting.

Patel pushed back on criticism of his performance during an appearance on ‘Fox & Friends’ on Monday, where he argued that his post was made in a push for transparency.

‘I was being transparent with working with the public on our findings as I had them,’ he said. ‘Could I have worded it a little better in the heat of the moment? Sure. But do I regret putting it out? Absolutely not.’

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., a member of the committee, told Fox News Digital that there would be ‘a lot of things to learn’ during the hearing, but appeared to still back Patel as director.

‘You know, my view is, listen, he serves at the pleasure of the president,’ Hawley said. ‘If the president has confidence in him, then I think that, you know, that’s good enough for me.’

To Hawley’s point, President Donald Trump appears to still support his embattled FBI director.

‘I am very proud of the FBI,’ Trump said Saturday. ‘Kash — and everyone else — they have done a great job.’

And Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and a member of the panel, said that he was sure that ‘a lot of people are going to be looking at the shooting,’ but argued his focus was on the whole of Patel’s tenure at the FBI — one that he supported during his nomination and one he still supports now.

When asked about Patel’s performance during the investigation in Utah, Tillis contended, ‘Those things are fluid.’

‘I’ve seen a lot of armchair quarterbacks in my day, and I saw a lot of armchair quarterbacks, or Monday morning quarterbacks,’ Tillis said. ‘Could they have been tighter? People are demanding updates.’

‘I mean, if the only thing that they’re criticizing you for is talking about the potential suspects or persons of interest too soon, that’s kind of weak. Go after some more foundational things.’

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said that he believed it would be a ‘very important hearing tomorrow’ in light of Patel’s social media post and direction of the agency.

‘[It’s] something that even the lowest level comms director knows,’ Booker told Fox News Digital. ‘You don’t push out information that’s wrong in an investigation, you stick to the facts, and it’s very disappointing. I think, indicative of the kind of leader that he is.’

‘I’m also more concerned right now with how many of the FBI officials he’s fired for no cause. He’s politicized this department and weaponized the department in a partisan way that’s disappointing,’ he continued. ‘And then, finally, him actually undermining investigations that are ongoing that keep Americans safe is very troubling.’ 

There are moments in American politics when the ground shifts beneath our feet — when something that seemed fringe, even laughable, suddenly becomes the center of gravity. Today, that something is the MAHA movement: ‘Make America Healthy Again.’ And if you think this is just another Trumpian sideshow, you’re missing the tectonic plates moving under your feet. 

Let’s be clear: dismissing MAHA is not just shortsighted — it’s dangerous. Because what’s happening here isn’t just a rebranding of MAGA. It’s a recalibration of the American political compass, and it’s drawing in people who, until recently, wouldn’t have been caught dead at a President Donald Trump rally. 

A new American coalition — and it’s not who you think 

For years, the political class has comforted itself with the idea that Trump’s appeal is limited to a certain kind of voter: the angry, the disaffected, the left-behind. But look closer at the MAHA movement, and you’ll see something different — something unsettling for the status quo. 

Libertarians who once rolled their eyes at Trump’s bravado are now nodding along, drawn by his full-throated defense of medical freedom and parental rights. Moms who used to vote blue without a second thought are suddenly asking hard questions about what’s being injected into their kids’ bodies — and they’re not satisfied with the answers from the CDC or the FDA. Even some on the left, those perennial skeptics of Big Pharma and government mandates, are finding themselves, almost in spite of themselves, in Trump’s corner. 

This isn’t just a coalition — it’s a realignment. And it’s happening in real time. 

Trump, the maestro of the moment 

Say what you will about Trump — his flaws are legion, his style abrasive, his rhetoric often incendiary — but no one, and I mean no one, has a better instinct for the symbolic gesture. He doesn’t just talk about problems; he embodies them, dramatizes them, makes them impossible to ignore. 

Remember the wall? It wasn’t just about immigration — it was about drawing a line, literally and figuratively, between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ It was about making a promise that was as much emotional as it was practical. Today, with MAHA, Trump is doing it again. But this time, the stakes are even higher. 

This isn’t some sleepy task force or blue-ribbon panel. This is the Oval Office, the Resolute Desk, the full weight of the presidency brought to bear on a single, electrifying issue: the health of America’s children. Trump isn’t just asking questions — he’s making commitments. He’s turning parental anxiety into political power, and he’s doing it with the kind of showmanship that only he can pull off. 

The political class is missing the point — again 

Here’s the thing: the political establishment, in both parties, is still stuck in the old paradigm. They see MAHA as a distraction, a sideshow, a way for Trump to gin up his base. But they’re wrong. This is bigger than Trump. This is about trust — about who gets to decide what goes into our bodies and our children’s bodies. It’s about the creeping sense that the institutions we once trusted have failed us, and that no one in power is willing to say so out loud. 

Dismiss this movement at your own peril. Because what’s happening here is a revolt — not just against the medical establishment, but against the entire political class that has grown fat and complacent while ordinary Americans worry about the health of their kids. 

A moment that could redefine 2028 — and beyond 

If you’re rolling your eyes right now, ask yourself: when was the last time you saw a political movement that could unite libertarians, disaffected Democrats and suburban moms? When was the last time you saw Donald Trump not just riding a wave, but creating one? 

This isn’t just a coalition — it’s a realignment. And it’s happening in real time. 

The MAHA movement is not a blip. It’s not a meme. It’s a warning shot across the bow of American politics. And if you think it’s going away, you haven’t been paying attention. 

Trump has always been a master of the moment. But with MAHA, he’s doing something even more audacious: he’s building a new coalition, one that could upend everything we thought we knew about American politics. Ignore it if you want. But don’t say you weren’t warned. 

When President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, it took more than a decade before Americans saw the infamous Zapruder film.

Today, the killing of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk can be replayed in dozens of high-definition clips across social media, reshaping how the nation confronts political violence in real time.

‘You’ll never have an assassination again that we don’t have footage of,’ presidential historian and former Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Bush administration, Tevi Troy, told Fox News Digital. 

‘I have an image in my head of what Lincoln’s assassination might have looked like, but every assassination since the Kennedy era, or even assassination attempts, there’s generally going to be footage about it now, and that’s just a very difficult thing,’ he said.

The Zapruder footage of Kennedy’s assassination remained largely unseen by the public until 1975, when it aired on national television more than a decade after his death. Its grainy frames shocked viewers. Americans, at the time, were ‘much more dependent on what the caretakers of the culture would put on TV,’ Troy said, and if a broadcast was missed, there was often no second chance to see it. 

Troy added, ‘The gatekeepers controlled what you saw.’

In the minutes after Kirk was shot in the neck on his ‘American Comeback Tour’ at the Utah Valley University on Wednesday, graphic video clips captured by bystanders using phones flooded social platforms like X, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and YouTube. 

Traditional outlets held back from airing the moment of impact, but social media users shared multiple angles—including real-time replays and slowed-down segments—many without content warnings or editing.

‘Desensitizing is the right word… It’s not good for you,’ Troy said when asked what the impact of such high-speed graphic footage could do to the public. 

‘It’s not good for your soul. It’s not a question of not being available — it is available. Then you have to make an effort not to see it,’ he said.

Troy noted that in the immediate aftermath of Kirk’s killing, some voices on the left appeared to rationalize or downplay the violence, while others rushed to frame the suspect’s background in ways that minimized political fallout for their side. He called the reaction ‘a ghoulish exercise.’

‘There’s a horrible tragedy where this person who just wants to have political conversations was murdered with three young kids,’ Troy said. ‘But this is where we are today. If there is political violence, they want to make sure it’s framed in such a way that it doesn’t bring their side down.’

Turning Point Founder and commentator, Kirk, 31, was killed on Wednesday by suspected shooter Tyler Robinson while answering a question at Utah Valley University. He leaves behind his wife and two children, ages one and three. 

The horror that unfolded at Utah Valley University is still hard to process. A few minutes into a joyous meeting before thousands of people, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was gunned down in cold blood. 

As they tried to make sense of this senseless murder, the broadcast networks roughly suggested that Kirk was shot because he was ‘polarizing.’ ABC correspondent Kyra Phillips explained that Kirk was ‘known for his outspoken views on politics, culture, religion, often taking his messages to colleges and universities, sparking sometimes pretty heated debates on campus.’ 

Reporter Aaron Katersky added, ‘there were people on both sides debating whether he should even be allowed to bring his message, often loyal to the agenda of President Trump, to campus.’ White House reporter Mary Bruce doubled down: ‘It’s no secret that Kirk has said a number of controversial things over the years, in particular about DEI, Jews, women, LGBTQ community, people of color.’ 

As Kirk was bleeding out, ABC News was suggesting this was how ‘pretty heated debates’ ended on campus, and that maybe it wouldn’t have happened if Kirk’s ‘controversial’ appearance hadn’t been ‘allowed.’ 

Leftists surely found Kirk’s conservative arguments ‘polarizing’ ‘divisive,’ and ‘controversial.’ But they seem to lack any introspection inside the liberal bubbles of their ‘news’ networks. Spreading their leftist arguments on DEI or LGBTQ or abortion or Trump — often implying that dissent is unacceptably hateful — somehow never polarizes people and is somehow the opposite of controversy. How can their sweet reason be ‘controversial?’ 

By the time the Wednesday evening newscasts came on, there was an appropriate tone of horror at the shooting. But on Thursday, ‘CBS Mornings’ co-host Nate Burleson told former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy that Kirk’s speech was ‘offensive to specific communities’ and asked if Republicans needed to watch their mouths. ‘Speaking of this tragedy, is this a moment for your party to reflect on political violence? Is it a moment for us to think about the responsibility of our political leaders and their voices and what it does to the masses as they get lost in misinformation or disinformation that turns into and spills into political violence?’ 

McCarthy tried to stay on a unifying message, but Burleson’s question was ‘offensive to specific communities,’ in this case the Trump-voting half of America. Everyone who agreed with Kirk on many issues felt like this could have been the violent fate of any conservative speaker out in public, especially on ‘progressive’ campuses. 

Kirk’s alleged assassin was not a Republican. CBS didn’t wonder if the shooter had been influenced by wild leftist rhetoric from any kind of media or political figure. The rhetoric of the Left is somehow always above scrutiny. 

The morning after the murder, NPR turned to Kyle Spencer, a leftist author of a 2022 book about ‘The Untold Story About America’s Ultraconservative Youth Movement And Its Plot For Power.’ She claimed ‘Charlie really positioned himself as somebody who was supporting Whiteness, White people, White culture and the White culture of this country against what he saw as efforts that were efforts to create equity in the country and to support the disenfranchised.’ 

‘Public’ broadcasting is deeply suffused with the ‘DEI ethic’ that they must ‘center the marginalized,’ and so anyone who opposes the Black left should be marginalized as a far-right racist fringe. But they loved Black Lives Matter and their racial ‘reckoning’ in 2020. 

As news bubbled up that there were political markings on the shooter’s ammunition, on Thursday’s ‘World News Tonight’ on ABC, they took the reports of ‘anti-fascist’ and pro-transgender messaging and dumbed them down. Matt Gutman could only say law-enforcement sources found ‘a high-powered rifle wrapped in a towel, and three unspent cartridges inscribed with words and symbols. Tonight, authorities [are] working on what the markings might mean.’ 

Leftists surely found Kirk’s conservative arguments ‘polarizing’ ‘divisive,’ and ‘controversial.’ But they seem to lack any introspection inside the liberal bubbles of their ‘news’ networks. 

On Friday, authorities revealed one shell casing read: ‘Hey fascist! Catch!’ Another said ‘O bella ciao, bella ciao,’ which refers to a leftist song celebrating the end of Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, but the left still uses it against the current conservative Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. 

The news networks have spent the last 10 years wildly using terms like ‘fascist’ and ‘authoritarian’ to describe not just President Donald Trump, but Republicans and conservatives in general. By contrast, the radical left ‘Antifa’ movement has largely escaped any critical scrutiny and in recent years, the media have pretended that this is some sort of kooky invention of conspiracy theorists. 

When the network newscasts casually allow Democrats to compare Trump to Adolf Hitler and suggest he and his voters are an ‘existential threat’ to democracy, they are the ones raising national tensions. Not conservatives.