Trump biographer Michael Wolff claimed President Donald Trump has reached a critical moment of demarcation, indicating his presidency is unraveling.

During an episode of "Inside Trump's Head," co-hosted by Wolff and The Daily Beast's Joanna Coles, Wolff cited mounting losses across multiple fronts. He pointed out Trump's newly restricted Iran war powers and his ongoing entanglement in the Jeffrey Epstein saga.

The biographer characterized the situation as paradoxical: while the President remains mendacious and dangerous, the Trump enterprise is simultaneously coming apart.

He identified cascading failures affecting Trump's core policy initiatives: economic troubles, immigration problems alienating his base, and healthcare issues. Wolff argues, these factors combined create a compounding crisis the president cannot overcome.

He noted falling poll numbers reflect these foundational policy failures.

"Immigration was his issue, the issue that was fueling him instead of the issue that is causing him now so many problems, so many problems with his base, the health care issues also causing him problems. It's one problem after another after another that he cannot surmount."

Wolff argues, each crisis compounds the others and predicts systemic collapse across the administration's priorities.

Watch the video below.

President Donald Trump has instructed Bill Pulte, the controversial new acting head of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), to execute sweeping personnel cuts across the nation's 18 federal intelligence agencies and units before a permanent successor is confirmed.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump revealed his explicit mandate to Pulte, who lacks the necessary security clearances, to dramatically reduce the size of an agency he views as "unnecessary and/or too big."

"I'd like to see it smaller. I think there are a lot of people in there that shouldn't be there," Trump admitted to The Journal, specifically targeting career officials from the Biden and Obama administrations. When asked directly if he was ordering firings, Trump confirmed the instruction. "I want him to 'start the process,'" Trump said, adding that his eventual permanent nominee should continue the purge once confirmed.

Trump bluntly framed Pulte's temporary status as an operational advantage rather than a limitation. "You're less shackled," Trump said of the acting designation. "It sort of gives you more power, you know, for a somewhat limited period of time."

The president outlined a calculated strategy to complete major structural changes before his permanent appointee takes office, allowing the future ODNI to inherit a smaller, ideologically aligned agency rather than managing the cuts themselves.

"Frankly, it might be good for him to shake it up before people come," Trump explained. "Because, if he [Pulte] reduced the size, in conjunction with me…and in conjunction with possibly the person coming in…he can do a lot of the hard work and we wouldn't have to saddle somebody that goes in."

The approach reflects Trump's broader effort to reshape the intelligence community according to his preferences, The Journal reported. Pulte, who has no prior intelligence experience and has been highly critical of the FBI and other agencies, is widely viewed as unlikely to survive Senate confirmation despite his acting appointment.

Pulte and ODNI representatives declined to comment to The Journal on the directives.

Ex-Trump official Miles Taylor issued a stark warning to those who donated to President Donald Trump's White House ballroom project on Friday, arguing that they and their affiliates “should be losing sleep” over what he cautioned would be a “massive” legal reckoning just on the horizon.

Taylor, who previously served as chief of staff in the Homeland Security Department under Trump, flagged the bombshell report from Public Citizen this week that found more than half of the known donors to the ballroom project had received government contracts in the last six months totaling more than $50 billion.

“The White House calls this a ‘fake’ conflict of interest. But you can almost hear the panic under their voices,” Taylor wrote in an analysis published on his Substack Friday. “It’s not fake. It’s so brazen it should be illegal, and in many cases, future federal prosecutors might discover that it was.”

Last year, it was revealed that the Trump administration had withheld the identities of several ballroom donors despite its pledge to provide full transparency. The Trump administration also went back on its promise that the project would be entirely funded by private donors after a $1 billion ask for ballroom “security” was slipped into a GOP budget proposal.

And now, after further reporting detailed the extent to which ballroom donors have benefited from the Trump administration, Taylor predicted a “huge reckoning” was coming for those involved, and soon.

“Whatever shadow deals might’ve been done to make all of this happen, I can promise they won’t stay secret forever. Although the administration negotiated a covert funding agreement to let donors hide themselves, they were sloppy and stupid,” Taylor wrote.

“Public Citizen pried it loose through a simple FOIA lawsuit, and more disclosures will surely follow. Administrations come to an end. Statutes of limitations do not run out as fast as a news cycle.”

Three remaining “60 Minutes” veterans have decided on their futures with the beleaguered broadcast mainstay.

Longtime correspondents Lesley Stahl, Bill Whitaker and Jon Wertheim announced Friday they would stay on at the news magazine despite turmoil engulfing the CBS News division under the leadership of editor in chief Bari Weiss.

“We have had a hard time deciding whether to stay,” the trio wrote in a memo to their colleagues. “We don’t want to see ‘60 Minutes’ die.”

The three said they were “heartbroken” over the recent firings of their colleagues, including executive producer Tanya Simon and high-ranking producer Draggan Mihailovich, and they seemed to share concerns with correspondent Scott Pelley, who was also fired this week after challenging the new executive producer, Nick Bilton over the program's direction.

“We feared that our returning might be construed as an endorsement of the existing power structure," the three wrote. "That is simply, categorically not the case."

“Newsrooms are not supposed to be run like dictatorships,” they added in their memo.

Continuing questions about Donald Trump’s health were not helped on Thursday during an Oval Office press availaibility that led to more questions about his ability to keep up at his current pace.

On MS NOW’s “Morning Joe,” co-hosts Johnathan Lemire and Willie Geist highlighted the 79-year-old president “slumped’ in his chair as EPA Head Lee Zeldin talked about clean coal, with the two pundits observing the president was clearly asleep.

That led to jokes about the president’s people defining the napping as an extended “blink,” with Lemire commenting, “I believe the White House pushback of ‘’He was blinking, you moron, ‘is how they would engage reporters who would point out on Twitter that the president seemed to be asleep.”

“So this was yesterday, the scene here,” he added as a clip of the president with his eyes closed ran. “And there's other footage where he seems fully slumped to sleep to one side of his chair, and then he kind of shifts and falls asleep on the other side of the chair. I mean, it's a long blink. We could count it off if you'd like.”

“But this is becoming almost a daily occurrence,” he pointed out. “And as much as the White House likes to push back on this, there are questions about, you know, his health, his fitness. He had another physical at Walter Reed a week or so back. We haven't really gotten much in the way of results. A week from Sunday, he turns 80.”

He then pointed out, “We heard for four years about 'Sleepy Joe Biden.' You know, not that I like to credit John Heilemann with much, but the ‘Confession or projection’ construct here works really well. This is clearly, you know, President Trump projecting his own perhaps frailties and need for naps during the day.”

- YouTube www.youtube.com

A Justice Department lawyer astonished onlookers by arguing in federal court that the Trump administration could "bulldoze" the Statue of Liberty if they moved too quickly to be stopped.

The lawyer appeared Friday morning for oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit over President Donald Trump's controversial White House ballroom project, which is under construction on the site of East Wing he ordered demolished last year without warning, and Judge Patricia Millett pressed the attorney on the matter.

"If the government decides very quickly to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty, the people whose ancestors — that was the first thing they saw coming to this country, but the govt moved too fast — nothing can be done?" she asked, according to Politico's Kyle Cheney, who was in the courtroom.

"I think that's right, yes," agreed the attorney, who was not identified by the reporter.

The courtroom exchange stunned social media users.

"They’re out of their minds," marveled Fox News contributor Jessica Tarlov.

"There is nothing left of the Justice Department I worked at," lamented former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance.

"We voted to make him God Emperor of the United States," quipped HuffPost's S.V. Dáte.

"I honestly thought this was a joke," offered The Bulwark's Cathy Young.

"The Trump Admin talking about bulldozing the Statue of Liberty … sick, sick stuff," muttered California Gov. Gavin Newsom's official account.

"Feels like we should have the 'You Can't Just Bulldoze the Statue of Liberty Act' introduced and passed rather quickly now, right Congress?" suggested political strategist Thomas C. Bowen.

"I don't think this is going to help the DOJ," commented attorney Kevin Baum.

"Under Lujan itself, the lawyer’s answer is almost certainly wrong," opined law professor Michael Morley. "A tourist, or even better an art or architecture specialist, who had bought a ticket to fly to New York at a particular time to go look at or study the statue would almost certainly have standing to challenge its destruction. The destruction of the statute would be a tragedy and should absolutely never occur and there should be some way to stop it. It’s not clear that aesthetic injury *should* be sufficient to satisfy article III? Standing doesn’t even seem to be the biggest hurdle under currently doctrine here? I’m not sure who would have a cause of action to challenge the destruction?"

Steve Bannon, President Donald Trump's former chief White House strategist, predicted Republicans will lose the Senate in the November midterms.

During an episode of his "War Room" podcast, Bannon criticized Republicans for abandoning working-class voters who feel "crushed," and said, "That's the backbone of the nation. When we lose sight of that, you lose it all."

He also criticized GOP donors, saying their campaign spending resembles burning money, citing wasted resources on Sen. John Cornyn's Texas race.

Bannon then noted, Republican candidates are falling behind in Maine, North Carolina, and Ohio — areas he characterized as "MAGA country." He attributed GOP failures to lack of grassroots engagement, arguing, "People are not going to go door to door and engage" without proper canvassing efforts.

Bannon emphasized, modern electoral success requires one-on-one voter engagement and volunteers genuinely committed to candidates' causes, which Trump-backed candidates currently lack.

Watch the video below.

A Florida Democrat snapped during a House Appropriations subcommittee meeting Friday, declaring the Republican fiscal year 2027 spending bill "a war on women and girls" after it moved to eliminate family planning funding for millions of Americans.

"I'm mad as hell! I cannot believe what I see!" Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL) shouted during the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies subcommittee markup. "This is a war on women and girls!"

Frankel tore into the bill over a string of cuts she said would devastate low-income women and families. The Republican spending plan eliminates Title X family planning funding — a cut of $286 million — and zeroes out the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, slashing another $108 million. Title X serves nearly 3 million people annually, according to Frankel, mostly low-income or uninsured.

"This is our family planning money," Frankel said, "and not only that, preventative care, cancer screening, diabetes, keeping people healthy — mostly people who are very poor or uninsured."

She didn't stop there. Frankel accused Republicans of pushing women toward unwanted pregnancies while simultaneously gutting the programs that would support them.

"I know you're against abortion. That's one thing. But forced pregnancy, that's another thing."

The bill also cuts the Office on Women's Health within HHS by $14 million, according to Democratic appropriators, and replaces teen pregnancy prevention programs with abstinence-only education, which received a $5 million funding increase.

"Zeroing out teen pregnancy prevention — okay, let's see," Frankel said. "And lastly, not lastly — I go to another page — almost cutting in half the Office on Women's Health within HHS. This is a war! It's a war on women!"

Frankel closed with a direct appeal to colleagues across the aisle.

"If you are a woman or you love a woman — you have a daughter, you have a sister, a mother, a cousin, an aunt — let's keep them healthy."

According to Democratic appropriators, the bill cuts total spending by $19.1 billion — 9 percent — below fiscal year 2026 levels.

Kevin Hassett, Director of the National Economic Council, told Fox News on Friday that the economy under President Donald Trump was booming — and hilarity ensued.

Hassett claimed "the Trump boom" wouldn't be reported by "the fake news," and that the One Big Beautiful Bill has massively helped to improve the economy — dismissing affordability concerns among Americans.

"Right now, Wall Street just doesn't understand that the Trump economy is really creating an economic golden age," Hassett said.

Onlookers immediately attacked.

"Can the numbers be trusted??" Attorney and former public defender Frank Amari, who has more than 64,000 followers, wrote on Bluesky.

"It sure is, for the 1%. Not for Main Street," filmmaker and producer Joel Lesko wrote on Bluesky.

"Trump is creating an 'economic golden age' for his cronies in the top 1/2 of 1%. The rest of us can go suck it," Dawn Humphrey, a retired communications expert with more than 21,000 followers, wrote on Bluesky.

"An economic golden age, eh? I'll leave this here for you," Georgetown University professor Anthony M. Hopper wrote on X, sharing the University of Michigan’s Consumer Sentiment Index report showing an economic decline.

A former senior Social Security official has disclosed that the Trump administration drew up plans to classify 2.7 million living people — including United States citizens, legal permanent residents and teenagers — as dead, using one of the government's most powerful identity databases to effectively erase them from the financial system.

Jeremiah Schofield, who spent 25 years at the Social Security Administration and helped lead its IT modernization efforts, said he refused to implement the plan after agency lawyers warned it could violate federal law, and the Washington Post reported that he has detailed his account in a 49-page whistleblower disclosure filed with two Senate committees.

The plan, which the Social Security Administration says was never carried out at full scale, would have moved the 2.7 million people into the agency's Death Master File — a database used by banks, employers and government agencies to determine whether someone is alive. Being added to that file can cut off access to wages, bank accounts, credit, housing and health insurance.

Schofield said he began to understand the plan's true purpose after pulling a sample of 25 people from the list and discovering they were all still living. He brought his findings to a meeting with a DOGE official, Jon Koval, who was by then working at the Department of Homeland Security. After the meeting, a deputy commissioner called Koval back on speakerphone and asked him directly to explain the goal of the list.

Koval's answer, Schofield said, was delivered matter-of-factly: People would either choose to self-deport or they would show up at a Social Security office seeking help — and get arrested.

"That call was one of the most disappointing calls I've been in in my 25-year career," Schofield told the Washington Post. "I was shocked. I couldn't believe what I was hearing."

A smaller version of the effort had already been carried out when the Social Security Administration added 6,100 immigrants to its Death Master File last year, and some of those people later appeared at field offices to prove they were still alive. When the agency's acting commissioner raised concerns about the legality of the word "death," he resolved the problem by renaming the file, replacing "death" with "ineligible."

His reasoning: "Death is a state of ineligibility."

Schofield said he stayed quiet for months, watching other federal workers face retaliation and deciding the risks of speaking out were too great. It was only at a February happy hour, when he told a former colleague he was haunted by what he had witnessed, that she encouraged him to come forward.

The Social Security Administration denied the full plan was ever implemented. The White House did not directly respond to questions about it.

Schofield said he has no regrets.

"I don't think that it's right that they do this to us," he said. "I think that we need to stand up for each other in this time."

Amid the ongoing litigation of President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC, the president’s lawyers were asked to provide records supporting one of the president’s key claims in the suit – and immediately lashed out, The Guardian reported Friday.

Trump sued the BBC last year after accusing the broadcaster of deceptively editing a documentary that detailed his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. He claimed to have suffered “overwhelming financial and reputational harm” due to the network’s actions.

Lawyers for the BBC, after forking over 45,000 pages to Trump’s legal team upon request as of May, asked the president’s lawyers to provide records from Trump’s trust, which holds much of the president’s business assets.

The lawyers were not pleased with the request.

“In response, Trump’s Florida-based lawyers Brito PLLC said the request was ‘disproportionate’ and ‘encompasses individuals and entities that have no connection to the issues in dispute,’” the Guardian’s report reads.

“They added it amounted to ‘tens of thousands of documents’ within 30 days, adding the timeframe was ‘unreasonable… and improper.’ It accused the BBC of a ‘textbook fishing expedition.’”

The response from Trump’s legal team sits in direct contrast, as flagged by the Guardian, with the BBC’s response to more than 500 separate requests from the president’s lawyers to the British broadcaster for records. As of May, Trump’s legal team “had produced none,” the outlet reported.

“In court filings [the BBC] denied it had damaged [Trump's] reputation as it aired shortly before his re-election, and was not shown in the US,” the Guardian’s report read. “BBC lawyers also argued that as it was not broadcast in the US, or in Florida, the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. The dismissal claim is ongoing.”

President Donald Trump is facing a "rural revolt" as a result of his policies, according to a new data analysis.

The soon-to-be-80-year-old president was re-elected in 2024 on his promise to improve the economy, but voters aren't happy with the job he's done so far, and many of his policies are directly hurting farmers and voters in the rural areas that have backed him in all three elections.

"Iowa has been traditionally a field of dreams for the president of United States," said CNN's Harry Enten. "But it's quickly turning into potentially a field of nightmares. There seems to be a rural revolt going on in this country against Donald Trump. Take a look here: Rural voters and Trump, look, according to Fox News, he was easily winning them back in October of 2024 versus Kamala Harris, 18 points ahead. The exit poll even had it a bigger margin."

"But look at where he is now – whoo!" Enten exclaimed. "Down there underwater, underneath the cornfields. He's now 14 points underwater. That's over a 30-point switcheroo against the president."

The explanation for that reversal is fairly simple, according to Enten.

"Simply put, it's the economy, it's inflation," he said. "Take a look at this: You thought that that switcheroo was big, how about this one? Rural voters on Trump and inflation versus Kamala Harris. He was more trusted by 37 points. Now he is 19 points underwater with rural voters on inflation. That is an over 50-point switcheroo against the president of the United States. Rural voters, like the rest of the country, turning against Trump on the key issue that got him elected to a second term back in 2024."

Anger at the president has flowed down ballot to Republican congressional candidates and gubernatorial races, Enten said.

"You know, Donald Trump went and he has won all of these primaries," he said. "The candidates he endorsed have won all of these primaries, did not happen in Iowa. Well, just talk about Iowa Republicans here. The gubernatorial primary he endorsed Randy Feenstra, congressman from Iowa, and Feenstra actually won the absentee vote in that state by 15 points. Trump endorsed late, but the other candidate, Zach Lahn, look at this, he actually won those who voted on Election Day who knew about Trump's endorsement. In fact, they were considerably more favorable to Lahn than they were in a Feenstra, even after knowing that Trump had, in fact, backed Feenstra."

"It seemed to me that Iowa Republicans said, 'You know what, we hear you, Donald Trump, but you know what? We're dismissing that message,' again, part of a larger picture in my mind of rural voters not tuning in to what Donald Trump is telling him at this point," Enten added.

That shift against Trump is boosting Democratic chances in the midterm elections, Enten said.

"The last Democrat to win a Senate race in Iowa was all the way back in 2008," Enten said. "It was Tom Harkin. But what do we see here in terms of the Democrats' chances in Iowa and the governor's race and the Senate race? They have gone up like a rocket. We're now talking about Rob Sands running for governor with a greater than 50 percent chance, and it turns out that Josh Turek, who the Democratic establishment wanted, his chances have also been considerably rising at this point."

"If all of a sudden you're able to put Iowa on the board, if you're a Democrat hoping to win back control of the United States Senate, that would be a massive piece of the puzzle, and the last time Iowa elected a Democratic governor was all the way back in 2006, and that looks like a more likely possibility than not," Enten added.

- YouTube youtu.be

Republican members of Congress are reaching a "boiling point" with President Trump, with GOP insiders expressing deep-seated frustration over what they characterize as the president's relentless demands and self-sabotage timing that undermines their legislative efforts.

According to interviews with NOTUS, Republican congressional insiders describe a workplace environment poisoned by "resentment" as Trump repeatedly upends their strategy at crucial moments.

"There's a really stark frustration that's probably past the boiling point to a place of resentment, actually," one senior Senate GOP aide said bluntly. "You've had, whether it's Senate Republican leadership and really just generally the conference working really hard to deliver the president's agenda, and frankly it's the White House and the president himself that keeps shooting us in the foot when we're on the goal line of delivering some of these key things."

The grievances are mounting, according to the report. In recent weeks, Republicans have openly rebelled against Trump's demands to fund a White House ballroom renovation, a $1.8 billion Justice Department compensation fund for Capitol riot participants, and his nomination of Bill Pulte—a political loyalist with zero intelligence experience—to direct the nation's intelligence agencies.

Adding to the dysfunction, both chambers of Congress voted to challenge Trump's Iran war strategy, which has spiraled into what many view as another Middle Eastern quagmire.

What has particularly inflamed GOP lawmakers is the timing of Trump's decisions. His endorsement of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn just one week before the primary exemplified what Republicans view as reckless interference that undermined a popular Senate leader and former top GOP legislative strategist.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) suggested Trump may simply be receiving poor counsel. "Somebody's not serving him well," Cramer said, calling the Pulte announcement timing "a mystery."

"With Donald Trump, he's usually a step ahead of all the rest of us, and oftentimes you look back and go, 'Oh, that makes sense now.' I think some of it may be that, on one hand," Cramer told NOTUS. "On the other, maybe he's not being served as well by advisers as he was in the first term, because some of this stuff does seem like unforced errors."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was more direct in her criticism, stopping short of outright revolt but making clear the proposals are indefensible.

"It's not like, 'OK, I'm going to take my stand and push back against the president.' These are not good ideas," she said. "It's not a good idea to tell the American public that I want to renovate a ballroom and I'm going to pay for it with donations, and then turn around and say, 'I need taxpayer dollars for it.'"

Murkowski reiterated the distinction: "This is not, you know, a design to be a revolt against Donald Trump. It's not a good idea, and we don't support the ideas that are not good ideas."

A Justice Department lawyer told a federal appeals court Friday that the Trump administration could demolish the Statue of Liberty before anyone could sue to stop him — and that would simply be the end of it.

The stunning exchange came during oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit over President Donald Trump's controversial $400 million White House ballroom project, built on the site of the demolished East Wing.

Judge Patricia Millett pressed the government's lawyer directly. "If the govt decides very quickly to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty, the people whose ancestors — that was the first thing they saw coming to this country, but the govt moved too fast — nothing can be done?" she asked, according to Politico's Kyle Cheney, who was in the courtroom.

The DOJ lawyer's response: "I think that's right, yes."

The administration has argued throughout the ballroom litigation that no one has legal standing to challenge the project once demolition is complete. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled in March that "no statute comes close to giving the President" the authority to build the ballroom without congressional approval. The appellate panel — Millett alongside Trump-appointee Neomi Rao and Biden-appointee Brad Garcia — is now weighing whether to reinstate his injunction.

The ballroom fight is far from Trump's only unilateral remaking of American landmarks. Federal judges have also been asked to weigh in on his effort to paint the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool "American flag" blue — the subject of a lawsuit accusing the administration of bypassing required congressional notice. A separate judge blocked Trump's move to rename the Kennedy Center in his honor. And the administration has drawn up plans for a 250-foot triumphal arch at Memorial Circle near Arlington National Cemetery, across the Potomac from the Lincoln Memorial.

Trump has defended the ballroom as a national security necessity, posting AI-generated renderings of a "DronePort" on the roof and warning that Judge Leon would be held responsible for any attack on the president.

The appellate panel has allowed construction to continue during the legal fight. Trump has said the ballroom is scheduled to open around September 2028.

President Donald Trump's pick to lead the entire U.S. intelligence community has never held a security clearance of any kind before being handed the job, CNN reported Thursday — and the vetting process wasn't even initiated until days after the announcement.

Bill Pulte, a wealthy housing finance official and grandson of the founder of homebuilding giant PulteGroup, was tapped Tuesday by Trump to serve as acting director of national intelligence, replacing outgoing DNI Tulsi Gabbard. He has no background in intelligence, espionage, or national security.

Three sources told CNN there is "no evidence that Pulte previously maintained even the lowest form of security clearance" before being named to oversee all 18 U.S. intelligence agencies — including the CIA and NSA. He had also never been vetted for potential security vulnerabilities, a standard requirement for senior intelligence roles. One source said flatly, "None," when asked whether Pulte had gone through any prior vetting.

"The director of national intelligence has access to all of our most classified intelligence," Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN. There is no evidence that Pulte "would respect those classifications," Warner added.

The criticism is bipartisan. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told reporters, "We don't need a weaponized DNI. We need professionals there." Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said Pulte has "no path in the Senate."

Trump himself appeared to confirm that election conspiracy theories drove the pick, telling reporters Thursday: "He may find out some things about the rigged elections."

When asked about Pulte's qualifications, Trump said, "I wasn't greatly experienced in national security." He added, "he's not going to be permanent."

The law creating the DNI position in 2004 requires that nominees have "extensive national security expertise."

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche boasted Thursday that he is installing "roadblocks" inside the Justice Department to prevent Democrats from prosecuting President Donald Trump after his term ends — the latest in a string of moves critics say have turned the DOJ into a personal protection service for the president.

"We can just keep on exposing it and putting roadblocks in place so it never happens again," Blanche told NewsNation host Katie Pavlich in an exclusive interview, first surfaced by journalist Aaron Rupar, adding that he worries about "some Democrats coming out and actually already forecasting what they're gonna try to do if they get leadership again."

It isn't the first time Blanche has used his perch atop the DOJ to benefit Trump directly. Last month, Blanche signed a one-page addendum declaring the federal government "FOREVER BARRED" from pursuing any IRS audit or tax claim against Trump, his family, or his businesses — part of a settlement stemming from Trump's $10 billion lawsuit over the leak of his tax records. Critics dispute the administration's claim that the protection covers only existing audits and not future ones.

Blanche also spent weeks defending a nearly $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded "anti-weaponization" fund before killing it after Senate Republicans revolted.

And last November, Blanche urged young lawyers at a Federalist Society conference to join what he called a "war" against "rogue activist judges" blocking Trump's agenda — remarks that drew a sharp rebuke from a coalition of 50 former federal judges.

Blanche was Trump's personal criminal defense attorney before joining the administration, representing him in three of his four criminal cases.

Lawmakers fleeing the chaotic House of Representatives for the greener pastures of higher office are finding the doors are shut to them by unimpressed voters, according to a report.

Nearly 30 House members have discovered that service in Congress has become a political liability rather than an asset.

Politico reported that the exodus of House members seeking promotions has resulted in a cascade of primary defeats, leaving some lawmakers wishing they had simply remained in their current positions and relied on incumbency to keep them employed.

The pattern has been unmistakable in recent weeks. Rep. Randy Feenstra (R) lost Iowa's GOP gubernatorial nomination despite a late Trump endorsement. Rep. Dusty Johnson (R) fell short in South Dakota's gubernatorial race. Rep. Chip Roy (R) lost a Texas attorney general runoff.

House Democrats have fared no better. In Illinois, Reps. Robin Kelly and Raja Krishnamoorthi both lost to the state's lieutenant governor in the Senate primary. In Texas, high-profile Rep. Jasmine Crockett was defeated by a state representative in the Democratic Senate race.

The reason, according to members themselves, is straightforward: voters blame Congress for being dysfunctional and see House members as part of the problem rather than the solution, according to Politico.

"There's definitely those out there who think, 'Well, it's broken, and they've been in it a long time, and obviously it's still broken,' so we kind of get the blame for it," said Rep. Buddy Carter, who failed to reach a runoff in Georgia's Republican Senate primary last month.

The shift marks a dramatic reversal. Congressional service was once a stepping stone to higher office — half of last year's freshmen senators previously served in the House. Now, members fear their Capitol Hill tenure has become toxic.

State-level officials and political outsiders are capitalizing on anti-Washington sentiment. "The voters all across the country aren't particularly fond of D.C., so are you perceived to be part of the establishment or someone that's been battling it?" asked Rep. David Schweikert, now running for Arizona's GOP gubernatorial nomination.

According to the report, the pattern extends to specific races. GOP Rep. John Rose trails Sen. Marsha Blackburn in Tennessee gubernatorial polling, even as he downplays his congressional service in campaign ads, identifying himself as "a father, a farmer and a CEO" while omitting any mention of his House seat.

The consequences ripple beyond individual campaigns. In South Carolina, Tuesday's GOP gubernatorial primary could end the political careers of Reps. Ralph Norman and Nancy Mace, with Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette positioned as the frontrunner after winning Trump's endorsement.

According to Politico, the mounting primary losses create additional complications for House leadership already struggling to maintain attendance. Speaker Mike Johnson has canceled multiple voting days this year to accommodate members' primary schedules, with the risk of further no-shows likely to increase as more House members pursue long-shot bids for higher office.

President Donald Trump is heading to Wisconsin to campaign for Rep. Derrick Van Orden, a third-term incumbent whose rural district is being squeezed by the policies he has spent two years defending.

Van Orden represents Wisconsin's 3rd Congressional District, a stretch of farm country that produces more milk than most states and depends on roughly 17,000 farms to drive its broader economy. Politico reported that the region is directly impacted by Trump's tariff regime, rising fuel and fertilizer costs and trade disruptions caused by the war with Iran.

“I think [farmers] are growing frustrated with Trump’s administration for which Van Orden is a huge cheerleader,” said beef producer Max Hart. "They probably can't bear to vote for a Democrat. But they probably don't support Trump or Van Orden's policies."

The Cook Political Report recently moved the race from lean-Republican to a tossup. Van Orden's likely Democratic opponent, Rebecca Cooke, has outraised him and secured a spot in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's Red to Blue program, which channels money and organizational support to candidates positioned to flip GOP-held seats.

The White House has responded with an unusual level of intervention. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins is making her second appearance alongside Van Orden in less than six weeks, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. held a press conference inside a machine shed earlier this week. Trump's visit Friday will be framed around his administration's support for farmers, with the White House touting lower input costs, new trade markets and expanded rural opportunity zones.

Whether any of it will be enough is an open question. A Marquette Law School poll conducted in March found that 60 percent of Wisconsin voters believe Trump's tariffs are hurting farmers. In the western part of the state, which includes Van Orden's district, that figure rose to 67 percent.

"If farmers are struggling, it just boils down to everybody else," said Darin Von Ruden, president of the Wisconsin Farmers Union. "The bankers, the vets, the supply stores — all are impacted by what's happening at the farm level."

Van Orden has defended the administration's record and voiced support for the Iran war, arguing that prices will stabilize once the conflict concludes, but Cooke senses that the agricultural community is losing patience.

“When I’m talking to people at a dairy breakfast or at a county fair, I don’t usually lead with ‘I’m Rebecca Cooke and I’m a Democrat,’ because they walk right by me,” she said. “But if I introduce myself and I say, ‘I’m Rebecca Cooke, I grew up on a dairy farm … we need more folks in the middle willing to get things done, avoiding the chaos,’ [then] most people nod their head.”

President Donald Trump has faced barely any pushback from those within his Cabinet, having prioritized loyalty so intense that members have risked physical injury just to appease him, according to a report Friday.

Slate writer Ian Prasad Philbrick came to his conclusion after conducting an experiment: he purchased a pair of Florsheim Shoes, the same kind Trump had purchased for his entire Cabinet who are “afraid not to wear them,” a White House aide previously told The Wall Street Journal.

As part of his experiment, Philbrick walked 10 miles around Washington, D.C. in his new pair of Florsheim dress shoes – footwear that costs $145 and is “decidedly midtier” — and was left with significant “damage” to his feet.

“The balls of both feet and the ends of both pointer toes had been mashed into misshapen blisters,” Philbrick wrote. “The skin on both heels and a patch below my right pinkie had worn away, leaving behind angry pink abrasions. My feet were still aching when I boarded my flight home the next day.”

Trump has also reportedly purchased the shoes for his top officials without asking their shoe size, leading to Secretary of State Marco Rubio being spotted with what appears to be footwear that's far too large — shoes in which Rubio’s feet “were positively swimming,” Philbrick quipped.

Rubio was even mocked this week for having continued to wear the “too big” shoes by Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA), to which Rubio defensively insisted they “fit fine.”

That Trump’s cabinet was willing to “risk mangling their own feet” just to appease their boss, Philbrick concluded, was an apt metaphor for the Trump 2.0 administration as a whole.

“An ill-fitting pair of shoes turns out to be a fitting talisman of the political world we’ve collectively inhabited since 2016,” Philbrick wrote.

“In this world, a president who should be focused on passing legislation or negotiating with Iran is acting as his adjutants’ personal stylist – the most loyal of whom are so submissive that they’re willing to risk mangling their own feet just to follow in his footsteps. Our emperor may have no clothes. But he does have Florsheims.”

A veteran actor was stabbed to death by his girlfriend's son Wednesday morning in Los Angeles, police said.

James Handy, who most recently appeared in “Top Gun: Maverick,” was found unconscious in front of a home in Tarzana with a stab wound to his chest after the son called 911 to report the attack, reported NBC News.

“I am the son of man, I just killed the man of sin,” the caller said, according to police.

Police said 44-year-old Michael Gledhill flagged down officers after calling 911 about 9:30 a.m. and identified himself as the suspect.

Gledhill, who lives at the home with his mother, was arrested and charged with one count of murder.

The 81-year-old Handy had played the bartender Jimmy in 2022's “Top Gun: Maverick,” and he also appeared in “Arachnophobia” and “Jumanji” and had many TV roles, including appearances in “NCIS: Los Angeles,” “CSI: New York,” “NYPD Blue” and “Law & Order."

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade couldn't hide his disgust Thursday morning when his own network flashed an "Iran Deal Soon?" graphic on screen — audibly groaning and declaring the talks a "dead end" just seconds after reading the optimistic chyron off a teleprompter.

"Ugh!" Kilmeade blurted before pivoting sharply from the network's framing. "The problem is there are no talks. Hezbollah's backed out of it. I see that as a dead end."

The @BadFoxGraphics account, which tracks Fox News graphics and on-air moments, captured the clip and said Kilmeade had thrown "cold water on producers' efforts to again predict an imminent Iran deal."

President Donald Trump claimed back in 2020 he'd have a deal with Iran "within four weeks" of being re-elected. It never happened. After returning to office, he gave Iran 15 days to reach an agreement in February 2026 — then launched airstrikes on the country. By late May, he was declaring on Truth Social that a deal had "been largely negotiated" — only for officials to walk that back within 24 hours, NPR reported. A Situation Room meeting last weekend ended with no announcement.

Now Trump is hinting the war could wrap up "as soon as this weekend" — a claim Kilmeade, reading from his own network's script, couldn't stomach.

President Donald Trump is digging in on several controversial priorities despite knowing he's "paying a price among Senate Republicans" — who, multiple insiders told The Washington Post, are growing increasingly "tired of carrying that weight.”

“It’s been one self-inflicted wound after another,” a Republican strategist told the Post, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Senate Republicans are tired of carrying that weight and making excuses for things they can’t make excuses for.”

Trump faced a new GOP “rebellion” early Friday after Senate Republicans refused to advance a bill backed by the president, one that would extend a controversial surveillance program. They also took 18 hours to advance the Trump-backed reconciliation bill to fund federal immigration enforcement agencies in what Punchbowl News described as the “consequences of Trump’s recent moves,” including his “anti-weaponization” fund and ousting of Republicans he deemed disloyal.

However, according to an adviser close to the president, Trump is keenly aware that his actions are sparking a schism within his own party, but is pressing on unfazed — and “with a blend of indifference and hostility,” the Post reported — for one reason.

“Trump is not of a mind to change course on Iran, the fund or his Cabinet picks to make Republicans’ lives easier on the campaign trail or to smooth relations with Capitol Hill,” the Post reports, citing the advisor who spoke with the outlet under the condition of anonymity.

“The president recognizes he’s paying a price among Senate Republicans for endorsing victorious primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX), but he also believes the senators who are voting against him probably would have done so anyway. Trump does not think he needs Congress as much as the lawmakers think he does, the adviser said.”

Bolstering Trump's position is the upcoming midterm elections, where analysts have offered grave predictions for Republican performance, and thereby giving him little incentive to "accommodate" GOP lawmakers' "concerns" by backing off his more controversial positions.

“And with House and Senate Republicans expected to suffer significant losses in November, the president feels no need to accommodate them,” the Post’s report reads, paraphrasing the adviser’s remarks.

An Oregon judge lost patience with a government lawyer's defense of plans to mint a 24-karat gold coin bearing President Donald Trump's likeness.

A retired Portland attorney filed a lawsuit earlier this year challenging the proposed coin, arguing that federal law plainly prohibits the images of living people on U.S. currency. U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut repeatedly interrupted U.S. Justice Department lawyer Kathryn Barragan during a hearing on the case Wednesday, reported the Oregonian.

“What’s the purpose?" Immergut interjected. "I don’t want the long-winded version."

Barragan was arguing that an 1866 amendment eventually became law first head of the Bureau of Engraving & Printing put his own portrait on a 5-cent paper note, but plaintiff James Rickher urged the judge to block the U.S. Mint from making the Trump coin because federal law requires anyone portrayed on currency to be deceased.

“The prohibition is designed to avoid political self-promotion," Rickher argued. "The word ‘deceased’ is unambiguous."

Rickher, the retired attorney, told the court the law does not distinguish between coins intended for circulation or coins intended for commemoration and collection, but Barragan argued that the plaintiff lacks the "personal stake" necessary to bring his challenge and asked the judge to toss his lawsuit.

The government lawyer also argued that his challenge was premature because the U.S. Treasury secretary hasn't formally approved a final design for the coin, which would have a proposed face value of $2,026 in honor of the nation's 250th anniversary, but Barragan told the court the estimated sale value of the 47 coins planned for production would be $90,000.

Immergut, a Trump nominee, asked Rickher to give his best argument to justify his legal standing to intervene, and the novice coin collector said he hoped to protect the integrity of the coin collection market as a participant because the Trump coin would drive down the value of his personal collection.

“The structure of the coin market would be destroyed by a sovereign who is supposed to be following the law but issuing a coin that is illegal,” he explained.

Barragan, a 2022 Harvard Law School graduate who's worked a little over a year for the DOJ, told the court that three coins in history had been produced bearing a living person's image, but Rickher argued those had also violated the law but no enforcement was taken.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) sparked another wave of liberal outrage after becoming the first Senate Democrat to clear the path for one of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees during the president’s second term, Punchbowl News reported Friday.

Fetterman has become something of a pariah among Democrats after routinely siding with Republicans on various issues, including matters related to immigration enforcement, Trump’s war powers and Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. And on Friday, Punchbowl News confirmed that he had waived his right to block Trump’s lifetime nomination of a federal judge in Pennsylvania, sparking fury among a major liberal and anti-Trump advocacy organization.

“These are not normal times, and any senator who thinks that this is standard operating procedure and that any of these nominations are normal course of operations is deluding themselves,” said Josh Orton, president of the organization Demand Justice, speaking with Punchbowl News.

“If Democrats truly believe that we have to stand up to Trump’s attacks on the rule of law, they have to do so in every room — not just on Twitter and not just on TV.”

Fetterman cleared the path for the Trump-tapped Antonio Pozos to serve as a lifetime federal judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, doing so by turning in his blue slip, a process that waives his right to oppose Pozos’ appointment.

“It’s the first time in Trump’s second term that a Senate Democrat has turned in a blue slip for one of Trump’s judicial picks,” Punchbowl News’ report read. “The move is already setting off yet another battle between Fetterman and his numerous critics on the left, who demand unyielding opposition to Trump, particularly on lifetime appointments to the federal bench.”

President Donald Trump has turned an unlikely issue into one of his most personal legislative priorities — and he is spending real political capital to make it happen, according to a report Friday.

The 79-year-old has been making direct phone calls to Republican lawmakers, lobbying them to support the so-called Sunshine Protection Act, which would make daylight saving time permanent across the country, reported Politico.

“He’s a big fan of it,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who got a call from the president on the issue. “He said, ‘Do you still think this is a good idea?’ I said, ‘Yeah, I do, I think it’s a great idea.’”

The effort scored an early victory last month when the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 48-1 to insert a permanent daylight saving time amendment into a surface transportation bill. Trump celebrated on social media, calling it a "very nice WIN for the Republican Party."

Whether that win survives contact with the full House and Senate is another matter entirely.

Republican majorities in both chambers are thin, and opposition is already forming. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who blocked a similar measure on the Senate floor last October, has not indicated he has changed his position, and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee with jurisdiction over the bill, said plainly, "I've already heard from people over here who don't like it."

The broader transportation bill will also require Democratic support to pass, and even Democrats who voted for the amendment in committee are hedging. Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) said her constituents are focused on grocery prices and healthcare costs, not clock-changing. The daylight saving time provision, she added dryly, "probably should have been debated in the light of day."

What makes the president's push unusual is not the policy itself — bipartisan efforts to resolve the daylight saving time debate have circulated for years without success — but the intensity of his personal engagement.

Senior White House officials describe it as a genuine priority, grounded in arguments about public health, economic disruption and the particular misery of resetting a toddler's sleep schedule twice a year.

“The overall thrust of the policy is just to stop dealing with the health issues and the various pieces of economic dislocation that occur when we have to change our clocks, and if you’re a parent, the absolute holy hell of having to adjust your children’s internal clocks with the changing of the time, so we think it’s a win-win-win,” said a senior White House official.

“Win for the president, win for the American people, and a win for everybody who has to go through this really inconvenient process," that official said. "We’re going to keep working the bill hard.”

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepared to determine the fate of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the landmark case, Louisiana v. Callais, MAGA groups and conservative nonprofits connected to far-right megadonors that filed briefs in support of weakening the historic civil rights law took in record-breaking amounts of dark money, according to new research.

Seven nonprofits with various ties to President Donald Trump, conservative megadonor Leonard Leo or other wealthy right-wing figures who filed briefs in the Callais case took in nearly $105 million through donor-advised funds, a dark money vehicle, between 2021 and 2024, according to new analysis from progressive watchdog group, True North Research.

That’s seven times the donor-advised funding those groups received in the previous three-year period, according to the research. Of those nonprofits, the Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation took in by far the most money from donor-advised funds — more than $58 million since it was co-founded in 2021 by Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff; Mark Meadows, former White House chief of staff during Trump’s first term; and Gene Hamilton, former deputy White House counsel in Trump’s first presidency.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller speaks during a roundtable on anti-fraud initiatives with Republican state attorneys general on May 26, . REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

“It's disturbing that the same far-right funders and political agents who built the far-right faction of the [Supreme] Court to impose their agenda on us all are continuing to spend big now to change even the contours of elections, and it's making it harder for people to cast their votes and easier to get their politicians in power to do their bidding and impose their agenda,” said Alyssa Bowen, deputy executive director at True North Research.

“The courts wasn't the end game. The courts are one powerful, powerful means to get their agenda done in other ways.”

Ultimately, the Court sided with Callais, determining that the Louisiana congressional map redrawn in 2024 to create a second Black-majority district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

The map was originally redrawn because a federal court determined in 2022 that a new congressional map based on the 2020 census was not representative of Louisiana’s one-third Black population and a potential violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination. The 2022 map had only one in six districts reflecting a Black majority.

Scholars, legislators and voting rights advocates have called the April decision a “gutting” and “indefensible evisceration” of the Voting Rights Act.

'Impose their agenda'

True North analyzed seven conservative groups who filed amicus curiae briefs questioning Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, including the America First Legal Foundation, California Policy Center, Judicial Watch, Landmark Legal Foundation, Pacific Legal Foundation, Project on Fair Representation and Public Interest Legal Foundation.

Amicus curiae translates to “friend of the court,” and such briefs are submitted by organizations and individuals — not parties to the lawsuit — seeking to influence a case’s outcome by providing relevant perspectives, research and expertise relevant for consideration.

But, sometimes those briefs are inaccurate. Justice Samuel Alito recently came under fire for citing a misleading brief in the Callais case.

"It's not just that the these dark money groups are indicating to the Court that the case is important, but oftentimes, the far-right justices on their court are drawing information and citations from these these groups that are, if not incorrect, then factually misleading," Bowen said.

The majority of the nonprofits did not immediately respond to Raw Story's email request for comment.

“MAGA is obviously super interested in this case because of the election element," Bowen said. “Leonard Leo is because of likely hoping that they can help elect far-right candidates that will impose their agenda on people through participatory politics.”

Other landmark and hot button cases such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which overturned the federal right to abortion, and United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, saw a flood of amicus curiae filings, Bowen said.

“When there's big money involved, we do generally tend to see a huge influx of filings from the far-right,” Bowen said.

Some of these nonprofits have various ties to the Trump administration, conservative megadonors and voter suppression efforts.

For instance, the Public Interest Legal Foundation was condemned by civil rights groups for alleged “deceptive tactics promoting voter suppression” and was chaired by Cleta Mitchell, who has pushed false claims of voter fraud and was part of Trump’s call to Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” more than 11,000 votes in the 2020 election.

The group has received at least $2.4 million from DonorsTrust, a donor-advised fund with ties to Leo’s network, and the Bradley Foundation, a conservative charitable foundation which has awarded over $1 billion in grants.

The 85 Fund, a Leo organization which includes the Honest Elections Project, gave $400,000 directly to the Public Interest Legal Foundation.

In response to questions from Raw Story, the Public Interest Legal Foundation shared a statement applauding the Callais decision.

“The now defunct map was drawn for one purpose only – race,” said J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation in the statement.

“The Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of race,” Adams continued. “This opinion should be placed alongside other great moments of courage from the high court – Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginiaand Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.”

Judicial Watch, which extensively directs public records requests at federal courts, leading to the release of then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's emails, has been frequently cited by Trump in relation to election fraud claims.

After the Callais decision, Judicial Watch and the Allied Educational Foundation filed a new amici curiae brief "asking the court to eliminate woke, race-based congressional districting and ban the use racial preferences in drawing up 'majority-minority' congressional districts," according to a Judicial Watch press release sent in response to Raw Story's questions.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, founded by Ed Meese, former U.S. attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, frequently challenges diversity, equity and inclusion policies. The nonprofit applauded the Callais decision as it "reinforces the fundamental principle that the Constitution defends individuals, not racial groups," said Christopher Kieser, Pacific Legal Foundation senior attorney, in a statement.

"States cannot draw voting districts based on race, and by rejecting group-based rights, the Court has strengthened both the rule of law and democratic accountability," Kieser said. "All voters’ rights are equally important, and this ruling makes certain that elections are about individuals—not racial blocs.”

As for donations, Pacific Legal Foundation said it "welcomes support from anyone who supports our mission to protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution," said Kyle Griesinger, Pacific Legal Foundation media relations director, via email.

"Our contributions have increased across the board in recent years; it's not unique to donor-advised funds," Griesinger said. "As we have grown through the support of our donors, we’ve been able to do more to defend the individual rights of everyday Americans."

'Evade the spotlight'

Donor-advised funds are considered a dark money vehicle as they allow donors to make anonymous contributions. Donors benefit from immediate tax deductions even if funds are distributed at a later time.

“Donor-advised funds enable wealthy individuals to influence policy, including arguments before the Supreme Court, without being in the spotlight themselves. These are vehicles that are very powerful, moving huge sums of money into advocacy efforts without the public really being able to understand who's bankrolling them in the first place,” said Michael Beckel, money in politics reform director at Issue One, a nonpartisan nonprofit focused on reducing the influence of money in politics.

“Donor-advised funds provide a shield for donors who want to evade the spotlight, and they are increasingly playing a major role in how money moves into advocacy campaigns on both the right and the left, and this is a very, very clear example of groups who are making arguments before the highest court in the land, and the public not really being able to connect the dots about who is making those arguments or why they are making those arguments."

True North’s analysis looked at a range of donor-advised funds, some associated with right-wing causes, and others through financial institutions.

The analysis included the Donors Capital Fund, DonorsTrust, Fidelity Charitable, Knights of Columbus Charitable Fund, National Christian Charitable Foundation, National Philanthropic Trust, Donor Advised Charitable Giving, Vanguard Charitable, the Servant Foundation (The Signatry), and the Bradley Impact Fund, aligned with the Bradley Foundation.

“Regardless of whether it is an ideologically coded donor-advised fund or a donor-advised fund connected to a financial institution, it’s still a mystery who is calling the shots, why they're investing so much money, what they might have as their own agenda,” Beckel said.

The White House is banking on President Donald Trump's 80th birthday bash — featuring an Ultimate Fighting Championship battle royale on the White House lawn — to help win back a voter bloc that helped propel him to a second term in office.

Trump and UFC President Dana White are putting the finishing touches on an unprecedented fight card scheduled for the White House South Lawn June 14.

But polls suggest the demographic the spectacle is aimed at impressing has already checked out, reported CNN.

The event, framed as part of America's 250th birthday celebrations, will feature eight American fighters and two major title bouts before an estimated 85,000 spectators on the Ellipse. White has been insistent that the spectacle is apolitical. "I don't care if you're the furthest crazy left, or the furthest crazy right," he said. "If you are an American, you will enjoy this show."

The numbers, however, tell a more complicated story. According to the Harvard Kennedy School's Institute of Politics, roughly one in four men under 29 now approve of Trump's job performance — well below the national average — and just 15 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction. Only 10 percent of young men identify as MAGA, and fewer than three in 10 want Republicans to control Congress.

Trump carried men under 30 in 2024, having lost the demographic by double digits four years earlier. That turnaround was driven in part by a media strategy shaped by White himself, who introduced the then-candidate to a network of podcasters, streamers and online influencers capable of reaching disengaged young men at scale.

“I felt like that if the president stayed on Fox he wasn’t going to win,” White said. “What I do know is he can sit on a three-hour podcast and be relatable to a lot of people.”

Now some of those same figures are turning. Joe Rogan, who endorsed Trump days before the election, recently said supporters feel "betrayed" over the war with Iran. Comedians Theo Von and Andrew Schulz, who each hosted Trump for interviews on their podcasts during the campaign, have also grown critical of the administration.

John Della Volpe, who has directed the Harvard Youth Poll for over two decades, said young men are responding less to ideology and more to their daily circumstances — rising costs, an unaffordable housing market and anxiety over artificial intelligence reshaping their job prospects.

"The cultural part works," Della Volpe said, "but it's trumped by the experience."

While acknowledging the struggle to retain backing from younger men, a senior White House adviser dismissed the significance of these numbers in determining the election's story.

“There’s other ways to reach those audiences, and we will,” the adviser said, “and we will cobble a coalition together by hook or by crook.”

CBS News head Bari Weiss has created a powerful new enemy within the network after her controversial decision to revamp the popular “60 Minutes” newsmagazine with a mass firing that blew up into front-page news.

According to media watchdog Status, the conflict has evolved from a news division firefight into a corporate-wide crisis, with CBS Entertainment chief Amy Reisenbach leading the charge against Weiss's sweeping changes.

Reisenbach has privately told associates that Hollywood creatives are expressing alarm over Weiss's direction for the network, and she herself believes the news chief is inflicting "significant damage on the broader CBS brand" — creating headaches for other company leaders, including herself.

The fallout extends into major business problems, according to the Status report. Reisenbach has reported that showrunners are approaching her in panic mode, questioning why they should continue developing broadcast programs for a network whose leadership appears to be abandoning linear television. New "60 Minutes" Executive Producer Nick Bilton's characterization of linear TV as "a rapidly melting ice cube" has only amplified those concerns.

Even more damaging is that Hollywood insiders have expressed concern that Weiss is steering CBS toward what they perceive as a more MAGA-friendly editorial direction — a characterization that has spooked creative talent.

Reisenbach is far from alone. Dozens of senior figures inside David Ellison's Paramount, the parent company, share the view that Weiss is damaging the corporate brand. Some have gone further, believing she should be removed from her position entirely.

The internal revolt comes as CBS News battles a five-alarm crisis threatening the survival of "60 Minutes," the flagship news program. After Weiss fired the show's senior leadership team and correspondents Scott Pelley, Cecilia Vega, and Sharyn Alfonsi, other senior figures have begun evaluating their own departures.

A CBS spokesperson declined to comment to Status's Oliver Darcy on the internal discord.

President Donald Trump faced a new GOP Senate “rebellion” early Friday, and one that included “more than just the usual suspects” in what Punchbowl News described as a “potential preview of what’s to come as Republicans seek distance from Trump with November approaching.”

Senate Republicans failed to advance a bill to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a law that permits national intelligence agencies to monitor overseas communications without a warrant, including those of Americans. A priority for Trump, the bill failed to advance due to insufficient GOP support, which itself was “prompted by” Trump’s nomination of Bill Pulte — who has no intelligence or national security experience — to serve as director of National Intelligence, Punchbowl News reported.

“I don’t think he thinks about the impact on this and the timing,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) of Trump, Punchbowl News reported. “I don’t think he’s connecting that. Which is unfortunate, because [FISA] really has had an impact.”

The vote to advance the bill to extend FISA ultimately failed with a vote of 47-52, and that followed an 18-hour marathon session in the Senate to advance the GOP reconciliation bill to fund federal immigration agencies, one that Punchbowl News described as an “arduous process” that, again, faced GOP opposition prompted by Trump’s actions.

“The marathon voting session on the reconciliation bill laid bare the consequences of Trump’s recent moves, from the toppling of two GOP incumbents to the political toxicity of the White House’s handling of an ‘anti-weaponization’ fund for his political allies,” Punchbowl News’ report read.

“What was supposed to be a straightforward reconciliation bill to fund immigration enforcement became a major headache for Senate GOP leaders because of this controversial fund. Republicans and Democrats alike tried to add language to the measure to ban the fund.”

Even Senate Majority Leader John Thune shared a blunt assessment as to who carried the blame for the Senate GOP’s challenging night.

“This would have been done several hours ago if we weren’t having to deal with some of the issues around the fund, which doesn’t exist — which is the point we’re making,” a “frustrated” Thune said, Punchbowl News reported.

Viewers angry over CBS's cancellation of Stephen Colbert's "The Late Show" are making their displeasure known, with Byron Allen's replacement program "Comics Unleashed" hemorrhaging more than half its audience — and competitors Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon capitalize on the exodus.

According to The Daily Beast, the viewership just days after CBS pulled the plug on Colbert tells a devastating story for the network's late-night strategy.

Kimmel's show experienced a dramatic surge, drawing 2.185 million total viewers on June 1—a 53-percent year-on-year increase. In the coveted 18-49 demographic, ABC's late-night leader captured an eye-popping 295,000 viewers, representing a staggering 178-percent increase from the same night last year.

Fallon's "Tonight Show" came in a distant second with 1.301 million total viewers, though that was still a respectable 10-percent year-over-year increase. The NBC program pulled in 194,000 viewers in the 18-49 demo, a 14-percent improvement from last year.

CBS, meanwhile, cratered. Allen's "Comics Unleashed," which debuted a day after Colbert's departure, drew only 628,000 total viewers — a catastrophic 65-percent drop compared to the same time slot last year. In the crucial 18-49 demographic, the show managed just 82,000 viewers, according to the Beast report.

The report notes the financial structure of Allen's arrangement insulates CBS from the direct financial damage. Under a "time buy" deal, Allen purchased the 11:35 p.m. time slot directly from CBS and covers all production costs while retaining the right to sell advertising himself. That arrangement means Allen—not the network—absorbs the financial consequences of the poor ratings.

A source told The Daily Beast that this model actually benefits CBS by allowing the network to program the late-night slot without exposure to audience and advertiser volatility, even as the show itself collapses into irrelevancy.