Joking with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) at the White House on Monday, President Donald Trump was asked whether Cruz belonged on the Supreme Court. Trump stated, “In fact, somebody said, ‘Would you ever appoint him to the United States Supreme Court, because he’s a brilliant lawyer, Ted?’ I said, “Well, he’s the only one I can think of that’s gonna get 100 votes. All Republicans will vote for him. All Democrats will vote for him, because they want to get him the hell out of the Senate!’ If I was having a hard time with getting the votes I would appoint Ted Cruz, I’d get 100%. Guaranteed.” The truth is no laughing matter. Although Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito are rock-ribbed originalists and staunchly conservative, Thomas turned 78 in June, and Alito is 76. If Trump wants to preserve the Court’s conservative stamp, he may need to find replacements for one or both before leaving office. With the GOP holding only 53 Senate seats, the majority could easily evaporate. Donald Trump: If I appointed Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court, he'd get 100 votes. "He's the ONLY ONE I can think of that's gonna get 100 votes." "ALL Republicans will vote for him. ALL Democrats will vote for him, because they want to get him the hell out of the Senate!" pic.twitter.com/Y8hvrzp3LS — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 6, 2026   Cruz, the first Hispanic senator from Texas, graduated from Princeton University before earning his Juris Doctor from Harvard. After serving as a policy advisor in the George W. Bush administration, he was appointed by then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott as the state’s solicitor general, a role he held until 2008. Cruz worked in private practice until winning his Senate seat in 2012, then winning reelection in 2018 and 2024. During his tenure as Solicitor General, Cruz successfully defended the Ten Commandments placed on the Texas State Capitol grounds and successfully defended Texas against reopening the cases of 51 Mexican nationals who were convicted of murder in the United States. In September 2020, after President Trump named him to a group of potential Supreme Court nominees, Cruz was asked by Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, “Do you want the job?” “I don’t,” Cruz replied. “It is deeply honoring, it’s humbling to be included in the list … but it’s not the desire of my heart. I want to be in the political fight.” In 2016, he also dismissed the idea, saying, “That is not a desire of my heart. I am committed to the fight of ensuring we have strong principled constitutionalists on the court, but I believe that I can do a great more good fighting across the political spectrum.”

Former Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt didn’t hold back after New York City’s socialist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, trashed the United States during what was supposed to be a celebration honoring the nation’s 250th anniversary. Taking to X, the fiery Republican launched a blistering counterattack against Mamdani, torching the leftist’s bleak depiction of the country and labeling him an anti-human Marxist bent on destroying American culture. The fireworks erupted after Mamdani delivered a deeply cynical address on July 3. Instead of honoring the land of the free, the Big Apple’s Left-wing leader painted a dark, sinister portrait of America. Mamdani claimed the nation was fundamentally built on exploitation, bigotry, and prejudice, describing it as an “arena of supremacy” where wealthy oligarchs buy elections and corporate landlords abuse tenants. In a radical rhetorical tirade, the socialist mayor went as far as slamming federal immigration enforcement, accusing ICE agents of terrorizing local neighborhoods and kidnapping undocumented immigrants in unmarked vans. Mamdani concluded his grim speech by redefining patriotism as nothing more than anti-government street protests and righteous dissent. Pratt wasn’t having any of it. The former GOP candidate fiercely defended the country while ripping into Mamdani’s Marxist worldview. He started by warning of the Left’s obsession with rewriting history. “We all had to sit and watch that vile commie mayor sit on the wrong side of our Founding Fathers’ desk to try and lecture us about our own history,” Pratt said. “Notice how the communist always attacks your history. The communist must attack your history. Why? Because history is what anchors you.” Pratt likened the nation to a family home, explaining that even the painful or messy historical memories anchor people to their roots and foster an unbreakable bond that true patriots will fight to protect: “What makes your home special? It’s not the marble countertops or the expensive furniture or the fancy appliances,” he continued. “It’s the memories you have there. ‘That backyard is where we got married; that living room rug is where our son took his first step. Hey, don’t touch that; that was his first teddy bear.’ It doesn’t matter how torn and tattered that thing is; you will never get rid of it. And you will fight anyone who tries to take it away. He then outlined how the Left proceeds: “That’s what the communist always starts with: the bad memories. ‘Oh, we can get rid of that little story. We can knock down that statue. We can change the name of that street. That’s a bad memory from our history. You don’t want that memory hanging around. You’re not a   bigot, right?’ And slowly but surely, this wall comes down. Then that wall gets sledgehammered. Invoking Chairman Mao’s infamous destruction of traditional culture, Pratt declared that communism is an evil, anti-human religion that thrives on total demoralization. He passionately argued that loving America is a vital necessity, noting that the United States has consistently served as the world’s ultimate shield against global tyranny and madness. Pratt pointed out that American ingenuity has served as the cradle for world-changing innovations like airplanes, the internet, and space travel. Turning his sights directly on the New York executive, Pratt concluded: “Commie Mamdani’s ancestors never bled for this country. He has no history here, so he has no attachment to our home. He has no place to rewrite our history and lecture us about what our country stands for. So celebrate today. Show some American pride. Honor your  history. Raise your flag. Raise a finger and say, ‘F*ck you, communists. This is our home and you can’t have it. Today we celebrate our Independence Day.’” God Bless America pic.twitter.com/RNwbNIGhCs — Spencer Pratt (@spencerpratt) July 4, 2026

A CNN host said the (not-so) quiet part out loud in suggesting that Josh Shapiro “reads too Jewish” for the Democratic nomination. The panel, hosted by Elex Michaelson, included a conversation with Eric Messersmith about Senator Jon Ossoff’s potential in the 2028 presidential race. Earlier in the panel, Michaelson gave the usual dismissive description of the antisemitism epidemic in the Democratic party: “Some of the fringes of the DSA, not everybody in the DSA, are certainly pretty close to antisemitism, if not antisemitism.” Sure, Elex. And some of the fringes of the Spanish Inquisition didn’t love Jews either. Rather than counter that the antisemites would not be allowed to bully the rest of the party, Michaelson responded, “As Jew, some people read a little more Jewish than others. And Jon Ossoff may not read as Jewish as Josh Shapiro does, for whatever that’s worth.” Mr. Michaelson, a Jew himself, may be right, but his analysis ought to raise concerns that he’s standing on the wrong side. Shapiro was a serious contender for Kamala Harris’s vice president, who was ultimately passed over for Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. By any metric, Shapiro dwarfs Walz in eloquence, political acumen, and general intelligence. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to see what the Harris campaign didn’t like about him. I wonder, if antisemitism is confined to the fringe as Michaelson claims, why should Jon Ossoff “reading less Jewish” meaningfully increase his odds? Rather than exorcise the virulent antisemitism from their movement, the establishment has adopted a strategy of appeasement. The question is no longer “Why would it be offensive to nominate a Jew?” it’s “Who’s the least Jewish Jew we can nominate?” Ladies and gentlemen, the tolerant Left. Amidst instances like this one, it can be appealing for the fence-sitter to decry “extremism on both sides.” It is true that influencers Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly have embraced antisemitism wholeheartedly and make full-time jobs out of pushing the envelope when it comes to anti-Israel sentiment. But there are several key differences between the Left-wing problem and the Right-wing one. The antisemitic right-wing influencers seem far more numerous than they actually are. Recent polling still shows strong support for Israel and the Jewish people within the Republican party, and the opposite amongst Democrats. This is also reflected by elected officials in both parties. While the ranks of the Democrats are crawling with the likes of AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Zohran Mamdani, their Right-wing counterparts are few and far between. The closest thing is perhaps Representative Thomas Massie, who has an unsavory habit of crying “AIPAC” whenever things don’t go his way. Mr. Massie was primaried even as an incumbent in deep-red Kentucky. Simply put, even if there is an equivalency between Left and Right-wing commentators when it comes to antisemitism, that equivalency is not reflective of the parties. The antisemitism of the Right is still a largely online phenomenon relative to its sweeping, observable influence on the Left. After all, in the same week that Tucker Carlson left the Republican Party, multiple Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates unseated longstanding establishment Democrats in the New York primary races. Republicans rejected Massie, but Democrats embraced the DSA. Enough said. None of this is to dismiss the gravity of the far Right’s antisemitism problem. In recent years, sympathies towards extremism have become far more mainstream than they once were. J.D. Vance’s reluctance to condemn Tucker Carlson, for example, is legitimate cause for concern. But still, to any objective analyst, there can be no comparison between Vance and the festering antisemitism in the Democratic Party. The Democrats may nominate Jon Ossoff, but it will have to be because he distanced himself from Judaism, not because they distanced themselves from antisemitism. That’s not political pragmatism — it’s moral surrender.

President Donald Trump said on Monday that newly launched Trump Accounts could be the remedy to a growing infatuation with communist ideals in America because they will teach children to have an “entrepreneurial” spirit. Trump made the argument during an Oval Office event focused on the rollout of Trump Accounts, which funds qualifying investment accounts for American children with $1,000 from the Treasury. Trump Accounts officially launched on the Fourth of July. “I think we’ve done a lot of great things but I think this will be one of the top. It’s going to teach children to be entrepreneurial as opposed to the threat of communism that you’re seeing. This is not social Democrats, by the way. They’re not social Democrats. They’re communists. They want to destroy our country — we’re not going to let that happen,” he said.  He explained the accounts won’t only help the future generation, but also their parents. “But this helps even from the parent standpoint. They see their child getting richer and richer as the market goes up. … The parents are going to be watching, we are all going to be watching. We are part of a very big and very beautiful game. It’s going to bring them into the mainstream.” A new poll from the Cato Institute revealed 53% of Gen Z, ages 18 to 29, have a favorable view of socialism, and 38% have a favorable view of communism. Forty percent of Millennials, ages 30 to 44, have a favorable view of socialism, and 29% have a favorable view of communism.    Trump Accounts bring those who are on the sidelines into the market by giving them a piece of ownership in equities. In America today, the top 1% of wealthiest Americans own about 50% of all equities while the bottom half of Americans own about 1% of U.S. equities. Through compound investing, this ownership gap only increases the wealth gap as those without ownership miss out on one of the primary drivers of long-term wealth creation. This dynamic can fuel support for socialist and communist ideals as asset owners are often better protected from inflation through appreciating investments, while those without assets only see their wages struggle to keep pace with rising prices. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also believes Trump Accounts directly combat young people’s growing fascination with socialism. “Trump Accounts represent the triumph of capitalism over socialism. Through Trump Accounts, our president is creating an ownership economy where all citizens become shareholders in America’s wealth,” said Bessent.  Based on White House estimates, a child born in 2026 may accumulate roughly $5,800 in the account by age 18 without any additional deposits. If parents and employers consistently contribute the $5,000 annual maximum contribution, the total could rise to approximately $303,800 over that same period.  The $1,000 seed investment from the Treasury Department will be allocated across a broad mix of low-cost index funds, balancing growth potential with risk management. The seed investment was funded through Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” with the opportunity to expand eligibility for children born after 2029. While children born between 2025 and 2028 are the only ones available for the $1,000 deposit from the federal government, parents can still set up Trump Accounts for older children. Philanthropists are also using the investment vehicles to donate money directly to a cause. On Monday, President and COO of SpaceX Gwynne Shotwell gifted two million children ages 11-17 who live in areas with lower average household incomes a share of her SpaceX stock. 

American soccer star Folarin Balogun has been cleared once again to suit up on Monday night against Belgium as the European country’s effort to keep the U.S. striker sidelined was shot down by the FIFA Appeal Committee. The FIFA committee ruled that Belgium’s appeal of the decision to overturn Balogun’s one-game suspension was “inadmissible” since Belgium was “not a party to the proceedings and, as such, has no standing to appeal the decision,” The Athletic reported. Belgium said it could still pursue other actions to contest Balogun’s eligibility for Monday night’s round of 16 showdown, but for now, the Belgians will have to accept the reality they’ll likely be facing America at full strength. “The [Royal Belgian Football Association] has informed the United States Soccer Federation that it contests the eligibility of the player, should the player be listed on the referee’s team sheet. This leaves all further actions open,” Belgium’s soccer bosses wrote after the appeal was rejected. The Royal Belgian Football Association also complained that it “has still not received any grounds for” FIFA’s decision to overturn Balogun’s one-game suspension. The U.S. star was given a red card during Team USA’s round of 32 game against Bosnia and Herzegovina when he collided with an opposing defender and his cleats caught the back of the defender’s ankle. The referee did not dish out the red card until after he used replay assist to revisit the incident. With a red card, Balogun was also ruled ineligible to play in America’s round of 16 game, according to FIFA rules. Shortly after a phone call between President Donald Trump and FIFA President Gianni Infantino, however, FIFA overturned Balogun’s suspension on Sunday, sparking outrage among European soccer elites. “I didn’t tell [Infantino] what to do,” Trump said on Monday. “I can’t tell him what to do, and I don’t believe he made the decision. I believe it was a committee that made the decision, and they made the right decision.” The referee who gave Balogun a red card is suspected of using replay assist improperly and slowing down the speed of the video that showed the collision between the U.S. star and the player from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The White House put together a team of elite lawyers to look into challenging soccer officials’ use of replay review, OutKick founder Clay Travis reported. European soccer leaders blasted FIFA after the suspension reversal, claiming the decision hurts the “integrity” of the game. “When the certainty of rules is no longer guaranteed by its guardians, the integrity of the game is at stake and the credibility of a competition is undermined,” the Union of European Football Associations wrote. “Equally, such decision creates a precedent in the ongoing tournament, where similar situations will now require an equal treatment, to the detriment of the competition.” The United States takes on Belgium at 7:00 p.m. ET on Monday.