After 4 Years Of Failure, The White House Press Corps Does A Complete 180 Under Trump

Judge AliKhan said the decision was "brief administrative stay"

'Some of these children won't survive'

Flanked by some of the Big Tech executives whose companies had suppressed the views of his supporters throughout his predecessor’s term, President Donald Trump on Jan. 20 declared the days of such speech policing over. Hours later, the president put action behind his words, signing an executive order prohibiting the federal government from engaging in, facilitating, or funding “any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”  The move was celebrated by those who see it as a blow against what they decry as the censorship industrial complex. Others cast the executive order as giving dangerous license to “misinformation” and “disinformation.”  What’s clear is that this is just the latest salvo in an ongoing war over the digital public square, pitting the Trump administration and like-minded Republican congressional allies against not only domestic opponents, but the global counter-disinformation eco-system. The global speech-policing effort is looking like an early target. Trump himself seemed to convey that when he touted his order in a remote address last week to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The elite global conclave had recently declared “misinformation and disinformation” the leading short-term risk to the globe for the second straight year, “underlining their persistent threat to societal cohesion and governance by eroding trust and exacerbating divisions within and between nations.” Two days after the inauguration, Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, released the “Priorities and Mission of the Second Trump Administration’s Department of State.” The short document included the charge that Foggy Bottom “must stop censorship and suppression of information.” Rubio continued: “The State Department’s efforts to combat malign propaganda have expanded and fundamentally changed since the Cold War era, and we must reprioritize truth. The State Department I lead will support and defend Americans’ rights to free speech, terminating any programs that in any way lead to censoring the American people.” It’s not yet known whether and to what extent Rubio’s approach will affect the reorganized successor to the State Department’s recently shuttered Global Engagement Center, whose efforts defenders had called essential to combating foreign propaganda. Critics have dismissed the reorganization—of an office that funded entities targeting disfavored domestic speech—as an effort to simply rebrand and persist. The State Department did not respond to RealClearInvestigation’s inquiries in connection with this article. The global “counter-disinformation” ecosystem encompasses research centers at top academic institutions and think tanks, fact-checkers, news raters, and like-minded for-profits—often funded and/or promoted by government agencies and powerful foundations, and operating and seeking to influence governments both stateside and across the Atlantic. RealClearInvestigations, which recently previewed the censorship fight, e-mailed questions to other United States agencies and departments thought to be involved, directly or indirectly, in speech suppression on social media or otherwise likely to have a role in implementing the order. These included the Department of Justice and the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security sub-agency, the departments of Defense and Health and Human Services, the National Science Foundation, and the Office of Management and Budget. “The Department of Defense will fully execute and implement all directives outlined in the Executive Orders issued by the President, ensuring that they are carried out with utmost professionalism, efficiency, and in alignment with national security objectives,” a Pentagon official told RCI. The Department has previously come under fire for providing funding to news-rating entities such as NewsGuard seen by critics as biased against conservative and independent outlets. A National Science Foundation spokesman told RCI that the agency was “reviewing all the executive orders carefully and implementing them accordingly.” In a December 2024 report, the House Judiciary Committee asserted that the foundation had “poured millions of taxpayer-funded grant dollars into the development of AI-powered tools to mass monitor and censor online content.” Several departments did not respond to RCI’s inquiries. Others referred questions to the White House. It did not respond.  Even as the administration seeks to end government and government-supported censorship efforts, the more controversial part of Trump’s executive order may be its directive to identify those who quelled speech in the past. The directive calls on the attorney general and other executive department and agency heads to probe federal government activities violative of the order that took place during the Biden years, whereby the administration “trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms” and to prepare a report for Trump “with recommendations for appropriate remedial actions.” It’s not clear if such remedial actions will include prosecutions.  Columbia University law professor Philip Hamburger, founder and CEO of the New Civil Liberties Alliance—which represented several plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case Murthy v. Missouri, a case that exposed federal collusion with social media companies to suppress disfavored speech—told RCI that Trump’s action did not go far enough. “The executive order, although very welcome, would have been even more valuable if it had waived qualified immunity for officials at [the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency], the FBI, and other relevant agencies for purposes of free speech violations,” he said. Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, also at Columbia University, offered an opposing view. Abdo wrote in Just Security that any probe of the Biden administration’s actions would be in bad faith, since the order prejudges the prior administration to have engaged in illicit conduct. “Worse, the report may very well serve as an outlet for the Trump administration’s own censorial desires,” Abdo wrote. “If, for example, the report further targets researchers engaged in First Amendment protected research, then the administration will be doing exactly what it has accused the Biden administration of doing.”  The House Judiciary Committee is poised to undertake a complementary effort this session. A spokesman told RCI the panel “will continue its oversight work of the Department of Justice and the FBI, in addition to investigating the threat foreign censorship laws pose to American speech.” Trump has previously called for enacting “new laws laying out clear criminal penalties for federal bureaucrats who partner with private entities to do an end-run around the Constitution and deprive Americans of their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights.”  To that end, the Judiciary Committee spokesperson told RCI that the panel would “move quickly to reintroduce legislation that will protect Americans’ First Amendment rights, such as the Censorship Accountability Act and the No Censors on Our Shores Act.” The former would provide a right of action against federal employees for First Amendment violations. The latter would render any foreign official who engages in censorship of American speech inadmissible and deportable. In the Senate, two days after the release of Trump’s order, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., reintroduced the “Free Speech Protection Act.” Consistent with the executive order, the legislation aims to bar federal employees from directing platforms to censor protected speech and prohibit grants “relating to programming on misinformation or disinformation.” It also imposes penalties on those who violate the law, including disciplinary action, a civil penalty of not less than $10,000, ineligibility for retirement benefits, and permanent revocation of any applicable security clearance. It also allows those who believe their rights have been violated to bring a civil action against the allegedly offending agency and employee who committed the violation. “Americans are free people, and we do not take infringements upon our liberties lightly. The time has come for resistance and to reclaim our God-given right to free expression,” Paul wrote in reintroducing the bill. Originally published by RealClearInvestigations.com The post Trump’s Fight Against Online Censorship Goes Global appeared first on The Daily Signal.

How MSNBC Honored Holocaust Victims

New Evidence on the Cause of the Eaton Fire

In the first the first White House press briefing of President Donald Trump’s second term, Press Secretary Karoline Levaitt made clear from the onset of the 46-minute-and-36-second briefing things would be different inside the Brady Briefing Room. Along with the opening and closing statements made famous by Kayleigh McEnany, Leavitt announced seats for new media and called on 21 different reporters from 20 outlets. Overall, Leavitt was declarative in her answers, firm in her interactions with reporters (even though there were no scintillating duels), and substantive to the point it felt like a firehose. In other words, a total opposite of the bumbling, sometimes incoherent partisan mumbling by Karine Jean-Pierre. She even conducted the briefing without a thick binder of notes (opting instead for only a few pieces of paper), nearly going full Amy Coney Barrett. It started with a lengthy opening statement about cabinet nominees, a recap of President Trump’s first week in office, and graphic details about the criminal records of just a small sampling of illegal immigrants captured in Immigration Customs & Enforcement (ICE) raids: .@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt’s first opening statement (1/2): “Good afternoon, everybody. How are we? Good to see all of you. It's an honor to be here with all of you. A lot of familiar faces in the room, a lot of new faces, and President Trump is back and the golden age of… pic.twitter.com/2IMxFhYe8R — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 Leavitt then delivered her first pieces of news at the podium by revealing she would be using seats up front usually reserved for deputy press secretaries for new media (and that any independent journalist could apply for credentials) after reminding the press of Trump’s remarkable accessibility and the industry’s porous approval ratings (click “expand”):     Before I take your questions, I would like to point out to all of you once again, have access to the most transparent and accessible President in American history. There has never been a President who communicates with the American people and the American press corps as openly and authentically as the 45th and now 47th President of the United States. This past week, President Trump has held multiple news conferences, gaggled on Air Force One multiple times and sat down for a two-part interview on Fox News, which aired last week. As Politico summed it up best, Trump is everywhere again, and that's because President Trump has a great story to tell about the legendary American revival that is well underway. And in keeping with this revolutionary media approach that President Trump deployed during the campaign. The Trump White House will speak to all media outlets and personalities, not just the legacy media who are seated in this room because according, according to recent polling from Gallup, Americans trust in mass media has fallen to a record low. Millions of Americans, especially young people, have turned from traditional television outlets and newspapers to consume their news from podcasts, blogs, social media, and other independent outlets. It's essential to our team that we share President Trump's message everywhere and adapt this White House to the new media landscape in 2025. To do this, I'm excited to announce the following changes will be made to this historic James S. Brady Briefing room where Mister Brady's legacy will endure. This White House believes strongly in the First Amendment. So it's why our team will work diligently to restore the press passes of the 440 journalists whose passes were wrongly revoked by the previous administration. We're also opening up this briefing room to new media voices who produced news-related content and whose outlet is not already represented by one of the seats in this room. We welcome independent journalists, podcasters, social media influencers and content creators to apply for credentials to cover this White House, and you can apply now on our new website, Whitehouse.gov/newmedia. Starting today, this seat in the front of the room, which is usually occupied by the press secretary's staff will be called the new media seat. My team will review the applications and give credentials to new media applicants who meet our criteria in past United States Secret Service requirements to enter the White House complex. So, in light of these announcements, our first questions for today's briefing will go to these new media members whose outlets, despite being some of the most viewed news websites in the country, have not been given seats in this room. Following a statement about last year’s concerning rash of drones over the Mid-Atlantic, Leavitt put her promise to call on newer media outlets into action with Axios co-founder Mike Allen: FIRST question of the first WH press briefing of the second Trump administration goes to @Axios's @MikeAllen: "Does the President see anything fishy about DeepSeek, either its origins or its cost and could China's ability to make these models quicker, cheaper, affect our thinking… pic.twitter.com/VWGPlufh2j — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle occupied the other new seat: Breitbart’s @MBoyle1: “So, Caroline, first off, thank you to you and President Trump for actually giving voices to new media outlets that represent millions and millions of Americans. The thing I would add the — I — I've got a two-part question for you. The first is, is just can… pic.twitter.com/dPMMelWtE7 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 A Boyle follow-up later, only then did Leavitt go to the Associated Press seat, which has been traditionally called on first as the chief wire service for legacy media outlets around the globe. But, by waiting a few minutes, the world didn’t end. The AP’s Zeke Miller asked the traditional eye-roller asked of her predecessors: AP’s @ZekeJMiller: “A question that we've asked your predecessors of both parties in this job. When you're up here in this Briefing Room speaking to the American public. Do you view yourself and your role as speaking on, advocating on behalf of the president or providing the… pic.twitter.com/1X8dM0F2IV — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 Miller also asked about the Office of Management and Budget directive to freeze federal grants and loans (with exceptions for direct programs to Americans), asking Leavitt to “help us clear up some of the confusion, give some certainty to folks, and also is that uncertainty — how does that uncertainty service the President’s voters.” CBS’s Nancy Cordes continued on this thread with two respectful questions, but the third wondering about Meals on Wheels or Head Start is the kind of strategy the left will deploy in the hours and days and months to come in painting conservatives as heartlessly creating poverty. This went into another substantive question about legality from Cordes’s CBS colleague Jennifer Jacobs, one from Brian Glenn of Real America’s Voice (RAV) about the one-day stand-off with the Colombian President over deportations, and then the great Diane Glebova of the New York Post concerning pro-Hamas college students:     The most tense exchanges came next with NBC’s Peter Alexander expressing concern for illegal immigrants and Leavitt having to explain to him all who’ve crossed the border without going through proper channels have indeed broken the law. Having been crushed there, he shifted to wondering if poor Americans will go without heat by Trump’s moves to cut spending: NBC’s @PeterAlexander: “Karoline, very quickly just following up on the question on immigration first. President Trump, during the course of the campaign in 2024, said the following about illegal immigration. He said “they're going back home where they belong, and we start with… pic.twitter.com/TSN6MuOb3U — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 NBC’s @PeterAlexander: “I apologize for interrupting. So to be clear, it's not a violent criminals do not receive precedence in terms of the deportations taking place?@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt: “The president has also said two things can be true at the same time. We want to… pic.twitter.com/EPwzockgIG — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 ABC’s Mary Bruce — the room’s chief Biden apple polisher — deployed the sympathy narrative: ABC’s @MaryKBruce: “Karoline, I think some of the confusion, I think, may be here with — with this pause on federal funding, you've made it clear you're not stopping funds that go directly to individuals, but there certainly are lots of organizations that receive funding and then… pic.twitter.com/Lb7ev6bmt3 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 Leavitt let Bruce ask her long-winded question and answered it, but that wasn’t enough as Bruce stepped on Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich (click “expand”): ABC's @MaryKBruce interject and buts in on Fox's @JacquiHeinrich THREE TIMES to continue battling @PressSec @KarolineLeavitt on illegal immigration and the pause on federal grants and loans pic.twitter.com/TBsAVgrP4t — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 BRUCE: But indirect assistance, Karoline — HEINRICH: Thank you, Karoline. BRUCE: — if it’s going to another organization then trickling down! LEAVITT: Direct assistance that is in the hands of the American people will not be impacted. Again, as I said to Peter, we will continue to provide that list as it comes to fruition, but OMB right now is focused on analyzing the federal government’s spending, which is exactly what the American people elected President Trump to do. HEINRICH: Thank you, Karoline, and — BRUCE: And one question on immigration, Karoline! HEINRICH: — thank you. BRUCE: — of the 3,500 arrests ICE has made so far since President Trump came back into office, can you just tell us the numbers? How many have a criminal record versus those who are just in the country illegally? LEAVITT: All of them, because they illegally broke our nation’s laws and therefore they are criminals as far as this administration goes. I know the last administration didn’t see it that way, so it’s a big culture shift in our nation to view someone who breaks our immigration laws as a criminal, but that’s exactly what they are. HEINRICH: [INAUDIBLE] On tariffs — on tariffs — BRUCE: [inaudible] the worst first. They all have a criminal record? HEINRICH: And welcome to the Briefing Room. LEAVITT: If they broke our nation’s laws, yes, they are criminal. Heinrich eventually got her chance, and respectfully grilled her on the administration revoking security details for Trump critics who remain under threat of Iranian assassination plots: JACQUI TIME: “On stripping security details for figures like John Bolton, Pompeo, Brian Hook, Senator Tom Cotton said that he's seen the intelligence and the threat from Iran is real for anyone who played a role in Soleimani's strike. He voiced concern it wouldn't just impact… pic.twitter.com/pXkHkdovgH — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 In another welcome change, our friend Reagan Reese of the Daily Caller remarkable was called out by name with Leavitt acknowledging the last administration’s lack of (consistent) attention to the back rows: .@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt: “Reagan, since you're in the back row, I hear you! The back row hasn't gotten much attention in the last four years, so I'm happy to answer your question.”@DailyCaller’s @ReaganReese_: “Does the President intend to permanently cut off funding to… pic.twitter.com/bC2pWLH4Yf — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 Reese had a follow-up about refugee vetting and whether Trump has “considered yet which countries might fall into” consideration for “an outright ban for countries that have deficient screening processes.” CNN’s Kaitlan Collins — who worked for the Caller before becoming a CNN liberal and has returned to the White House beat (unlike Jim Acosta) — came next with a series of questions, including this one: CNN’s @KaitlanCollins: “And on what happened on Friday night, the — the administration fired several inspectors general without giving Congress the 30-day legally required notification that they were being fired. I think only two were left at DHS and DOJ and then yesterday we saw… pic.twitter.com/JCcHhyXISC — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 After one from Klal Yisroel’s Jake Turx about the Houthis and five process questions from Bloomberg’s Josh Wingrove about tariffs, the great Philip Wegmann of Real Clear Politics had what he called a “programming note” question about the frequency of briefings (followed by one about tax cuts): OANN’s @MonicaPaigeTV: “It’s great to finally be called on as well in the Briefing room. I appreciate that. Of course, we know President Trump just got back from North Carolina and California meeting with victims of natural disasters. There’s the two-year anniversary of the East… pic.twitter.com/L5XdZ5rGY0 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 Following her pattern of calling on everyone, she even gave The New York Times’s David Sanger, Gray TV’s Jon Decker, The Washington Post’s Isaac Arnsdorf (even though he penned a snotty anti-Trump book), and even frequent Trump 1.0 sparring partner April Ryan the time of day. But instead of stopping there, she continued going to alternative media, like Monica Paige Luisi from One America News Network (OANN): .@PhilipWegmann: “Should we expect to see you here every day? How frequently will these press briefings be?”@AprilDRyan: “Good question.”@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt: “It is a good question, April. So look, the President, as you know, is incredibly accessible. First day here,… pic.twitter.com/H5vajXIFBD — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 The briefing ended with the Washington Examiner’s Christian Datoc, who somehow (and shamefully) had the only question about the soaring costs of eggs: .@DCExaminer's Christian @TocRadio: “[Y]ou mentioned the inflation executive order the President signed, but egg prices have skyrocketed since President Trump took office, so what specifically is he doing to lower those costs for Americans?”@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt: “Really… pic.twitter.com/IJ27q5yYGt — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 28, 2025 Fox News Channel host Jimmy Failla had it right in reviewing Leavitt’s performance. Roughly 30 minutes in, he quipped Leavitt didn’t seem to have “looked up a single answer” where as Jean-Pierre “would have gone through three binders and a Magic 8 Ball by now,” thus showing “why people wanna ditch DEI for Meritocracy.” To see the relevant transcript of the January 28 briefing, click here.

“Narrow majority.” Every paid GOP influencer has etched those two words indelibly in the conservative media consciousness. What the influencers really mean is: Don’t expect the Republican Congress to fulfill any campaign promises because we can’t do anything with a “narrow majority.” The problem is not a narrow majority but rather the Republican Party’s wide-open tent, so vast and borderless that it welcomes more subversive elements than the southern border. The real problem isn’t the size of the GOP majority; it’s the party itself. Until Republicans unify around a clear set of principles, objectives, and goals, they will accomplish little beyond Trump’s executive orders — orders that a future Democratic president will overturn on day one. Take any major policy priority of GOP primary voters, and you’ll find that 70 to 80 Republicans will oppose it. Realistically, Republicans will never hold 60 seats in the Senate, nor will they secure more than a 10-seat House majority, especially with Democratic gerrymandering. So why do they promise the moon when Democrats are in charge, only to claim later they lack the votes? Yes, Republicans don’t have 60 Senate seats — but neither do Democrats. And while Republicans might struggle to reach 218 in the House, Democrats don’t have the numbers, either. Yet, Democrats continue to win on budget bills and must-pass legislation. The answer is simple: Even with a strong House majority, Republicans would face 95% of the same problems. The problem isn’t numbers — it’s values. The Freedom Caucus, which truly represents the GOP’s campaign rhetoric, is often more ideologically distant from other Republican factions than establishment Republicans are from Democrats. Until the party builds itself around the priorities of its base — just as Democrats have done — Republicans will never have “enough votes.” Why not? While the media fixates on the Freedom Caucus, a much larger RINO faction roams Capitol Hill — one that is more than twice the size of the conservative caucus and leans left of GOP leadership. The Main Street Caucus, ironically a gateway for K Street and Wall Street lobbyists, boasts more than 80 members. It has only grown under Trump’s watch. Take any major policy priority of GOP primary voters, and you’ll find that 70 to 80 Republicans will oppose it. And that’s before factoring in the establishment Republicans stuck between the Freedom Caucus and the Main Street Caucus — many of whom are just as bad. Want to shrink government? Name a single member of this group who supports eliminating even one agency. Want to end vaccine liability immunity? Good luck getting more than 100 votes. Want to end birthright citizenship or crack down on incentives for illegal immigration — let alone reduce legal immigration? The problem isn’t a three-seat majority; it’s the dozens of Republicans who would block it as a matter of course. End foreign aid? They’d sooner fight in the Ukrainian army than vote for anything you’d support. Terminate the Green New Deal? They already penned a letter demanding it stay. Social conservatism is a dead end with most of these members and won’t even get off the ground. Yet, so many of them are from deep red districts. The chairman of the Main Street Caucus, Dusty Johnson, represents South Dakota at large, which voted for Trump by a 29-point margin. But these are members who largely believe in fiscal and social liberalism, more immigration, more refugees, Wilsonian foreign policy, global warming policies, and political correctness. If conservatives continue to ignore primaries, they might gain another 10 seats in the next general election, but the Main Street Caucus will still ensure that conservative priorities are dead on arrival. This caucus is growing faster than the Freedom Caucus because its members can rely on Trump’s support to defuse primary challenges. While primary challenges were rarely successful in the pre-Trump era, conservatives were making gains in open seats. However, Trump’s endorsements in open races have stalled that momentum. Is the GOP’s RINO problem simply the result of narrow majorities in swing districts? Red states provide a clear and unambiguous answer. Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of 25 states, with veto-proof supermajorities in many. If swing voters truly backed Trump’s vision, red states should be using their mandates to the fullest. They aren’t. In Texas, a group of Republicans worked with Democrats to elect a House speaker acceptable to Democrats. In Montana, despite a 32-18 GOP Senate majority, nearly a third of Republicans forced rules changes that gave Democrats control of key committees. And in Florida, after six years of conservative victories under Gov. Ron DeSantis, state legislative leaders refused to go all in on immigration reform. House Speaker Daniel Perez and Senate President Ben Albritton dismissed DeSantis’ call for a special session on illegal immigration as “premature” and “irresponsible” — even after Trump publicly backed it. They later watered down the reform bill, caving to Big Agriculture’s open-border interests. Some states, such as Wyoming, are advancing an aggressive conservative agenda. However, this progress is due solely to the Freedom Caucus majority. Without building Freedom Caucuses at both the state and federal levels, the overall Republican versus Democrat numbers become meaningless — about as useful as trying to differentiate between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. If the goal is to push the Trump agenda in Congress and red states, why does Trump continue to empower RINOs? If every RINO who should be a prime target for a Freedom Caucus challenge knows he can count on Trump's endorsement, aren’t conservatives losing ground on MAGA rather than gaining it? It doesn’t have to be this way. But it will remain this way unless the focus changes. Blaming narrow majorities is a lame excuse that distracts from the real issue: the sorry state of the Republican Party itself.

Helene Cooper, a black female former refugee from Liberia, remained in the United States unlawfully after her visa expired. She would have been deported if not for the sheer coincidence of being included in Ronald Reagan’s 1986 mass amnesty.Now, 39 years later, she is a prize-winning journalist and a U.S. citizen. Yet, she has become an unrelenting elitist ingrate, attacking the legitimacy of the same United States government that once rescued her from the threat of imprisonment, servitude, or death.Retired US officers who have not resigned their commissions can be called back to active duty at any time. Cooper might find that idea worthy of another tear-filled op-ed.Her latest diatribe in the New York Times not only attempts to undermine the authority of a freely elected president but also highlights her significant misunderstanding of how the military operates.Although Cooper won a Pulitzer Prize for her reporting on the Ebola virus, she has no military experience. It’s no surprise, then, that she expresses shock — complete shock! — at President Trump’s dismissal of Coast Guard Commandant Linda Fagan and the removal of General Mark Milley’s portrait from the Pentagon.In the military, all service members serve at the pleasure of the president, who has the authority to relieve anyone at any time.So Helene, instead of focusing on your Liberian autobiography or chronicling Liberia’s first female president, consider reading up on how the U.S. military operates. If you can spare some time from your overly sentimental reporting, you might start with Abraham Lincoln’s firing of George McClellan, Harry Truman’s dismissal of Douglas MacArthur, or Jimmy Carter’s spanking of Jack Singlaub. Or maybe just skim Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.As for Milley, whose actions as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were at best disloyal and at worst treasonous — actions now irrelevant due to ex-President Biden’s blanket pardon — Trump’s removal of Milley’s portrait is a minor gesture.If Trump wanted to, he could take far stronger actions against Milley. Retired U.S. officers who have not resigned their commissions can be called back to active duty at any time. Cooper might find that idea worthy of another tear-filled op-ed.Imagine it: President Trump could summon Milley to serve as “assistant to the president for Military Affairs.” Once reinstated to active duty, Milley might be required to always appear in civilian attire and work from an office repurposed from a West Wing broom closet.Reflecting further, the president could permanently revoke Milley’s security clearance, reducing his responsibilities to reading hard copies of military magazines and submitting daily typed reports to the Oval Office. (Without clearance, of course, Milley would be issued an IBM Selectric II typewriter, complete with correction tape and copy paper, as electronic devices would be off-limits.)As commander in chief, Trump would personally draft Milley’s officer efficiency reports, potentially demoting him for spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.Imagine four years in a broom closet — no phone, no computer — working six days a week, 9 to 5, or longer if the president required it. At least Milley could admire his famous portrait, conveniently displayed just outside his office ... right above the first urinal.Alternatively, Milley could resign his commission, leaving the military behind to fully embrace his new role as citizen Milley, the mouth who roared.

This enormous "subterranean settlement" was equipped with an aqueduct designed not only to store and transport water, but also to cool these underground chambers so they could serve as a refuge from the summer heat. The post Archaeologists Just Uncovered A 650,000-Square-Foot Underground City Right Below An Historic Town In Central Iran appeared first on All That's Interesting.