WASHINGTON — Up to ten officials from President Donald Trump’s National Security Council were fired following a White House visit from activist journalist Laura Loomer, who reportedly presented opposition research on several White House staffers to the president. Axios first reported the firings on Thursday, suggesting that the firings were linked to Loomer’s Wednesday visit to the Oval Office in which she reportedly presented Trump with research on National Security staff and pressed Trump to fire specific individuals. A source familiar with the meeting told Axios that that the firings were “being labeled as an anti-neocon move.” Trump confirmed the personnel moves to reporters aboard Air Force One, but didn’t directly credit Loomer for them. “We’re always going to let go of people — people we don’t like or people that take advantage of or people that may have loyalties to someone else,” Trump told reporters on Thursday. “Laura Loomer is a great patriot. She’s a very strong person,” Trump said, when asked about the activist reporter. “She makes recommendations and people, and sometimes I listen to those recommendations. I listen to everybody and then I make a decision. She always has something to say and it’s usually constructive … She recommended some people for jobs.” That official told Axios that Loomer was angry that “neocons” had “slipped through” the Trump administration’s vetting process, saying: “She went to the White House yesterday and presented them with her research and evidence.” The official also said that three senior NSC members had been fired, and as many as ten staff members had been fired total, warning that it was looking like a “bloodbath.” CNN reported Thursday that three of those fired are Brian Walsh, Thomas Boodry, and David Feith. Walsh was director for intelligence and a former staffer for Marco Rubio. Boodry was a senior director for legislative affairs who formerly served as Mike Waltz’s legislative director in Congress. Feith was a senior director overseeing technology and national security matters who had previously served in the State Department under the first Trump administration. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and director of the Presidential Personnel Office Sergio Gor also took part in the meeting, the Associated Press reported. Axios reported that Loomer did not believe the staff she presented to Trump were sufficiently loyal to his agenda. NSC spokesman Brian Hughes declined to comment on the firings, telling The Daily Wire that the NSC does not comment on personnel matters. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images) Loomer did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Wire, but in a post on X on Thursday morning, she accused “people in and around the West Wing” of leaking to the “hostile, left-wing media” about Trump’s private meetings in the Oval Office. “I want to reiterate how important it is that people who gain access to the White House or the administration respect the privacy of their conversations with President Trump and his senior staff,” she added. “Out of respect for President @realDonaldTrump and the privacy of the Oval Office, I’m going to decline on divulging any details about my Oval Office meeting with President Trump.” “It was an honor to meet with President Trump and present him with my research findings,” she continued. “I will continue working hard to support his agenda, and I will continue reiterating the importance of, and the necessity of STRONG VETTING, for the sake of protecting the President of the United States of America, and our national security.” Per the president’s travel pool, Waltz, Wiles, Gor, and a few other senior officials accompanied Trump to Florida.

'Australia is turning the corner'

The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Department has canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in grants dedicated to researching illegal sexual behavior in children, pregnancy prevention for “transgender boys,” and so-called sleep inequality affecting black sexual-minority men.   In March, HHS canceled at least $530 million of funding for LGBTQ health research programs, according to a grant tracker from Noam Ross of rOpenSci and Scott Delaney of Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. HHS previously provided more than $990 million of grant funding to LGBTQ health research programs, according to the tracker.  The National Institutes of Health’s newly sworn-in director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, said that under his tutelage, the agency would shift its priorities toward “research aimed at preventing, treating, and curing chronic conditions like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity and many others that cause so much suffering and deaths among all Americans, LGBTQ individuals included.”  The shift “away from politicized DEI and gender ideology studies” is in “accordance with the president’s executive orders,” HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon told The Daily Signal. The priority shift included cutting funding for studies focused on radical gender ideology, critical race theory, and other topics that polls show to be wildly unpopular with Americans, according to The Daily Signal’s review of terminated grants. For instance, the Trump administration cut off $10,000 of promised funding to a conference Feb. 25-27 at the University of Oklahoma called “Be Curious Not Judgmental: The 4th National Symposium on Sexual Behavior of Youth.”  “Professionals and parents continue to use myths and misunderstandings as the base of decisions on problematic and illegal sexual behavior of children and adolescents,” the symposium’s website reads. “Adults worry about addressing sexual topics, and yet youth continue to be inundated with graphic sexual images and messages.” “We need to better equip professionals and parents to understand and support healthy sexual development and to identify problematic sexual behavior early and intervene with all children and caregivers impacted,” the description continues.  One breakout session at the conference focused on “The Help-Wanted Prevention Intervention for Minor Attracted Individuals,” a euphemism for pedophiles.   On March 21, Trump’s NIH terminated a $2.9 million grant to the University of Minnesota for research on “adolescent health at the intersections of sexual, gender, racial/ethnic, immigrant identities and native language.”  The study aimed to determine “what positive and negative experiences are particularly relevant to the overlapping, simultaneous production of inequalities by [sexual and gender minority] identity, race/ethnicity, immigration experiences, and native language?” The pre-Trump NIH promised the Research Triangle Institute $100,507 to study “social influences on sexual health among Latinx adolescents and emerging adults who identify as LGBTQ+ in an agricultural community.”  NIH ended a $1.5 million grant to Urban Health Partnerships for “leveraging a community-driven approach to address the impact of social determinants of health on structural inequities among Miami-Dade County’s intergenerational LGBTQ+ Community.”  Hunter College lost its $211,100 grant to study “development and feasibility of a psychosocial intervention for sexual and gender minority autistic adults.” On March 18, NIH cut off Virginia Commonwealth University’s $205,308 grant focused on “using youth-engaged methods to develop and evaluate a measure for disordered eating behaviors in transgender and gender-diverse youth.”  “Transgender, nonbinary, and gender-diverse (TNG) youth face stigma due to the marginalization of their gender identities,” the study says. “TNG youth also have increased vulnerability to body dissatisfaction due to pubertal changes and development of secondary sexual characteristics that might be misaligned with their gender identity, which may be exacerbated by a youth’s inability to access gender-affirming medical care (i.e., puberty blockers, gender-affirming hormones).” Yale University lost government funding for a program, “Training in Behavioral Design Interventions to Address Stigma Among Men Who have Sex with Men.”  “This study will explore relationships of different discrimination experiences and sexual health among young Black men who have sex with men (YBMSM),” the project narrative says. “This study aims to better the sexual health of YBMSM throughout their lives by informing future interventions that help decrease new cases of HIV and other poor sexual health outcomes.”  The NIH terminated its $2,368,492 contract with Brown University to study “improving mental health among the LGBTQ+ community impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.” NIH had committed more than $1.3 million to Princeton University to study “Views of Gender in Adolescence.” “Gender diverse children often experience disparities in mental health and well-being,” the project narrative says. “Further questions concern the stability of their gender, as that has implications for medical transitions. The proposed work would examine the role of gender beliefs and self-categorization in predicting mental health and well-being, as well as provide better estimates of rates of stability and change across time in the identities of both cisgender and gender-diverse youth.”  Trump’s HHS terminated a $1.3 million grant to the Center for Innovative Public Health Research to study “Adapting an LGB+ inclusive teen-pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys.”  The project’s goal was to change the title of “Girl2Girl,” a text messaging-based teen prevention pregnancy program, to “#TranscendentHealth, a gender-inclusive [teen prevention pregnancy program] for transgender boys.”  Other grants funded by the NIH before Trump took over included $2.5 million to a study on “Efficacy of a Multi-level School Intervention for LGBTQ Youth”; $6.4 million to “Multilevel strategies to understand and modify the role of structural and environmental context on HIV inequities for sexual and gender minorities of color”; and $1.8 million to “Sexual minority couples’ health during the transition to marriage.”  NIH canceled a grant of $1.3 million to examine “the Mechanisms and Consequences of Sleep Health Inequities Affecting Black Sexual Minority Men.” “Using a syndemic and multilevel approach, this project seeks to investigate relationships between sleep and HIV treatment outcomes and behaviors (e.g., viral suppression and retention in care) among Black gay, bisexual and other sexual minority men (SMM),” the project narrative says, “a population in the United States heavily impacted by HIV/AIDS.”  The National Institutes of Health “remains fully committed to supporting research aimed at improving the health and well-being of every American, regardless of their sexual identity,” HHS spokesman Nixon said.  The post We Were Paying for What? Trump HHS Slashes Hundreds of Millions in Woke LGBTQ Grants appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, on Thursday introduced legislation with Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to bring back congressional authority over tariffs. The bill, the Trade Review Act of 2025, would require the president to notify Congress of any new tariffs within 48 hours of their imposition. The bill also limits the enactment of the president’s tariffs to 60 days unless he receives congressional approval for their continuation. It also allows Congress to terminate the tariffs by passing a resolution of disapproval. The Grassley-Cantwell bill excludes antidumping and countervailing duties from the new regulations. “For too long, Congress has delegated its clear authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce to the executive branch. Building on my previous efforts as Finance Committee Chairman, I’m joining Sen. Cantwell to introduce the bipartisan Trade Review Act of 2025 to reassert Congress’ constitutional role and ensure Congress has a voice in trade policy,” Grassley said in a press release. A spokeswoman for Grassley noted to The Daily Signal that the senator’s legislation was a continuation of his efforts dating back to 2019. “Grassley has long emphasized the Constitution assigns Congress the task of regulating foreign commerce. This legislation mirrors Grassley’s 2019 Section 232 tariff-reform efforts as Senate Finance Committee chairman during the first Trump administration,” the press release explained.  Grassley, 91, has served in the U.S. Senate since 1981 and currently holds the title of president pro tempore as the most senior senator of the party in the majority in the Senate. He also currently chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Cantwell has served in the Senate since 2001, and before that served in the U.S. House of Representatives. She is currently the ranking member on the Senate Commerce Committee.  Grassley joins several other Republicans in expressing dissent from Trump’s approach to imposing tariffs, powers given to previous presidents by Congress. Four senators from the president’s party, including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Rand Paul, both R-Ky.; Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine; and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, joined with Senate Democrats to pass a resolution to reverse Trump’s 25% tariff on Canadian imports. The resolution is unlikely to pass in the Republican-controlled House, but if it did, it would likely be subject to the president’s veto. The move came as President Donald Trump announced new tariffs on nations that trade with the United States. In an event dubbed “Liberation Day” on Wednesday in the White House Rose Garden, the president said, “If they complain, if you want your tariff rate to be zero, then you build your product right here in America, because there is no tariff.” The Daily Signal previously reported that the Israeli government announced it would lift all duties on U.S. imports the Tuesday before Trump’s actions. The Canadian province of Ontario also appeared willing to negotiate with the U.S. The post Grassley Teams With Democrat on Senate Bill to Claw Back Tariff Authority From President appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Now that we’ve seen, in the first eight weeks of the Trump administration, a 96% reduction in illegal entries across the southern border—and this was done, remember, without the supposed need for comprehensive “immigration reform”—it’s logical to ask what the last four years were about. Why did we have a completely open border? Why did 12 million people come into the United States from all over the world under illegal auspices? What was the reason? Why would people do that? And remember, right now, the United States has somewhere between 50 and 60 million residents that were not born in the United States. Twenty-seven percent of the population of California is foreign-born, of all statuses—citizen, legal, illegal. That’s an enormous challenge in assimilation, acculturation, integration. And we’re not doing that, of course. But why would we do that? Why would we have 16%, now, of the population of the United States as foreign-born? What was the rationale behind that, especially in the context of illegal entries? Looking back, what were the Democrats, what was then-President Joe Biden, what were the handlers of Biden thinking? I suppose they thought that maybe people who were coming in without English, without high school diplomas—for the most part—without capital, and without skills would be dependent on federal largess. I know you’re gonna say people who are not here legally cannot get Medicaid. Well, they can get Medicaid in an emergency. In California, anybody can get Medicaid, which we here call Medi-Cal. So many people came in illegally and got on Medi-Cal that the system is broke. It’s $6.7 billion in the hole. Fifty percent of the population, of all births, are on Medi-Cal. And 40% of the California resident population are on Medi-Cal. So, was the idea to get people dependent on the government? And then that would make government grow and more redistribution and more higher taxes. A way of, what? Having equity? Taking from the small, supposed, greedy elite and making them pay higher taxes to fund this social welfare? Or was it utopianism, globalism, 21st century-ism, end of the worldism? In which you think that borders are a 19th-century construct. We’re all people of the same planet, as we see in Europe. So, let’s just get rid of borders. Let’s make it everything from Yucatan to the Arctic Circle, we can just go anywhere we want in this utopian dream. There’s no difference. Why is somebody who was born in Chiapas or Oaxaca or Michoacan to dire poverty and cartels and corruption, why doesn’t he get the chance of somebody who’s born in Malibu? Well, as social architects, maybe the Left thought he should have the chance. So, we’ll just destroy the border. Or a third reason why—was it more sinister? Did they think that after 2020, when the majority of states changed the balloting laws to such a degree that earlier mail-in and early voting had only constituted 30% of those who voted, 70% voted on Election Day—now 70% of all American voters do not vote on Election Day. They don’t go before somebody and show a driver’s license. Did they think, under this system, they could bring in 12 million people and, in some cases, they could vote? Now, that’s a very controversial topic. The Left says that they never do vote. I’m not suggesting that they do in numbers, although, I will suggest that although it’s illegal at the state level, in most states, it’s absolutely illegal at the federal level. Sixteen local jurisdictions allow illegal aliens to vote in city council, school board elections, local referendums. It’s a trend that the Left is trying to cultivate and mine. So, do they think that, eventually, the more people you bring in—so you have 50 or 60 million people who were not born in the United States—they’re going to be a constituency? And equity being what it is and parity being—they deserve to vote. Was that the long-term goal? Or was it a fourth reason, just simple nihilism, chaos? People were angry at the Trump years. Or they were angry at traditional America. They think it’s racist and sexist. It doesn’t provide diversity or equity and inclusion. So, what we’re going to do is just flood the zone. Twelve million people. And we’ll see how you like it. We’re gonna put them in hotels in New York. We’re gonna send them to the inner city. And we’re not gonna send them to Malibu or Martha’s Vineyard or Nantucket. But we’re just gonna flood the zone and just make so much chaos that you’ll have to deal with it, sort of like California. Deal with it. I don’t have the answer. I don’t know what was behind it. But I do know that never in the history of the United States, within four years, did the government, by intent, destroy the border, welcome in 12 million people, during the first year of a COVID-19 lockdown, where all of us had to be very careful, wear masks, and have proof of vaccination, with no audit at all of the people who were not here. It’s inexplicable. And it’s so inexplicable that I’m gonna end today with I don’t have any answers other than providing the possible choices and alternatives I outlined. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The ‘Inexplicable’ Invasion on Our Southern Border appeared first on The Daily Signal.

This Is Too Funny: Satanists Put Up Plaque in MN Capitol Thanking Gov. Walz For Supporting Them

Republicans and Democrats in Congress joined to introduce a bill meant to rein in President Donald Trump's ability to declare new tariffs. Trump followed through on his promise to punish foreign countries with increased tariffs in order to bring in more federal revenue as well as force production back to the U.S. The stock market has reacted negatively to the sweeping tariffs the president announced from the White House on Wednesday. 'This bill reasserts Congress’s role over trade policy to ensure rules-based trade policies are transparent, consistent, and benefit the American public.' The Trade Review Act of 2025 was co-sponsored by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrat Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state and imposed a time limit on tariffs before they needed approval from Congress to continue. "Any duty on an article imported into the United States shall remain in effect for a period of not more than 60 days, unless there is enacted into law a joint resolution of approval with respect to the duty," read the legislation. “Trade wars can be as devastating, which is why the Founding Fathers gave Congress the clear Constitutional authority over war and trade,” Cantwell explained. “This bill reasserts Congress’s role over trade policy to ensure rules-based trade policies are transparent, consistent, and benefit the American public.” Grassley's office released a statement about trade powers made by the senator in 2019. “Congress should take back some of this delegation of its Constitutional authority and rebalance trade powers between the two branches in a responsible way that doesn’t impede a president’s ability to protect America’s national security,” he said at the time. On Wednesday, Trump introduced a 10% baseline tariff rate for all countries and released a list of even higher tariffs on select countries. He called the event "Liberation Day." The president had already lashed out at four Republicans who had announced their opposition to his tariffs on Canada and were going to join Democrats on an effort to end them. The president pointed out that the bill would be defeated in the House, and even in the unlikely event it passed, he would never sign it. "To the people of the Great States of Kentucky, Alaska, and Maine, please contact these Senators and get them to FINALLY adhere to Republican Values and Ideals," said Trump. "They have been extremely difficult to deal with and, unbelievably disloyal to hardworking Majority Leader John Thune, and the Republican Party itself."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A Pennsylvania woman accused a man of kidnapping and raping her. However, she is now the one behind bars after law enforcement revealed that her kidnapping and rape accusations were fake. Anjela Borisova Urumova, 20, told authorities in April 2024 that a man grabbed her in a parking lot of a Redner's grocery store in Middletown Township, which is about an hour northeast of Philadelphia.'I'm incredibly grateful for the work that law enforcement did in this case to get down to what happened, but it can’t change the fact that a man spent 31 days sleeping in a cell for a crime he didn’t commit.'WCAU-TV reported that Urumova initially claimed that the man grabbed her from behind after she parked her truck in the grocery store's parking lot, that she struggled to escape, and that the man tried to pull down her pants, punched her in the face, and tried to move her to his vehicle.Police said Urumova had a visible laceration on her lip.Urumova described the alleged abductor's vehicle as a dark blue Ford F-150 pickup truck with a “thin blue line” sticker on the back windshield with visible dents and rust on the exterior.Police arrested 41-year-old Daniel Pierson at his home in front of his children, according to Chief Deputy District Attorney Kristin McElroy.Pierson was charged with multiple felonies and was in jail for 31 days until law enforcement determined that Urumova fabricated the kidnapping and rape accusations. The Middletown Township Police Department reviewed surveillance video and analyzed Urumova’s cellphone data, which reportedly “led to the discovery of multiple inconsistencies and contradictory information with Urumova’s account of the attack at the Redner’s parking lot.”Urumova admitted to investigators that she made up the kidnapping and rape allegations.Urumova allegedly said she “specifically targeted” Pierson because she thought he was “creepy.”Also, Urumova's grandmother reportedly caused the laceration on her lip, not Pierson.“Her grandmother, who Urumova claimed suffered from dementia, did not recognize her as she entered the house and threw a plastic object at her, striking her in the lip,” the complaint reads. “This incident allegedly caused the laceration to her lip that she later blamed on Pierson.”Urumova was arrested and charged on May 20, 2024.Urumova — who was facing 17 years in prison — pleaded guilty in January to seven misdemeanor counts, including tampering with or fabricating physical evidence and false reports.On Tuesday, Judge Stephen Corr sentenced Urumova to between 45 days and 23 months in the Bucks County Correctional Facility, according to the Bucks County District Attorney’s Office.In addition to the jail sentence, Urumova also was sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to undergo a mental health evaluation, have no contact with the victim, and pay Pierson $3,600.McElroy said Urumova "targeted an innocent man and accused him of one of the worst crimes a person can be accused of. I’m incredibly grateful for the work that law enforcement did in this case to get down to what happened, but it can’t change the fact that a man spent 31 days sleeping in a cell for a crime he didn’t commit."District Attorney Jennifer Schorn noted, "Not only did this targeted false report impact the victim and his family in unimaginable ways, but there is also a profound ripple effect. A crime like this can shatter the community’s confidence in the system. It can jeopardize prosecutions of legitimate crimes of sexual violence."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The United States Department of Education issued what it described as its final warning to Maine's Department of Education over the state allowing males to compete against females.Citing President Trump's executive order to prevent women's sports from being infiltrated by men, the federal entity opened an investigation into Maine's education department in February. Now, the federal department said it is asking the state to fall in line with the federal mandate or face possible enforcement from the Department of Justice when it turns in the results of its Title IX investigation.In March, the Civil Rights Office said the Maine Department of Education, the Maine Principals’ Association, and Greely High School are each in violation of Title IX.As Blaze News previously reported, Greely High School in Cumberland, Maine, allowed a male athlete to take first place in a girls' pole vault competition.About a week later, a male athlete took a podium spot from a female athlete in Maine's state championship for girls' high school Nordic skiing.In both instances, the Maine Principals' Association took responsibility for governing high school sports in the state and also declared it would not follow the president's executive order.Just days after the U.S. Department of Education announced that the state entities were violating Title IX, the University of Maine System announced it would comply with the new federal standard after it revealed it lost millions in federal grants that were put on pause by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.'Under prior administrations, enforcement was an illusory proposition.'The Department of Education said in its recent press release that it had proposed a resolution with Maine's Department of Education but that the state has declined to take action on the matter.Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said the Maine Department of Education's indifference to "its past, current, and future female athletes" is "astonishing.""By refusing to comply with Title IX, MDOE allows — indeed, encourages — male competitors to threaten the safety of female athletes, wrongfully obtain girls’ hard-earned accolades, and deny females equal opportunity in educational activities to which they are guaranteed under Title IX," Trainor stated. Trainor added, "Under prior administrations, enforcement was an illusory proposition. No more. The Trump-McMahon Education Department is moving quickly to ensure that federal funds no longer support patently illegal practices that harm women and girls."Maine and California are also in the crosshairs of the federal government for possible violations of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

We all know cheating is in the Democrats’ playbook, and sometimes they tell us so themselves. For example, several Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), are suing President Trump for his recent executive order that aims to secure elections by requiring voter ID — something the vast majority of Americans support. There’s only one reason to oppose something so obviously good for the nation, says Sara Gonzales. You want to cheat. Guest Amy Robbins, host of “The Amy Robbins Show,” says she recently had to show her ID just to buy some Benadryl. “You won't let me take home this Benadryl without my ID, but dang it, we can sure vote on the direction of this country without an ID,” she scoffs. She then brings up another good point: In the last election, “Every single blue state that Kamala won didn't require voter ID.” Coincidence? Not a chance. Democrats know that to secure elections means to lose votes, but they can’t admit that, so instead they whine that voter ID is “voter suppression.” “It's voter suppression to require people to follow the damn law because [requiring citizenship to vote] is already the freaking law,” says Sara. All this executive order is doing is saying, “Instead of taking your word for it, we'd like to see some proof.” The only voter suppression that will be happening under Trump’s EO is the suppression of illegal immigrant votes, which is “kind of the whole point,” she adds. “I do want some voter suppression ... the illegal votes,” she continues. “If you want to call that voter suppression, go right ahead, but at the end of the day, it's just called following the law.” BlazeTV contributor Matthew Marsden, who immigrated to the U.S. from Britain, says that legal immigrants should be 100% on board with this legislation. When a legal immigrant votes, “There's a sense of belonging, and it's a barrier that you've overcome. You feel like you've actually done something to warrant you being in the country, and to just say [voter ID] doesn't matter diminishes what it means to become an American,” he tells the panel. To hear more of the conversation, watch the clip above. Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.