Stopped offering

The spotlight on Gascón dimmed quickly

President Donald Trump signed a new executive order Wednesday protecting women’s and girls sports from biological male athletes who identify as transgender. “The war on women’s sports is over,” Trump said. “We will not allow men to beat up, injure and cheat our women and our girls,” he continued. “From now on, women’s sports will be only for women.” ?NOW: Trump speaks ahead of signing an executive order barring biological men from participating in women's sports."We will not allow men to beat up, injure and cheat our women and our girls. From now on, women's sports will be only for women." pic.twitter.com/Rr6ZozG8My— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) February 5, 2025 Trump signed the order on the 39th annual National Girls & Women in Sports Day. Former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines, who was forced to compete against biological male Lia Thomas, attended the signing of the order after speaking to a Republican Study Committee members lunch. Gaines is an ambassador for Independent Women’s Forum. “For the past four years, Independent Women has worked strategically to engage persuadable Americans on the harms of the Left’s policies—especially how they would impact women and girls,” Gaines said in remarks shared with The Daily Signal immediately after the lunch. “We knew Americans believed gender ideology and the woke administrative state had gone way too far, and we sought to redirect this conversation to where our side was strongest — women’s sports and spaces, parents’ rights, and the real dangers of gender ideology extremism on minors. It worked.” Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. August Pfluger of Texas also spoke at the lunch. “The Left wants to redefine biology and destroy women’s sports—but we’re fighting back,” Pfluger said in a statements shared with The Daily Signal. “As a father of three daughters, I refuse to let gender ideology threaten their dreams, which is why President Trump’s executive order is so critical. We’re proud to host Riley Gaines today as the Republican Study Committee leads the charge to permanently protect women’s sports and ensure not one more female athlete loses an opportunity to compete fairly.”  Throughout his campaign, Trump pledged to “ban” transgender-identifying biological males from competing in women’s sports. “I’ve never met a person that came up to me, and they say, ‘We want men to play in women’s sports,’” Trump said at a rally on Oct. 22. “Somehow, they’re pushing it. I’ve been doing this a long time, and I’ve been talking about this for a while, because I’m ending it. On Day One, I’m ending it.” The House of Representatives passed the Protection of Women and Girls Act in January. The Senate has yet to vote on the bill, sponsored by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., a former college football coach. Nearly three-quarters (72%) of registered voters think biological males should not be allowed to participate in women’s and girls sports, according to national polling from RMG Research shared with The Daily Signal. "THE WAR ON WOMEN'S SPORTS IS OVER"@DailySignal pic.twitter.com/yYqZsnCjUl— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) February 5, 2025 Female athletes worldwide have lost about 900 medals to so-called transgender rivals competing against them in women’s sporting categories, according to a new United Nations report. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., introduced legislation to protect women’s sports from male athletes. Tuberville said the Senate needs to pass the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, as executive orders can be reversed. “On Nov. 5, 2024, the American people just didn’t elect President Trump, they also decisively rejected this ridiculous notion that men can get pregnant and boys should compete in women’s sports,” Tuberville said on the Senate floor Wednesday. The post ‘The War on Women’s Sports is Over’: Trump Bans Males in Female Athletics appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump decisively dismantled the Biden administration’s wasteful and immoral “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives. An easy and obvious next step in this bold effort to “dewokefy” federal institutions and cut waste would be to put a halt to the recently established Smithsonian Museum of the American Latino. DEI, as Trump explained in his several executive orders exorcising DEI’s extreme ideological agenda from the federal government and its contractors, fosters confrontation based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The Latino Museum, unfortunately, has become a tool of the cultural Left to push its dystopian narrative about the experiences of Hispanics in the United States. The museum came into being under circumstances on which the country has decidedly turned the page. Backers sneaked it into the $1 trillion omnibus monstrosity in late 2020 and passed it in the last crazy days of that December, as the country was convulsing from COVID-19, chaotic Black Lives Matter riots, and the contested election. Its leaders lost no time in turning it into another DEI project. Its standing exhibit “Presente! A Latino History of the United States”—temporarily housed at the National Museum of American History—revels in “Latinx” and “queer” identity politics, trades in barely hidden Marxian tropes about the “marginalized,” harbors “postnationalist” ideas, and reaches for more than the usual dash of anti-Christian blasphemy and anti-Western ethos. Its second planned exhibition was curated by Johanna Fernandez and Felipe Hinojosa—one an activist who has devoted her life to freeing from prison the cop-killing Mumia Abu-Jamal and the other an admirer of liberation theology—and would have described how capitalism harmed Latino communities. Museum leaders, however, concerned that they could lose their funding after a few of us denounced the museum’s biases, decided at the last minute to cancel the exhibit. House Republicans went ahead with the funding cut, only to reinstate it after receiving empty promises to create a more balanced presentation of the facts from Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch. Yet, despite Bunch’s assurances, nothing has changed at the museum. If anything, they have doubled down on their commitment to their culturally Marxist depiction of Hispanics in America. The woke standing exhibit hasn’t been taken down or its content altered. The Museum’s Scholarly Advisory Committee continues to be dominated by activist professors and researchers with expertise in critical race theory and gender and queer theory. Moreover, the museum last year named as its top curator Tey Marianna Nunn, a Latino studies Ph.D. who seems to embody the current beliefs of the art world that the West should commit ritual cultural suicide. Nunn is equally at ease discussing “Chicano and Latino art historical and critical theory practice,” “postnational discourse,” how to “decolonize” museums and art, the fate of “Latinx-owned” entities, and decrying how “Anglo transplants” appropriated the culture of her native New Mexico. Not surprisingly, she likes to repeat the ultimate grievance cliché: “We didn’t cross the border; the border crossed us.” She is known for an infamous 2001 exhibit at Santa Fe’s Museum of International Folk Art that featured a semi-naked rendition of Our Lady of Guadalupe, a religious and cultural icon venerated throughout the Americas. Rather than the meek Guadalupe of tradition, the Virgin was depicted with bare midriff and legs, sporting a bikini of roses, boxing gloves, and a cloak engraved with the symbols of the Aztec moon goddess “Coyolxauhqui.” The ensemble was held aloft by a saucy, bare-breasted angel. According to a dissertation on the public scandal that followed, New Mexicans were “up in arms before the exhibit even opened” after they saw the exhibition’s brochure. “Community activists and the Catholic community protested,” demanding the exhibition’s removal, and “from that moment on, protest rallies, prayer vigils, letters, emails, and phone calls infiltrated the historically rich space of New Mexico.” The exhibition of this atrocity was scheduled for Holy Week, no less. It led to none other than longtime conservative warrior Pat Buchanan featuring Nunn in his 2001 bestseller “Death of the West”—a book about how the 1960s’ counterculture aims to destroy American and Western culture from within. It’s not hard to deduce, therefore, that museum directors are intent in continuing a DEI approach in their portrayal of Hispanic history and culture. The Trump administration should therefore ensure that Congress puts a halt to the further development of the museum. No new funding should be appropriated for it, and Congress should hold off authorizing a site for it on the National Mall. The ultimate goal should be to rescind the original authorization of the museum. If that’s not done, the museum will continue to further divide society and “otherize” an amorphous group many of whose members have now voted for Trump and want to be treated like everyone else. We do not need a Smithsonian Museum that sets out to instill grievances, a “postnational” outlook, or teaches Hispanics—a very diverse groups of people—that their heritage is being appropriated by grasping “Anglos.” To spend money we don’t have on making one-fifth of the population sullen and resentful would indeed contribute to the death of the West and the American experiment. Alfonso Aguilar is director of Hispanic engagement at the American Principles Project. Mike Gonzalez is the Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation. The post ¡No Mas!: Time to Halt Funding of Smithsonian’s Latino Museum appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Sen. Angus King of Maine bills himself as an “independent,” but his voting record is such that if it could, the Federal Trade Commission might want to charge him with false advertising. That’s because, when Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York says “Jump,” King—like the Democrats he caucuses with, despite being a nominal independent—dutifully asks: “How high?” As a Maine native, it has long rankled me that the supposedly “independent” King is never called out for his reflexive support of the liberal Democratic Party line while Maine’s other senator, Republican Susan Collins, is willing to deviate from the conservative GOP party line when she thinks it’s warranted, even though she knows it will get her branded in some quarters as a “RINO,” or Republican in Name Only. Collins’ independent streak is born somewhat out of necessity, given that Maine is a purplish-blue state. It was on display as recently as the night of Jan. 24, when she voted against confirming Pete Hegseth, Republican President Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense. In doing so, Collins sided with all 45 Senate Democrats—along with King and that other independent in name only, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont—in their lockstep opposition to Hegseth. Collins was alone among Republican senators in 2021 in voting in favor of all 21 of President Joe Biden’s Cabinet nominees, including underqualified nominees such as Pete Buttigieg for transportation secretary and horrible-in-hindsight Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. King also backed all 21 of Biden’s Cabinet picks, but on Jan. 24, he voted against Hegseth and skipped the Jan. 25 vote on Mayorkas’ successor, Kristi Noem. On Jan. 29, he voted against making Lee Zeldin the administrator of the EPA. On Feb. 4, King voted with all but one Senate Democrat in opposition to Pam Bondi as attorney general. Also on Feb. 4, he voted along with all the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee against former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to be director of national intelligence. Unlike Sanders—who’s up-front about the fact that it’s because the Democratic Party isn’t far enough left for his liking to formally align with the Democrats yet still caucuses with them—there’s no apparent reason for King to tout himself as an independent. To be fair, King is soft-spoken, not a rhetorical bomb-thrower like Sanders. But like Sanders, King’s voting record makes clear that there’s little about it that’s independent when the liberal ideological rubber hits the road. Soon after arriving in the Senate in 2013, for example, King supported then-Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid’s so-called nuclear option, which eliminated the filibuster for most presidential picks for the federal courts in an effort to grease the skids for Democratic then-President Barack Obama’s liberal judicial nominees. That move ultimately boomeranged on King and his Democratic pals when the judicial filibuster was no longer available to them to block Trump’s court picks. More recently, on Jan. 7, 2021, the day after the Jan. 6 Capitol protests, King suggested that Trump’s Cabinet “should consider” voting to remove him from the presidency under the 25th Amendment. Yet, even in the face of mounting evidence of Biden’s steep cognitive decline, King never invoked the 25th Amendment as a basis to force him out. King’s purported independence was the subject of a 12½-minute puff-piece profile on CBS’ “60 Minutes” three days later on Jan. 10, 2021, in which interviewer Jon Wertheim talked to King “about not being hitched to a party in a time of extreme polarization.” “I didn’t feel comfortable with the Democrats on the taxation–regulation side,” King told Wertheim in recounting his successful 1994 third-party bid for governor of Maine. “I didn’t feel comfortable with the Republicans on the social issues side, on the abortion and those kinds of things, so … ‘I think I’m going to take a path up the middle.’” Ironically, Collins was the Republican nominee for governor he defeated in 1994, but who he joined in the Senate in 2013, some 10 years after completing his second term as governor. (By 1994, I had long since left Maine, so I can’t attest to what kind of a governor King was, nor for how “independent” he may or may not have been during his eight years as Maine’s top elected official.) But having just been reelected in November 2024 to a third term as a senator, King, now 80, has been anything but independent since arriving in Washington. As for that “path up the middle”? It quickly took a sharp left turn, and according to Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight.com, in the first 24 months of the Biden administration, King compiled a “Biden score” of 98.5% of “how often [he] votes in line with Biden’s position.” In 2017, King opposed Trump’s signature Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, contending the measure would add $1 trillion to the national debt over 10 years. Yet he had no such deficit qualms in 2021 when he voted in favor of Biden’s $1.9 trillion boondoggle American Rescue Plan or in 2022 when voting for the euphemistically named Inflation Reduction Act that squandered $891 billion, mostly on wasteful Green New Deal energy projects, but did little or nothing to reduce inflation. On Jan. 20, the day Trump took office, King voted against the Laken Riley Act, named for the young Georgia woman slain by an illegal alien. Over King’s opposition, it will require the Department of Homeland Security to detain for deportation certain non-U.S. nationals (aka illegals) who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. Two days later, on Jan. 22, King voted along with every Senate Democrat to prevent a final vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (despite his 2013 opposition to the filibuster). During his first 12 years in the Senate, King has compiled a 98% pro-Big Labor legislative score from the AFL-CIO, including a perfect 100% in 2023—both of them higher than the average Democratic senator’s score of 95. His Americans for Democratic Action liberal rating for 2023 was 80%, while he drew a scant 5% rating from the American Conservative Union. (Collins’ ratings were 40% and 54%, respectively.) Maine has had a long history of electing political independents and mavericks, dating back to at least the mid-1970s. It elected a genuine independent in Jim Longley as governor in 1974 and two maverick Republican centrists to the Senate—Bill Cohen in 1978 and Olympia Snowe in 1995. Collins replaced Cohen in 1996 when he stepped down, and King replaced Snowe in 2013 after she retired. Even today, Maine has a Democratic member of the House in its 2nd Congressional District, Rep. Jared Golden, who can actually be said to be somewhat of a moderate and an independent, scoring a 23% rating from the American Conservative Union and a 40% from the Americans for Democratic Action in 2023. Golden’s independence might be of political necessity inasmuch as Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, encompassing 92% of the state’s land mass, is the second-most rural district in the country and has voted for Trump for president all three times. But it’s still more than can be said of King, who obviously favors the ideological leanings of the much more liberal southernmost 8% of the state. Asked by CBS’ Wertheim on “60 Minutes” what he saw as the primary advantage of having “remained an independent” when he came to Washington, King said, “It sort of liberates you, because you don’t have to do what the party says.” That’s not necessary, however, in King’s case, because Schumer doesn’t need to remind him. Originally published by The Washington Times. The post Sen. Angus King, Maine’s Independent in Name Only, Toes Liberal Democrat Line appeared first on The Daily Signal.

For all their claims that President Trump, conservatives, and America were bigoted and full of hate, the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View were just projecting their own ugliness. During Wednesday’s show, the cast flaunted their ageism, smeared a certain immigrant with lies about their status, and baselessly lashed out at pro-lifers to blame them for something the attacker admitted they didn’t know the truth of. Despite her staunch support for then-President Biden’s run for re-election and denial of any issues with his age and obvious failing mental facilities, moderator Whoopi Goldberg suggested that President Trump was too old for the job ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But I kind of look at Trump bluster from three lenses. Is he just saying I to distract from other things so we all go crazy? Very possible. Is he just always a real estate developer who sees things as dollar signs? And third -- GOLDBERG: Or is he too old for this job?! This wasn’t the first time Goldberg had shown her hypocrisy on the Biden/Trump age comparison.     TV judge and original cast member of The View Star Jones was filling in for Joy Behar when she whined about it being “day 16 of Trump 2.0 and it's just typical of him to throw a bunch of cray-cray up against the wall and so it distracts you from what's really going on…” Jones then flashed some anti-Immigrant bigotry when she lashed out at Elon Musk’s leadership of the Department of Government Efficiency. She claimed he was “foreign agent” “who’s not been vetted by the United States government.” That was a lie. Musk had been an American citizen since 2002 and had a security clearance for many years, possibly dating back to the George W. Bush administration because of SpaceX’s contracts with the federal government. Both of these prove that he was not a “foreign agent” and had been vetted by the federal government. “And the media is playing into it in my opinion. I mean, you're allowing foolishness to distract us from facts and what is going on,” she continued to bellyache. It used to have people stand on the corner and just be crazy at Times Square. Now, they're all over the place. Okay?” Following a commercial break, the cast came back to discuss a Hollywood actress and her director husband being criticized on social media for using a surrogate to have their baby girl. Without evidence, and admitting she didn’t have any, co-host Sara Haines lashed out and suggested it was pro-lifers who were leaving the nasty comments: Having a family whatever that family looks like, it’s hard and not something that shows up on your doorstep. You to build it, make it, grow it. And I think it's so sensitive to touch into this area. People just want to love. And when you find a baby it's always interesting that the online haters, I'm curious what their bios say because for a pro-family world we live in that's all about life, you know, all the time, the second someone has it, we tear them down. So, like, we don't know why. It's none of our business. But I commend them for just saying, like, step out. In the past, Haines has made very heinous comments about pro-lifers and how they should just die. In the days leading up to Christmas in 2023, she proclaimed it was “God’s will” that pro-lifers die rather than seek life-saving cancer treatment. She’s also asserted that pro-lifers hate mothers and the poor. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View February 5, 2025 11:06:13 a.m. Eastern (…) ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But I kind of look at Trump bluster from three lenses. Is he just saying I to distract from other things so we all go crazy? Very possible. Is he just always a real estate developer who sees things as dollar signs? And third -- WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Or is he too old for this job?! FARAH GRIFFIN: Right. Or third which could be all of the above. Is he simply starting with the most extreme version of the deal so that what he ultimately does in Gaza seems less crazy than the U.S. taking it over? I don't know which it is, but it's a terrible idea. (…) 11:09:13 a.m. Eastern STAR JONES: Yeah, I mean, this day 16 of Trump 2.0 and it's just typical of him to throw a bunch of cray-cray up against the wall and so it distracts you from what's really going on and the federal employees that are scared that don't know if they'll have a job, if they'll have their retirement. [Applause] And civil rights being diminished and human rights being diminished and – GOLDBERG: And people knowing your business. JONES: And people knowing your business. GOLDBERG: Who shouldn't know your business. JONES: Because a foreign agent has now access who’s not been vetted by the United States government. GOLDBEGR: That’s right. JONES: And the media is playing into it in my opinion. I mean, you're allowing foolishness to distract us from facts and what is going on. It used to have people stand on the corner and just be crazy at Times Square. Now, they're all over the place. Okay? (…) 11:15:10 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: Welcome back. Emily in Paris star Emily Collins and her director husband Charlie McDowell recently welcomed her first child. And he’s responding to criticism about the couple using a surrogate. He posted that, ‘It's okay not to know why someone might need a surrogate to have a child regardless of what you assume and it's okay to spend less time spewing hateful words into the world especially in regard to a beautiful baby girl who has brought a lot of love into people's lives.’ SUNNY HOSTIN: Yeah. GOLDBERG: You know. [Applause] People criticizing people's personal choices. What – What is the point? SARA HAINES: Having a family whatever that family looks like, it’s hard and not something that shows up on your doorstep. You to build it, make it, grow it. And I think it's so sensitive to touch into this area. People just want to love. And when you find a baby it's always interesting that the online haters, I'm curious what their bios say because for a pro-family world we live in that's all about life, you know, all the time, the second someone has it, we tear them down. So, like, we don't know why. It's none of our business. But I commend them for just saying, like, step out. (…)

On Wednesday’s CBS Mornings and CBS Mornings Plus, there was a sense of anger, disbelief, and shock at President Trump’s bombshell declaration Tuesday that the U.S. would oversee the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip. Between interviews with White House National Security Adviser Michael Waltz and then former Obama and Biden official Samantha Vinograd, CBS suggested U.S. involvement was not only a selfish money grab, but would lead to terror attacks in the U.S. Co-host Gayle King began the Waltz interview with a frank scoffing: “[W]hat right do we, the U.S., have to do this? When you have two million Palestinians that say, ‘listen, this is our home, we don’t want to leave, we want to rebuild? We love — we love where we live, and we want to stay here.’ What right does the U.S. have to do this?”     Waltz clapped back at King directly, saying “anyone asking that question, frankly, doesn’t have a realistic view of the plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza” thinking they can return to “a place that has thousands and thousands of unexploded ordinance and bombs,” “buildings that are collapsing and unsafe,” and “no sewage, no running water.” “It has become completely unlivable with this war that Hamas started October 7 and I, as a veteran, can tell you it is despicable and sad that groups like Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS literally sacrifice the lives and livelihoods of their own people to achieve some type of ideological gain. But I think what the President is just acknowledging is...he’s not seeing any realistic solutions on how those miles and miles and miles of debris are going to be cleared,” he added. King followed up by suggesting Trump sees Gazans as a “profit-based business” venture. Waltz calmly batted that down with the thesis being the “miles of rubble” are “completely unlivable” and “Hamas cannot stay there.” Co-host Tony Dokoupil — who nearly lost his job for defending Israel’s right to exist — had the next two questions wondering if U.S. involvement would raise the specter of terrorism in the U.S. and if “the dream of Palestinian nationhood” was over (click “expand”):     DOKOUPIL: [T]he Israelis are certainly very happy. Benjamin Netanyahu is very happy to have the U.S. support. They’re looking from that. But how, from an American perspective, does this make Americans safer? The first concern people will have is there’s terrorism there, is there now going to be terrorism here because we’re so mixed up in this? WALTZ: Well, it’s the same — well, I think the same strategy and thinking of why we still have forces going after ISIS all over the world. We still have allies and partners helping us with Al-Qaeda. The President just authorized on Saturday a strike to a major ISIS financier, recruiter, and leader in the caves in northern Somalia that, frankly, our military have been trying to take out for well over a year and couldn’t get the approvals from the previous White House. So, I think what you’re asking is why do we support our allies and partners in counterterrorism with a group that literally promising to conduct future October 7ths, which was the 9/11 for Israel of their time? So, absolutely we’re going to continue to help. And when we have terrorism defeated and degraded abroad, it helps the homeland here. DOKOUPIL: I — I hear you there, Mr. Waltz, the broader war on terror — that makes sense. Circling back to what Gayle was talking about, you know, for generations now American policy has been in support of a two-state solution there — stability in the Middle East. There’ll be Israel and then there’ll be a future Palestinian state. Yesterday’s comments seems to be the end of that policy. I just want to clarify is it the end of the two-state policy? And are — is it a denial for the future by this government of the wish, the dream of Palestinian nationhood? WALTZ: I don’t think — I certainly didn’t hear the President say it was the end of the two-state solution. You have the Palestinian Authority. You have the West Bank. And when he was asked directly who was going to live there in the future, he said the Palestinians and perhaps many others. I mean, those are the conversations that we’re having. The President has talked to President Sisi of Egypt. He’s talked to Mohamed bin Solomon, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. He’s spoken to the King Abdullah, who’s coming here next week. We have Netanyahu here now, so the President is engaging with our key allies in the region and asking for their input, asking for their ideas and is personally engaged on this issue. Co-host and former NFL player Nate Burleson made his contributions as the end, wondering why what Palestinian people think doesn’t “matter to President Trump.” Shifting to CBS Mornings Plus, Dokoupil vaguely introduced Vinograd as having “worked on Middle East policy for three different presidents” instead of mostly recently as a Homeland Security official for the Biden regime. Vinograd came out swinging like a politician by declaring “Gaza is not for sale” and blamed Israel for Gaza Strip tensions because they “asserted control over” it following “the Arab-Israel War of 1968.”     She fear-mongered about terror attacks because of Trump’s proclamations: “[E]ven if President Trump’s words are more rhetoric than reality, as a counterterrorism professional, one takeaway is this moment could serve as a real recruitment opportunity for Hamas and other organizations to recruit operatives and inspire attacks against the United States and further attacks against Israel.” Co-host Adriana Diaz went right along with this: DIAZ: So, Sam, do you think this could make the U.S. more vulnerable? Could it be dangerous for us if, in fact, it happens? VINOGRAD: President Trump’s pledge to take over Gaza and displace millions of Palestinians who don’t want to leave their homes will likely inspire terrorist organizations to direct more attacks against the United States because now they have soundbites of the President pledging to forcibly displace their Arab brethren in from their homes. So, I do worry that this could expose U.S. personnel, U.S. individuals living in the region to more threats from Hamas and other terrorist organizations even if President Trump does not plan to follow through on this plan. Dokoupil closed with perhaps the most obvious point, which is “the idea that nothing else worked, the two-states, the old way hadn’t worked, there’s no other plan that works, that it makes me think he’s negotiating for a better option.” Vinograd conceded that might be the case, but made sure she threw jabs as a bleeding-blue leftist: This could certainly be a negotiating tactic. We’ve seen President Trump take this approach on tariffs, for example, by making maximalist pledges and then walking them back when he gets certain concessions. I do think that it is true that there has been decades of work to try to turn Gaza into something that does not pose a security threat to Israel and provides a hospitable home for the Palestinian people, but it’s not a zero-sum game between forcibly displacing Palestinians, forcing them on Arab neighbors like Egypt and Jordan who, by the way, already host millions of refugees and are dealing with their own economic issues. It’s not a zero-sum game between that option and leaving Gaza as it is and that is why the third phase of the ceasefire negotiation is supposed to focus on a viable plan for the reconstruction of Gaza that would undoubtably include the involvement of Arab states like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others. To see the relevant CBS transcripts from February 5, click here (for CBS Mornings) and here (for CBS Mornings Plus). 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the administration was working to end millions of dollars of taxpayer money that is being sent to Politico in the form of subscriptions. Critics tied the scandal surrounding the United States Administration for International Aid with the news outlet after Politico failed to pay workers at the same time that the administration was shutting down USAID payments. 'Do these receipts serve the interests of the American people? Is this a good use of American taxpayers' money?'Politico said in an internal email to employees that the payment problem was due to a technical error, but online sleuths were able to discover that the outlet was receiving millions of dollars from the government in the form of pricey subscriptions. Leavitt said those subscription payments would be completely ending. "Upon coming out here to the briefing room, I was made aware of the funding from USAID to media outlets, including Politico, who I know has a seat in this room," said Leavitt. "And I can confirm that the more than $8 million taxpayer dollars that have gone to essentially subsidizing subscriptions to Politico on the American taxpayers' dime will no longer be happening," she continued. "The DOGE team is working on canceling those payments now." Leavitt was referring to the Department of Government Efficiency headed up by tech billionaire Elon Musk. "Again, this is a whole-of-government effort to ensure that we are going line by line when it comes to the federal government's books. And this president and his team are making decisions across the board on, do these receipts serve the interests of the American people? Is this a good use of American taxpayers' money?" she continued."If it is not, that funding will no longer be sent abroad and American taxpayers will see significant savings because of that effort," Leavitt added. — (@) Critics pushed back on the claims of improper funding by pointing out that the expenditure was from many different government agencies, and they had also paid for subscriptions for the New York Times as well as the Wall Street Journal. Politico said a glitch caused the missed payments, and it was fixed by the end of the day. Leavitt's comments can be viewed on YouTube. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In an effort to end reckless government spending, Donald Trump has placed a 90-day freeze on the U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal branch tasked with administering humanitarian aid and development assistance in foreign countries. While USAID is supposed to be funding organizations that alleviate poverty, provide disaster relief, and promote democracy and civil society abroad – all in accordance with American interests – it’s instead been funneling tax dollars into programs that promote transgenderism and other LGBTQ+ causes, abortion, DEI, climate change, and every other progressive initiative. Even Christian organizations that receive funding from USAID are complicit in the corruption, says Allie Beth Stuckey. For example, World Relief is a Christian evangelical organization whose mission is to “boldly engage the world’s greatest crises in partnership with the church.” While that sounds like a solid biblical mission, World Relief receives a huge percentage of its funding from USAID and other federal agencies and has adopted “progressive leanings.” One of World Relief’s main functions, Allie explains, is to “help resettle thousands of refugees referred to the United States by the United Nations Refugee Agency,” which is a good thing. “Helping legitimate refugees resettle and assimilate into the United States, making sure that they are taken care of, that they can get up on their feet and work jobs — that mission in itself, of course, is not wrong and is something that Christians should be a part of,” she says. However, World Relief as well as other government-funded Christian NGOs, have been used to “receive, process, and transport illegal aliens,” enabling more human trafficking, drug peddling, and other crime. “There is such a dark underbelly of Christian-in-name-only organizations funding and fueling some of the most deleterious, progressive causes, including illegal mass migration,” says Allie. “I’m sure World Relief has done some really good work. I'm sure that they have responded to crises around the world in a way that we would applaud. They should do that, but if they are at all enabling illegal immigration, then that is a huge problem. ... The fact alone that they are in cahoots with the government and still call themselves an NGO — that's a problem,” she adds. World Relief’s website is further evidence of its progressive ideology. Allie reads from one article in which the organization “debunks” myths related to the “undocumented.” If that euphemism — “the undocumented” — wasn’t sufficient evidence of World Relief’s leftist ideology, the article argues that “refugees and other immigrants don't increase crime rates” and that they are actually “less likely to commit crimes than native born Americans.” To hear more on World Relief and Allie’s analysis, watch the episode above. Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Gender ideology — with core claims that have not only been debunked but in many cases rejected by the majority of Americans — is on the ropes. President Donald Trump appears committed to delivering the knockout punch. The 47th president, who promised in 2023 to bring an end to "left-wing gender insanity" upon taking office, signed an executive order Wednesday afternoon banning male transvestites from competing in girls' or women's sports. "It's about time," said Trump. "Under the Trump administration, we will defend the proud tradition of female athletes, and we will not allow men to beat up, injure, and cheat our women and our girls." Trump noted that "men claiming to be girls have stolen more than 3,500 victories" and have "invaded more than 11,000 competitions designed for women." Trump also indicated that he has instructed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to make clear to the International Olympic Committee that America will no longer tolerate men in women's sports at home or abroad. "From now on, women's sports will be only for women," added the president. While LGBT activists and other radicals are incensed over the decision, Trump's order reflects the desire of the supermajority of Americans. A 2023 Gallup survey found that 69% of Americans wanted transvestites to play only on sports teams that corresponded with their actual sex. 'This commonsense action from President Trump ends the disgusting betrayal of women and girls by the previous administration.' Dozens of states have already passed legislation banning transvestites from participating in sporting events intended for members of the opposite sex. Now, there's a strong likelihood the rest of the nation will fall in line. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt indicated earlier in the day that the purpose of the order was to "defend the safety of athletes, protect competitive integrity, and uphold the promise of Title IX." "This commonsense action from President Trump ends the disgusting betrayal of women and girls by the previous administration, who for years catered to radical activists who wanted biological males to be treated as women in workplace showers, competitive sports, prisons, and even rape shelters," continued Leavitt. "Gender ideology insanity is over." The order is aligned with the Trump Department of Education's announcement last month, which promised a reversion to the first Trump administration's Title IX rule, enforcing protections on the basis of biological sex, not on the basis of so-called "gender identity." "The Biden administration's failed attempt to rewrite Title IX was an unlawful abuse of regulatory power and an egregious slight to women and girls," said acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor. "Under the Trump administration, the Education Department will champion equal opportunity for all Americans, including women and girls, by protecting their right to safe and separate facilities and activities in schools, colleges, and universities." — (@) Terry Schilling, the president of the American Principles Project who was present for the signing ceremony Wednesday, told Blaze News that he spent the past six years "speaking with anyone and everyone to save America from this gender insanity," adding that his organization shelled out $1 million on polling and testing with regard to "transgender issues, including women's sports," and $18 million hammering Democrats on their support for gender ideology. 'This is a victory for every girl who has fought for fairness.' "I got a chance to meet with President Trump last summer, and I shared with him our voter impact study from previous elections showing that women's sports and protecting kids from gender insanity moved tens of thousands of voters in Arizona and Wisconsin," said Schilling. "Opposing gender insanity is one of the few areas in politics where you don't have to choose between good public policy and good politics." "President Trump won on this issue and is keeping his promises from the campaign trail," continued Schilling. "What a welcome change in political leadership!" Kaitlynn Wheeler — a member of the women's swim team who with All-American swim star Riley Gaines not only had to compete with the cross-dresser formerly known as William Thomas but found herself sharing a locker room with him — was also present for the signing, which coincided with the 39th annual National Girls and Women in Sports Day. Wheeler noted in advance on X, "This is a victory for every girl who has fought for fairness, every woman who refused to be silenced, & every future athlete who deserves a level playing field." Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who has worked diligently to keep cross-dressers and predatory men out of women's facilities at the U.S. Capitol, tweeted that "this executive order restores fairness, upholds Title IX's original intent, and defends the rights of female athletes who have worked their whole lives to compete at the highest levels." "No amount of activism, corporate pressure, or lies can erase reality — men are biologically different from women," added Mace. The decision to keep opportunistic men from competing against female athletes, over whom they enjoy scientifically documented physical advantages, comes just one week after Trump made good on another campaign promise to ban the "chemical castration and medical mutilation of innocent children." The previous week, Trump signed an order both prohibiting the use of federal funds to promote gender ideology and underscoring that sex is unchangeable and "grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!