President Trump on Monday called on gas companies to lower their prices, as they remain significantly elevated, though some prices have fallen, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict in Iran began in February. “Gasoline Retailers must get their Prices down, IMMEDIATELY!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “They’re too high considering that Oil is now at $68 a…
President Trump on Monday blasted gasoline retailers and the State of California over high fuel costs, demanding lower prices for Americans as oil hovers around $70 per barrel amid de-escalation with Iran. Last week, Trump announced that he had "instructed the DOJ to immediately start looking into" price gouging by big oil companies.
The post “There Will Be No Gouging, Which is Totally Illegal” – Trump Calls on Gas Retailers to Drop Prices to $2.50, Demands California Cut Gas Tax After Ordering DOJ Probe appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The Supreme Court did something on Monday that constitutional scholars have been debating for 91 years. It overruled Humphrey’s Executor and told Congress it cannot wall off executive branch officers from presidential removal by dressing them up as “independent.” The vote was 6-3. The decision was correct. And the reaction from the Left tells you […]
Mary Trump is once again training her fire on her uncle — this time throwing her weight behind a Senate campaign in Florida, the state President Donald Trump now calls home.In an email sent on behalf of Senate candidate Alex Vindman, the psychologist and outspoken Trump critic framed the race as a direct test of her uncle's standing in his own adopted territory."This is Mary Trump," she wrote. "I'm reaching out because American democracy and the rule of law are under threat."She did not soften the family connection — she led with it. "My uncle, Donald Trump, is using his powers to unleash a reign of terror and revenge against all of us," Mary Trump wrote, accusing the president of pushing conspiracy theories and threatening to nationalize elections.The heart of her appeal leaned on geography. A Democratic win in Florida, she argued, would carry symbolic weight precisely because of where it happened.A Democratic victory "here — in Donald Trump's backyard," she wrote, "would send a resounding message that Americans are ready for change."That framing — that the president could be repudiated on his own turf — is what gives the pitch its edge, and it cuts harder coming from a member of his own family. Mary Trump has spent years positioning herself as a relative willing to say publicly what others in the family won't, and her invocation of "my uncle" turns a standard campaign appeal into something more pointed: a Trump arguing that Trump country is ready to turn on him.She also took aim at Florida Sen. Ashley Moody, casting the Republican as an enabler of the president's agenda. Moody, she charged, is "pouring gasoline on that fire," and "proudly rubberstamping my uncle's agenda" even as costs climb for Florida families.Mary Trump pointed to Vindman's history of confronting the president directly. The candidate, a retired Army officer, "has stood up to my uncle before, and he's ready to do it again in the United States Senate," she wrote, referencing Vindman's role as a key figure in Trump's first impeachment.She closed by casting the contest as a chance to "hold the Trump administration accountable" — a phrase that, coming from a Trump, lands with a weight no ordinary surrogate could supply.
The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump another victory Monday by expanding his authority to fire heads of independent agencies, a decision that Zeteo’s Andrew Perez argued was just the latest example of the court’s “far-right justices” executing a long sought-after plan.“Fundamentally, Trump and the justices are partners in fascism,” Perez wrote in an analysis published in Zeteo Tuesday. “With teamwork, a handful of elite, unelected far-right operatives and a narcissistic game-show host can take apart American liberal democracy piece by piece, and replace it with authoritarian rule.”The Supreme Court has handed Trump a number of unprecedented victories in recent years, chief among them its ruling that granted the president “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution” for “official acts,” a decision that killed the criminal case against him over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.Despite the Supreme Court handing Trump win after win – with some exceptions, notably when Trump’s interests conflicted with those of the uber-wealthy – some of its justices “almost certainly can’t stand the man,” Perez argued.“They want this monstrous man to be king,” Perez wrote. “This is not something you’ll hear every day in the mainstream media, but it’s precisely why the right-wing justices, three of whom Trump appointed, have repeatedly granted this president king-like powers – even though they surely know he is out of his mind.”Amid the Supreme Court’s embrace of Trump and his novel legal theories, its favorability among Americans has plummeted. A recent Pew Research survey found a 22-percentage point drop in favorability for the court among Americans between 2020 and 2025, with a growing number of Democrats continuing calls for the court to be reformed.In the midst of its newfound unpopularity, the Supreme Court has moved – quietly – to double its own personal police force in a move that has frustrated lawmakers.“The far-right justices want a king – through whom they can rule over us,” Perez wrote.
A former Republican State Department official is warning that President Donald Trump's reliance on executive decrees and rule-breaking will eventually be turned against his own supporters — and that the satisfaction MAGA feels now is, at best, "a sugar high."The warning came from Kim R. Holmes, a former Assistant Secretary of State and historian, in a post amplified by conservative attorney Gregg Nunziata. Holmes argued that the norms Trump is shattering will not stay broken in his favor."Every single rule broken, law violated, and norm transgressed by exclusive presidential decree or action will now be thrown back at us from the other direction," Holmes wrote.He faulted Trump for governing through reversible directives rather than durable legislation, writing that even when the president "addresses a legitimate problem, he does so not by arranging the passage of permanent laws...but by lazily using presidential directives and 'memos' that can be reversed the minute another president enters the White House."Holmes cautioned that Trump's base may be operating under a dangerous illusion."His supporters may delude themselves into thinking that he or someone like him will rule forever," Holmes wrote, suggesting Trump "may be counting on this sentiment to stay in power, as a pathway to a new kind of authoritarian rule."But power, Holmes noted, is temporary. "He will not stay in power forever," he wrote, predicting that supporters "will then discover the cost of such complicity, when in all this edgy rule breaking is turned against them."He anticipated the standard rebuttal — that progressives were already weaponizing the rules — and dismissed it as shortsighted."It may feel good now, but it is at best a sugar high," Holmes wrote. "Before you could at least legitimately complain that the rules were being broken. No more."The post built on a thread that drew in prominent conservative voices. Holmes was responding to commentator Erick Erickson, who had simply replied "Yes" to a warning from the user Chris, who posts as @chriswithans."Do you hear that, MAGA Republicans?" Chris wrote. "What's going to stop the next Democrat president from firing half the civil service when they take power again? Imagine 300,000 federal government employees permanently 'laid off.' For good. Are you happy now. Is this what you wanted."That post, in turn, responded to former U.S. attorney and legal analyst Barb McQuade, who warned about the implications of the Slaughter case for the federal workforce."The Slaughter case, overturning precedent, returns us to a spoils system where a president can 'clean house' every four years, destroying our professional, independent civil service," McQuade wrote.The chain of reaction — spanning conservative insiders, legal experts, and Trump critics alike — underscored a growing argument that the expansion of unchecked executive power sets a precedent neither party may be able to contain once the White House changes hands.
The Supreme Court is set to wrap up its term with blockbuster rulings on birthright citizenship and transgender athletes after handing President Trump a series of major wins—and setbacks—earlier this week. Meanwhile, gas prices have dipped below four dollars a gallon, but a new government report warns the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is at its lowest...
Russian President Vladimir Putin has publicly disavowed the existence of any formal agreement reached during his August summit with President Donald Trump in Alaska, undercutting months of Kremlin messaging that had treated the meeting as a diplomatic turning point in the war in Ukraine.Senior Russian officials had insisted for months that a path to ending the war — largely on Moscow's terms — had effectively been settled in Anchorage, with only Ukrainian resistance standing in the way, but that narrative has unraveled in recent days, and Putin himself finally undercut Trump's diplomatic claims, reported the Washington Post.“There were indeed no agreements reached in Anchorage," Putin told reporters Sunday.“The spirit of Anchorage — although it wasn’t expressed in any formal documents, and no one put any signatures down — in Anchorage we discussed certain possibilities for ending the crisis in Ukraine,” Putin added, "and the compromises discussed were precisely the proposals the American side made to us.”Three top Russian officials recently accused the White House of failing to honor the supposed Alaska agreement, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov going so far as to suggest the summit may have been a U.S. "ploy to buy time to rearm the Kyiv regime," but Secretary of State Marco Rubio pushed back on the premise that any deal had been reached at all."If there had been an agreement, we would have had an end of the war," Rubio told reporters, noting that Russia's actual demands — including the entirety of Ukraine's Donetsk region — had never been agreed to.Analysts close to the Kremlin suggest the reversal reflects a shifting battlefield reality rather than a change of heart. Fyodor Lukyanov, a foreign policy analyst who advises the Kremlin, wrote that Trump likely arrived in Anchorage believing Ukraine's defeat was inevitable, but that Kyiv and European allies have since spent 10 months convincing him otherwise.That shift comes as Russian forces have stalled on the battlefield for the first time in four years, while Ukraine has scaled up drone production enough to sustain strikes deep inside Russian territory, including on occupied Crimea. Military analysts say Russia is increasingly playing catch-up technologically, even as it retains advantages in manpower and conventional weaponry.Meanwhile, Trump's attention has been pulled toward the conflict with Iran, and no major diplomatic breakthrough favoring Russia has emerged since the Anchorage summit.Putin said Sunday that Russia expects renewed U.S.-led peace talks, including a visit from envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, once the situation with Iran is resolved — suggesting Moscow still hopes to revive negotiations on more favorable terms, even as it now concedes the much-touted Alaska "deal" never actually existed.
