A Marine veteran running for Florida's 5th Congressional District is being condemned for his threatening comments against President Donald Trump.William Upham released a video statement calling the president the Antichrist and saying that he "must be killed."'William Upham is no longer a Marine and does not represent our values or ethos.'Upham is running as a write-in candidate, surprisingly as a Republican. The seat is currently held by Rep. John Rutherford, also a Republican.The Marine Corps issued a statement indicating that he had been discharged for medical reasons in May 2025."The comments made by Upham are a direct violation of the oath he swore to uphold and are not in keeping with the service's values," the Marine Corps added in the post on social media.Upham served from June 2021 until September 2025 and achieved the rank of first lieutenant, according to reporting from Task & Purpose. The outlet also noted that threatening the president is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine."I've come to the realization that our country is broken. We are led by a president who's the enemy of God, and President Trump will never bring us together like God intended," Upham says in the video."There is no doubt in my mind that the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, is the Antichrist. He is a false messiah, and he is your enemy, and he must be killed," he adds.RELATED: 'We're gonna hang him from the Statue of Liberty': ANOTHER man arrested for alleged threats to kill Trump Acting U.S. Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao called the comments "unacceptable" in a post on social media."William Upham is no longer a Marine and does not represent our values or ethos," he added.Blaze News reached out to the Florida GOP for comment. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
House Republicans kicked off their plans for a third reconciliation bill for $90 billion in new money for the military during the Iran war and election-related measures.
On Wednesday, Fox News chief congressional correspondent Chad Pergram asked Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) a simple question: “In your mind, are Senators Ossoff and Warnock duly chosen and sworn?”“I don’t know,” she responded. “You don't know whether or not they are legitimately chosen as senators of the United States Senate?” Pergram pressed.“There were concerns expressed not only about Georgia,” she persisted, "but about other states.” Her response did not inspire confidence among Republicans hoping to leave Trump’s allegations of election fraud behind. As journalist Melik Abdul, who contributes to conservative outlets like Newsmax, Fox, and the Washington Examiner, put it, “We're back to straddling the fence over the 2020 election as we fight to keep control of Congress? This can't be happening. Why is this happening.”Pergam asked Lummis about Senators Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and Raphael Warnock (D-GA) due to rumors that President Donald Trump will allege the illegitimacy of their elections during a primetime address scheduled for Thursday. Trump has claimed that Georgia’s 2020 election was stolen, but state officials and audits repeatedly found these assertions to be false. Multiple investigations, recounts, and court reviews confirmed no evidence of widespread fraud that could have changed Georgia’s results. Now, Trump's renewed fixation on denying the 2020 election has many legal experts warning it's a sign of Trump’s growing “authoritarian” ambitions.As Pergam was questioning Lummis, the confirmation hearing for Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence, Jay Clayton, was taking place, in which the issue of the 2020 election was raised again – this time by Ossoff, who asked Clayton, “Who won the 2020 election?”“I’m not going to get into that with you,” replied Clayton. Ossoff continued to press him on the matter, and Clayton snapped, “I think I’ve answered your question,” even though he had not. This repeated several times – Ossoff asking who won the 2020 election, Clayton insisting he answered, though he had not – until Clayton simply sat back in silence and refused to speak.“This is so incredibly embarrassing,” posted conservative journalist Brad Polumbo in response to the exchange.“Trump requires everyone who wants to advance under him to constantly engage in public displays of humiliation,” claimed Project 2025 contributor Richard Hanania, a former Trump supporter turned vocal critic. “This is an absurd person to nominate to run DNI,” declared Republican strategist Tim Miller. “Anyone who voted to confirm him cares absolutely zero about our national security and does not deserve the responsibility of being a US senator.”Conservative radio host Erick Erickson seconded the humiliation, posting, "This is embarrassing. Ossoff is going to cruise to re-election when the GOP does stuff like this."
Ex-Donald Trump ally Senator John Cornyn grilled Todd Blanche over the President's so-called political 'slush fund' in a heated exchange that could derail his confirmation.
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, 92, called acting Attorney General Todd Blanche "Mr. Branch" and urged his "Democart" colleagues to look in "the mayor" while chairing the opening of a confirmation hearing Wednesday.Blanche, President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer, has served as acting attorney general since April, when Trump pushed out former Attorney General Pam Bondi over her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, according to NPR.A single Republican "no" vote on the committee could kill Blanche's nomination, NPR reported.Grassley, chairing the hearing as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, wasted no time going on offense."As sure as sunrise, today, some of my Democart colleagues will tell us that Mr. Branch is a uniquely terrible nominee," Grassley said at the hearing. "I urge them to remember the boy who cried wolf and take a long look in the mayor before lecturing anyone about partisanship at the Justice Department."Grassley likely intended to say "Mr. Blanche," "Democrat," and "the mirror.""Since the very beginning of this Congress, Democrats have engaged in a relentless obstruction campaign for nearly every one of President Trump's nominees," Grassley said, reading aloud from a speech he delivered last year.Conservative radio host Mark Kaye wrote on X that Grassley was "old enough to buy beer" when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was born.Commentator Sophia Nelson posted on X that the Senate is "demographically an old deliberative body" made up of mostly men, very white, and with an average age over 65.Grassley has served in the Senate for 45 years — longer than any sitting senator — and is currently third in line to the presidency as Senate president pro tempore. He has had a hip fracture, a hospitalization for infection, and gallstone surgery since 2023, according to his office and news reports.He has not ruled out running again in 2028, when he would be 95.
Republican Senator John Cornyn directed serious concerns about the status of President Trump’s “anti-weaponization” slush fund to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche at his confirmation hearing on Wednesday.In a series of well-directed questions, the Texas senator undermined the very basis of the settlement agreement resolving the Trump family’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over Trump’s leaked tax returns, which created the slush fund.“There’s so much that’s unusual about this,” Cornyn said. “[The leaked tax returns] happened back in 2020, and the lawsuit wasn’t brought until 2026, so with the two-year statute of limitations … that struck me as unusual.”Cornyn then moved on to the text of the settlement agreement.“On page four: ‘This settlement agreement … may be modified only upon the written agreement of the parties’ Has there been a written agreement of the parties to modify the settlement fund?”“No, the settlement fund is just not moving forward,” Blanche replied. “There’s no modification. It’s just it never started. No money went from the Treasury to any other account. There’s no commissioners. It’s not moving forward.”“Is the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by the parties?”“Well, yes, it’s an enforceable document,” Blanche conceded. “So I suppose if President Trump’s counsel sought to enforce it, that they potentially could.”“Including the weaponization fund,” Cornyn said, making the obvious connection.“Well, they could try to enforce the contract. They can’t force the Department of Justice to move forward with the weaponization fund. They could potentially say that, I suppose, that we breached by not moving forward. They haven’t done that, and I’m not aware that they’re planning on doing that,” Blanche replied.Cornyn then asked directly what Blanche, Trump’s former personal lawyer, had been avoiding.“But just to be clear, the president of the United States, who was the plaintiff in this lawsuit, has not agreed in writing to delete the weaponization fund, and there’s no guarantee that he or one of the other plaintiffs might raise that issue by way of a lawsuit and a breach of contract lawsuit in the future?”“Well, senator, the plaintiffs have no power over the fund. The fund was administered solely by the five commissioners and through the Department of Justice. So no, they don’t have any power with respect to the fund at all. I suppose they could bring a lawsuit, and then we would litigate it. But even if we were litigating it, there’s no fund, so the results of such litigation, whatever it would be, wouldn’t be a revival of the fund.”Blanche can say how dead the slush fund is as much as he wants, but that won’t convince anyone until it’s actually in writing, which it isn’t. It’s a bad look for Blanche when even Republicans realize that. CORNYN: The president, who's a plaintiff in this lawsuit, has not agreed in writing to delete the weaponization fund, and there's no guarantee that he or one of the other plaintiffs might raise that issue by way of a breach of contract lawsuit?BLANCHE: I suppose they could… pic.twitter.com/6bAAvuVL4p— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 15, 2026
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) on Wednesdya cornered President Donald Trump's nominee to be attorney general over the "weaponization" slush fund that the Justice Department and White House tried to set up as part of a settlement against the IRS. Cornyn was defeated in his Republican primary last month by Trump-endorsed Ken Paxton, despite Cornyn's strong pro-Trump voting record. Blanche has maintained for the past several weeks that the fund is "dead" and that would not be created. The problem, Cornyn said, is that the agreement that Blanche and Trump came to about the IRS would still establish the fund. After Blanche asserted the fund was "moot," Cornyn asked, "Well, would refer you to the settlement agreement. Do you happen to have a copy of that in front of you?"Cornyn read the language verbatim from page four of the agreement: "This settlement agreement can be modified, may be modified only upon the written agreement of the parties. Has there been a written agreement of the parties to modify the settlement fund?"Blanche said that the fund was not going forward, so there is no modification. "Well, so the settlement agreement remains as it was originally. But I hear what you're saying is it — is the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by the parties?" he asked. Blanche said that it was and would be considered an "enforceable document." "So, I suppose if President Trump's counsel sought to enforce it, they potentially could," said Blanche. Cornyn asked if that also meant the weaponization fund provision. Blanche said they could try to enforce it, but that they couldn't force the DOJ to move forward with the fund. "They could potentially say that, I suppose, that we breached by not moving forward. They haven't done that. And I'm not aware that they're planning on doing that. Like I said, senator — and Senator [Dick] Durbin talked about this — but I have talked extensively with with you and other colleagues about potentially," said Blanche, claiming this had already been questioned. "But just to be clear, the president of the United States, who was the plaintiff in this lawsuit, has not agreed in writing to delete the weaponization fund. And there's no guarantee that he or one of the other plaintiffs might raise that issue by way of a lawsuit and a breach of contract lawsuit in the future?" Cornyn asked. Blanche said that Trump has "no power over the fund" and that only the "five commissioners" would control it. He said that they could certainly litigate it. Cornyn then dragged out a large cardboard with the words of the agreement between Trump and the U.S. government. He asked if the agreement would "release parties or people who were not parties to the lawsuit?"Blanche said "no." "Well, it says here that claims asserted by defendants or any of the plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals, including, without limitation, family or others filing jointly or parties, including trusts, parent, sister or related companies, affiliates or subsidiaries. They weren't a party to the lawsuit, were they?" Cornyn asked."The only parties that were — that had any release, um, as respect to any potential audits, even if they existed, were the plaintiffs in the lawsuit," Blanche replied.Blanche then said that it wasn't he who spoke with the president about the matter but others in the DOJ. He then followed up, saying that he did speak to the president, but only after there was a lawsuit over the "settlement." Ultimately, Cornyn didn't buy it. "Well, I hear what you're saying, but I certainly don't read that in the agreement," he closed.
