Stop slacking, allies.
The post NATO Leaders Will Meet for Key Summit in Turkey After Trump Puts Freeloading Allies on Blast appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The fight for Michigan’s open Senate seat is becoming an early proxy war over the Democratic Party’s future, with progressives and establishment leaders lining up behind rival candidates in one of the country’s most important battleground states. The contest to replace retiring Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) has crystallized into a three-way Democratic primary, though much […]
Democrats are preparing a hostile audit of President Trump and his inner circle, intent on exposing — and ultimately ending — the most lucrative presidency in American history.Why it matters: Since winning the 2024 election, Trump has operated in a Wild West of his own making — monetizing the office to the tune of billions, while enabling family, friends and donors to cash in along the way.He and the White House have denied any conflicts of interest. Republicans, who spent years investigating the Biden family's business dealings, have shielded Trump from the same scrutiny.But Democrats see the presidential gold rush as corruption personified — and plan to bury Trump's orbit in subpoenas if they win the House in November's midterms.Zoom in: Trump's $2.2 billion financial disclosure is a 927-page roadmap for the coming investigations, itemizing every known venture that made 2025 the richest year of his life.A crypto business that barely existed when Trump took office minted him roughly $1.2 billion — eclipsing, in a single year, the real estate empire he spent decades building.His biggest single payday was $635 million in royalties from the $TRUMP meme coin, which has crashed roughly 95% from its inauguration-week launch — destroying billions for the small investors who bought in.Trump also reported tens of millions from legal settlements with major media and tech companies, plus new income from branded watches, sneakers, Bibles, fragrances and foreign licensing deals.Zoom out: For Democratic investigators, the ripest targets are the people around Trump: family, appointees and allies who, unlike the president, can be compelled to testify under oath.World Liberty Financial, the crypto venture launched by the Trump and Witkoff families, has become a magnet for foreign money, including a secret $500 million investment from a senior Emirati royal.A New York Times investigation found that Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and the sons of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick have ties to at least 14 companies seeking $8.9 billion in federal support for critical-minerals deals.Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, has raised billions from Gulf governments while leading Middle East peace talks. In Albania, Kushner's firm won "strategic investor" status for a $1.4 billion luxury resort on a protected island — igniting mass protests dubbed the "flamingo revolution."What they're saying: Trump dismissed criticism of his financial disclosure on Wednesday, telling reporters his money is run by outside advisers in what he called a "blind account.""Everybody is profiting," Trump said, because "the stock market's going up."In a CNBC interview Thursday, Trump said he didn't know about many of the crypto gains disclosed in the filing because his son Eric and outside firms handle his investments. But he also argued that even if he had known, "there's nothing illegal with that," saying presidents cannot realistically recuse themselves from every decision that might affect their finances.Reality check: Trump's defense focuses on who manages his investments. Democrats are preparing to scrutinize the much bigger ecosystem around them: a portfolio that made more than 21,000 securities transactions in 2025, a family crypto empire, foreign business deals and other ventures that expanded alongside his presidency.The explanation also sidesteps broader ethics questions, including Trump's acceptance of a $400 million Qatari jet that entered service as Air Force One on Wednesday.Trump plans to keep the luxury plane — the largest foreign gift in U.S. history — for his presidential library after he leaves office.White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement: "President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media. There are no conflicts of interest."The big picture: Scrutiny of Trump's finances comes amid a growing anti-billionaire current in U.S. politics, exacerbated by a cost-of-living crisis the president repeatedly has downplayed.The number of democratic socialists in Congress is poised to more than double after the midterms, giving the left's anti-oligarchy message a bigger platform inside the Democratic Party.Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) has made corruption the central theme of his re-election message, drawing 2028 chatter for his viral speeches detailing the Trump family's foreign windfalls.For Democrats, the bet is that Trump's profits can become part of a broader affordability argument: Washington works for the well-connected, while everyone else pays the price.The bottom line: It's no secret that Democrats intend to make life miserable for Trump and his inner circle if they win the midterms."They will turn every committee of Congress into an investigative body, and they'll go after the president's family, the Cabinet, his donors and friends," House Speaker...
The Supreme Court has previously been accused of having a far right ideology, engaging in judicial activism rather than strict constructionism and moving to empower President Donald Trump even at the expense of the Constitution.“In the wake of Slaughter, presidents now hold the keys to the kingdom,” wrote Ryan J. Owens, a political science professor and director of the Institute for Governance and Civics at Florida State University, for The Dispatch on Thursday. Owens was referring to the Supreme Court case of Trump v. Slaughter, which overturned a 1935 case holding that presidents could not fire commissioners of independent agencies except for cause. By allowing Trump to fire a Federal Trade Commissioner, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, simply because she is a Democrat, the majority of justices brushed aside concerns that this would allow civic and non-partisan institutions to be manipulated for political ends.Owens argues that the Supreme Court was correct to make it possible for presidents to effectively implement their agenda so long as voters can remove that president. Yet he also argued that this is not in itself enough to help America.“If the president can remove agency officials at will and Congress continues to delegate substantial authority to the executive, the president will have become more powerful than the Framers possibly imagined,” Owens wrote. “The Supreme Court must now finish the job. Revive the nondelegation doctrine. Make Congress legislate again.”He then quoted a Trump-appointed judge, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who suggested in his decision that it might be time “to reinvigorate the intelligible principle doctrine and recognize that Congress cannot delegate its legislative authority.” Agreeing with this principle, Owens argued that “the court’s Slaughter opinion hints at such. Somewhat surprisingly (and unnecessarily), the majority opinion positively referenced A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S. (1935), the last case in which the court struck down a law for violating the nondelegation doctrine. The Slaughter opinion further called the Federal Trade Commission Act’s delegation ‘startingly abstract.’ This sounds an awful lot like a formalist court ready to revive the nondelegation doctrine now that the president’s removal power is back in its rightful constitutional place.”Owens continued that “constitutional formalists and liberals should hope the Supreme Court revives the doctrine—formalists, because it would return legislating to Congress where it belongs, and liberals because they fear an empowered Trump.” He then concluded that, while he believes the Slaughter decision corrected an earlier case with which he disagreed, he hopes “it follows this great ruling with another.”
The Senate voted for and against ending the war with Iran on two consecutive days, with President Trump lashing out at four GOP senators who had voted for a resolution barring any future U.S. military activities against Iran, and the administration arguing that the resolution is unconstitutional.
