President Donald Trump has snapped up tens of thousands of dollars in stocks in the parent company of a White House event he's heavily promoting.
The president purchased between $15,001 and $50,000 of stock in TKO Group Holdings, the parent company of the Ultimate Fighting Championship event he's holding next month on the South Lawn to celebrate his 80th birthday, reported HuffPost.
“We’re going to have 4,000 seats right in front of the front door of the White House," Trump said when he announced the bout last summer. "The hardest ticket I’ve ever had, too. This will be the greatest show on Earth.”
Trump has been promoting the event ever since, hosting UFC fighters May 6 at the Oval Office, and construction began earlier this week on support structures for the June 14 fights.
“Grifting has always been an issue in Donald Trump’s presidency, but now the mask is off,” said Jordan Libowitz, of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Using the White House to promote a company whose stock you bought while promoting it is one of the worst conflicts of interest you could imagine. The agenda of this administration seems to start and stop with how to make Donald Trump richer.”
The president has actively bought and sold million of dollars in stock in companies he promotes or regulates as head of the executive branch, but Vice President JD Vance and White House officials have insisted he does not personally decide on his investments.
House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer (R-KY) was apparently the only Republican lawmaker attending the interview with former Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday, MS NOW reported.
Sources told MS NOW that the atmosphere in the room was tense as Bondi appeared frustrated over the questions during the closed-door, transcribed interview with lawmakers as they continued their investigation into late financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) commented that Republicans had skipped the Bondi interview — and called them out.
"I want to point out there's not a single Republican in the room besides the chairman [Comer]," Stansbury said, adding, "For a supposed group of individuals who care deeply about justice for the survivors, not a single one could be bothered to travel across the country today."
"It's sort of a curious fact of today's closed door transcribed interview, because the thing that set this all in motion was the fact that the Oversight Committee back in March had voted to subpoena Pam Bondi when she was still attorney general," MS NOW Congressional reporter Mychael Schnell told anchor Chris Jansing.
"And the reason why it was successful was because there were five Republicans who crossed ranks and joined that effort make putting it over the finish line, which was a stunning, stunning move considering the fact that President Trump, on a number of occasions has tried to push back on the Epstein files and the investigation overall, whether or not you know why they're not here today, as you mentioned, James Comer is here," Schnell said. "We did hear from him earlier. It's worth noting that currently Congress is out of session. They're on recess. So members are back home in their districts. Of course, that doesn't take away from the fact that they could have come into town for such an important interview. So certainly an interesting fact here as we go through the motions of this transcribed interview. But certainly Comer said that he was going to be asking Pam Bondi all the questions that the survivors had raised, including about redactions, withholding and Ghislaine Maxwell's prison sentence."
Bondi's comments had prompted questions over whether the committee would subpoena Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who at the time was Bondi's deputy, and current FBI Director Kash Patel, Jansing said.
But that could be difficult to do, said MS NOW Senior Legal Reporter Lisa Rubin, and Republicans could have deliberately chosen not to show up.
"Certainly it would be hard for the committee today to vote on a subpoena like that because they don't have the votes," Rubin explained.
"Chairman Comer would have to be the one to initiate that vote, but also authorize the subpoena," Rubin said. "And I think that this today, the transcribed interview was conveniently scheduled in a way that many Republicans would not be there, meaning they gave the Democrats the interview that they were seeking after having subpoenaed Pam Bondi. But they set it up at a time where she would not be subject to hard questions from members of her own party."
There could be more questioning to come for both Blanche and Patel, Rubin added.
"In terms of Todd Blanche and Kash Patel, those are absolutely people to whom these questions should be directed," Rubin said. "And I have to say this may be inconvenient for some of the Democrats, but it was absolutely predictable and intelligible, legally, that Pam Bondi would say that she could not discuss her conversations with the president. That is something that is protected by executive privilege."
During coverage of the ongoing House Oversight Committee meeting interview with Pam Bondi, The New York Times' Peter Baker claimed there are probably good reasons for the fired attorney general to place all the blame on the man who now sits in her office over the botched release of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
With MS NOW’s Ken Dilanian joking earlier, “Look, those of us in Washington may have heard the sound of a large bus driving over a large object about an hour ago. And that was Pam Bondi throwing her former deputy, Todd Blanche, now the acting attorney general, under that bus, proverbially.”
Baker was asked what he thinks is at play.
“She's demonstrating that she remains loyal to the president who fired her, pushed her out. But at the same time, not to the deputy that was foisted on her in the first place, who clearly, you know, she's willing to throw under the bus,” he told MS NOW host Ali Vitali.
He then added, “Now, that may be perfectly good politics in the sense that Todd Blanche is probably already so radioactive that there's no chance he could be confirmed by the Senate to the attorney general position in a permanent sense. That $1.8 billion fund for Trump's allies by itself probably makes him unconfirmable on top of many other things people might have concerns about. But, you know, she's not willing to, you know, break with the president. She is still in his orbit in that sense, which is fascinating.”
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent has been arrested in Texas on charges related to his actions during President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown in Minnesota.
ICE agent Christian Castro was apprehended Friday by law enforcement officials from both states after the Hennepin County attorney’s office charged him with four counts of second-degree assault this month and another charge of filing a false police report, reported The New York Times.
The 52-year-old federal agent is accused of shooting a Venezuelan immigrant on Jan. 14 and lying about it.
Castro scuffled with migrant Alfredo Aljorna during an arrest attempt following a car chase, according to court documents, and prosecutors said he fired into the man's house after he broke loose and ran inside.
The gunshot wounded Aljorna's roommate Julio C. Sosa-Celis in the leg, but the officer told police after violent protests erupted in response to the shooting that three men had bludgeoned him with a shovel and broom, and he claimed to have fired his gun in fear for his life.
However, prosecutors reviewed police surveillance video that showed Castro was lying about the incident, and investigators dropped charges against Aljorna and Sosa-Celis.
The Justice Department’s (DOJ) botched release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein was front and center Friday during ousted Attorney General Pam Bondi’s interview with the House Oversight Committee, during which, a DOJ attorney "intervened" to stop Bondi from answering a direct question about President Donald Trump, one Democratic lawmaker claimed.
Bondi agreed to appear for a closed-door interview with members of the Oversight Committee over the DOJ’s handling of Epstein-related files – around half of which remain unpublished, which critics have claimed to be unlawful. However, she previously defied a congressional subpoena to testify under oath. As such, she faces no legal risk for providing false statements.
Even so, Trump’s DOJ apparently felt compelled to stop her from answering certain questions about Trump, Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), a member of the Oversight Committee, claimed just outside the interview room.
“She has been asked multiple times about the Trump administration, about her conversations with the president,” Stansbury said.
“When asked specifically about a conversation with Donald Trump, one of the DOJ attorneys intervened and said she did not have to answer the question because it was a voluntary interview, and said, quote, ‘we don’t even have to assert privilege,’ and, quote, ‘we refuse to provide answers.’”
Other Democratic members of the Oversight Committee similarly condemned Bondi’s performance. Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) called the interview a “ridiculous charade,” and Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) referred to it as “disgusting.”
Stansbury also noted that other than Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the Oversight Committee chair, no other Republicans participated in the closed-door interview, sparking even more fury from the New Mexico Democrat.
“That means that the DOJ is intervening on behalf of Pam Bondi to stop her from answering questions about what happened in the cover-up in this case, and her conversations with Donald Trump,” Stansbury said.
“This is a cover-up! This will be remembered as the largest cover-up likely in American history, and it is clear that this interview is a smokescreen to try to show the American people that they are complying while they are not,” Stansbury added.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was criticized Friday after giving what was intended as a motivational speech to a group of Navy sailors.
Hegseth joined the military personnel for a workout drill on USS Boxer, which is docked in Singapore, when he stopped to give a pep talk about the ongoing Iran war.
“The president said 'Iran can either do it the right way, with a deal across the table, or they can deal with my guy on the left.' That happened to be me. But it's not me. It's you guys!” Hegseth said.
People online mocked Hegseth's message to the group.
"The cringe level is off the charts," journalist Aaron Rupar, who has 1.1 million followers, wrote on X.
"Hegseth is an actor playing a Secdef in a cheesy movie," former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), a frequent Trump administration critic and veteran, wrote on X.
"Pete Hegseth got how many of our fellow Americans killed and injured and how many bases destroyed all because he used GROK to plan a war with Iran and then got America's A-- handed to her?" Pastor Ben Dixon, a political commentator with more than 164,000 followers, wrote on X.
"This is so ... stupid!" Gwilym Eades, a lecturer in human and environmental geography at Royal Holloway University of London, wrote on Bluesky.
According to a former US senator, the last thing Republican members of Congress want is to participate in a floor vote that would allow the US Treasury to place Donald Trump’s face on a new $250 bill at a time when Americans can’t afford to pay for food and gas.
Appearing on MS NOW on Friday morning, an amused ex-Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) watched a clip of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent blow off concerns about the proposal and state the president was deserving of the honor.
As she pointed out, the only way it could happen is via a vote in Congress — and that has GOP lawmakers sweating.
“Listen, this guy -- the $250 bill with his picture on it is such a good issue for the Democrats to talk about,” she told host Jonathan Lemire. “First of all, there aren't very many people that would be spending a $250 bill. And the idea that this is a priority for him kind of synthesizes the whole problem.”
“I gotta tell you,” she added with a smile, “The notion that at least they acknowledge they have to vote on it to make it happen — that Congress has to say it's okay — can you imagine if you were somebody like [Maine Republican] Susan Collins or somebody like [Alaska Republican] Dan Sullivan, and you are running for the Senate, that at this point in time, you're asked to approve putting Donald Trump's picture on a $250 bill? I mean, that is political suicide for those people. So it is just fascinating to me that they keep pushing things that are so bad politically for their own party.”
Ousted Attorney General Pam Bondi passed the buck in her closed-door House Oversight Committee hearing on Friday by pinning problems with the Jeffrey Epstein files on the man who took her job.
According to Bondi, “We demonstrated an unprecedented commitment to transparency in the department’s search for, collection and review of the Epstein files. This was an enormously complicated and labor-intensive process, To the best of my knowledge, the department produced everything required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.”
“As the head of a large department with broad responsibilities, I did not lead every aspect of this effort or conduct that document review myself,” she continued, before adding she “delegated oversight over this process to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche”.
That final statement caused Dilanian to smirk and tell host MS NOW host Ali Vitali, “Look, those of us in Washington may have heard the sound of a large bus driving over a large object about an hour ago. And that was Pam Bondi throwing her former deputy, Todd Blanche, now the acting attorney general, under that bus, proverbially.”
After reading from her statement, he added, “That's actually been pretty clear for some time. I've been wondering myself why this committee wasn't trying to talk to Todd Blanche instead of Pam Bondi, who in many ways was a figurehead. Attorney General Todd Blanche ran a lot of the DOJ while Pam Bondi was the attorney general. But nonetheless, there are some important questions for Pam Bondi.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) was ridiculed for posting a classic fable warning against placing trust in unworthy individuals after his Republican primary loss.
President Donald Trump extended a last-minute endorsement to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that tipped this week's runoff election away from Cornyn, who had courted the president's favor during the campaign and even proposed naming a U.S. highway after him.
He seemingly made reference to the betrayal Friday morning in a social media post.
"An old, but apt fable: A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across," Cornyn posted on X. "The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting it, but the scorpion promises not to, pointing out that it would drown if it killed the frog in the middle of the river. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both.
"The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: 'I am sorry, but I couldn't help myself. It's my character,'" Cornyn's post added, citing Wikipedia.
Other social media users wondered what the longtime GOP senator expected from the 79-year-old president.
"So President Trump is the scorpion and you're the frog?" asked Stephen Richer, a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School.
"The reason they wrote these fables is so you’d learn them as a child, not when you’re 74," reminded The Bulwark's Will Saletan.
"John Cornyn posting 'here's an old fable that I just looked up on Wikipedia' is just so beautiful," marveled writer Ian Boudreau. "'We have an old saying in Texas -- hang on a sec here, Siri what's the one about fool me once?'"
"I don't know why, but the funniest thing about this is tagging Wikipedia," agreed NPR's Linda Holmes.
"It's genuinely funny a 74 year old senator got played by the most obvious conman ever and is now posting passive aggressively like a pre-teen who hasn't learned subtlety yet," pointed out popular Bluesky user Grimm.
"Let us not judge or be judged, since each of us must work through our grief in ways that best suit our own circumstances," cautioned journalist Bill Grueskin. "That said, this is amazing."
Three Epstein survivors confronted Rep. James Comer (R-KY) in a moment that made the GOP lawmaker visibly uncomfortable, just minutes before a closed-door interview with former Attorney General Pam Bondi was set to question her on Friday about deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
As Comer was taking questions from the press, he was forced to respond to the victims who were on Capitol Hill before the House Oversight Committee meeting. The closed-door interview was not videotaped but was expected to focus on the "sloppy rollout of the Epstein files," MS NOW anchor Ali Vitali reported.
"In a remarkablemoment just a short time ago, agroup of Epstein survivorspeppered oversight committee Chair James Comer with theirown questions ahead of Bondi's session," Vitali said.
"These people cannot bebrought in under transcribedinterviews. Can you ensure thatthey would please be brought inunder oath?" Sharlene Rochard, an Epstein survivor, asked Comer.
The chairman of the committee seemed surprised by the line of questioning.
"If you lie to Congress, it'sa felony," Comer said. "So it's, you know,we're bringing them in. We'rebringing people in that havenever been brought in before."
"Survivors' names over andover and over were exposed," Liz Stein, Epstein survivor, told Comer. "Yetwe see time and time again,perpetrators names have beenredacted when they shouldn'thave been. Are we going to getsome answers?"
Comer responded.
"I hope so, those are thequestions we're going to ask," he said. "And you know, we're doing this.We want justice for thesurvivors."
Vitali commented on the moment.
"Stunning to see themconfront Comer themselves," Vitali added.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) left critics dumbfounded on Friday after suggesting that James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for Senate from Texas, would engage in religious child sacrifice.
The official social media account on X for the Democratic Party promoted Talarico’s candidacy this week with a simple message: “James Talarico is the only candidate who will put you first.” Lee, known for his controversial online remarks, issued a response just hours later.
“James Talarico will put you first… On the altar to Moloch,” Lee wrote, referencing the ancient figure of Moloch mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and associated with child sacrifice.
Lee’s social media post also included an animated image depicting a child being sacrificed to an ancient deity — a post that left several onlookers appalled.
“Nothing to see here, just a Republican Senator accusing a Democratic Senate candidate of child sacrifice,” wrote journalist and former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan on Friday. “But, hey, don’t you dare criticize [President Donald] Trump as that could lead to political violence.”
Catherine Young, a staff writer for The Bulwark and columnist for Newsday, also flagged what she characterized as Lee’s hypocrisy given the GOP’s increasingly frequent condemnation of “inflammatory rhetoric” as a cause for political violence.
“I thought demonizing (literally!) political opponents was bad and incites violence?” Young asked in a social media post on X to her more than 70,000 followers.
Journalist-turned-lawyer Charlie Johnson described Lee’s remarks as “certifiable lunacy,” and Eric Michael Garcia, the D.C. bureau chief for The Independent and MS NOW columnist, argued that the Utah Republican was unlikely to face any consequences for his inflammatory remarks.
“Again, Mike Lee will not be held accountable for these outrageous comments accusing a Democrat of sacrificing people to Satan because he refuses to speak to the press,” Garcia wrote Friday in a social media post on X to his more than 44,000 followers. “He's just thoroughly pickled his brain online.”
Nothing to see here, just a Republican Senator accusing a Democratic Senate candidate of child sacrifice.
But, hey, don’t you dare criticize Trump as that could lead to political violence. 🤷🏽♂️ https://t.co/tlQYlnN3b9 — Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) May 29, 2026
Republican lawmakers already on the defensive over Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion “slush fund” and his controversial IRS deal approved by acting-Attorney General Todd Blanche have a new “headache,” reported The Hill Friday.
According to The Hill, the investigation has triggered alarm among constitutional conservatives who view it as the latest example of Trump weaponizing federal law enforcement against his critics and opponents.
Gregg Nunziata, executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law and a former Republican counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he hopes GOP senators will finally take a stand against what he described as systematic abuse of power.
"Ordinarily, I would hesitate to prejudge any DOJ criminal investigation, but this is now after a well-established pattern of the Justice Department launching specious criminal investigations and indictments against the president's critics. I think one could only assume that this investigation fits within this pattern, that this investigation reflects a Justice Department eager to punish people who have had the temerity to criticize the president or in any other way challenge his authority," Nunziata told The Hill's Alexander Bolton.
He added: "The idea that a successful plaintiff in a civil suit against the president would be a target for criminal investigation is remarkable."
Nunziata argued that GOP senators must reject the "whataboutism" defense used by Trump's strongest allies — that the president is simply retaliating against what the Biden administration did to him.
"What the president is doing with the Justice Department in these prosecutions is completely indefensible, and his strongest defenders tend to say that the president is just doing to Democrats what Democrats did to him, which is, in other words, to implicitly say, 'This is wrong, we're just doing it, too,'" he elaborated.
The investigation has also triggered outrage from prominent conservative intellectuals who are publicly pressuring GOP senators to distance themselves from Trump's Justice Department.
Ed Whelan, distinguished senior fellow and Antonin Scalia chair in constitutional studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, called the Carroll investigation an "outrageous abuse of power."
The report noted that Jay Nordlinger, conservative commentator and former senior editor of National Review magazine, escalated the rhetoric, calling the criminal investigation of Carroll "another impeachable offense" and "another grotesque abuse of power."
Stephen Colbert's replacement was hit by a withering review comparing his late-night comedy program to an informercial Friday.
CBS canceled "The Late Show," that had been long hosted by Colbert, and turned over the 11:30 p.m. slot to Byron Allen's "Comics Unleashed" — who is paying CBS $15 million a year for the half-hour segment. The Guardian's Andrew Lawrence dragged the poorly rated replacement program from start to finish.
"The applause, dear God, the applause," Lawrence began. "It has you bracing against the headboard and groping for the remote when Comics Unleashed detonates onto the screen just before midnight. A soulless barrage of whoops, cheers and apparatchik-grade terror clapping, it hits like a jet engine at takeoff, swallowing the show’s disembodied announcer in a silo of his own manufactured zaniness."
"The applause snuffs out introductions to the guests, all stand-up comics — a who’s who of who’s that — and upstages a modest studio audience that appears to have been rounded up from pamphlet-clutching LA tourists," he added.
Lawrence faulted the program for having no writers or discernible point of view, which he said was intentional as the network's new owner Larry Ellison "bent the knee to Donald Trump," and he said the results are appallingly bland and uninspired.
"Viewers conditioned to expect sharp monologues, celebrity interviews and some kind of live-wire unpredictability at bedtime should try [Jimmy] Kimmel instead — or, better yet, wait for John Oliver," he wrote. "Comics Unleashed is not a show you tweet about in the moment, discuss the next morning or DVR with anticipation. It exists one evolutionary rung above a looped fireplace video, the sort of thing Walmart might run silently on a showroom TV wall."
Allen will keep most of the show's advertising revenue under his agreement with CBS, and Lawrence said the "hack comic" had repurposed his venerable syndicated program in a prominent slot in a way that felt unstuck from time.
"Watching the show’s first week on CBS was not nostalgic in any comforting sense," Lawrence wrote. "It felt more like stumbling across an old ice machine in a dark hotel hallway, still running somehow despite the fatal-sounding clatters and groans. There’s an unmistakable superficiality to Comics Unleashed. The generic prefab set is lit like a furniture showroom. The canned video filling the B-roll intros looks scraped from Shutterstock, and the framed photos of Jon Lovitz and Sinbad feel ripped from a Comedy Cellar wall."
The guests don't touch on current events – not even the NBA playoffs – at all but instead are prompted by Allen to riff on their tried-and-true standup material.
"A typical exchange begins with Allen offering something like, 'I heard you just got engaged,' before the comic launches into a tightly packaged minute of relationship material," Lawrence wrote. "It is chatbot conversation performed by humans, only less human now."
