Carl Gibson

'There's no way': Legendary composer backs out of hosting Kennedy Center gala due to Trump

One of the most iconic living composers of Broadway musicals is now no longer hosting a gala to support the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts — and he's pinning the blame squarely on President Donald Trump.

The New York Times reported Friday that Stephen Schwartz, who is the composer for the Broadway musical and hit film Wicked, has now backed out of hosting the gala in response to Trump adding his name to the vaunted institution. Schwartz said he has long been a supporter of and collaborator with the Kennedy Center as it "was founded to be an apolitical home for free artistic expression for artists of all nationalities and ideologies."

"It is no longer apolitical and appearing there has now become an ideological statement," Schwartz told the Times. "As long as that remains the case, I will not appear there."

"There’s no way I would set foot in it now," he added in a separate statement to Newsday.

Schwartz — who has won three Oscars for his composing work on the Disney films Pocahontas (1996) and The Prince of Egypt (1999) and who is also known for composing music for the Broadway musicals Godspell and Pippin — said Washington National Opera artistic director Francesca Zambello asked him in late 2024 to host a gala for the opera at the Kennedy Center on May 16 of this year. While Schwartz agreed at the time, he told the Times it had been more than a year since he had spoken with anyone at the Kennedy Center. In February of last year, Trump appointed himself chairman of the Kennedy Center and replaced its board with political loyalists.

In a statement to the Times, Kennedy Center vice president for public relations Roma Daravi said: "Stephen Schwartz was never discussed nor confirmed and never had a contract by current Trump Kennedy Center leadership." Kennedy Center president Richard Grenell (who was acting director of national intelligence during Trump's first term) wrote on his X account: "The Stephen Schwartz reports are totally bogus."

"He was never signed and I’ve never had a single conversation on him since arriving," Grenell added. "He himself said last February he hadn’t heard anything on it."

Schwartz is the latest high-profile artist to distance himself from the Kennedy Center in the wake of Trump's takeover. Jazz group The Cookers recently pulled out of a New Years' Eve concert, and guitarist Chuck Redd cancelled a Christmas Eve performance. In addition to Redd and The Cookers, dance company Doug Varone and Dancers canceled two performances in April that would have generated $40,000 in income for the group.

Click here to read the Times' report in its entirety (subscription required).

Legal expert lays out 4 ways to rein in Supreme Court

Should Democrats retake the White House in 2028 and have majorities in both chambers of Congress, one legal expert is arguing there are numerous ways the six-member conservative majority on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) could be brought to heel.

In a Monday essay for Slate, legal writer and attorney Mark Joseph Stern directly addressed a reader's concern that no matter what laws Democrats may try to pass under a potential new Democratic majority government, the Supreme Court could simply strike those laws down. Stern countered that there are several ways to re-establish Congress' powers and prevent SCOTUS from acting as an unelected super-legislature.

First, Stern argued that Congress should immediately grant statehood to both Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. as part of a "suite of structural reforms." He argued this was a necessary step to take in order to make sure that sparsely populated conservative states like South Dakota and Wyoming aren't over-represented in Congress (both territories have already passed statehood resolutions, meaning all Congress needs to do is pass a bill to admit them).

"Remember, the senators who voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court represented fewer people than the senators who voted to oppose him," Stern wrote. "That is a huge structural problem that Congress can fix."

Second, Stern proposed that Congress pass a law that would require the Supreme Court to have a 7-2 supermajority to strike down any legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. He noted that the Nebraska and North Dakota state constitutions already have amendments requiring a supreme court supermajority in order to toss out any laws, and called on a potential future Democratic government to "put it in there that the law cannot be struck down unless seven justices agree that it’s unconstitutional."

Stern also advocated for imposing a strict time limit on the judicial review process, calling the Supreme Court to no longer be able to evaluate the constitutionality of any new laws more than one calendar year after their passage. He observed that the Supreme Court's 2012 review of the Affordable Care Act took place after Democrats had already lost their majority in the House of Representatives in 2010, and that a one-year limit would mean that Congress' partisan makeup would still be the same if the Court threw out any laws passed by that Congress and lawmakers wanted to try passing the law again.

The Slate author described these proposed reforms as a "good-faith effort by Democrats to recalibrate the balance of power by reestablishing Congress’ primacy and diminishing the Supreme Court’s untouchable supremacy." However, he allowed for the possibility that these reforms may fall short. In that event, he called on Democrats to "add four seats" and pack the Supreme Court with new Democratic appointees.

"The current Republican justices have already shredded adherence to precedent. A future liberal majority should say no to unilateral disarmament and apply the same rules," Stern wrote. "That is how Democrats put the court back in its place: by undoing its attacks on democracy and restoring the constitutional settlement the Roberts court has spent years dismantling."

Click here to read Stern's full article in Slate (subscription required).

Trump mocked for demanding fans send him money 'in the next hour' — before Dems steal it

President Donald Trump is now asking his supporters to donate money by implying Democrats could steal future "tariff rebate checks" and give them to undocumented immigrants.

Liberal group Meidas Touch initially reported on the email, which told supporters: "Here are 3 reasons I need YOU to STOP THE BOIL NOW BEFORE MY END-OF-YEAR FUNDRAISING DEADLINE." The email went on to suggest that Trump wanted to send $2,000 checks to "workers" using revenue generated from his tariffs, though he claimed Democrats planned to "send your check to illegals if you don't respond in the next hour!"

The solicitation warned that control of the House and Senate were both on the line, and that supporters' money was needed for "STOPPING COMMUNISM," using Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani (D) as examples. The email made no mention of Trump's public embrace of Mamdani in the Oval Office last month.

"WE'RE WALKING ON RAZOR-THIN ICE!" The email warned.

“Only a massive and immediate response will do,” the email continued. “I need YOU to help me hit my end-of-year fundraising goal by midnight tomorrow or EVERYTHING we’ve worked so hard to accomplish could go BYE BYE.”

Trump's email attracted a wave of mockery on social media.

X account Patriot Takes quipped that the president's "email scams keep getting weirder" while another X user commented that Trump was "the ultimate grifter."

"Damn. I don’t want my 'tariff rebate check' going to an 'illegal,'" investment banker James Chanos sarcastically tweeted.

'They call it drone-free roof': Trump compares Federal Reserve to ballroom in bizarre rant

President Donald Trump spent part of a joint event alongside a foreign leader to simultaneously attack the Federal Reserve's ongoing renovations of its campus while touting his planned White House ballroom.

During a Monday press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump answered one reporter's question about his planned replacement of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell by launching a litany of complaints about the Fed's upgrades of its two main buildings in Washington D.C. After repeating the false claim that the renovation was costing $4 billion (the highest estimates peg the cost at $2.5 billion), Trump argued that Powell was "incompetent" due to the cost of the project.

"We have a fool at the Federal Reserve, I mean, [former President Joe] Biden reappointed him. It's too bad," Trump said of Powell, who was appointed in November of 2017 during Trump's first term. "You would have thought he wouldn't have done that. But, he's an absolute fool who's building a new Federal Reserve, or he's doing a renovation of a building. Maybe he's up to $4.1 billion to do a renovation of a few very small buildings. It's the highest price in the history of construction."

The Fed's website explains that neither of the two buildings that serve as the headquarters of the United States' central bank have been renovated since they were built in the 1930s. Part of the construction involves removing carcinogenic building materials used during original construction, like lead and asbestos, and completely replacing "antiquated" building systems like heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) along with electrical wiring and plumbing. The Fed also aims to bring the two buildings up to code by including new accommodations for disabled people.

Trump contrasted the Fed's renovations with his White House ballroom, which is meant to replace the demolished East Wing of the White House. The cost of Trump's project has doubled to $400 million, despite him initially claiming the ballroom would cost $200 million.

"I'm doing a magnificent, big, beautiful ballroom that the country has wanted, the White House has wanted for 150 years. It's a massive job, and it's a tiny fraction of that number. And we're under budget and ahead of schedule," Trump said. "Now, it's bigger than I told you. It's — after realizing we're going to do the inauguration in that building — it's got all bulletproof glass, it's got all drone, they call it drone-free roof. Drones won't touch it. It's a big it's a big, beautiful, safe building."

Unlike the Fed's renovations, Trump's proposed White House ballroom did not undergo a public review process by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), which is a requirement for all historic buildings in Washington D.C., whereas the Fed has been planning its renovations since 2017 and finally broke ground in 2022. The NCPC's final review of the Fed's planned renovations was published in September of 2021. Fortune reported that much of the increased costs are due to raw materials spiking in cost after the global supply chain was effectively decimated by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Watch the video of Trump's remarks below:

- YouTube www.youtube.com

'Flashing signs': Psychologist says Trump exhibiting 'immense cognitive decline'

President Donald Trump's behavior and appearance is increasingly subjected to scrutiny about whether the commander-in-chief is able to serve out the remainder of his second term. Now, one psychologist is worried that the president is rapidly declining in public.

The Daily Beast reported Friday that psychologist Dr. John Gartner, who is a former professor at Johns Hopkins University, believes the president has been increasingly exhibiting "flashing signs" of an "immense cognitive decline."

"Because of his cognitive decline, [Trump] is focusing on things like the [White House] ballroom and the paper that he writes things on," Gartner told the Beast.

Gartner's assessment about the president's mental health is merely his latest observation, as the psychologist has previously sounded the alarm over Trump's increasingly erratic speech, confused behavior and lapses in memory. Gartner is also the founder of the organization Duty to Warn, which is a coalition of mental health professionals who believe that Trump's advanced age presents a national security risk. His organization also believes that the risk Trump's health overrides the Goldwater Rule (in which medical professionals avoid diagnosing people who aren't their own patients).

The Beast's report highlighted how Trump has sparked concern among Americans after he was spotted in public earlier this year with dark bruises on his hands and swollen ankles. The president has also been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, which can sometimes cause blood to pool in the legs.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Beast that the 79 year-old president's health is "excellent" despite Gartner's assessment.

"As the President’s physician, Dr. Sean Barbabella, has made clear time and again — and as the American people see with their own eyes every single day — President Trump remains in excellent overall health," she told the outlet.

Click here to read the Daily Beast's report in its entirety (subscription required).

Trump is actively causing 'harm' to this deep-red state's key industry: WSJ

President Donald Trump's signature trade policy is wreaking havoc on the economy of one of the reddest states in the country, according to the Wall Street Journal.

In a Friday editorial, the Journal argued that the recent decision by the Jim Beam distillery to halt production at its Claremont, Kentucky facility for all of 2026 can be chalked up to Trump's tariffs. While the distillery didn't outright blame tariffs for its decision, the Journal pointed out that Canada has continued to hold off on its importing of Kentucky bourbon, which has dealt a significant blow to the Bluegrass State's signature export.

"After Mr. Trump picked a tariff fight with Canada, the country responded by pulling U.S. spirits from its shelves. The bilateral relationship has recovered some, but exports didn’t," the editorial read.

The Journal chronicled how Canada eventually rolled back its retaliatory tariffs on imported Kentucky bourbon after Trump softened his tariffs on the United States' northern neighbor and key trade partner. However, the uncertainty from the episode has some whiskey distillers like Jim Beam – which makes brands like Knob Creek and Basil Hayden in addition to its namesake spirit — more cautious about its long-term business plans. This is particularly true in the bourbon industry, which depends heavily on long-term plans given that bourbon requires multiple years of aging in barrels before hitting shelves.

"Much of the expansion over the last decade has been geared towards global growth," said Kentucky Distillers Association president Eric Gregory in October. "Long-term planning for a product that won’t be ready for years is already tough enough. We need the certainty of tariff-free trade for America’s only native spirit to flourish."

The impact of Trump's tariffs on Kentucky's bourbon industry has not gone unnoticed by its Republican leaders. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who led the Senate Republican Conference for nearly two decades, wrote an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal (Kentucky's flagship newspaper) sharply criticizing Trump's tariffs and predicting they would have a detrimental impact on the commonwealth's bourbon industry.

The editorial acknowledged that while "changing consumer preferences" can also influence demand, the spirits industry is used to ups and downs. However, the Journal pointed the finger at Trump for giving distilleries one more headache to consider.

"The difference now is that it must also manage around Mr. Trump’s tariffs and their consequences," the editorial read. "This is harm inflicted on American workers by their own government."

Click here to read the Journal's full editorial (subscription required).

Rebel Republican raises money off Trump branding him a 'lowlife'

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has become a frequent target of President Donald Trump's ire, with the president repeatedly singling him out due to his role in advancing the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act. Now, Massie is cashing in on those attacks.

Trump spent much of Christmas Day posting to his Truth Social platform, posting missives against his political opponents and rehashing debunked conspiracy theories about his 2020 election loss. But Massie was also included in Trump's posting spree, with the president at one point calling the Kentucky Republican a "lowlife," according to The Hill.

"Imagine celebrating a blessed Christmas with your family… suddenly phones alert everyone to the most powerful man in the world attacking you… for fulfilling his campaign promise to help victims!" Massie wrote on his official X account after including a screenshot of Trump's attack on him.

"Please support me," Massie added, with a link to his campaign website.

The Kentucky Republican followed up his post by announcing that within two hours of him sharing Trump's attack and the donation link, 43 people donated $2,700 to his reelection effort. Massie is running against Trump-endorsed Republican Ed Gallrein in the Republican primary for Kentucky's 4th Congressional District, along with two other opponents.

Massie's bid for an eighth term has attracted an inordinate amount of attention from the president dating back to March, when the Kentucky Republican voted against a spending bill Trump wanted passed. Massie also opposed Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" due to his hard stance against authorizing trillions of dollars in new spending (which the law mostly appropriates in the form of massive tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans).

In July, Politico identified three pro-Trump billionaires who were writing the biggest checks in the effort to drive Massie out of office. Hedge fund billionaires Paul Singer and Hank Paulson, along with Miriam Adelson (the widow of deceased casino magnate and GOP donor Sheldon Adelson) had spent roughly $2 million against Massie as of this summer.

Click here to read The Hill's article in its entirety.

Trump's ex-pardon attorney blasts president's 'reckless' forgiveness of crimes

The Department of Justice (DOJ) official in charge of evaluating potential candidates for presidential pardons is accusing President Donald Trump – her former boss – of turning the pardon process on its head.

In a Friday op-ed for the New York Times, Liz Oyer, who was the DOJ's pardon attorney under former President Joe Biden and for the first two months of Trump's second administration, condemned Trump's approach to the clemency process and accused him of abusing his Article II powers. Oyer observed that Trump is using the "unfettered executive power" to grant pardons in a way that has served to "degrade, corrupt and politicize the justice system."

Oyer recalled how the start of her tenure in the Trump administration involved being blindsided by the president's decision to pardon the approximately 1,500 defendants prosecuted and convicted for crimes relating to the January 6, 2021 siege of the U.S. Capitol. She reminded readers that some January 6 defendants were also "charged with or convicted of offenses involving sexual exploitation of children, threats against public officials and even a plot to kill federal employees."

"But instead of forcefully confronting the corrosive effects of Mr. Trump’s reckless pardoning, congressional Republicans have chosen to focus on investigating the pardons issued by his predecessor," Oyer wrote.

After just two months on the job, Oyer was eventually replaced by Ed Martin, who is a longtime Republican political operative and Trump loyalist who was once even listed as the counsel of record for one of the January 6 defendants whose pardon he approved. His motto became "no MAGA left behind" and he quickly converted the DOJ's pardon office into a vehicle for granting rapid clemency to far-right criminals. She lamented that pardons under Trump has become explicitly political and called for order to be restored to the clemency process.

"Our elected representatives are doing us no favors when they proceed as if what we are witnessing is typical or acceptable," she wrote. "Americans deserve an impartial assessment of all the misuses of the pardon power that we have seen from presidents of both parties."

"This isn’t — shouldn’t be, at least — a partisan concern," Oyer added. "It is an issue that should alarm anyone who cares to live in a safe, fair and free country."

Click here to read Oyer's full op-ed in the New York Times (subscription required).

'Give Republicans a taste': Legal experts propose next Democratic president's Day 1 agenda

The first year of President Donald Trump's second term has been rife with examples of the president doing something previously believed to be illegal until it was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Now, two legal experts are arguing that the next Democratic president should take advantage of the new vastly expanded presidential powers sanctioned by the nation's highest court.

In a Friday article for Slate, legal journalists Mark Joseph Stern and Dahlia Lithwick laid out how the next Democrat to be elected president of the United States should govern in their first 24 hours, under the new legal boundaries SCOTUS granted the White House under the Trump administration. Stern argued that because SCOTUS has blessed the "unitary executive" theory that all powers delegated to the executive branch and federal agencies can be unilaterally exercised by the president, the next president — he named Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as a stand-in example — should take after Trump's example and "wield those powers aggressively."

"How does that cash out? First, let’s remember that the Supreme Court has now effectively granted the president authority to impound federal funds duly appropriated by Congress and to abolish federal agencies established and funded by Congress," Stern wrote. "I think that is terrible and anti-constitutional. But thanks to the Supreme Court, that is now the law. So let’s talk about what President AOC can do with those powers in 2029."

"On Day 1, she needs to impound ICE’s budget. She needs to refuse to spend the billions of dollars that Congress has appropriated to the agency and fire tens of thousands of immigration agents immediately, starting with those who committed acts of violence and discrimination — which, by that point, may be almost all of them," he continued. "Close as many immigrant detention facilities as possible and free the detainees."

Stern then argued that a Democratic president could then repurpose ICE's budget as a reparations fund for families of immigrants who were improperly deported or denied due process, release the names of all agents who broke the law and prosecute every lawbreaking agent for crimes who wasn't preemptively pardoned by Trump. He reminded readers that all of this would be "100 percent legal under the precedent established by Trump and the Supreme Court."

"Take these powers and use them to undo Trump’s legacy and really flood the zone," he added. "Blitz the country with these executive orders on Day 1 and dare anybody to stop you."

Lithwick agreed with Stern's points, and noted that while many Americans would like to see a return to "norms" that were violated during the Trump administration, Democrats constraining their own powers to adhere to norms after a norm-breaking Republican presidency would only cement the idea that Republicans are free to violate norms whenever they're in power. Stern agreed, and asserted that the only way norms can be restored is if Democrats demonstrate to Republicans what happens under a Democratic administration when they bulldoze all institutional guardrails.

"It can only work if Democrats give Republicans a taste of their own medicine and remind them why the norms were there in the first place," he said.

Click here to read Lithwick and Stern's full conversation.

Conservative Denmark lawmaker mocks Trump's push to take over Greenland

President Donald Trump's ongoing efforts to make Greenland a part of the United States are being met with ridicule — even from a high-ranking conservative member of Denmark's parliament.

In a Thursday post to his official X account, Rasmus Jarlov (a member of Denmark's Conservative Party representing Greater Copenhagen) celebrated the news that third quarter GDP growth in Denmark was more than twice that of the United States, with the Danes experiencing 9.5 percent growth compared to 4.3 percent in the U.S.

"Not that we are satisfied, but the current growth rate in Denmark is decent," Jarlov tweeted. "We will start buying USA states shortly."

Jarlov's post poking fun at Trump comes just days after the president appointed Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) as his administration's newest special envoy to Greenland. Landry accepted the role, but made a point of telling his constituents in a social media post that he was not abandoning his duties as the Bayou State's governor.

IPaper columnist Simon Marks observed that the president's announcement set off alarm bells in Denmark, which has dominion over Greenland (though Greenland has its own parliament). In a joint statement, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland Parilament chairman Frederik Nielsen both reminded the Trump administration that "land borders and the sovereignty of states are rooted in international law."

"You cannot annex other countries. Not even with an argument about international security. Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders … We expect respect for our territorial integrity."

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen also piled on, with Marks observing that he was "deeply angered" about Landry's appointment, calling it "unacceptable." Denmark has reportedly summoned U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Ken Howery to Copenhagen to discuss Trump's plans for Greenland.

While Greenland's population is sparse, with just under 57,000 residents, the territory itself is rich in mineral deposits. Reuters reported earlier this year that Greenland was rich with 25 of 34 minerals classified as "critical raw minerals" by the European Commission,

Trump DOJ's handling of Epstein files 'has created the worst possible outcome': analysis

Amid this week's newest release of files pertaining to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein's two federal criminal investigations, one author is arguing that justice for Epstein's victims is being considered an afterthought.

In a Wednesday op-ed for the New York Times, author and MS NOW contributor Molly Jong-Fast lamented that the Department of Justice's (DOJ) releases of documents show that Epstein caused great harm to a significant number of young girls and observed that "we seem no closer to getting justice for the women who were the victims of this vast scheme."

"The release of the Epstein files was not supposed to be this way," Jong-Fast wrote. "The fight was to get them released, and then all would be revealed. Instead, social media is filled with a bewildering number of documents — some real, many not — and photographs with celebrities and without context. The contents have clearly been selectively released by the Department of Justice, a lot of it highly redacted, revealing little but stirring up much."

"The flood of files has created the worst possible outcome, an even more hyperpartisan blame game that is completely unfocused on justice for the victims," she added.

Jong-Fast contrasted the treatment of victims with the administration's treatment of Epstein's associates. She reminded readers that one heavily redacted document appears to show the names of 10 alleged co-conspirators who may have committed crimes with the notorious child predator.

"And the powerful men that Mr. Epstein cavorted with, who in turn seemed to provide him with so much? Why did many of his 10 possible conspirators have their names shielded?" Jong-Fast wrote. "Are they being protected?"

The New York Times contributor wrote that she has continued to be moved by the harrowing stories told by the women who survived Epstein's abuse and exploitation. She further noted that "the files have been released in a way that seems to be designed to maximize the arguing, give succor to conspiracy-mongers and minimize the illumination of what happened."

"Why did at least 16 files disappear soon after the Department of Justice site went live?" She wrote. "The department later reposted disappeared content, including a photo of Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein. And so it goes."

Click here to read Jong-Fast's op-ed in the New York Times (subscription required).

A small group of Republican 'extortionists' has usurped Mike Johnson's power: WSJ

House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) Republican majority is not only razor-thin, but is also becoming increasingly rebellious, according to a new analysis in the Wall Street Journal.

The Journal's Kimberly A. Strassel wrote Wednesday that Johnson has effectively ceded his power to a group of "moderate extortionists" within the House Republican Conference who continuously extract concessions from him. She specifically singled out Reps. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.), Ryan Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.) for "tank[ing] months of hard-fought Republican healthcare effort with one display of indignation."

Strassel observed that those four Republicans were pushing hard for an extension of expiring Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits, which would result in millions of Americans seeing their health insurance premiums spike by a significant amount without a renewal. However, when their effort proved unsuccessful, the group of moderates declined to support a Republican bill and instead threw their weight behind House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. (D-N.Y.)

"The four moderates sucked that advantage dry — and made moot the GOP sacrifice during the shutdown—when they defected last week to sign a Jeffries discharge petition that will allow House Democrats in January to pass a straight-up subsidy extension, a rival to the GOP plan," Strassel wrote.

"This is a theme of 2025," she continued. "Hard-line conservatives set the mold in January 2023, using their raw power in the GOP’s small majority to extract concessions through 15 rounds of speaker votes (and the later defenestration of Kevin McCarthy). They ultimately grew wary of the internal blowback and settled down. The moderates are proving more durable mercenaries."

Strassel also observed that moderate Republicans extracted "concession after concession" during negotiations surrounding the details of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" this summer. She specifically noted that blue state Republicans threatened to sink President Donald Trump's signature domestic policy legislation over the state and local tax deduction (SALT) cap, which disproportionately affects homeowners in predominantly Democratic-run states like California, New Jersey and New York. And she pointed out that more Republicans are now resorting to discharge petitions as a way to end-run Johnson on getting a vote on certain legislation.

"The problem here isn’t 'moderates' per se. The GOP needs to play in districts everywhere — that’s the path to a bigger majority," she wrote. "The problem is a moderate caucus that thinks their only path to re-election is blowing the bank and wants their party to blow its reputation to give it to them."

Click here to read Strassel's full column in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required).

Republican says new Epstein files release proves Trump and his Cabinet were lying

President Donald Trump maintained that he "was never on Epstein’s Plane, or at his ‘stupid’ Island." However, this week's release of thousands of documents pertaining to convicted child predator Jeffrey Epstein show that the president had not been forthcoming with the American public.

In a Wednesday essay, the Atlantic's Sarah Fitzpatrick observed that Trump had indeed been on Epstein's jet more than half a dozen times according to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) latest tranche of documents from Epstein's two federal criminal investigations. And Trump's name came up more than 100 times in this week's release – including one FBI tip in which an unnamed person claimed that the eventual 45th and 47th president of the United States assaulted an underaged girl along with Epstein in the 1990s.

"Although many references to Trump are clearly from news reports or from seemingly unverified tips to the FBI, one conclusion from the files is that Trump’s relationship with Epstein, a former friend, was of interest to federal law enforcement for years," Fitzpatrick wrote.

The Atlantic writer also quoted Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who is the chief co-sponsor of the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act that Trump signed into law last month despite fighting it for months. The Kentucky Republican maintained that there are more men implicated in criminal acts with Epstein that the Trump administration has yet to name, and that the president himself has not been truthful about his relationship with Epstein.

"Although the files are overly redacted, they’ve already demonstrated that the narrative painted by Patel in hearings, Bondi in press statements, and Trump himself on social media wasn’t accurate," Massie told Fitzpatrick. "A complete disclosure consistent with the law will show there are more men implicated in the files in possession of the government."

The Trump administration has so far not named 10 alleged co-conspirators whose names are redacted in one document released this week. According to Fitzpatrick, some members of the House Oversight Committee are already preparing subpoenas to discern the identities of those men. Committee members are also reportedly drafting a contempt resolution for Attorney General Pam Bondi.

"The Department of Justice needs to shed more light on who was on the list, how they were involved, and why they chose not to prosecute," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stated. "Protecting possible co-conspirators is not the transparency the American people and Congress are demanding."

Click here to read Fitzpatrick's full article in the Atlantic.

Ex-FBI leader rips DOJ over 'panicked' call for holiday volunteers to redact Epstein files

President Donald Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) recently issued a call for volunteers to come into the office over the Christmas and New Years' holidays to help prepare Jeffrey Epstein documents for release. One former deputy director of the FBI is now accusing the administration of being held captive to its own lack of urgency.

During a Tuesday segment on CNN's "The Source," Andrew McCabe – who was deputy director of the FBI under Presidents Barack Obama and Trump – said the DOJ appears to be approaching the Epstein files in a way similar to documents released via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

He noted that in FOIA releases, the government will often take time to black out the names and personal identifying information of anyone who hasn't been charged with a crime. He then reminded viewers that the Epstein Files Transparency Act was strict in only allowing redactions to protect victims and ongoing investigations — not reputations.

"The problem here is that that that kind of old way of doing business does not seem to be consistent with the way this law was written, this this tranche of information was not put out because of a FOIA request," McCabe said. "It was put out because of an act of Congress. And I think it specifically states that you can't redact names of people to avoid embarrassment and things like that. So, yeah, there they are, kind of bringing the old analysis of how to look at releasing very sensitive investigative files to the public, rather than kind of adapting to what the law actually requires."

McCabe went on to acknowledge that redacting all documents and evidence pertaining to Epstein's two federal criminal investigations was "a massive amount of work," but also pointed out that the FBI had earlier this year pored through the Epstein files (and flagged all mentions of Trump). Epstein's brother, Mark, said in November that a "pretty good source" confided to him that the FBI had been busy "sanitizing" the Epstein files in anticipation of their release.

"They actually pushed hundreds, potentially thousands of employees through the same process of reviewing these materials and redacting victims names, witnesses names, things like that," McCabe said. "So it's not clear to me why this this has to be done from scratch this time. But apparently they are still pretty far behind the ball in an enormous amount of work. And that's why you see these somewhat panicked calls going out for volunteers over the holidays."

Watch the segment below:

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Trump DOJ caught redacting 'names of Epstein's co-conspirators': expert

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is covering who may have committed crimes with convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, according to the journalist whose reporting led to Epstein's arrest.

On Tuesday, Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown tweeted an email between FBI agents from the DOJ's most recent release of Epstein documents that includes significant redactions. Both the sender and recipient's name are covered with black bars, and black bars appear to cover names throughout the document. The subject line of the email is "Co-conspirators," and was sent in July of 2019 – roughly one month before Epstein died in federal prison.

"When you get a chance can you give me an update on the status of the 10 CO conspirators?" An agent in the FBI's New York field office wrote. "Do we need [redacted] to head out on [redacted]?"

"[Redacted] does not need to head out. We made contact with [redacted] last night in NY," the email read. "Contact was made with [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted]."

"Attempts were made to [redacted] and Brunel," the email continued, which is an apparent reference to Epstein co-conspirator Jean-Luc Brunel, who died in a French prison in 2022 while awaiting trial for Epstein-related sex crimes. "[Redacted] is confirmed to live in NY but was away for the holiday weekend."

"Why are the names of Epstein's co-conspirators redacted?" Brown wrote on X.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act — which passed both chambers of Congress by near-unanimous margins and was signed into law by President Donald Trump in November — allows for the DOJ to redact Epstein documents in order to protect the names and identifying information of victims, and to not jeopardize ongoing investigations. However, Trump has recently expressed disdain for the DOJ's publishing of photos of "highly respected" people posing with Epstein, saying that those releases can "ruin a reputation."