Robert Davis

Political analysts ridiculed Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday night after he gave a bizarre interview to Fox News host Laura Ingraham.

During the interview, Vance claimed that Democrats were not working with Republicans to address the rising cost of living. That's despite Congress passing the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act with overwhelming bipartisan support, a bill that President Donald Trump has said he won't sign because he views it as a "betrayal to his base."

Analysts reacted to the interview on social media.

"Is this f------ guy for real? His boss is holding up a bipartisan housing bill right now!!" Mike Nellis, a Democratic strategist, posted on X.

"TRUMP CANCELED THE BIPARTISAN HOUSING BILL TO PRESSURE CONGRESS TO CHEAT IN THE ELECTION YOU CATASTROPHIC F------," Jim Stewartson, a writer and political critic, posted on X.

"Like a coach forfeiting a game, but his assistant coach trying to blame the opposing team, who showed up ready to play," Joel Mendelson, a political communications expert, posted on Bluesky.

"they did that already. Democrats and Republicans passed a housing bill. it got massive bipartisan support. Trump hasn't signed i," Jake Sherman, founder of Punchbowl News, posted on X.

A legal expert was alarmed on Tuesday after analyzing the recent spate of opinions handed down by the Supreme Court.

Quinta Jurecic, a staff writer at The Atlantic, said in a recent interview with Will Gotsegen, another staff writer at the publication, that the Supreme Court sent a troubling signal to President Donald Trump that it is still willing to let him get away with a lot. That's despite the court ruling against Trump in the birthright citizenship case, which Trump and his allies had staked a lot on.

"What shocked me is that that ruling was, depending on how you count, 6–3 on the question of whether the executive order could stand, or 5–4 on the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a broad understanding of birthright citizenship. Very few people had thought that it would be anywhere near that close. I certainly did not," Jurecic said.

She also noted that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh gave no indication during oral arguments that they considered birthright citizenship to be outside the plain text of the 14th Amendment. Their opinions read like a sign that "the Court is willing to give Trump a pass" on almost whatever he wants, Jurecic said.

"There is no ambiguity about what the Fourteenth Amendment says, and the fact that the administration seems to have been able to convince four justices that there is some ambiguity there is troubling. It is a real warning sign for the influence of Trump and the far right on the Court," she added.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) revealed something "deeply disturbing" about the state of American politics on Tuesday after he melted down over a recent Supreme Court decision.

Johnson was asked by reporters for his reaction to the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision to uphold birthright citizenship, a move that court watchers described as a rebuke of President Donald Trump. The case stemmed from an executive order Trump signed last year that sought to unilaterally remove birthright citizenship, as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment, from the Constitution, from those born on U.S. soil to undocumented or temporary-resident parents.

"You could say that’s a textualist originalist view. However, I do think that this has been grossly abused in recent years," Johnson said about the opinion.

His comments raised red flags for Mary Trump, the president's niece and a clinical psychologist.

"Mike Johnson claims to be a constitutional lawyer. Frankly, I think he needs to have his law license revoked," Mary Trump wrote in a new Substack essay. "The idea that somebody who presents himself as a constitutional scholar would object to the Supreme Court doing the one thing it is actually supposed to do, uphold the Constitution, tells us an enormous amount about where we are as a country."

Mary Trump also noted that Johnson's comments seemed to suggest he expected the Supreme Court to have sided with her uncle in the case, regardless of the law. She noted that it was "deeply disturbing" to see four justices appear to agree with Johnson's assessment and revealed that they were "apparently willing to ignore that plain constitutional language."

"Apparently, they either cannot read the Constitution or they believe that an incompetent, corrupt, anti-American, traitor can simply sign an executive order and erase one of the most important constitutional amendments ever adopted," Mary Trump wrote. "That is also where we are as a country."

A MAGA lawmaker sparked outrage after he made a wild claim about the devastating earthquakes in Venezuela during an interview on CNN.

Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL), who is known as one of Trump's close allies in Congress, told CNN's Boris Sanchez on Tuesday that the Trump administration bears no responsibility to account for the more than 150 people recently deported to Venezuela who are now missing because the hotel they were staying in collapsed. The deportation flight landed in Venezuela about 24 hours before the earthquakes began, according to reports.

"It's just an act of God," Gimenez said.

That comment didn't sit well with many political analysts and observers, who shared their reactions on social media.

"Quite the excuse," Martina Navratilova, a former professional tennis champion, posted on X.

John Jackson, a military veteran and political critic, posted on X that Gimenez had "betrayed the American and Venezuelan people, always blindly following Trump into corrupt foreign policy disasters."

"The conservative Christian position here is that God wanted the people Republicans kicked out of our country—for no good reason—to die," Hemant Mehta, a former "Jeopardy!" champion, posted on X.

"Carlos should be concerned about that last name of his that he's toting around in Trump's America," Russ DiBello, an actor and political critic, posted on Bluesky.

A pair of legal experts were astounded on Monday while discussing a trap the Trump Department of Justice may have laid for itself in a recent case.

One of the arguments Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made when the DOJ created the $1.776 billion settlement between the Trump administration and the IRS was that Trump had been irreparably harmed by a government contractor or employee, which is why they sought such a large payout. However, that argument could get the Trump DOJ into trouble in other cases where privacy matters are concerned, according to Lisa Graves, co-host of the "Court Accountability Action" podcast and Christopher Swartz, the senior ethics counsel for the Democracy Defenders Fund.

The two legal experts reacted to the trap in a new episode on Monday.

"This is a clear case of failure of those baseline duties of any lawyer, whether they're a first-year lawyer or a lawyer who's been out practicing for 20 or 30 years," Graves said about the settlement agreement. "The misconduct, the failure to defend the interests of the United States, the IRS, and the other agencies, is jaw-dropping."

The $ 1.776 billion settlement was initially established to pay claims from people who were wrongfully prosecuted by the federal government. However, the idea was quashed after it received strong bipartisan pushback.

Even so, the Trump administration has refused every attempt to make it put in writing that the fund will never be established.

Swartz, whose organization filed an ethics complaint against Blanche over the IRS settlement, argued that Blanche's argument "prejudices the government's position" in other cases that involve privacy matters.

The ethics complaint was filed at a time when Blanche was seeking confirmation for the full Attorney General role. Some Republicans have already said they won't support Blanche's nomination, which sets the stage for a contentious confirmation battle.

A political analyst called out a striking contradiction that President Donald Trump's chief spokesperson made during an interview on Fox News.

David Pakman, host of "The David Pakman Show" on YouTube, said in a recent video that Karoline Leavitt "immediately imploded" during her appearance on Fox News's "Fox & Friends" on Monday. He noted that Leavitt had a hard time explaining how the ceasefire brokered between the U.S. and Iran is going, and offered a contradiction that left him taken aback.

"So, as far as we're concerned, we're holding up our end of the ceasefire, but violence will be met with violence," Leavitt told host Brian Kilmeade. "As you mentioned ... there were attacks on commercial vessels that the United States of America, directed by the president, responded to ..."

Pakman described Leavitt's comments as "quite a contradiction."

"That is a very conditional ceasefire," he said. Now, I'm not suggesting that what we need to be doing is looking away and going, 'We will never defend ourselves.' Of course, that's not what I'm saying. But when you've already failed to end this thing 40 times and every time it looks like negotiations are starting, Donald Trump goes, 'But we'll also destroy the country if we need to.'
Why are we pouring gasoline on the fire?"

President Donald Trump was roundly ridiculed on Monday night after he posted a picture of the "golden gift" he plans to give the country for its 250th birthday celebration this week.

Trump posted a picture of a golden eagle attached to the front facade of the White House on his Truth Social feed. The AI-generated eagle is shown holding a red, white, and gold shield surrounded by 11 stars.

"A Golden Gift to the White House for its 250th Birthday Year!" Trump wrote in the post.

Critics of the president shared their reactions on social media.

"Trump's hired Putin as his decorator," Paul Rudnick, a playwright and author, posted on X.

"The traditional 250th anniversary gift is fascism," Melissa Ryan, author of the "CTRL Alt Right Delete" newsletter on Substack, posted on Bluesky.

"Everything else aside, the White House is in fact not 250 years old," Nicholas Handler, an assistant law professor at Texas A&M University, posted on Bluesky.

"It’s gonna be so fun tearing all of this shit down," Keith Edwards, a liberal political commentator, posted on X.

"Okay, but seriously, why does it have eleven stars?" Franklin Leonard, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, posted on X.

"Cool stuff, very cool," Dave Cavell, a former speechwriter for Kamala Harris, posted on X along with a photo of the golden eagle that was displayed at Nazi rallies.

President Donald Trump's image within the MAGA movement is "collapsing under the weight of reality" as his followers find it more difficult to reconcile his brand with the administration's recent fumble in the war with Iran, according to one analyst.

Mary Trump, a psychologist and author, argued in a new Substack essay that her uncle is driving a wedge in his base as he continues to tout his brand of strength after he signed a memorandum of understanding with the Iranian regime that some have described as a complete capitulation. The agreement allowed Iran to immediately resume selling oil and lifted some sanctions on the regime in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which had been shut since the early days of the war.

Trump described the phenomenon as a "growing divide" within the movement itself.

"This is no longer simply a disagreement over one agreement with Iran. It is an increasingly public recognition that the image Donald carefully constructed over decades as a fearless negotiator and master dealmaker is collapsing under the weight of reality. The farther reality drifts from the mythology, the harder it becomes for even his most devoted supporters to reconcile the two," Mary Trump wrote.

"One faction refuses to acknowledge that Donald could ever be wrong and therefore views whatever agreement he signs as, by definition, a success. The other sees what is unfolding as an unmistakable capitulation after months of war, tens of billions of dollars spent, global instability, higher energy prices, and the unnecessary loss of human life," she added.

Vice President JD Vance revealed the new scheme he has cooked up to salvage what's left of his political career during a recent talk at the Nixon Presidential Library, according to one political analyst.

David A. Graham, a staff writer at The Atlantic, argued in a new edition of "The Atlantic Daily" newsletter that Vance's comments about Watergate being a 12-hour news story today were revealing for all of the wrong reasons. Vance may have been trying to make a point about the state of the American media, but instead exposed that he is cozying up to President Donald Trump's corrupt side as he seeks a way to take the MAGA reins once Trump leaves office.

"If it’s true that Watergate wouldn’t make a dent today, that is a reason to lament the fallen state of politics, not to conclude that Watergate was just fine," Graham wrote.

"This would be a powerful argument coming from the vice president, who has worried about what he sees as insufficient morality in American society and has said that his role is 'to try to apply moral principles in ways that get the best outcomes,'" he added. "Instead, Vance has concluded that his best chance at political advancement is to hitch himself to the corrupt and unethical Trump. Such cynicism would do Nixon proud."

Vance's comments were made at a time when analysts have called out multiple deals the Trump administration struck that appear to financially benefit the president and his family. For instance, the New York Times reported on a mining deal in Kazakhstan involving Trump's sons, Don Jr. and Eric, that could also net Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's family a financial windfall.

President Donald Trump issued an ominous threat to gas stations across America on Monday, telling them that they must lower their prices or else "big problems lie ahead."

"Gasoline Retailers must get their Prices down, IMMEDIATELY! They’re too high considering that Oil is now at $68 a Barrel, and heading south," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "The Retailers must quickly react to this statement and do what they know is right — DROP YOUR PRICE FOR OUR GREAT AMERICAN PEOPLE!"

Gas prices have been in flux since late February, when Trump and his Israeli allies launched the war against Iran. In response to the attacks, Iran exerted control over the Strait of Hormuz, a global waterway that accounts for roughly 20% of the world's energy trade, a move that has caused significant economic issues worldwide.

Trump also warned gas stations against "price gouging" and called on states to drop their gas taxes as well.

"There will be no gauging, which is totally illegal.," Trump wrote. "If Retailers don’t do this, big problems lie ahead! Start targeting around the $2.50 a Gallon number, and California should stop charging such heavy Taxes on their Gasoline. Soon the Tax will be higher than the Product itself, and the United States will not stand for it, nor will the People of California, who are being abused by these ridiculous Taxes, and by their own Government."

CNN's Erin Burnett was taken aback on Monday by a new report about how President Donald Trump plans to navigate what he's describing as a "betrayal of his base."

Last week, Trump abruptly canceled the signing ceremony for the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, an overwhelmingly popular bipartisan bill that would address housing costs ahead of the midterm elections. Republicans and Democrats alike were outraged at the decision, which Trump claimed to make in order to force lawmakers to pass his unpopular SAVE America Act, which would fundamentally rewrite how American elections are conducted.

The move prompted a reportedly tense meeting between Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Trump. Afterward, Johnson told reporters that the House of Representatives would send the bill to Trump on Monday, with the hope that it would be signed promptly.

CNN's Kristen Holmes reported on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" that Trump did another about-face on the bill, instead choosing to let it become law after the 10-day deadline he was given to sign it.

"I'm told by a White House official that President Trump is unlikely to sign that bipartisan housing bill, [he will] just let it go into law," Holmes reported. "He's not going to veto it, but right now he views it as a betrayal to his base if he were to actually sign it."

Holmes also noted that Trump was doubling down on his insistence on passing the SAVE America Act.

"He's promised to have the SAVE America Act get through before he signs any major legislation, so he's willing to potentially not sign this ... very widely supported housing bill in order to try to push [the bill]," Holmes reported.

The new developments took Burnett by surprise.

"It's incredible," she said.

A Republican lawmaker slammed the calamity the Trump administration has created by revoking Temporary Protected Status for thousands of immigrants.

Last year, the Trump administration abruptly revoked TPS for Haitian and Syrian immigrants, a move that impacted approximately 356,000 people currently living in the U.S. The order was swiftly challenged, but the Supreme Court recently ruled that President Donald Trump has the authority to unilaterally revoke TPS, an opinion that stunned many legal analysts.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) slammed the decision during a new interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead."

"As I have stressed to the administration for over a year, while I don't dispute the president's ability to end TPS ... it is foolish to do it at this moment because we are going to create a calamity within our own health care system as a result," Lawler said.

Lawler, whose district includes one of the largest Haitian immigrant populations in the U.S., noted that many of these immigrants work in health care, caring for the elderly and disabled. He added that he's asked the administration to instead extend work visas to the immigrants, some of whom have lived in the U.S. for decades.

Lawler also noted that it would be dangerous to send Haitian and Syrian immigrants back to their home countries, which raises a host of questions about the timing of the move.

"The fact is, from a humanitarian standpoint, it is disastrous to send them back home at this moment, and it will have a profound negative impact on the American people," Lawler said.

The Supreme Court just swung a massive wrecking ball at the federal government on President Donald Trump's behalf, according to a new analysis.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Slaughter that the president has the power to fire members of formerly independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission. Trump celebrated the ruling as a necessary expansion of presidential power, while some court watchers cautioned that it could lead to a full-scale overhaul of the federal government at the behest of one man.

Alexis Romero, who writes about the Supreme Court for Slate, argued in a new article that the Slaughter ruling represents a "wrecking ball" that has been swung at the federal government.

"This ruling undermines hundreds of statutes that created agencies that were once insulated from presidential control with political party requirements and removal restrictions," Romero wrote. "Nearly all federal agencies that everyday Americans rely on are now fully under President Donald Trump’s thumb. Worse, there are hidden dangers beyond the president firing high-ranking commissioners that the court failed to even acknowledge, ones that voters will need to prompt Congress to step in and correct before the presidency becomes too powerful to tame."

Romero also warned that few government agencies seem to have been spared by the Supreme Court's ruling. For instance, agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could also be impacted.

"The Supreme Court’s reckless logic leaves no room for carve-outs outside of Wall Street: 'Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him.' Full stop," Romero wrote. "Until there’s a new president, or a Congress with some spine, Americans will be left to suffer from the untold amounts of fraud and dysfunction that Trump is about to inflict on the executive branch and the country."

A Constitutional law expert slammed a GOP pundit's "absolutely ridiculous" analogy about the Supreme Court's decision to overturn more than nine decades of precedent on presidential power.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Slaughter that President Donald Trump has the authority to fire members of the previously independent Federal Trade Commission. The decision overturned a precedent known as Humphrey's Executor, which had stood for more than 91 years, and prevented the president from firing employees of independent government agencies.

Trump celebrated the opinion in a post on Truth Social, saying it "greatly increased presidential power at a time when it is needed most."

Hogan Gidley, a senior advisor to the America First Policy Institute, argued on CNN's "The Arena" with host Kasie Hunt that the Supreme Court was right to rule that Trump has a right to fire people, just like a new head football coach is allowed to bring in a coaching staff of their choice.

Michele Goodwin, a Constitutional law professor at Georgetown Law, replied that the analogy, if applied by the Trump administration, "should cause all of us to worry about the reach of the decision."

"Let's be clear. We just experienced a global pandemic, and during that pandemic, we had a president who suggested that if people looked at the sun and just drank bleach, bathed in bleach, or something along those lines, COVID might not reach them," Goodwin said. "That was absolutely ridiculous."

"This is exactly why you need experts who are learned and in agencies, and it is why they need an arms-length distance not only from the President, but also from Congress and the Supreme Court, to be able to do the work," she added.

A legal expert warned on Sunday that the Supreme Court seems willing to test the limits of America's constitutional multiracial democracy by approving a "wildly illegal" executive order from President Donald Trump.

Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan and co-host of the "Strict Scrutiny" podcast, said during a new interview on the podcast "Pod Save America" that the Supreme Court's recent spate of immigration decisions gave her pause. Last week, the court sided with the Trump administration by ending Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and thousands of Syrian immigrants. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to further rewrite America's citizenship standards in an upcoming case about birthright citizenship, an opinion that several court watchers expect will come down this upcoming week ahead of the court's summer recess.

"The recent immigration decisions are really concerning," Litman said. "The fact that the court adopted such broad reasoning in cases where they didn't have to do so at all, I think, is causing some people to rethink their confidence in what the court might do on birthright [citizenship]."

One of the first executive orders Trump signed during his second term sought to halt recognition of citizenship for children born to people in the country illegally or temporary residents. It would overturn more than a century of jurisprudence, which has granted citizenship to these groups.

Litman said the Supreme Court's delay in releasing its opinion signals that it might contain a few fireworks.

"I think the delay could also signal that the decision isn't going to be unanimous, and if it's not unanimous, that's going to meaningfully alter the Overton window as far as what people's understanding of our constitutional multiracial democracy is," she said.

"If you have dissents by Justices Thomas and Alito, is birthright citizenship going to become a new litmus test for Republican appointees, where the expectation is you will only be selected for a judicial seat if you would overrule birthright citizenship, just like you could only be selected for a judicial seat if you would overrule Roe v. Wade?" Litman queried. "It would also invite future challenges to birthright citizenship down the road. So, I think those are some of the things that are on people's minds."