Travis Gettys

A Democratic congressional staffer flagged an eye-popping provision in the massive fund established by the Department of Justice to pay off President Donald Trump's allies.

DOJ set aside $1.776 billion in taxpayer funds to compensate Trump allies, including Jan. 6 rioters already pardoned by the president, who say they were unfairly targeted by previous administrations, but legislative staffer Aaron Fritschner called attention to one clause regarding how the payments may be used.

"Once the funds are deposited into the Designated Account, the United States has no liability whatsoever for the protection or safeguarding of those funds, regardless of bank failure, fraudulent transfers, or any other fraud or misuse of the funds," the provision states.

Fritschner, the deputy chief of staff to Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), said the clause appeared to show the administration attempting to distance itself from criminal activity funded by the payouts.

"Incredible – Trump's $2 billion taxpayer-subsidized slush fund comes with a legal disclaimer that basically says 'we are not responsible for any crimes committed with this money,'" Fritschner posted on Bluesky.

Other social media users pored over additional provisions in the fund and highlighted ways in which the taxpayer dollars could be misused.

"The terms of Trump's slush fund appear to transfer control of $1.8 billion outside of US government entirely," pointed out The New Republic's Greg Sargent. "That seems to circumvent Congress completely and put the payments to 'victims of 'weaponization' beyond any congressional oversight or constitutional/legal constraints."

"It sounds like some enterprising hacker could siphon the money out of the account, and there would be no consequences," suggested Bluesky user Expel the Sedition Caucus.

"[Section] E here means we're going to get Trump allies 'volunteering' to do luxury travel and propaganda creation on the taxpayer dime," noted Seth Meyers, of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"According to the settlement, the funds don't have to be directed anywhere except a 'designated account,'" said architecture professor Matt Johnson. "His supporters will likely never see a dime."

"The terms of the 'settlement' ordered by Trump's personal criminal defense lawyer, Todd Blanche, now 'acting' as Attorney-General, purports to protect Trump and his family against any charges of fraud or embezzlement in relation to disposal of the funds," emphasized Bluesky user Meehawl.

"There's probably a good reason for this," argued legal expert Marcy Wheeler, noting the case of a pardoned Jan 6 rioter later convicted of sexual abuse. "Andrew Paul Johnson was going to use his payoff to bribe the children (one was an 11-yo boy when he fondled him) he molested."

The Department of Justice announced the creation of a $1.776 billion fund of taxpayer money that would be used to pay off President Donald Trump's allies, including Jan. 6 rioters, who say they were politically targeted by previous administrations.

The 79-year-old president, his two elder sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and the family-owned Trump Organization agreed to drop their $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service in exchange for the establishment of the taxpayer-funded payouts, which will have little oversight or transparency.

The president and his sons say the IRS and the Treasury Department failed to stop a former employee from leaking their tax returns, but a judge overseeing the case gave the administration until Wednesday to explain “whether a case or controversy exists" after questioning why the court should weigh since Trump controls the Justice Department.

Trump's personal lawyers argued Monday in a filing the court did not need to weigh in because they were voluntarily agreeing to dismiss the case, and the administration never replied to the suit.

The terms of the settlement sparked outrage across social media.

"Democrats should be saying anybody who takes this stolen money will see the government coming after them to claw it back," demanded election law expert Andy Craig.

"As Jamie Raskin also tells me here, if Dems take back one or both chambers of Congress, they will shut down the slush fund, and use oversight power to compel release of a list of any/all payments made between now and 2027," reported The New Republic's Greg Sargent. "So Trump can't necessarily hide these payments forever."

"The largest federal reparations fund in US history goes not to indigenous tribes or descendants of formerly enslaved people or interned Japanese-Americans — but to J6ers who smeared s--- on the walls of the US Capitol and attempted to hang the Vice President," seethed meteorologist and climate journalist Eric Holthaus.

"So you CAN get reparations you just have to be a reactionary white person who tries to overthrow the government because black votes shouldn’t count," noted writer Adam Serwer.

"I’ll be interested (and horrified) to see how much actually goes to violent J6ers as opposed to those who are already rich, powerful, and aggrieved, with 'lawfare' defined as friends of Trump prosecuted for tax fraud and domestic violence," pondered writer Jeff Sharlet.

"A lot of people are talking about the $1.8 billion slush fund as though it's going to Jan 6ers. Is this established somewhere? I would imagine it's more likely to go to Trump's family and allies who claim that criminal probes/sentences were political," agreed journalist Philip Bump.

"This is THEFT. There is no other word for it," denounced Aaron Reichlin-Melnick. "They are stealing almost $1.8 BILLION dollars to pay Trump‘s allies, despite knowing that these people are not legally entitled to any money and be laughed out of court if they filed a lawsuit for money damages. It is my personal opinion that this is a criminal act and people should respond accordingly."

"Can the law firms and universities targeted by the current administration apply for these funds?" wondered pollster Kevin Collins.

"The corruption and incompetence knows no bounds," marveled Bluesky user Hari Seldon. "If there had not been push-back, this would have ended in a self-payoff, aka: blatant theft."

"$1.7 billion is about to be paid out of the pockets of US taxpayers to J6 criminals who beat cops and Trump’s other dirty henchmen," decried MeidasNews editor in chief Ron Filipkowski. "Trump set up a slush fund to reward these scumbags with your money and Republicans in Congress won’t say a word about this disgusting corruption."

New reporting on President Donald Trump's age-related decline opened fresh questions about his leadership of the Republican Party.

The Atlantic published a new report detailing how the president's team has adjusted to his limitation, and reporter Jonathan Lemire discussed his findings Monday while co-hosting MS NOW's "Morning Joe."

"There are some health concerns in terms of the strangeness with the hands, the falling asleep in the meetings, the late night Truth Social bursts where he's clearly not sleeping in the middle of the night. But it's also about erratic behavior in terms of being out of touch, perhaps, with the American people losing his sort of that superpower he had to have his finger on the pulse of what people cared about, but also just that the threat to reporters, the apocalyptic threats to Iran, the list goes on and on."

"They've made some adjustments to his schedule, you know, no morning events," Lemire added. "He wears more comfortable shoes now. He's largely seated for events, really cut down on travel. So this is becoming a growing storyline, and including among Republicans who are privately whispering, you know, President Trump, he is getting older as 80 approaches, as he has another physical ahead of him in a couple of weeks. You know, is he now more concerned about his legacy and his more unfiltered version of himself and therefore not what the people want?"

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Pablo Torre wondered whether a diminished Trump could lead the GOP through a successful midterm election later this year.

"Well, the question is, is he a liability?" Torre asked. "And, you know, in fairness, I want to quote what I believe the White House spokesman said: 'Here's where you're wrong, Jonathan,' and he pointed out that no one has been more active in the public, right? That's what they hang their hat on, is that he is still out here. But the question is, is that actually hurting now as opposed to helping?"

Lemire said the evidence so far suggests Trump still holds a strong grip on the GOP.

"So far, within the party, it still helps," Lemire said. "We saw him defeat Sen. [Bill] Cassidy in Louisiana, the primary, you know, Indiana, his selections won their primary races. But yes, come November that could be a different matter."

- YouTube youtu.be

President Donald Trump on Monday concocted a cartoonishly unrealistic Iran surrender scenario to complain about media coverage of his war.

The 79-year-old president had accused reporters of treason for their unfavorable coverage of the war he launched Feb. 28 and has imperiled the global economy after Iran shut down the crucial Strait of Hormuz, and Trump imagined the media coverage of the Middle Eastern nation's leadership literally waving white flags of surrender.

"If Iran surrenders, admits their Navy is gone and resting at the bottom of the sea, and their Air Force is no longer with us, and if their entire Military walks out of Tehran, weapons dropped and hands held high, each shouting 'I surrender, I surrender' while wildly waving the representative White Flag, and if their entire remaining Leadership signs all necessary 'Documents of Surrender,' and admit their defeat to the great power and force of the magnificent U.S.A., The Failing New York Times, The China Street Journal (WSJ!), Corrupt and now Irrelevant CNN, and all other members of the Fake News Media, will headline that Iran had a Masterful and Brilliant Victory over The United States of America, it wasn’t even close," Trump posted Monday morning on Truth Social. "The Dumacrats and Media have totally lost their way. They have gone absolutely CRAZY!!! President DJT."

In the latest reporting on what's actually happening in peace talks between the two nations, Iran says it has sent another amended set of terms on a possible peace agreement to the Trump administration through Pakistani mediators.

The president warned Sunday that "the Clock is Ticking" for Iran to accept a peace deal and threatened "there won't be anything left of them" if they don't agree soon.

A Republican congressman was accused of trying to bait his estranged wife's attorney into a fight earlier this month during a courthouse confrontation.

Rep. Max Miller (R-OH) is embroiled in a bitter divorce proceeding, and ex-wife Emily Moreno's legal team alleged that he approached her attorney Andrew Zashin following a May 7 pretrial hearing as his own legal team attempted to calm him down, reported the New York Post.

“[Miller] referenced Attorney Zashin’s fiancée by name, stated that she was ‘not much of a looker,’ or similar language, and further insinuated that she was a prostitute by claiming that he could find lots of women like Attorney Zashin’s fiancée on a street corner for $10,” Moreno’s legal team alleged in a court filing. “[The congressman] was very clearly trying to provoke Attorney Zashin and incite a confrontation between the two individuals."

“Attorney Zashin did begin to turn around to reasonably request that [Miller’s] Attorney [Larry] Zuckerman control his client," the filing added. “[Miller] continued to goad Attorney Zashin into a confrontation by saying ‘Come at me!’ or similar language. Attorney Zashin did not engage and exited the Courthouse.”

The couple married in 2022 and divorced two years later, and they share custody of a 2-year-old daughter.

Moreno's legal team cited the courthouse confrontation in a brief arguing for a restraining order against the congressman.

“Max Miller’s public meltdown is becoming increasingly concerning and embarrassing as he spirals completely out of control,” Moreno spokesperson Stefan Mychajliw told The Post. “His latest incident, attempting to start a fight with a lawyer in a courthouse, shows just how erratic and unstable he has become. Emily remains committed to reaching a peaceful resolution out of the public eye, both for her safety and his.”

A Miller-aligned source told the publication that the lawmaker was defending his girlfriend and was angry about Zashin’s previous comments about her, including an alleged reference to a sex act.

“Was it the best choice of words?” the source said. “No, but I think anyone who is defending their spouse or their loved one who’s under attack for no reason [will get emotional].”

Moreno has accused Miller of shoving her during a Feb. 1 custody exchange, which he has denied, and he recently sued his former spouse for defamation over abuse allegations.

A former MAGA congresswoman slammed Vice President JD Vance for his public criticism of Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY).

Massie is fighting for his political life in Tuesday's historically expensive Republican primary against President Donald Trump-endorsed candidate Ed Gallrein, and Vance criticized the Kentucky congressman as disloyal to the GOP.

"It's one thing to disagree with the party on a particular issue," Vance said Sunday at an event hosted by Turning Point USA. "It's one thing to have, you know, your independent stand on a number of questions, and by the way, some of the stuff where Thomas Massie has been independent against the Republican Party, I've agreed with him."

"Being independent, having your own opinions, is one thing," the vice president added. "Voting against the party on every single issue, you're eventually going to make too many enemies, and that is the problem that Thomas has had. It's not one issue, it's not three or four issues, it's that every time that we've needed Thomas for a vote, he has been completely unwilling to provide it. That is why the president of the United States has trained his ire on Thomas Massie. It's because we can never count on him for some of the most difficult votes."

Those remarks faced criticism from former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who split with the president over his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files that Massie pushed to be released.

"This is disappointing," Greene posted on X. "JD Vance attacks Thomas Massie, claiming he always votes against 'the party' and he did it at a Turning Point event of all places."

She then listed three points about the irony of Vance denouncing Massie at the Turning Point event.

"Charlie Kirk supported Thomas Massie and would have been opposed to Trump primarying him with Israel funding," Greene posted. "Massie votes against 'the party' when the party is trying to pass BAD America Last legislation like funding foreign wars, protecting poisons like glyphosate and covid vaccines, violating our second amendment, hurting small farmers and small businesses and creators with patents, and empowering the surveillance state."

"Thomas Massie is not the problem," she added. "'The Party' is the problem. And demanding loyalty to 'the party' is the most repulsive cult behavior we’ve ever seen in American politics."

A federal agency faced criticism for sharing an explicitly Christian social media post.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security posted a Bible verse Sunday afternoon as thousands gathered on the National Mall for an evangelical-style worship service called "Rededicate 250: A National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise & Thanksgiving" and endorsed by President Donald Trump.

DHS posted the following on its X account: “'But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.' 2 Peter 3:18. May our nation continue to be guided by the light of our Savior."

Critics said the post raised troubling concerns about the separation of church and state.

"I see your 2 Peter 3:18 and raise you one Article VI Clause 3 Part 2: '... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,'" challenged Georgetown law professor Matt Blaze.

"When a federal agency tasked with protecting all Americans decides to mandate a specific religious worldview, it ceases to protect democracy and begins to threaten it," warned Andrew Weinstein, a former public delegate to the United Nations.

"I know we're long past the point where this should be shocking anymore, but I still can't get over official government accounts stating that Jesus is 'our Savior,'" posted Joel Swanson, assistant professor of Jewish studies and religion at Sarah Lawrence College.

"Is it the official policy of the US Dept. of Homeland Security that no Jews serve there?" wondered Johns Hopkins economist Michael Clemens. "If not, who is the 'we' defined by belief in Jesus Christ as savior? Or does the 'our' refer to the Americans whose security the Department has a duty to protect, none of whom are apparently Jews?"

"An agency of the federal government posting about 'our Savior' is deeply shocking and offensive to millions of Americans," said Georgetown history professor Adam Rothman. "If the founders taught us anything, it's that people have a right to believe whatever they want but the government must not endorse one religious view over another."

"To be fair, when anyone in the Regime speaks of 'our Savior,' they mean Trump, not their imaginary friend," observed Bluesky user Dinsdale Piranha.

"Jesus Christ is our Savior? Since this is an official post from the Trump administration, it's strange that 'our Lord and Savior' isn't identified as Donald Trump," agreed journalist Steffen White. "Oh, well, there's plenty of time for that. Maybe next week."

"What's weird about all this stuff is that it doesn't even seem like they believe it any more than they believe Trump is a brilliant leader," opined writer Rebecca Solnit. "They're just to political commitment what, I dunno, AI slop is to Shakespeare."

"Pretty sure Our Savior Jesus Christ isn't about beating, imprisoning, starving, denying medical care and murdering unarmed nonviolent people," noted popular Bluesky user Ms Kitty. "That doesn't seem like grace to me."

"I know there's lot of horrible things happening in government – but I just have to say that as a fed employee for 35 yr who for the last 2 decades was responsible for the overall messaging – and legality – of various fed social media accounts, this is one of the most horrifying things I've seen," pointed out veteran meteorologist Alan Gerard.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has fundamentally transformed the role of the nation's top lawyer before the Supreme Court, according to a longtime court correspondent, abandoning the traditional norms of the office to embrace a confrontational, MAGA-aligned advocacy style that has proven remarkably effective with the court's conservative supermajority.

Unlike predecessors who balanced partisan interests with broader federal government concerns, Sauer has locked arms with conservative justices to advance Trump's executive power agenda, wrote CNN's Joan Biskupic. His arguments have been notably more politically charged than those of prior solicitors general, echoing Trump's rhetoric directly in Supreme Court briefs and oral arguments.

"Sauer has defied the studied detachment of the solicitor general’s office and openly retained his MAGA-warrior sensibility," Biskupic wrote. "When the administration lost the dispute over Trump’s tariffs on foreign goods — a rare, conspicuous defeat — Sauer was at the president’s side as he denounced the justices. Standing before television cameras, Trump called justices 'an embarrassment to their families.'"

His arguments in that Supreme Court case were some of the most politically charged of the current session," she added.

Sauer's influence is most evident in the Supreme Court's recent evisceration of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais. Dissenting Justice Elena Kagan pointedly noted that the majority "largely filches" ideas from "the Solicitor General" about overturning voting rights precedents after the Trump administration switched its position in this long-running case, withdrawing support for maps protecting Black-majority congressional districts — a shift that helped Republicans.

A Rhodes Scholar with a Harvard law degree and a clerkship under Justice Antonin Scalia, Sauer brings elite credentials combined with zealous ideological commitment, Biskupic wrote. He first gained prominence winning Trump immunity from criminal prosecution in 2024 and previously helped lead states challenging the 2020 election results.

In pending cases like Trump v. Slaughter, Sauer is pushing to overturn a 1935 precedent restricting presidential removal power over independent agency officials. He argues the president must control "all exercises of executive power," calling the 1935 precedent "a decaying husk with bold and particularly dangerous pretensions."

Legal experts say his aggressive tactics work only because they "align with the Supreme Court's own jurisprudential preferences," and Biskupic said Sauer has faced minimal pushback from conservative justices – who she said sometimes step in to help him out.

"Often when liberals pounce on Sauer’s arguments, conservatives come to his defense," Biskupic wrote. "That happened in the Trump v. Slaughter case that could give the president a freer hand to fire the heads of independent regulatory agencies."

Biskupic recounted the episode where senior liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged Sauer’s argument for the reversal of precedent in that case, but he got an assist.

"A few beats later, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of Trump’s three Supreme Court nominees, threw him a lifeline," Biskupic wrote.

President Donald Trump, now approaching his 80th birthday, is displaying behavioral changes that have raised questions about his fitness for office, even as his White House dismisses mounting concerns about his age and mental acuity.

Unlike former President Joe Biden, whose physical decline became visibly apparent as he aged, Trump hasn't faced the same scrutiny for his apparent deterioration despite scaling back his travel, switching to more comfortable shoes and frequent snoozes during meetings, reported The Atlantic's Jonathan Lemire.

"I have long thought that a reason for that is the president’s sheer size," Lemire wrote. "Trump stands 6 foot 3 and, according to his most recent physical, weighs 224 pounds (yes, questioning that number is a legitimate thing to do). He is a big presence in any room, as opposed to Biden, who grew visibly thinner as he got older, adding to the appearance of frailty. Trump is also LOUD; Biden’s voice was frequently reduced to a gentle whisper. And Trump has the gift of omnipresence."

"His genius is in capturing attention. Biden’s public schedule grew sparse, and he actively avoided generating news; Trump holds multiple events in front of the press nearly every day," Lemire added. "He fills Americans’ TV screens and social-media feeds seemingly nonstop, with an almost unspoken message: How could he be fading if he’s everywhere?"

Trump has dramatically scaled back domestic travel compared to his first term, preferring extended "executive time" spent watching cable television, Lemire wrote. He now rarely conducts public events before late morning. When appearing publicly, Trump increasingly delivers remarks seated at the Resolute Desk rather than standing at a podium. On multiple occasions, observers have noted his eyes closing for extended periods during official events — instances the White House has dismissed as "blinking."

Most notably, the reporter added, Trump's social media behavior has intensified dramatically. In December, he posted 160 times in a single night. His Truth Social account regularly features late-night barrages containing misinformation, including false claims about the 2020 election, racist content depicting the Obamas, and apocalyptic threats toward Iran. In one April posting spree, Trump amplified content depicting himself as Jesus before eventually deleting it while claiming he thought it showed him as a doctor.

Trump's public remarks now feature increasingly pronounced tangents and disinhibition, Lemire wrote. At a White House Christmas reception, he spent nearly 10 minutes recounting a rambling story about White House doctors, Barack Obama's daughters, and Peruvian snakes — repeatedly interrupting himself to claim his health exceeds that of former presidents.

"Trump has also switched to more comfortable shoes, tossing aside the dressier pairs he used to wear for $145 Florsheims, and then giving them to aides, an act of generosity that — call me cynical here — also makes his own pair stand out less," Lemire wrote. "Then there are his hands: Throughout this term, Trump has sported a deep bruise on his right hand, which at times is covered up (poorly) with makeup. When asked about it, he has said he takes a lot of aspirin to have 'thin blood,' perhaps to ward off clots, strokes, or heart attacks. White House aides have said that leads to bruising after handshakes. But in recent weeks, the bruising has also been spotted on his left, non-shaking hand."

The White House brushed off Lemire's questions about Trump's behavior and scheduling changes.

“Here’s where you’re wrong, Jonathan,” replied White House Communications Director Steven Cheung. “President Trump has done more public events and has engaged with the press more than any other president in history.”

However, a Washington Post poll recently found 59 percent of Americans believe Trump lacks the mental sharpness necessary to lead the country. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called Trump "an extremely sick person," while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries termed him "unhinged."

Some Republican lawmakers quietly question Trump's judgment, particularly regarding his prioritization of vanity projects over promised economic improvements. One GOP lawmaker criticized Trump's proposed 250-foot monument between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, noting: "No one wants an arch when people can't afford to buy gas."

Trump will undergo his fourth publicly disclosed medical checkup of his second term on May 26, and he has repeatedly boasted about acing cognitive tests, though such claims typically raise rather than resolve fitness questions.

Veterans of Biden’s White House have expressed regrets that they did not address the growing concerns about the former president's age, which burst into view in a disastrous 2024 debate and eventually forced his withdrawal from the campaign.

"[Our] outdated approach to media undercut Joe Biden’s superpower — his connection with working people," said Andrew Bates, who was the senior deputy press secretary for Biden.

Trump has a different problem, that former official added.

“The most obvious impact of age on him is that he has lost the capacity to pretend he cares about other people,” Bates said.

MS NOW's Joe Scarborough wondered if President Donald Trump's advanced age explained his increasingly erratic policies.

The president will turn 80 years old next month, the "Morning Joe" host said reacting to a newly published piece in The Atlantic by co-host Jonathan Lemire that highlighted growing concerns about Trump's age-related decline.

"Any suggestion that Donald Trump has dementia or is losing whatever, it's ridiculous," Scarborough said. "I said the same thing about Joe Biden, went and talked to him for three hours, and, yes, Biden was moving very slow, very stiff. Donald Trump may be slowing down, but I think what we're really seeing here, and what I really pulled from your article is that for the president, who's about to turn 80 this month, this next month, for a president, who is always been erratic, as he turns 80, we are seeing some diminished capacities with anybody who would turn 80."

"But that erraticism, we are seeing it exaggerated, and I wonder if that's what we see playing out, where he's just not just saying the quiet part out loud," Scarborough added. "He's screaming it."

Scarborough pointed to the president's increasingly erratic and belligerent foreign policy as an example.

"He wants to abandon our Polish allies, he wants to abandon Ukraine, as he as he continues to do," Scarborough said. "He wants to abandon our German allies. he wants to do everything he can do to help Vladimir Putin. Because make no mistake of it, all the people that have been going around yelling 'Russia hoax, Russia hoax, Russia hoax,' and will be triggered by this because of their own unique version of 'Trump derangement syndrome.'"

"What you actually have is a president doing everything that Vladimir Putin would want him to do," he added. "Just ask anybody that's been in this field – Vladimir Putin, couldn't call these shots any better himself, and so whatever draws him to Vladimir Putin, whatever drew him to Putin in his 70s, it seems to be even more exaggerated now as he turns 80."

Lemire agreed, saying Trump has become even less inhibited as he ages.

"What's really here, and people I've talked to suggest that as he has aged, he has even less and less of a filter," Lemire said. "Now, let's be clear, Donald Trump has never been one for self-censoring, but he is someone who now is more purely himself as he ages. It's disinhibition, there's whatever pops in his head, he says, and he also relies more and more, as you just said, Joe, falls back on these instincts, one of them being reflexively sort of, you know, deference to strongmen, whether that is Xi Jinping and China. We saw that on vivid display last week, and certainly for a decade or more, what we have seen with Vladimir Putin, and there really is no other reason for this."

- YouTube youtu.be

A coalition of more than 60 conservative allies is calling on President Donald Trump to require mandatory testing and government approval of the most powerful artificial intelligence systems before they reach the public.

The letter, organized by Humans First — a conservative group that advocates for technology serving people rather than replacing them — was signed by prominent Trump ally Steve Bannon, along with conservative activists Amy Kremer and Brendan Steinhauser, putting the vocal MAGA faction at direct odds with the White House's approach to AI regulation, reported Axios.

"This letter takes us next level," Bannon told Axios. "The letter lays out [that] we must have mandatory testing and government approval."

Bannon, who hosts the influential "War Room" podcast, has spent more than a year sounding alarms within MAGA circles about AI's potential to devastate American jobs.

"The most powerful AI systems, which can now, or soon will be able to, assist in designing bioweapons, breaking into critical infrastructure, or manipulating financial markets, should be treated with the same seriousness and care," the letter states. "For this reason, we support proposed policies that require mandatory testing, evaluation, vetting, and government approval of potentially dangerous frontier AI systems before they are deployed."

The letter also takes direct aim at AI company executives, accusing unnamed "unelected elites" of experimenting on the public without safeguards or accountability — framing stricter regulation as an "America First" imperative.

"America did not become the greatest nation in the world by allowing unelected elites to experiment on the public without safeguards or accountability," the letter states. "America First means American strength, American security, and the protection of our people first."

The prevailing White House view favors a light regulatory touch and has moved to roll back most state-level AI legislation, and even administration officials open to AI evaluation have stopped short of endorsing formal government approval requirements.

President Donald Trump took a victory lap after one of his most hated Republican rivals finished last in a three-way GOP primary.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) was among only seven Senate Republicans who voted to convict him over Jan. 6, and the 79-year-old president endorsed Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA) to unseat him, and state treasurer John Fleming forced a runoff after finishing in second place after funding his own campaign.

"Bill Cassidy, after falsely using his 'relationship' with me during his political career, and winning Elections because of it, voted to impeach me on preposterous charges that were fake then, and now, are criminally insane!" Trump gloated late Saturday as the results came in.

"His disloyalty to the man who got him elected is now a part of legend," Trump added, "and it’s nice to see that his political career is OVER! I’d like to thank the Great People of the State of Louisiana, and this Big Victory will only make me work even harder for your success, and all that comes with it. I LOVE YOU ALL. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! President DONALD J. TRUMP."

President Donald Trump's ballroom project hit a procedural hurdle that may give Senate Republicans the cover they wanted.

The Senate parliamentarian ruled Saturday night that the GOP majority cannot include $1 billion for the proposed White House ballroom in their bill funding immigration enforcement under the strict rules for reconciliation bills, which could save them from a politically unpalatable vote, reported HuffPost.

“While we expect Republicans to change this bill to appease Trump, Democrats are prepared to challenge any change to this bill," said Jeff Merkley (D-OR), the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. "We cannot let Republicans waste our national treasure on a mission of chaos and corruption while turning a blind eye to the needs of the American people.”

Merkley announced the the decision in a press release because the parliamentarian doesn't make public statements, but Republicans could potentially try to rewire the provision Trump wants to fund security measures for the ballroom before they vote on the bill next week.

"A project as complex and large in scale as Trump’s proposed ballroom necessarily involves the coordination of many government agencies which span the jurisdiction of many Senate committees," Merkley said in his release.

The Oregon Democrat said the parliamentarian determined the ballroom provision inappropriately funds activities outside the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee that authored the proposal.

The 79-year-old president ordered the demolition of the White House East Wing last year and promised the ballroom would be funded by private donations, but he later demanded $1 billion in taxpayer funding for security features, although the entire project is broadly opposed by the public.

President Donald Trump's state visit to China ended with few gains for the United States, according to one of his biographers, and he predicted the president will try to whip up a win the only way he knows how.

Author Michael Wolff told The Daily Beast's "Inside Trump's Head" podcast that Chinese President Xi Jinping displayed political, economic and military dominance over the 79-year-old president during his visit to Beijing, and he said Trump has to realize his failure.

“I mean, I don’t see how you can characterize what happened in China as anything more than a win for the Chinese and an embarrassment for Trump,” Wolff said.

“Let’s remember: China was the point of Trump’s political enterprise," the author added. "China was responsible for all of the problems in America … This was Trump’s central issue — [it] was the central issue in 2016, remained the central issue when he came back into office. In 10 years of the Trump era, we have only seen China become more powerful economically, politically, and in their military, so that’s what Trump has accomplished.”

Trump likes to project a posture of dominance, according to his former biographer, but he said the president often ends up groveling when his bullying doesn't work.

“It’s interesting that he can go from pure confrontation to pure sucking up,” Wolff said. “Again, there are no goals here. The goals are really irrelevant to the fact that Trump can come out of a situation and say, ‘I won,’ which he’s doing now: ‘It’s all great, everything is perfect, nothing to see here – all good.’”

The president is likely self-aware enough to understand the perception that his visit didn't produce the results he had hoped.

“I think he probably does understand, ‘Man, these Chinese, this has been a lot more difficult than I thought it would be, we’re really kind of screwed here, so how do I look — me personally — look less screwed?’” Wolff said.

That means Trump will try to save face the same way he always does, Wolff said – and that's cashing in for himself and his family.

“It’s always ‘Look, what’s the silver lining here?’ and what’s the silver lining is always how much money can we make off of this," Wolff said. "You know, life is a transaction: 'How do we get something? Even if the overall deal is not looking good, maybe there’s side deals we can we can get,' and I think that we’re going to see likely side deals galore.”

There's a bleak irony in the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court striking down one of the highest points in American democracy, argued New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie.

The conservative majority severely weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, ruling that protecting minority representation in congressional maps is unconstitutional, and Bouie argued in a new column titled "the law they hate was a high point in our history" that they had betrayed democratic values.

"The Voting Rights Act of 1965 wasn’t the top-down dictate of a rogue, liberal Supreme Court — if such a thing has ever existed," he wrote. "It wasn’t the brainchild of out-of-touch bureaucrats in Washington, nor was it some kind of martial settlement imposed on the states of the former Confederacy."

"It was, instead, an achievement of the most effective social movement of the postwar United States," the columnist added. "The Voting Rights Act revitalized American democracy and stands as one of its great achievements."

The swift response to the ruling by Republican state legislatures made the landmark law appear to have been an imposition by an outside force, but Bouie said it was instead the years-long work off grassroots activists who risked their lives to secure their fundamental rights, and the act was signed into law by a president elected in one of the largest landslides in U.S. history and reauthorized by Congress over and over.

"If there is any single law that you could plausibly say represents the general will of the American people, it might be one that was reaffirmed nearly every decade for 40 years by the people’s representatives," Bouie argued. "This isn’t just a historical point or a piece of idle trivia. It is essential. And it gets to what is so egregious about the court’s campaign against the law."

The Voting Rights Act was an effort to fulfill the promise of the Constitution's 15th Amendment, itself the result of the sacrifices made in the Civil War, to make democracy real for all Americans, Bouie argued, and he bitterly noted the irony of this particular court undoing those hard-won gains.

"The Voting Rights Act has more — much more — democratic legitimacy than this Supreme Court has ever enjoyed," Bouie wrote. "After all, most of this court’s conservative majority was appointed by presidents who entered office as winners of the Electoral College but not the popular vote."

"It is that relative difference in democratic legitimacy that makes this court’s voting rights jurisprudence so offensive," he added.