According to her expenses, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been charging the American taxpayer thousands of dollars for dance lessons and lavish parties at Mexican restaurants.
X account, Paul A. Syzpula, posted AOC’s expenses, showing she spent $850 on “training” from a dance company and $3,384 at a Mexican restaurant in Virginia.
Between October and December 2024, AOC also had at least 22 people working at a cost of nearly half a million dollars, all footed by the taxpayer.
.@AOC got dance lessons on 12/13/2024 from Bombazo Dance Co Inc and made the US taxpayer cover the $850 bill for that “training.”
On the same day there was $3,700 paid to Juan D Gonzalez for more “training.”
— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) March 8, 2025
Syzpula also looked at Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s records, which showed a bill for her car lease at the cost of nearly $1,000 a month, meaning she owns three luxury cars.
.@RepJasmine Crockett made American workers pay for her car lease again in all three months from 10/1/24 to 12/31/24.
The “AUTOMOBILE LEASE” payment is $999.68/month.
One such expense is dated 10/16 and near the bottom of this disbursement page.
— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) March 8, 2025
Of course, we all know that what the Democrats say and what they actually do are two very different things.
Another example of the Democrats’ vulgar display of entitlement is California Rep. Eric Swalwell, who was busted last year for charging taxpayers for his childcare costs, fancy meals out at Four Seasons steakhouses, and even a stay at the Burj-Al-Arab, the world’s only “Seven Star” hotel located in Dubai.
Rep. Eric Swalwell spent millions of dollars in campaign funds on his own childcare costs, Four Seasons steakhouses and staying at the Burj Al Arab in Dubai, campaign filings show. pic.twitter.com/67oeD3xV53
While these expenses are just the tip of the iceberg, it’s important to not that the real issue is leftist NGOs enjoying billions from the taxpayer—most notably with George Soros‘ organizations, which received a staggering $260 million from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—it’s no surprise the U.S. was on the verge of bankruptcy.
Visit Daily Fetched to read more articles like this.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other Democratic congresswomen appeared in an anti-Trump “Choose Your Fighter” TikTok clip that went viral for all the wrong reasons.
The video, initially posted by cookbook author and influencer Sulhee Jessica Woo, was immediately roasted by users on X.
Watch:
“Choose your fighter!” Yeah, no thanks.
Democrats keep outdoing themselves with dumbness. Who is getting paid big consulting bucks to come up with this stuff??
Not even the TikTok generation wants to vote for these people. 😂
The Trump administration didn’t waste time trolling the congresswomen with their own White House montage, which showed President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and other members of the Republican administration with the caption “America Chose Its Fighters Last November.”
The clip featured Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on horseback and border czar Tom Homan walking away from a helicopter.
Also appearing in the video were Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.
Watch:
Remember that “choose your fighter” video the Democrat members of Congress put out earlier today?
The White House just responded with their own video:
Meanwhile, the Democratic House members’ video, which included Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois, Rep. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, Rep. Judy Chu of California, Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, and Rep. Susie Lee of Nevada, was widely mocked on social media.
AOC, who appeared in the clip, said “She is a Trekkie,” while Clark, 61, said she doesn’t like hair dye.
Crockett, 43, disclosed she’s not a morning person, while Underwood, 38, insisted she doesn’t like balloons.
Unsurprisingly, the clip failed to hit the mark.
“Democrats Not Be Cringe Challenge,” the Trump administration’s Rapid Response account wrote on X. “Level: Impossible.”
“The problem isn’t policy failures, economic anxiety, or a general sense that everything is coming apart at the seams,” political writer Matt Lewis wrote.
“No, no — the real issue is that voters just don’t know how much fun their representatives are!”
Punchbowl News reporter Ben Brody called it “hilariously cringey.”
“One of the worst parts about this: the Choose Your Fighter trend was popular on TikTok like 3 years ago,” journalist Peter Hamby wrote.
President Donald Trump said that unhinged Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, “should be forced to pass an IQ test because he is a low IQ individual and we don’t need low IQ individuals in Congress,” following his disruptive stunt during the President’s joint session address.
“He should be censured,” Trump told Fox News.
“He should be forced to pass an IQ test because he is a low IQ individual and we don’t need low IQ individuals in Congress.”
Trump described Green as “a fool and a clown.”
“Nobody takes him seriously,” Trump said.
“He is an embarrassment to Congress but a much bigger embarrassment to the Democrats.”
The House of Representatives censured Green for interrupting Tuesday’s joint session address to Congress.
“Al Green’s childish outburst exposed the chaos and dysfunction within the Democrat party since President Trump’s overwhelming win in November and his success in office thus far. It is not surprising 198 Democrats refused to support Green’s censure given their history of radical, inflammatory rhetoric fueled by Trump Derangement Syndrome,” House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., said.
The Democrat was removed from Trump’s joint address to Congress after repeatedly disrupting the President’s speech.
As Trump touted Republican victories in the House, Senate, and White House, Green shouted, “You have no mandate!”
The U.S. Sergeant-at-Arms later removed Green.
Other Democrats engaged in silent and vocal acts of protest against Trump, including refusing to stand or clap when Trump designated a 13-year-old boy an honorary Secret Service agent.
The House speaker publicly challenged Democrats to vote with Republicans in favor of the censure.
“Despite my repeated warnings, he refused to cease his antics, and I was forced to remove him from the chamber,” Johnson posted on X.
“He deliberately violated House rules, and an expeditious vote of censure is an appropriate remedy. Any Democrat who is concerned about regaining the trust and respect of the American people should join House Republicans in this effort.”
CIA analyst and former National Security Council official Eric Ciaramella, the “whistleblower” connected to President Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment, is back in the spotlight regarding Adam Schiff‘s connection to Ukraine.
Former Ukrainian diplomat Andrei Telashchenko alleged that he was present when Ciaramella met with then-President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden while they discussed Ukraine behind closed doors.
Telashchenko’s claims raise new concerns about Ciaramella’s role in U.S.-Ukraine relations during Obama’s presidency, notably with policies that became a key factor in the first impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Ciaramella was identified as the anonymous whistleblower during Trump’s impeachment inquiry after famously filing a complaint about Trump’s “perfect” phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The complaint was ultimately used to launch an impeachment vote in the House, led by then-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff.
President Trump has long accused Schiff of lying and manipulating intelligence in order to push narratives that weaponized the government against him.
FBI Director Kash Patel, who played a crucial role in exposing the Trump “Russia Russia Russia” collusion hoax, is now digging deep into Schiff’s involvement. Patel said he has “strong feelings” about Schiff’s actions and probable ties to Ciaramella’s role in Ukraine-related controversies.
The sudden resurfacing of Ciaramella’s name into the spotlight has now reignited debate over the integrity of the 2019 impeachment proceedings against Trump.
Elon Musk responded to the revelations on X, writing:
“Did Adam Schiff commit treason? Sounds like he did.”
Watch:
🚨🇺🇸 SEN. SCHIFF "IN DEEP TROUBLE" OVER UKRAINE CONNECTIONS
Eric Ciaramella, the whistleblower tied to Trump’s 2019 impeachment, is back in the spotlight over Adam Schiff’s Ukraine connections.
WLT writer, Noah, asked Grok to analyze what Schiff may have allegedly done, and whether it could amount to treason, here’s what it said:
To construct the strongest argument supporting the claim that Adam Schiff committed treason, we must first define “treason” under U.S. law and then align the argument with available evidence and reasoning, while critically assessing the narrative. Treason, as defined in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, requires two elements: (1) levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, and (2) providing them aid and comfort. It also requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court. The argument below is built on public statements, actions, and sentiment, particularly from critics, while acknowledging the legal threshold for treason is extraordinarily high and rarely met.
Argument: Adam Schiff Committed Treason by Fabricating Evidence to Undermine a Sitting President
Adam Schiff, as a prominent Democratic Representative and later Senator, is accused by critics of committing treason through his actions during the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and Donald Trump’s subsequent presidency. The core of the argument is that Schiff knowingly fabricated or exaggerated claims of evidence linking Trump to Russia, with the intent to destabilize a duly elected president, thereby aiding foreign adversaries and undermining the U.S. government.
Claim of Fabricated Evidence: Critics assert that Schiff repeatedly claimed to possess concrete, classified evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 election. For instance, during his tenure as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff stated on multiple occasions—such as in media appearances—that he had seen evidence of collusion that was more than circumstantial. However, when pressed to produce this evidence, particularly after the Mueller Report (released in April 2019) found no sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, Schiff allegedly failed to substantiate his claims. Posts on X and statements from Trump supporters highlight this, accusing him of lying about the Steele Dossier or other intelligence that was later debunked or unverified.
Intent to Overthrow or Weaken the Government: The argument posits that Schiff’s actions were not mere political posturing but a deliberate attempt to overthrow or cripple Trump’s presidency. By promoting the “Russia collusion” narrative, Schiff is said to have led a campaign—supported by Democrats and media outlets—that amounted to a “coup” against a sitting president. Critics, including those on X, argue this was an act of sedition or treason because it sought to delegitimize the government’s executive branch, potentially inciting unrest or weakening U.S. leadership on the global stage. Trump himself amplified this view, calling Schiff’s actions “treason” and suggesting he should be arrested, as noted in posts and news reports from 2019 and beyond.
Aid and Comfort to Enemies: The treason claim hinges on the idea that Schiff’s actions indirectly aided foreign enemies, particularly Russia. By amplifying a narrative of Russian interference without conclusive proof, he allegedly played into Russia’s hands—since sowing discord and distrust in U.S. institutions is a known tactic of foreign adversaries. If Schiff knowingly lied, the argument goes, he provided Russia with a propaganda victory, eroding American unity and credibility, thus giving “aid and comfort” to an enemy. This is a stretch legally but resonates with critics who see his actions as reckless or malicious.
Public and Political Consequences: Schiff’s role in Trump’s first impeachment (2019-2020) over the Ukraine call—where he paraphrased Trump’s conversation in a way critics called a fabrication—further fuels the argument. Trump tweeted in September 2019, “Arrest for Treason?” about Schiff, claiming he misrepresented the call to Congress and the public. The House censured Schiff in June 2023 for his role in the Russia probe, with Republicans like Anna Paulina Luna accusing him of abusing his position. This censure, while symbolic, is cited as evidence of wrongdoing that aligns with the treason narrative.
Supporting Evidence and Sentiment
Statements and Actions: Schiff’s public assertions about Russian collusion, contrasted with the Mueller Report’s findings, are the backbone of the claim. His 2019 impeachment paraphrase of Trump’s Ukraine call, which he admitted was partly satirical but presented as serious, is seen as evidence of deceit.
Trump’s Accusations: Trump’s repeated labeling of Schiff as a traitor, including in January 2025 remarks about the Jan. 6 committee, lends weight among his base. Trump called the entire committee’s work “TREASON” in a New York Times-reported statement. Public Sentiment on X: Posts from users like @CjmMccarth39414 and @thewildbill59 (March 2025) explicitly call Schiff’s actions treasonous, reflecting a belief that lying about evidence to undermine a president crosses a legal and moral line.
Counterpoints and Weaknesses
Legally, this argument struggles to meet the Constitution’s strict definition of treason. No evidence shows Schiff levied war or directly adhered to an enemy like Russia—his actions were political, not military. The “aid and comfort” claim is speculative, lacking two witnesses to an overt act. Critics might argue he was exercising his congressional role, however aggressively, not committing a crime. The Mueller Report’s inconclusive findings don’t prove Schiff lied knowingly; he could have been mistaken or overzealous. The censure reflects partisan disagreement, not a legal conviction.
Conclusion
The best argument for Schiff committing treason rests on the narrative that he knowingly fabricated evidence to destabilize Trump’s presidency, indirectly aiding Russia by amplifying division—acts framed as a betrayal of the nation. While compelling to his detractors, it falls short of legal treason without direct proof of intent and enemy collaboration. It thrives as a political accusation rather than a prosecutable case, rooted in the polarized lens of Trump-era conflicts.
Elon Musk dropped a shocking revelation about how the government handed the Navy $12 billion to build new submarines, only to find that not a single submarine was built with the money.
Musk, who revealed that he first heard the revelation from Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), said Navy officials shrugged when asked where the money for the submarines went.
“There’s a case where I think Senator Collins was telling me about how she gave the Navy $12 billion for more submarines, got no extra submarines, and then held a hearing to say where the $12 billion went,” Musk told Joe Rogan.
“And they were like, we don’t know. That was it. I mean, basically, stuff is so crazy only the Federal Government could get away with this level of waste,” Musk added.
Watch:
Elon Musk Exposes the “Biggest Scam Ever”
“I thought it would be bad, but I did not think it would be as bad as this.”
The Tesla CEO noted how the government could save $100 billion a year just by forcing agencies to explain what their payments are for.
Under the current system, the government can send payments with no categorization code, meaning they do not have to explain what it’s for—essentially handing out blank checks.
Musk further explained that public companies would be immediately delisted, and their executives would “be thrown in prison” if they were to do the same thing.
Watch
Elon Musk just exposed what he calls the “biggest scam” in U.S. history during his viral appearance on episode #2281 of The Joe Rogan Experience.
The focus of the conversation was government waste and abuse—and Musk had plenty to say.
Both Musk and Rogan then expressed outrage over how National Security Agency (NSA) staffers spent taxpayer time turning government servers into porn chat rooms.
“Your tax dollars at work,” Musk mocked.
“That’s not what they should be talking about at all. Supposed to be protecting the country.”
Watch:
“Your tax dollars at work,” Musk mocked.
“That’s not what they should be talking about at all. Supposed to be protecting the country.” pic.twitter.com/CkSZsqFczJ
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard fired the NSA workers after it was discovered they engaged in explicit behavior on group chats.
“This behavior is unacceptable and those involved WILL be held accountable,” Gabbard posted on X.
Musk went on to slam the so-called “threat to democracy” slogan, describing it as a cover for a “threat to bureaucracy.”
He also exposed the government’s use of taxpayer-funded NGOs as a loophole to funnel billions of dollars into shady organizations—doing things that would be illegal if the government did it themselves.
Musk said that the term NGO is an “oxymoron” because the government funds these so-called nongovernmental organizations.
“The whole NGO thing is a nightmare. And it’s a misnomer because if you have a government-funded nongovernmental organization, you’re simply a government-funded organization. It’s an oxymoron,” Musk explained.
As we reported last week, a left-wing nongovernmental organization (NGO) received $17 million in U.S. taxpayer money to create a low-quality Muppets knock-off puppet show to “promote democracy.”
The show was created by The United States Democracy Center, an NGO founded by an anti-Trump figure who played a key role in the President’s first impeachment.
“They got money, and they did something with that. It was just awful. Jim Henson would roll in his grave. And it was weird because all the videos have less than 200 views,” DataRepublican, who exposed the scam, explained.
“They didn’t even try to promote them with ads or anything. So where did the $17 million go?” she asked.
Watch
NEW: DataRepublican exposes how an NGO claiming to promote “democracy” received $17 million—and “the only thing they did with $17 million was make a terrible muppet show.”
“That’s (explicit word)!”
The NGO, co-founded by Norm Eisen, calls itself the “States United Democracy… pic.twitter.com/x8YFoJwEYT
DataRepublican also exposed the “Uniparty” as a group of NGOs partially funded by the American taxpayer.
Several NGOs, heavily backed by USAID and the U.S. State Department, act as the Uniparty’s enforcement arm, pushing propaganda under the guise of “protecting democracy,” according to her investigation.
During the Cold War, the group shifted its mission from spreading democracy to consolidating its power under the guise of protecting democracy.
🧵THE UNIPARTY UNMASKED – They Believe They Are “Democracy”
The seven NGOs in the chart below, in my view, represent the Uniparty. Each of these organizations receives substantial financial support from USAID or the Department of State.
Chairwoman of the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), has thrown shade on Attorney General Pam Bondi’s release of the Jeffrey Epstein client list, arguing the previous setbacks have not instilled confidence in her.
During an interview with Rep. Matt Gaetz on One America News Network (OANN), Luna echoed millions of frustrated conservatives who took to social media to vent anger over the heavily redacted Epstein file release last week.
Just last month, Bondi claimed on Fox News she was “actively reviewing” the Epstein, JFK, and MLK files.
Following the release of the files, Luna took to X, writing:
“AG Pam Bondi, We saw over the weekend you are reviewing all files from JFK to Epstein! We are ALL anticipating their release! When will they be declassified and available to the public?”
.@AGPamBondi We saw over the weekend you are reviewing all files from JFK to Epstein! We are ALL anticipating their release! When will they be declassified and available to the public?
The conservative firebrand didn’t stop there and brutally doubled down in a follow-up post:
“On Feb 11 & Feb 19, House Oversight sent a letter to the DOJ asking for status on releasing the Epstein files as well as JFK, etc. The DOJ has not responded. Reaching out on X because we can’t seem to get a response from the AG. AG Pam Bondi, what is the status of the documents? These documents were ordered to be declassified.”
On Feb 11 & Feb 19, house oversight sent a letter to the DOJ asking for status on releasing the Epstein files as well as JFK etc.
The DOJ has not responded.
Reaching out on X because we can’t seem to get a response from the AG.@AGPamBondi what is the status of the…
There was also backlash against the apparent media spectacle of selected conservative influencers who received a binder of phase one of the Epstein documents, with many calling it a media circus.
Luna also vented frustration over the influencers receiving the binder before her committee. She again confronted Bondi over the disappointing release of the Epstein files.
“I nor the task force were given or reviewed the Epstein documents being released today… A NY Post story just revealed that the documents will simply be Epstein’s phonebook,” said Luna.
“THIS IS NOT WHAT WE OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ASKED FOR and a complete disappointment. GET US THE INFORMATION WE ASKED FOR!”
I nor the task force were given or reviewed the Epstein documents being released today… A NY Post story just revealed that the documents will simply be Epstein's phonebook.
THIS IS NOT WHAT WE OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ASKED FOR and a complete disappointment.
During her interview with Gaetz, Luna said she was not confident about the Epstein client list release.
“Are you confident, as you sit here now, that there will be an Epstein client list that the American people will see?” Gaetz asked her.
“I’m not confident on the Epstein client list because I haven’t had the briefing yet from the Department of Justice,” Luna responded.
“I’ll know more tomorrow on that. But based on what I’m hearing from the attorney general, she keeps saying that she is going to release something, so I’m going to take her at her word for that,” she added.
“Now, whether that something is a full list, we have asked for the full list. We have asked for all the documentation. We are pushing for maximum transparency. But again, we do not hold declassification authority. That is up to the attorney general.”
Watch:
Florida Congresswoman @RepLuna tells @MattGaetz she is “not confident” about the release of the Epstein Client List, but that “The Attorney General keeps saying she is going to release something.”
As many conservatives expressed outrage after finding that no new information was included in the file, Musk again defended Bondi, writing,
“Imagine if you were suddenly appointed AG or head of the FBI. You were just thrown on a ship with a hostile crew. Until you appoint some new crew members and figure out the ropes, you can’t steer the ship effectively. It’s literally impossible.”
Imagine if you were suddenly appointed AG or head of the FBI.
You were just thrown on a ship with a hostile crew.
Until you appoint some new crew members and figure out the ropes, you can’t steer the ship effectively. It’s literally impossible. https://t.co/cN2fQnZtGR
Not long after Bondi accused the FBI of lying to her about the documents, FBI Director Kash Patel also weighed in.
“The FBI is entering a new era—one that will be defined by integrity, accountability, and the unwavering pursuit of justice,” Patel said.
“There will be no cover-ups, no missing documents, and no stone left unturned — and anyone from the prior or current Bureau who undermines this will be swiftly pursued.”
“If there are gaps, we will find them,” he continued.
“If records have been hidden, we will uncover them. And we will bring everything we find to the DOJ to be fully assessed and transparently disseminated to the American people as it should be,” he added.
“The oath we take is to the Constitution, and under my leadership, that promise will be upheld without compromise.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth obliterated twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton after she accused him of cowering to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Clinton took to X to share an article written by Gizmodo titled, “Trump’s Defense Secretary Hegseth Orders Cyber Command to ‘Stand Down’ on All Russia Operations.”
Trump administration is working overtime to reduce tension with Russia as Ukraine refuses to negotiate a peace deal.
Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is calling for “boots on the ground” in Ukraine, but Clinton is attacking Hegseth for moving towards peace.
“It appears that the U.S. no longer considers Russia a significant cyber threat, according to multiple new reports on a drastic policy reversal that has taken hold under the new Trump administration,” the Gizmodo article read.
“The cybersecurity outlet The Record originally reported that under Trump’s new Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, U.S. Cyber Command has been ordered to ‘stand down from all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions.’ The outlet cites three anonymous sources who are familiar with the matter. The order reportedly does not apply to the National Security Agency,” the article continued.
“Wouldn’t want to hurt Putin’s feelings,” Hillary wrote, taunting Hegseth.
In 2009, Clinton announced that the Obama administration was going to push the reset button with the Russians.
Clinton was famously photographed presenting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a “reset” button, but she also managed to bungle that too.
Clinton told NPR in 2014 that “the reset worked” with Russia.
However, days later, Hillary told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that she was the “most skeptical” of the Russia “reset” policy.
The damage Clinton made as head of the Department of State was enough for Americans, and thankfully, President Trump defeated her in 2016, ending her political career forever.
During a recent appearance, Joe Rogan, Elon Musk outlined how left-wing billionaire George Soros has been fleecing American taxpayers through his non-profit organizations (NGOs), which push his radical agendas across the United States and the world.
The Tesla CEO, also leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), explained how Soros’ organizations lobby the U.S. government for millions in grants with zero accountability. Is it any wonder why the Democrats are running around like headless chickens as DOGE continues to expose their corruption?
Indeed, DOGE may well be the final nail in the coffin for left’s ability to fund their political machine.
“It’s a gigantic scam—one of the biggest, maybe the biggest scam ever,” Musk began.
“And how many NGOs are there?” Joe Rogan asked.
“I think the total number of NGOs is probably in the millions, but in terms of large NGOs—tens of thousands,” Musk replied.
“It’s actually kind of a hack to the system where someone can get an NGO stood up for a fairly small amount of money. George Soros was really good at this. He’s like a system hacker. He figured out how to hack the system. He’s a genius at arbitrage. I mean, these days, he’s pretty old, but he was a genius at arbitrage.
He figured out that you could leverage a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobby politicians to send a ton of money to that nonprofit. So you can take what might be a $10 million donation to create a nonprofit and leverage that into a billion-dollar NGO.”*
Musk continued:
“And ‘nonprofit’ is a weird word. It’s just a non-governmental organization. The government continues to fund it every year, and it’ll have a nice-sounding name like The Institute for Peace or something like that. But really, it’s a graft machine.”
“And what are the requirements for that money? What do they have to do?” Rogan asked.
“Really, no requirements at all,” Musk stated.
Watch:
NEW: @ElonMusk really has George Soros figured out.
"George Soros is a systems hacker. He is a genius arbitrager. He figured out that you could leverage a small amount of money to create a non-profit then lobby politicians to send a ton of money to that non profit so you can… pic.twitter.com/yWTfYb6SCk
Ukrainian Ambassador’s Reaction to Zelenskyy’s Volatile Meeting with Trump Goes Viral
The fiery meeting on Friday between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy captured the tense moment when Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova realized the magnitude of the damage done. The viral moment showed Markarova appearing distraught, with her head in her hand, as Trump questioned Zelenskyy about not wanting a ceasefire with Russia in front of the entire world.
Markarova lowered her head to her right hand and closed her eyes as Zelenskyy continued to dig a hole for himself in front of President Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Trump addressed Zelenskyy, saying, “You’re saying you don’t want a ceasefire. I want a ceasefire because you get a ceasefire faster than an agreement.”
The Ukrainian president responded, “I said to you … with guarantees. Ask our people about [a] ceasefire, [about] what they think.”
Trump immediately halted the conversation, saying, “That wasn’t with me.”
The picture of Markarova’s reaction to the car crash meeting paints a thousand words, demonstrating just how badly Zelenskyy had damaged U.S.-Ukraine relations following his contentious approach to keeping the gravy train going.
The CEO and co-founder of The Federalist published the moment in a post on the social media platform X.
The Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. appears to be the only Ukrainian in the room who understands how much damage Zelensky just did to his own cause. pic.twitter.com/nx8JDPg6ny
“The Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. appears to be the only Ukrainian in the room who understands how much damage Zelensky just did to his own cause,” Davis wrote. The confrontation ultimately ended with Zelenskyy being asked to leave the White House while the pending deal between Washington and Kyiv involving Ukrainian minerals was shelved.
Whatever Markarova was hoping for in terms of the outcome of the meeting, this was perhaps one of her worst nightmares—and it was clearly evident:
Ukraine's ambassador to the US Oksana Markarova's reaction to the clash between Trump and Zelensky. pic.twitter.com/jva0QWJnHB
Perhaps the most notable and surreal part of the meeting was when Zelenskyy appeared to threaten America with consequences for not meeting his demands.
“[There are] a lot of questions. Let’s start from the beginning. First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you, but you have a nice ocean [in between], and don’t feel it now, but you will feel it in the future. God bless you,” Zelensky told Trump.
As expected, Trump responded with fury:
“Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel… because you’re in no position to dictate that,” he said. “Remember this, you’re in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel. We’re going to feel good. We’re gonna feel very good and very strong.”
Not long after Zelenskyy was rushed out of the White House, Trump took to Truth Social, writing:
“President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE.”
Zelenskyy later posted to X, thanking America and Trump for their support and allowing the visit—perhaps coming to terms with the reality of what had just transpired.
“Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that,” he wrote in the post.
Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell sent a directive to the entire department on Wednesday, ordering that all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) materials be removed from “all official online content.”
The memo, titled “Digital Content Refresh,” read as follows:
“By March 5, 2025, Components must take all practicable steps, consistent with records management requirements, to remove all DoD news and feature articles, photos, and videos that promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). All articles, photos, and videos removed from DoD websites and social media platforms must be archived and retained in accordance with applicable records management policies.
DEI content includes but is not limited to information that promotes programs, concepts, or materials about critical race theory, gender ideology, and preferential treatment or quotas based upon sex, race, or ethnicity, or other DEI-related matters with respect to promotion and selection reform, advisory boards, councils, and working groups.
Content requiring removal also includes that which is counter to merit-based or color-blind policies (e.g., articles that focus on immutable characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or sex) or promotes cultural awareness months as outlined in Secretary Hegseth’s January 31, 2025, Memorandum, “Identity Months Dead at DoD.”
“It said explicitly that the guidance does not apply to content required by law to be publicly available or related to normal installation or component operations and activities, including but not limited to, customer-focused content,” which includes base conditions, activities, and services; current and historical leadership biographies; DoD Education Activity school activities, operations, and notifications; and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation and Commissary operations and activities.
The news comes as the military services scramble to identify probationary workers the administration has targeted for firing under its campaign to slash the government workforce.
The firings included:
Gen. CQ Brown Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Lisa Franchetti, chief of naval operations Gen. Jim Slife, vice chief of the Air Force The judge advocates general for the services
Trump’s directive is part of a broader executive order dismantling federal DEI programs.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a January 31 memo titled “Identity Months Dead at DoD.”
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
