News

Scott Bessent Explains The Big Picture Everyone is Missing During the Shutdown
News

Scott Bessent Explains The Big Picture Everyone is Missing During the Shutdown

/

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday that the Trump administration’s reduction in government spending has gone largely unnoticed during the ongoing shutdown but has played a key role in helping the United States avoid a recession.

Bessent made the remarks during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” where he discussed the administration’s fiscal policies and the Federal Reserve’s recent rate cuts.

The Federal Reserve announced Wednesday that it would lower its benchmark interest rate by a quarter-point, bringing the range to between 3.75% and 4.00%.

During the interview, CNN host Jake Tapper asked Bessent whether the U.S. risked entering a recession if the Fed continued cutting rates too aggressively.

“I believe that we are in a transition period here as we are seeing the Trump administration has cut back on government spending,” Bessent said.

“What has gone unnoticed during the shutdown is, for the fiscal year that ended September 30, the government spent less than it did the year before. And because the GDP grew — the deficit-to-GDP which had been 6.4%, 6.5% deficit, the highest when we weren’t at war — we weren’t in a recession ever. We were able to bring it down to 5.9%.”

Bessent continued, “So we are bringing down government spending and I would think that the Fed would want to assist with that. Because if we go back and look, MIT just published a study that said 42% of the great inflation of 2022 came from excess government spending. So if we are contracting spending then I would think inflation would be dropping. [If] inflation is dropping then the Fed should be cutting rates.”

The Trump administration began implementing major spending cuts earlier in 2025, targeting what officials described as “inefficient or duplicative” programs across multiple agencies.

According to an October 4 update from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the administration’s cost-reduction initiatives saved an estimated $214 billion for taxpayers — roughly $1,329 per taxpayer.

The spending reductions coincided with a broader effort to rein in the federal deficit while addressing the shutdown’s fiscal impact.

Administration officials have argued that reduced government outlays are helping to stabilize inflation and ease pressure on working families despite temporary disruptions caused by the shutdown.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell had previously warned that continued rate cuts could increase inflationary risks if not balanced by sound fiscal management.

However, tensions between Powell and President Donald Trump over rate policy have been ongoing for months.

Trump has repeatedly called for the central bank to lower rates more aggressively to support growth, arguing that high interest rates are hindering small business expansion and homeownership.

Powell said earlier this year that the Fed would have cut rates sooner if not for the trade and tariff policies enacted by the administration.

The Fed’s first rate cut came on September 17, when it lowered the benchmark by a quarter-point to a range of 4.00% to 4.25%.

A second cut followed in October, bringing the rate to its current level.

Because of the shutdown, most federal economic data releases have been delayed, leaving analysts without recent updates on job growth, consumer spending, or inflation trends.

Tapper pressed Bessent on whether he believed the economy could slip into a broader recession if the Fed halts rate cuts.

“I think that we are in good shape, but I think that there are sectors of the economy that are in recession and the Fed has caused a lot of distributional problems there with their policies,” Bessent said.

“I wrote a 7,000-word essay on that. We’ve seen the biggest hindrance for housing here is our mortgage rates. So if the Fed brings down mortgage rates then they can end this housing recession. Low-end consumers who have gotten killed under President Biden, these high rates are hurting them because they have debt not assets. So I think that there are sections of the economy that could go into recession.”

Bessent reiterated his belief that the economy is in a “transition period,” contrasting his outlook with that of former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.

Yellen, under the Biden-Harris administration, had characterized inflation as “transitory,” a view that later proved incorrect as consumer prices surged during her tenure.

Bessent said his use of “transition” referred instead to a short-term shift in economic conditions as the administration reduces spending and stabilizes long-term growth.

WATCH:

Socialist NYC Mayoral Candidate Mamdani Faces Two Criminal Investigations
News

Socialist NYC Mayoral Candidate Mamdani Faces Two Criminal Investigations

/

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is facing two criminal referrals following allegations that his campaign accepted nearly $13,000 in contributions from donors with foreign addresses, in potential violation of federal and local election laws.

The complaints were filed on October 28, 2025, by the Coolidge Reagan Foundation (CRF), a conservative campaign finance watchdog.

The group submitted referrals to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division and to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, according to a report from Fox News.

The filings accuse Mamdani’s campaign of accepting prohibited foreign donations during the current election cycle.

A review of records from the New York City Campaign Finance Board (CFB) shows that Mamdani’s campaign received at least 170 donations totaling about $13,000 from contributors listing addresses outside the United States.

Those addresses included locations in Australia, Canada, Dubai, France, Germany, and Turkey.

One of the flagged donations was a $500 contribution from Mamdani’s mother-in-law, a pediatrician based in Dubai, which was refunded four days after it was made in January 2025.

Another involved a $2,100 donation in September 2025 from an investor also located in Dubai.

CRF President Dan Backer said the data revealed a “sustained pattern” of questionable contributions.

“This was a sustained pattern of foreign money flowing into a New York City mayoral race which is a clear violation of both federal law and New York City campaign finance rules,” Backer stated.

He added that refunds issued after the donations were received do not eliminate potential violations.

“The totality of the circumstances indicates likely illegal contributions, even if some donors might be U.S. citizens or green-card holders living abroad,” Backer said.

Federal law under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits foreign nationals — defined as individuals who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents — from contributing to any U.S. election.

The same restrictions apply to state and local races.

Knowingly accepting or soliciting such donations can carry penalties including fines or imprisonment.

CRF’s referral to the Department of Justice asserts that Mamdani’s campaign failed to properly vet donors and that the volume of foreign-linked contributions warranted criminal investigation.

As of mid-October 2025, campaign finance records showed that Mamdani’s team refunded 91 contributions totaling $5,723.50.

However, at the time of reporting, 88 additional donations amounting to about $7,190 had not yet been returned.

CRF Chairman Shaun McCutcheon called the donations a “threat to self-government” and urged immediate prosecution, saying that foreign money in U.S. elections “undermines public confidence in the democratic process.”

The Mamdani campaign acknowledged the donations but denied any wrongdoing.

Campaign spokesperson Dora Pekec said all contributions were reviewed through “a rigorous compliance process.”

She emphasized that federal, state, and city laws allow U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents living abroad to donate.

“The Campaign has a rigorous compliance process in place,” Pekec said.

“Refunds have and will be made.”

According to the campaign, 31 of the 170 questioned donors provided documentation proving U.S. citizenship or permanent residency, and the CFB determined that their contributions were permissible. The remaining 139 donations were refunded.

“Any issue regarding financial contributions has been resolved,” the campaign said in a written statement.

“We will of course return any donations that are not in compliance with CFB law.”

The allegations come just days before Tuesday’s mayoral election, where Mamdani, a self-described socialist and state assemblyman from Queens, is heavily favored to win.

His campaign has reported raising $4 million in private donations and qualifying for $12.7 million in public matching funds under New York City’s campaign finance program.

Mamdani’s opponents include Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa and former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after losing to Mamdani in the Democratic primary earlier this year.

Both challengers have called for greater scrutiny of campaign fundraising practices and transparency in donor reporting.

Trump Seeks Legal Path to Fund SNAP as ‘Radical Democrats’ Hold Americans Hostage
News

Trump Seeks Legal Path to Fund SNAP as ‘Radical Democrats’ Hold Americans Hostage

/

President Donald Trump announced Friday that his administration is seeking immediate legal clarification to allow funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which serves millions of Americans, as the federal shutdown nears its one-month mark.

The shutdown has halted funding for several federal programs, leaving approximately 42 million people at risk of losing access to food benefits.

President Trump said he has directed White House legal counsel to petition the courts to determine whether existing funds can be lawfully released to states so that benefits can continue without congressional action.

“Our Government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority to pay SNAP with certain monies we have available, and now two Courts have issued conflicting opinions on what we can and cannot do. I do NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT,” President Trump wrote in a statement released Friday.

The president said the administration’s legal team will move quickly to obtain judicial guidance.

“I have instructed our lawyers to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible. It is already delayed enough due to the Democrats keeping the Government closed through the monthly payment date and, even if we get immediate guidance, it will unfortunately be delayed while States get the money out. If we are given the appropriate legal direction by the Court, it will BE MY HONOR to provide the funding, just like I did with Military and Law Enforcement Pay,” he continued.

The statement marks one of the administration’s most direct responses to growing public concern over the shutdown’s effect on essential services.

While other funding measures—such as those protecting pay for military and law enforcement personnel—have been addressed, SNAP remains tied to the broader budget dispute in Congress.

President Trump blamed Senate Democrats for obstructing short-term funding proposals, accusing them of using the standoff for political advantage.

“Democrats should quit this charade where they hurt people for their own political reasons, and immediately REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT. If you use SNAP benefits, call the Senate Democrats, and tell them to reopen the Government, NOW! Here is Cryin’ Chuck Schumer’s Office Number: (202) 224-6542,” Trump said.

According to administration officials, two federal courts have issued differing opinions regarding the government’s authority to redirect certain funds during a shutdown.

That legal uncertainty has complicated efforts to resume SNAP payments at the state level. Without court approval or new congressional appropriations, the Department of Agriculture—which administers the program—cannot guarantee continued benefits.

The SNAP program, created to assist low-income families and individuals with food purchases, typically distributes benefits on a monthly schedule.

Several states have warned that they may be unable to issue February payments without new guidance or authorization.

The president’s move to seek judicial intervention reflects ongoing efforts to mitigate the shutdown’s impact while maintaining pressure on Congress to approve a funding bill.

The White House has maintained that Democrats are preventing a temporary funding solution that would reopen government agencies while broader negotiations continue.

As legal teams prepare to file motions for clarification, federal and state agencies remain in limbo, awaiting direction on how to manage the lapse in appropriations.

Administration officials said they hope to have preliminary guidance from the courts within days, but no formal timeline has been established.

President Trump’s call for legal action follows his earlier decisions to ensure that members of the military and federal law enforcement continued to receive pay during the shutdown.

He has framed those moves as necessary steps to protect Americans from political gridlock in Washington.

If the courts grant authorization, the administration is expected to release emergency funds to maintain SNAP benefits until a budget agreement is reached.

For now, however, the continuation of food assistance for millions of families remains tied to the outcome of both the legal process and the ongoing political impasse.

DHS Agents’ Sworn Testimony: Portland Police Failed as Antifa Riots Raged
News

DHS Agents’ Sworn Testimony: Portland Police Failed as Antifa Riots Raged

/

On the second day of testimony in Oregon v. Trump, et al., Department of Homeland Security officials defended the decision to deploy National Guard troops to assist federal agents at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland, Oregon.

The case centers on whether the federal government acted lawfully when it ordered Guard troops to respond to escalating violence and unrest outside the ICE building on Macadam Avenue.

The federal trial, held in U.S. District Court, began earlier this week.

Oregon state and city officials are challenging the legality of the deployment, arguing that sending National Guard troops into Portland constitutes governmental overreach and risks worsening tensions between demonstrators and law enforcement.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains that the move was necessary to protect federal property and personnel following months of attacks by organized protesters, many associated with Antifa-linked groups.

Two witnesses from the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Protective Service (FPS) testified Thursday, describing the ICE facility as a target of ongoing violence since early June.

Both witnesses criticized the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) for failing to respond to repeated calls for assistance during critical incidents.

The first witness, identified in court as “R.C.,” serves as the FPS Deputy Regional Director for Region 10 and has acted as incident commander at the ICE site multiple times since June.

R.C. testified that the facility has been under “sustained attack” by organized groups engaging in criminal conduct, including assaults on federal agents, blocking government vehicles, and attempting to breach the facility with improvised battering rams.

R.C. estimated that at least 180 law enforcement officers are required to properly secure the property each night.

He said the roughly 200 Oregon National Guardsmen federalized under President Donald Trump’s order would provide necessary relief to overextended federal personnel.

“National Guard troops would alleviate the strain on resources across all federal agencies currently deployed to the facility,” he told the court.

According to his testimony, federal officers from multiple agencies — including FPS, ICE Special Response Team (SRT), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Border Patrol, and the Bureau of Prisons — have been diverted from their normal duties to respond to the Portland unrest.

R.C. said many of these officers would otherwise be conducting operations against high-priority criminal targets.

He also described the emotional toll on federal personnel, saying agents are routinely subjected to verbal abuse and physical threats.

“Protesters hurl vile, racist, and other harmful rhetoric at agents around the clock,” R.C. said, explaining that staff rotations were shortened from 30 days to 20 days to mitigate burnout and mental health strain.

R.C. testified that repeated requests for support from the Portland Police Bureau went unanswered.

He referenced a meeting earlier this year with PPB Chief Bob Day, where cooperation protocols were discussed.

When asked whether those expectations were met, R.C. replied, “No.” He described the local department’s withdrawal as “a repeated pattern of abandonment,” leaving federal agencies to handle both crowd control and criminal incidents occurring within PPB’s jurisdiction.

The second FPS witness, identified as Commander “W.T.,” served as an incident commander biweekly from July through late September.

His testimony corroborated R.C.’s account, detailing how nightly protests continued without police intervention.

“Unlawful protests occurred every night,” W.T. said, recalling that PPB had withdrawn its officers from the area in late June.

W.T. cited multiple examples of vandalism, verbal harassment, and attacks on officers.

He said agitators regularly used shields, ballistic vests, high-powered flashlights, and lasers to interfere with law enforcement operations.

“They’ve even urged officers to ‘kill themselves,’” he told the court.

One documented event, referred to as the “guillotine incident,” occurred on September 1.

Demonstrators reportedly placed a mock guillotine in the roadway outside the ICE facility and formed a human chain with shields to block the driveway, trapping personnel inside.

“It was an extreme threat,” W.T. testified.

During cross-examination, a City of Portland attorney suggested that carrying shields or similar items might not be illegal.

W.T. responded that the combination of such gear and actions — including the guillotine blockade — amounted to disorderly conduct and indicated the gatherings were not peaceful.

Both FPS witnesses agreed that National Guard deployment would be beneficial given the “24-hour unlawful protest activity” and severe staffing shortages among federal officers.

The Department of Justice is expected to call additional witnesses from ICE and the Department of War before the trial concludes Friday.

The court’s decision will determine whether the federal government’s deployment of National Guard troops in Portland was justified under federal law and necessary for the protection of federal property.

Dem Rep Bynum Doesn’t Seem to Know Why She Voted to Shut Down the Government
News

Dem Rep Bynum Doesn’t Seem to Know Why She Voted to Shut Down the Government

/

Democratic Representative Janelle Bynum of Oregon’s 5th Congressional District faced scrutiny on Friday after appearing unable to explain her vote against a short-term spending measure to reopen the government or acknowledge her party’s role in the ongoing shutdown that threatens to halt Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

The exchange occurred during a C-SPAN interview, a clip of which was later shared on X by House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana.

In his post, Johnson highlighted Bynum’s remarks as an example of confusion among House Democrats regarding the continuing resolution (CR) that would have temporarily funded the government through the existing budget levels.

“Everyone should watch this incredible clip. Many House Democrats literally DON’T EVEN KNOW what they voted against when they closed the government! (Remember: Our CR was totally clean and nonpartisan, and only 24 short pages in length),” Johnson wrote.

The current shutdown, now in its 31st day, began after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic leadership refused to advance the Republican-backed clean CR.

The measure would have extended funding without additional policy riders or spending cuts, mirroring the same resolution Democrats supported earlier in March.

As the November 1 deadline approaches, funding for SNAP benefits is set to lapse, potentially affecting millions of low-income families.

Republican leaders have introduced a standalone bill to extend SNAP funding temporarily, but Democrats have resisted separate funding efforts while negotiations over the broader budget continue.

During her C-SPAN appearance, Bynum was asked directly whether Democrats should approve the GOP-led standalone measure to protect SNAP benefits from interruption.

Rather than answering directly, she said Republicans control “the White House, House, and Senate,” adding that they have “the control to make sure Americans get what they need.”

Her statement was inaccurate, as Democrats currently hold the majority in the Senate and have used procedural control there to block the House’s continuing resolution.

Pressed again by the host, Bynum declined to take a firm position on the SNAP bill.

“I just got here. I don’t play politics. I want a clean bill that focuses on the American people. That makes sure kids have a full belly,” she said.

“All of the clean this, clean that, Americans don’t understand that. They know if they have their benefits or not.”

She continued, “So put a bill on the table. Make sure it’s very pure and clean, as they like to say. And it doesn’t have a whole lot of fluff in it.”

The interviewer then reminded her that Republicans had already voted on a clean CR on September 19.

When asked if she had voted on that bill, Bynum replied that she “disagrees with” the characterization of the measure, insisting that Republican proposals contain “poison pills.”

When pressed for specifics about what provisions she was referring to, Bynum did not identify any and shifted away from the question.

The remarks drew attention online as the shutdown’s economic and social consequences grow more severe.

Critics noted that the continuing resolution Bynum opposed was nearly identical to the one Democrats themselves passed earlier this year.

The standoff has left key federal programs, including SNAP, in jeopardy as states prepare for potential disruptions to benefits next week.

The Department of Agriculture has warned that without new appropriations, funds for the food assistance program could run out after the start of November.

Speaker Johnson and House Republicans continue to urge Democrats to return to the negotiating table and pass a short-term funding measure.

The House-approved CR, described by Johnson as “clean and nonpartisan,” remains stalled in the Senate as leadership continues to link broader spending priorities to the reopening of the government.

With the shutdown entering its fifth week, the political impasse shows no immediate signs of resolution.

Millions of Americans who rely on federal nutrition assistance now await congressional action to restore funding before the November 1 deadline.

VA Dem Gov Candidate Admits Politics Are More Important Than Virginians’ Jobs
News

VA Dem Gov Candidate Admits Politics Are More Important Than Virginians’ Jobs

/

Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia said she would not work with President Donald Trump on job creation efforts if she were elected governor, according to comments made during a PBS NewsHour interview this week.

Spanberger, who represents Virginia’s 7th Congressional District and is considered a leading Democratic contender in the 2025 gubernatorial race, made the remarks when asked whether she would collaborate with the White House on policies aimed at boosting employment and economic growth in the state.

When pressed by the interviewer about whether she would coordinate with President Trump to expand job opportunities in Virginia, Spanberger said she would not, comparing cooperation with the administration to “working with the arsonist who burns down the house.”

The exchange drew attention online and from political observers in Richmond, with critics noting that Spanberger’s comments come as the national economy continues to show improvement under the Trump administration.

Major stock indexes have remained strong, inflation has eased from highs earlier in the decade, and interest rates have been reduced following Federal Reserve action to stabilize the lending market.

Spanberger’s statement was interpreted by analysts as a signal that she intends to distance herself from the Trump administration entirely if she wins the governor’s office, even in areas of potential bipartisan cooperation such as workforce development, infrastructure investment, and manufacturing.

The Virginia Democrat has kept a relatively low profile during the early stages of the gubernatorial race, declining numerous press opportunities while focusing on fundraising and regional campaign appearances.

Her campaign platform has centered on public education, clean energy investment, and expanding health care access, while largely avoiding detailed policy discussions involving the White House or federal partnerships.

President Trump’s administration has credited its trade and fiscal policies with helping to sustain U.S. job growth and stabilize consumer markets.

Recent agreements between the United States and Asian trading partners have been framed by the White House as key to strengthening American manufacturing and export competitiveness.

The administration has also cited the expansion of small business incentives and infrastructure grants as evidence of continued economic progress.

Spanberger’s decision to reject cooperation with the president on job creation marks a sharp contrast with previous Virginia governors, both Republican and Democratic, who have traditionally worked with federal agencies and the White House on economic initiatives.

Her comments have also reignited discussion about the Democratic Party’s broader posture toward the Trump administration.

Spanberger, a former CIA officer first elected to Congress in 2018, has positioned herself as a centrist within her party but has often aligned with national Democratic leadership on key votes.

The interview also addressed social policy issues, including Spanberger’s past comments on gender and public accommodations.

During an press conference in September, she was asked about her stance on policies allowing biological males to access women’s locker rooms and restrooms.

Her response drew scrutiny online after she appeared to avoid directly answering whether she supports such measures.

Spanberger’s remarks come as the Virginia gubernatorial race continues to take shape ahead of the state’s 2025 election.

She is expected to formally launch her campaign later this year, joining a growing field of Democratic contenders.

Republicans are expected to highlight her unwillingness to collaborate with the Trump administration as evidence of partisanship heading into what is anticipated to be one of the most closely watched state races in the country.

Clinton-Appointed Judge Blocks Trump’s Proof of Citizenship Rule for Voters
News

Clinton-Appointed Judge Blocks Trump’s Proof of Citizenship Rule for Voters

/

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has blocked the Trump administration’s effort to require proof of citizenship for federal voter registration forms, ruling that the mandate violated the separation of powers.

The decision marks a significant setback for the administration’s election integrity initiative, which sought to ensure that only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote in federal elections.

The ruling, issued in Washington, D.C., came after several left-leaning advocacy groups challenged the administration’s rule in federal court.

The plaintiffs argued that the requirement to provide documentation of citizenship placed an undue burden on voter registration and exceeded executive authority under existing federal law.

According to the Associated Press, Judge Kollar-Kotelly agreed with those arguments, concluding that the proof-of-citizenship directive could not be imposed without congressional approval.

Her opinion stated that the administration’s action conflicted with the structure of authority established under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

The decision halts a key component of President Donald Trump’s executive order on election integrity, which aimed to strengthen safeguards around voter eligibility following concerns about noncitizen voting and irregularities in federal elections.

Supporters of the administration’s policy have long argued that proof of citizenship is a basic and necessary measure to prevent illegal voting and restore public trust in the election system.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling drew attention because of her prior judicial record and her appointment by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

She currently serves as a senior judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In addition to her judicial duties, she has served as an adjunct professor in Georgetown University’s joint program on mental health and the law and as chair of the Board of the Art Trust for the D.C. Superior Court.

This latest ruling follows an earlier decision in April in which Kollar-Kotelly partially blocked portions of President Trump’s executive order on election integrity.

That decision prevented federal agencies from adding a proof-of-citizenship requirement to federal voter registration forms pending further legal review.

The administration and several Republican-led states had supported the requirement, arguing that the measure would align with voter ID laws already in place in numerous states and reduce opportunities for fraudulent registration.

The Department of Justice is expected to review the ruling and consider potential avenues for appeal.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly has faced criticism in the past from conservative groups for several high-profile rulings.

In 2024, she presided over the case of Paulette Harlow, a 76-year-old pro-life activist convicted for her role in a 2020 demonstration outside an abortion facility.

According to court records, Harlow was sentenced to two years in prison under federal civil rights statutes related to access to reproductive health services.

The Catholic News Agency reported that Harlow suffers from serious health conditions and that her husband expressed concern she might not survive her sentence.

The case drew national attention among faith-based organizations and lawmakers advocating for leniency for elderly or nonviolent offenders.

The Department of Justice’s prosecution of Harlow was part of a broader federal initiative under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s handling of that case, including comments made during sentencing, drew renewed attention to her courtroom conduct and judicial approach.

With this week’s ruling, the Trump administration’s effort to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration remains on hold.

The Department of Justice has not yet indicated whether it will appeal the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The debate over voter eligibility and election security is expected to continue as both Congress and the courts confront questions about federal and state authority in administering elections.

The administration has emphasized that it will continue pursuing measures to ensure that only citizens are registered and that future elections are conducted with full transparency and legality.

Karine Jean‑Pierre Makes Stunning ‘Cheap Fakes’ Confession During Testimony to Congress
News

Karine Jean‑Pierre Makes Stunning ‘Cheap Fakes’ Confession During Testimony to Congress

/

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre faced questioning from the House Oversight Committee last month over her prior claims that videos showing Joe Biden appearing confused at public events were “cheap fakes.”

The committee this week released the full video and transcript of her testimony, revealing repeated denials and selective recollection about the widely circulated footage.

During the closed-door interview, Committee Chief Counsel Jake Greenberg pressed Jean-Pierre about her public statements and whether she had personally viewed the videos of Biden looking disoriented or freezing during appearances with world leaders.

Greenberg asked directly, “Were all clips circulated on social media or elsewhere showing President Biden being confused or freezing at times, were those all fakes?”

Jean-Pierre replied, “I can’t speak to everything that was on social media.”

Greenberg followed up, asking, “But there were instances where videos showed President Biden appearing confused or freezing for a moment—those were real, correct?”

“Not that I recall,” Jean-Pierre responded.

When pressed further on whether she had seen any of the videos in question, Jean-Pierre again said, “Not that I recall.”

The repeated use of that phrasing drew attention from lawmakers and observers, as the videos have been viewed millions of times online and covered extensively by media outlets across the political spectrum.

The Oversight Committee’s transcript shows Jean-Pierre attempting to distance herself from the controversy by characterizing the viral footage as misleading.

She claimed the clips “were not actually reflective of what was happening” at those moments, suggesting they had been taken out of context.

The videos in question include multiple instances from 2024 events where Biden appeared to freeze, wander away from groups of world leaders, or stand silently as others interacted around him.

According to the transcript, Jean-Pierre maintained that her previous comments about “cheap fakes” referred broadly to selective editing on social media rather than specific videos.

Lawmakers, however, pointed out that her statements had targeted major news outlets and conservative reporters who had aired the unedited footage.

The exchange between Jean-Pierre and Greenberg highlighted a recurring point of contention between the White House and congressional investigators over the administration’s public messaging.

Members of the Oversight Committee have argued that labeling the videos as manipulated was an attempt to dismiss legitimate public concerns about Biden’s health and performance during official duties.

The New York Post, which reviewed the released transcript, noted that Jean-Pierre’s testimony showed a consistent pattern of avoiding direct answers.

Despite the prominence of the videos online and in broadcast media, she said she could not recall viewing any of them personally.

The footage, captured at events including international summits and domestic campaign stops, has been a frequent topic of political debate.

Jean-Pierre also faced questions about the June 2024 presidential debate between Biden and President Donald Trump. When asked if Biden appeared “confused” during that event, she replied, “[H]e seemingly, to me, looked like he had a cold.”

Her response added to the ongoing scrutiny over how administration officials handled public concerns about Biden’s cognitive and physical fitness during his final months in office.

Eric Swalwell’s Campaign Filings Under FEC Review for ‘Bizarre Inconsistencies’
News

Eric Swalwell’s Campaign Filings Under FEC Review for ‘Bizarre Inconsistencies’

/

Rep. Eric Swalwell of California is under renewed scrutiny after Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings revealed more than $360,000 in campaign payments to a staffer for a range of purposes that have shifted in description over time.

The Democratic congressman, who has been an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump, has not clarified the details of the transactions.

According to FEC records reviewed by Fox News Digital, Swalwell’s campaign committee, Swalwell for Congress, and his political action committee, Remedy PAC, made over 75 payments to an individual identified as Darly Meyer beginning in 2021.

The payments, which vary in amount from just over $50 to more than $12,000, were labeled under several different categories, including “travel expenses,” “car service,” “security services,” and “salary.”

The total payments to Meyer exceed $360,000, including more than $120,000 in 2024 alone.

Based on filings through mid-2025, Meyer appears on track to receive more this year than in previous years combined.

The FEC filings also list several payments described as reimbursements for “personal travel expense,” “event flowers reimbursement,” and “postage.”

Meyer is listed as the owner of CYD Global Car Service, a limousine and transportation business based in North Hollywood, California.

The company advertises luxury transport and corporate shuttle services throughout Southern California.

In addition to his business, Meyer helps administer a Facebook group called “CaliHaitians – Haitians in Az, Ca, Nv, Hi, Or, Wa.”

The group describes itself as a “progressive community” for Haitian Americans across several western states and says it selectively admits members who can provide “professional services to strengthen the community.”

One of the group’s administrators, Guerline Jozef, is the head of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, an organization known for opposing Trump-era border enforcement policies and providing assistance to migrants at the southern border.

When asked by Fox News Digital about Meyer’s role and the varying payment descriptions, Swalwell’s campaign did not provide clarification.

Swalwell responded on X, writing that “Darly protects me and my family.” In a follow-up post, he added, “Maybe I should send [the reporter] the bill?”

A review of the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services database by Fox News Digital found no record of Meyer holding a state security license, despite several campaign filings listing “security services” as the reason for payment.

Meyer declined to comment when contacted by reporters.

Hans von Spakovsky, a former FEC commissioner and senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the nature of the payments warrants review by election authorities.

“This is the type of bizarre inconsistency that should catch the attention of the FEC,” von Spakovsky said.

“The agency’s auditors should determine whether the spending reflects legitimate payments to a legitimate contractor.”

Swalwell, who sits on the House Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees, has been a frequent presence in national media and has positioned himself as a critic of President Trump and his administration.

He has often invoked issues of ethics, transparency, and national security in his public statements.

However, the lack of documentation surrounding the payments to Meyer has prompted questions about compliance with federal campaign finance rules.

The FEC requires candidates and political committees to report the purpose of each disbursement accurately and to ensure that all expenses are for bona fide campaign or office-related purposes.

The controversy adds to a growing list of questions surrounding Swalwell’s financial and ethical record, including prior scrutiny over his campaign expenditures and personal security arrangements.

Meyer’s payments, which span more than three years and encompass multiple categories of expenses, remain under review by outside watchdog groups monitoring campaign finance compliance.

Off-Duty Deputy Shoots Suspect Trying to Enter Car With His Baby Inside
News

Off-Duty Deputy Shoots Suspect Trying to Enter Car With His Baby Inside

/

A fatal shooting occurred Friday afternoon in Atascocita, Texas, after an off-duty Harris County sheriff’s deputy opened fire on a man who allegedly tried to enter his vehicle while his young child sat inside, officials said.

According to Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, the incident took place around 2:45 p.m. northeast of downtown Houston.

The deputy had contacted 911 to report that he had a suspect at gunpoint before the shooting occurred.

Maj. Ben Katrib told reporters that the deputy had just placed his child in a car seat when an unknown man, later identified as 27-year-old Darrius Williams, allegedly attempted to open the vehicle’s door.

The deputy reportedly issued multiple verbal commands, which Williams ignored before opening the passenger-side door.

Katrib said the deputy fired several shots, striking Williams multiple times.

Emergency responders provided medical aid at the scene, but Williams was later pronounced dead at a nearby hospital, according to FOX 26 Houston.

Authorities said the deputy and his child were unharmed.

The deputy’s name has not been released.

It remains unclear how many shots were fired or whether Williams had a weapon at the time.

Williams’ mother, Tieneeshia Williams, told FOX 26 that her son had been released from jail just one day earlier and had been struggling with mental health issues.

She said her son was taken into custody Thursday night after being stopped for walking into oncoming traffic.

“Last night they picked him up for walking into oncoming traffic and ran his name. So he had a warrant for failure to appear from the last episode,” she told FOX 26.

“The officer called me when she was there with him on the scene and asked me a lot of questions, and I said, ‘Ma’am, why don’t you just take him to the psychiatric ward. He’s walking into traffic.’ She said, ‘Oh no, we’re going to deal with this warrant, he’s going to jail.’”

The Harris County Sheriff’s Office confirmed that both the department and the Harris County District Attorney’s Office have launched separate investigations into the shooting.

Maj. Katrib said the deputy immediately notified dispatch and remained on scene until responding officers arrived.

Sources told FOX 26 that a Ring doorbell camera in the area may have recorded the confrontation, and investigators are reviewing the footage as part of their inquiry.

Authorities said the evidence gathered will be forwarded to the Harris County District Attorney’s Office for presentation to a grand jury, which will determine whether criminal charges are warranted.

Sheriff Gonzalez said that the deputy involved is a current employee of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office and that his actions are being reviewed in accordance with standard procedure for officer-involved shootings.


Scroll to Top