Democrat Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers posted a video of himself trying to toss a football and was crushed with ridicule on social media.

The comical video shows Evers meekly throwing a football that is then also caught by Evers, thanks to careful editing, in celebration of the National Football League draft beginning Thursday.

‘So much soy flowing through those tiny veins of yours.’

“Less than 24 hours away from the 2025 NFL Draft kickoff in Titletown! Getting warmed up!” he wrote.

Among those who mocked the Democrat was the White House rapid response team, which posted a video of President Donald Trump throwing a football in 1992 at an event in Buffalo, New York.

“This is how you throw a football, Governor,” the Trump account wrote.

Other joined in on the fun.

“How did anyone think this was a good idea,” responded activist Caleb Hull.

“Have you ever held a football before this shoot?” said writer Gigi Levangie.

“This is incredibly embarrassing. The stereotypes are real. Democrats are beta girly men who never played sports, and it shows. Vote republican, support real men and women, and save America,” responded the Citizen Free Press account.

“They saw this video and didn’t say to each other ‘don’t post that, he throws like a girl’. It’s either out of fear of each other or because they didn’t even see the issue,” said Christopher Johnson, GOP energy strategist.

“Man Card Violation for effeminate Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers for humiliating himself attempting to throw a football. Even the spike was embarrassing and soft,” said podcaster Dave Smith.

“So much soy flowing through those tiny veins of yours,” responded activist Jaimee Michell.

Some compared the video to a bizarre gaffe made by then-vice presidential candidate Tim Walz ahead of the 2024 election where he appeared not to understand the basics of football play-calling.

The draft begins Thursday evening at 8 p.m. ET.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Tony evers football, Effeminate democrats, Tony evers cringey video, Dem cringe video, Politics 

Yesterday, Glenn Beck sat down for an exclusive interview with President Trump to review his first 100 days in office. Glenn is the first member of the media to conduct a 100-day retrospective interview, offering a unique window into the administration’s rapid progress.

It should come as no surprise that the duo broached a wide range of topics. From his unprecedented number of executive orders — 130 in just three months! — to the equally unprecedented number of injunctions he’s faced from a rogue judicial system, tariffs, the DOGE, and the border, a lot has happened in a short window.

But that’s what President Trump promised. He pledged to fix America quickly, and every day, he delivers on that promise more. The pace at which his administration is moving is indeed shocking and awe-inspiring.

This exclusive interview captures the energy and determination driving these historic first 100 days, revealing key insights into Trump’s vision and leadership.

Here are the top three moments from President Trump’s conversation with Glenn.

EXCLUSIVE: President Trump on ‘Judicial Insurrection,’ Tariffs, and 100 Days in Office | Ep 429

youtu.be

1. Congress and codification

When Glenn asked President Trump about his extensive executive orders, which have addressed immigration, government reform, the economy, national security, energy, and cultural issues, he said, “There were just so many things the country needed” after Biden’s destructive term.

Isn’t that the truth?

Yet there’s a growing angst about getting these executive orders codified by Congress. Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” aims to codify key policies, especially those related to border security, energy production, taxes, and deregulation, but its budget focus limits its scope, and GOP infighting between fiscal hawks and moderates has slowed the process.

However, President Trump told Glenn not to worry and expressed faith in Republicans, especially considering their seven-seat majority in the House, which gives them enough votes to pass the bill if they stay united.

“We’re going to codify, and we’re going to wait until after the bill has passed, and then we’re going to work on nothing but codifying,” he said.

2. Judicial insurrection

Glenn reminded us that Bill Clinton deported 12.3 million people; George W. Bush deported 10.3 million people and had six injunctions against him; Barack Obama deported 5.5 million people and had 12 injunctions against him.

But Trump, not even 100 days into his second term, faces more lawsuits than Clinton, Bush, and Obama combined.

“You’re 100 days in, and you have 190 cases against you,” said Glenn.

“It’s obstruction,” Trump agreed, condemning Democrats for trying to protect MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom they’ve painted as an innocent victim.

Regardless of the unprecedented judicial pushback that’s making deportations “so much more difficult than it should be,” Trump expressed confidence. “We’re getting it done, and we’re winning.”

3. Powering the AI revolution

“I think you’re going to be remembered as the AI president,” said Glenn.

“You are the first one to really talk about, really take it on.”

“AI is certainly very important, and we’re pressing it very hard. We have trillions of dollars being invested,” Trump said. However, AI takes “massive amounts of electricity,” more than “we have right now in our country.”

Even though it’s an enormous obstacle, Trump says he’s got a plan.

“We’re going to let them build their own electric plants,” he said, noting that “they can use nuclear [power] if they want.”

“We’re going to get it done very quickly,” he added.

“I call it a national emergency,” but “we’re going to be number one.”

To hear the rest of Glenn and President Trump’s conversation, including their discussion on tariffs, the Ukraine-Russia conflict, justice and accountability for major incidents of fraud, and Elon Musk’s role in the DOGE, watch the full interview above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Glenntv, Glenn beck, Blazetv, Blaze media, Donald trump, Trump interview, Trump first 100 days, 100 days in office, Glenn tv 

Professional football Hall of Famer and ESPN analyst Shannon Sharpe announced that he was stepping down from his hosting duties after getting hit with a $50 million lawsuit over sexual assault accusations.

On Wednesday, an attorney for Sharpe’s accuser released an audio recording that captured Sharpe joking about choking her in public. She claims that Sharpe raped her twice, threatened her, and recorded their sexual interactions twice without her consent.

‘I will be devoting this time to my family, and responding and dealing with these false and disruptive allegations set against me.’

Sharpe responded by claiming that the video was deceptively edited to misrepresent a consensual interaction with the accuser.

On Thursday, he released a statement announcing his departure from ESPN.

“My statement is found here and this is the truth. The relationship in question was 100% consensual,” he wrote.

“At this juncture I am electing to step aside temporarily from my ESPN duties,” he added. “I will be devoting this time to my family, and responding and dealing with these false and disruptive allegations set against me. I plan to return to ESPN at the start of the NFL preseason.”

Sharpe previously revealed that the accuser was OnlyFans model Gabriella “Gabbi” Zuniga and accused her attorney Tony Buzbee of “orchestrating” what he called a “shakedown.” He said that he would file a defamation countersuit.

“Tony Buzbee targets black men, and I believe he’s going to release a 30-second clip of a sex tape that tries to make me look guilty and play in to every stereotype you could possibly imagine,” he added.

ESPN offered a brief statement after Sharpe’s announcement.

“This is a serious situation, and we agree with Shannon’s decision to step away,” the company said.

The lawsuit said that Zuniga met Sharpe at a gym in Los Angeles when she was only 19 years old. She claimed that he became more violent as the relationship progressed and that he threatened to kill her in one alleged incident.

“I sincerely appreciate the overwhelming and ongoing support I have received from my family, fans, friends and colleagues,” Sharpe concluded in the latest statement.

Sharpe played for the Denver Broncos and the Baltimore Ravens as a tight end between 1990 and 2003.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Shannon sharpe leaves espn, Shannon sharpe rape allegations, Gabriella gabbi zuniga, Zuniga vs sharpe, News, Sports 

President Donald Trump is reportedly expected to sign a memorandum on Thursday directing the Department of Justice to open an investigation into the Democratic fundraising powerhouse ActBlue.

A fact sheet on the memo was obtained by several news outlets, directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to “investigate and take appropriate action concerning allegations regarding the use of online fundraising platforms to make ‘straw’ or ‘dummy’ contributions and to make foreign contributions to U.S. political candidates and committees, all of which break the law.”

‘The flow-on effect from the initial innuendo of the EO caused many in the ecosystem anxiety and distress.’

The fact sheet reportedly highlighted a 30-day period last year when ActBlue received 237 donations from foreign IP addresses using prepaid cards.

“President Trump is taking action to address malign actors and foreign nationals who seek to illegally influence American elections, undermining the integrity of our electoral process,” it reads. “ActBlue has become notorious for its lax standards that enable unverified and fraudulent donations.”

The House Judiciary Committee released a preliminary report on April 2 that outlined “potential illegal activity” on ActBlue, noting that it “made its fraud-prevention rules ‘more lenient’ twice in 2024—even though there is extensive fraud on the platform, including from foreign sources.”

“Internal documents show that ActBlue executives and staff are aware that both foreign and domestic fraudulent actors are exploiting the platform but do not take the threat seriously. In fact, they attempted to hide the changes to avoid sparking discussions about fraud on the platform,” the committee wrote. “For example, ActBlue’s training guide for new fraud-prevention employees instructed them to ‘look for reasons to accept contributions,’ rather than err on the side of flagging suspicious donations.”

Musk called for an investigation into the Democratic fundraising platform after House Republicans accused it of allowing “illegal election contributions.” He has previously accused ActBlue of committing “massive fraud” and even funding leftist groups responsible for the wave of Tesla vandalism incidents.

“Something stinks about ActBlue,” Musk stated.

ActBlue has reportedly been preparing for Trump’s actions “for days,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

ActBlue CEO and President Regina Wallace-Jones sent a letter to Democrats on Wednesday warning about the executive order rumors.

“We are ready for whatever is next from the far right,” Wallace-Jones wrote.

“The current strategy of distraction and exhaustion is effective. We see this across the country and are not immune to this ourselves. The flow-on effect from the initial innuendo of the EO caused many in the ecosystem anxiety and distress,” she continued.

“Nothing will deter or interrupt ActBlue’s mission and work to enable millions of Americans to participate in our democracy,” she added.

Wallace-Jones’ letter noted that over $400 million had been donated to Democratic candidates through ActBlue from January through March.

ActBlue told Politico, “ActBlue plays a vital role in enabling all Americans to participate in our democracy, and the organization strictly abides by all federal and state laws governing its activities. We will always stand steadfast in defending the rights of all Americans to participate in our democracy, and ActBlue will continue its mission undeterred and uninterrupted, providing a safe, secure fundraising platform for the millions of grassroots donors who rely on us.”

A DOJ spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment from NBC News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​News, Actblue, Donald trump, Trump, Trump administration, Trump admin, Pam bondi, Department of justice, Doj, Fraud, Politics 

A federal judge issued an injunction against the Trump administration for trying to pull federal funding from local governments with sanctuary policies.

Sixteen cities and counties filed the lawsuit after President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end federal funding to sanctuary cities.

The lawsuit argued that the order violated the constitutional separation of powers by infringing on the power of the purse granted to Congress.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick sided with the cities and counties on Thursday and blocked the administration from enforcing the order on the litigant municipalities.

The lawsuit argued that the order violated the constitutional separation of powers by infringing on the power of the purse granted to Congress. It also claimed that the order violated the 10th Amendment by commanding local officials to enforce federal immigration law and was vague in relation to the Fifth Amendment.

Orrick agreed with the lawsuit and made a joke because he issued a similar ruling during Trump’s first term.

“Here we are again,” he said.

The Trump administration appealed that 2017 decision, but it was upheld by an appeals court.

The Justice Dept. argued that the municipalities had no standing because the administration had not yet pulled their federal funding, but Orrick said that was “essentially the same argument” made in the earlier lawsuit.

“The threat to withhold funding causes them irreparable injury in the form of budgetary uncertainty, deprivation of constitutional rights, and undermining trust between the Cities and Counties and the communities they serve,” he wrote.

Orrick was nominated to the court by former President Barack Obama.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Trump vs sanctuary cities, Judge rules against trump, Sanctuary city lawsuit, Judge orrick vs trump, Politics 

In a wide-ranging interview on Wednesday with Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck, President Donald Trump addressed the repeated attempts from federal judges to block his actions, particularly regarding the administration’s efforts to shut down the border and implement mass deportations.

Trump discussed the success of the administration in drastically reducing border crossings. According to recent Customs and Border Protection data, encounters were down 88% in March compared to the previous year.

— (@)

“We had 11,888 murderers allowed into the country. We’re taking them out as rapidly as we can. And by the way, we’re being met with strong resistance from judges that are — I don’t know where they come from,” Trump stated.

Beck pointed out the number of injunctions filed against Trump compared to previous administrations, which all rejected millions of foreign nationals: former Presidents Bill Clinton had 12 injunctions, George W. Bush had six, and Barack Obama had 12.

‘If you had one court case, it takes forever. Millions of court cases?’

“You have 60,” Beck told Trump. “Thirty last time, 30 this time. You’re 100 days in, and you have 190 cases against you.”

“It’s obstruction, and what they’re doing to the country is unbelievable,” Trump responded.

The president stated that the process for removing illegal aliens is “so much more difficult than it should be” because of the rogue judges. Yet, he emphasized that it has not prevented the administration from moving forward with its deportation and border shutdown plans.

Trump slammed Democrats for protecting criminal illegal aliens.

Beck pointed out how the previous administration “didn’t want to check anybody’s ID or ask any questions on the way in,” but “now they all seem to want to check them on the way out.” He mentioned that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) referred to federal judges repeatedly blocking Trump’s actions as “judicial insurrection.”

“Yeah, I think you could say that,” Trump responded to Beck quoting Lee.

Beck asked the president whether he would consider intervening “in a constitutional way” to stem the judicial overreach.

“I hope we don’t have that problem, and I hope we don’t have to get into it,” Trump responded.

The president doubled down on his sentiment that it would not be feasible to hold “millions of court cases” for every illegal alien who has stolen into the U.S.

“If you had one court case, it takes forever. Millions of court cases? They’re really saying you’re not allowed to do what I was elected to do? I was elected, for a very big part of it, [to address] the border and get people out,” Trump said.

He mentioned how violent and dangerous criminals, including Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gang members, were allowed to flood into the country.

“They put them into our country through open borders, and now we have to go to court to get them out. I don’t think the people of our country are going to stand for it,” Trump added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​News, Glenn beck, Donald trump, Trump, Illegal immigration crisis, Illegal immigration, Immigration, Rogue judges, Judicial overreach, Politics 

Illegal aliens with criminal convictions in Washington state may soon get an “expedited review” of their application for a pardon or commutation from the governor, thanks to a bill passed exclusively by Democrats.

In the last few weeks, both the Washington state House and Senate have passed H.B. 1131, making it ready to send along to the desk of Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson. While the bill addresses a number of issues related to pardons and clemency, it specifically sends those at risk of deportation to the head of the case review line.

“If a petitioner indicates in the petition an urgent need for the pardon or commutation including, but not limited to, a pending deportation order or deportation proceeding, the board shall consider expedited review of the application,” it reads.

The bill sailed through the House, 50-46, with no Republicans voting for it and only seven Democrats voting against it. Democrats also carried the bill through the Senate, with 28 voting for it and 19 Republicans opposing it.

‘If they’ve paid their dues to society, they shouldn’t be deported.’

The bill is particularly outrageous because it gives illegal aliens and other noncitizens who committed crimes in the U.S. better access to the Washington Clemency and Pardons Board, which has limited availability. As it currently stands, the board is composed of five unpaid members who are able to undertake only about 30 cases per year, according to the Washington State Standard.

Under this bill, incarcerated U.S. citizens seeking a pardon or commutation would apparently have to take a back seat.

“I don’t think what our forefathers envisioned was moving one group above the other when it comes to justice,” said state Sen. Leonard Christian (R-Spokane Valley). “Everybody in this state, in this country, deserves equal justice in the same amount of time.”

Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh, the chair of the Washington GOP, claimed in a statement to the Post Millennial that H.B. 1131 goes so far as to treat “criminals as if they were victims,” an upending of justice that has since become a “recent fashion in ‘progressive’ circles.”

Statements from liberals about H.B. 1131 seem to bear him out.

“If they’ve paid their dues to society, they shouldn’t be deported,” claimed state Sen. Bob Hasegawa (D-Seattle), who proposed a similar measure in the Senate.

Jennie Pasquarella, legal director of Seattle Clemency Project, noted that all immigration cases, especially those related to deportation, are “very time-sensitive” and implied that noncitizens are therefore more deserving of expedited consideration.

“They can’t wait two years for a hearing,” she claimed. “They need, they need the relief right away.”

H.B. 1131 ‘undermines public safety in Washington’ and ‘puts law-abiding people at risk.’

Pasquarella then made the wild suggestion that noncitizens often commit victimless crimes that aren’t that “serious.”

“There’s a lot of crimes now that make [deportation] mandatory where there is no victim involved — most people would not consider to be serious — but yet they impose this really drastic consequence,” she said.

The Standard indicated that such crimes relate to “drug, theft, and burglary” — “felonies” that the outlet nonetheless characterized as “nonviolent.” Approximately 87,000 Americans died of a drug overdose between October 2023 and September 2024.

Of note, between 90% and 95% of criminal cases in the U.S. are resolved via plea bargaining, which often involves defendants pleading guilty to lesser charges. In other words, the offenders may be responsible for other, more severe crimes that at least indirectly involve victims, but prosecutors permit them to accept responsibility for lesser crimes to secure a conviction.

State Rep. Walsh understands the problem well, insisting that H.B. 1131 “undermines public safety in Washington” and “puts law-abiding people at risk.”

H.B. 1131 would also expand the review board to 10 members who would be compensated at least for travel expenses related to their board activities.

Blaze News reached out to Gov. Ferguson, inquiring whether he intends to sign the bill, but did not receive a response.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Pardon, Commutation, Washington state, Clemency and pardon board, Illegal alien, Noncitizen, Citizen, Expedited review, H.b. 1131, Bob ferguson, Politics 

Actor Pedro Pascal attacked author J.K. Rowling over her reaction to a recent landmark ruling by the U.K.’s Supreme Court that defines a woman based on biological sex, which could bar biological males posing as transgender females from spaces designated for biological women.

Last week, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made a unanimous decision that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

‘Awful disgusting S**T is exactly right. Heinous LOSER behavior.’

The BBC said of the Supreme Court ruling, “Specifically, they ruled that the definition of sex as used in the Equality Act 2010 is ‘binary’ and decided by biology — a person who was not born as a biological female cannot obtain the legal protections the Act affords to women by changing their gender with a Gender Recognition Certificate.”

Rowling enthusiastically approved the Supreme Court ruling by posting a photo of herself on the X social media platform with a cigar and a drink with the caption, “I love it when a plan comes together. #SupremeCourt #WomensRights.”

Numerous celebrities applauded the reaction by Rowling, including Elon Musk, Megyn Kelly, Jordan Peterson, and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).

However, not everyone was as enthusiastic over Rowling’s celebration of the historic ruling by the U.K.’s Supreme Court.

A pro-Palestinian and pro-transgender activist named Tariq Ra’ouf demanded a boycott of “Harry Potter” projects and experiences in an Instagram video.

Ra’ouf said of Rowling’s post, “This is some serious Voldemort villain s**t, right here.”

Ra’ouf urged everyone to make it their “mission” to make the “Harry Potter” franchise no longer profitable to “anyone who dares to do business with J.K. Rowling.”

Speaking of Rowling’s opinion that men who identify as transgender shouldn’t be invading spaces designated for women, Ra’ouf said, “That s**t, that awful disgusting s**t, that has consequences.”

In response to Ra’ouf’s video, Pascal replied in the comments: “Awful disgusting S**T is exactly right. Heinous LOSER behavior.”

The official Instagram of Pascal has nearly 10 million followers.

Pascal – the 50-year-old star of HBO’s “The Last of Us” – has been a vocal supporter of the LGBTQ community over the years.

Pascal has publicly supported his sibling, Lux Pascal, who came out as transgender in February 2021. Lux has accompanied Pascal to several red carpet premieres.

On Tuesday, Pedro Pascal attended the U.K. premiere of Marvel’s “Thunderbolts” movie in London, England. Pascal was wearing a white T-shirt emblazoned with the message “Protect the Dolls.”

According to Newsweek, “dolls” is an “affectionate term within the LGBTQ+ community to refer to transgender women.”

The $100 T-shirt is made by Conner Ives, who created the shirt to call attention to any anti-transgender sentiment.

“Given the U.S. federal government’s current hostility towards trans people, support like this is needed now more than ever,” according to the website that sells the pricey activist shirt.

Also this week, “The Mandalorian” actor shared an Instagram post that featured an apparent coffin with the caption, “An unjust law is no law at all.” In the post, Pascal tagged the “Trans Kids Deserve Better” Instagram account, which demands: “We deserve equal access to gender-affirming health care. To delay care to a trans person is to deny it. We don’t have time to wait. Secondly, we should be able to give informed consent to our own treatment — just as any cisgender young person already can.”

As Blaze News previously reported, Pascal was widely lambasted after posting a social media tribute to Joseph Rosenbaum — one of Kyle Rittenhouse’s attackers.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​News, Celebrities, Jk rowling, Trans, Transgender, Pedro pascal, Hollywood, Politics 

Two-time Stanley Cup champion Dominik Hasek has consistently referred to President Donald Trump as siding with criminals in regard to trying to make a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

Hasek, a 60-year-old born in the Czech Republic (then Czechoslovakia), said he sent letters to the International Olympic Committee and the International Ice Hockey Federation about how former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threatened to kill him.

Per the New York Times, Medvedev, who is now deputy head of Russia’s security council, reportedly said through his assistant that Hasek suffered from “Russophobia,” should be careful when crossing the street, and additionally should “not drink beer in unverified places.”

Hasek took to his X page to cite his letters to the governing bodies in an attempt to put continuous sanctions on Russian athletes.

“I inform them that former Russian President Medvedev threatened to kill me. Furthermore, among other things, I point out how important their decisions will be in the coming months and again offer assistance in creating rules so that sports competitions are not an advertisement for the Russian war and people do not die because of them.”

Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala reportedly replied that the alleged threats were “not surprising” and cannot be ignored.

— (@)

Hasek has voiced his opinion extensively on the Russia-Ukraine war and has consistently been critical of the NHL for allowing Russian players to participate in games. The former goalie said only players who disavow their home country’s role in the war should be allowed to play in the league.

“Rules need to be set so that Russian players have an incentive to come out publicly,” Hasek said. “Some players could make the best peace ambassadors. Unfortunately, the NHL does not help the Russian hockey players one bit.”

— (@)

While simultaneously asking for help in ending the war, Hasek has been brutally critical of President Trump, throwing insults at the politician on a near-daily basis.

Recently, Hasek has said Trump is committing “evil,” said he is a “loser,” and even called him “human scum.”

The Czech also suggested that the peace resolutions Trump has attempted to procure are “dictated to him by criminals in Moscow.”

“This is a betrayal of the entire democratic world by the American president and further proof of his collusion with criminals,” Hasek wrote.

Hasek has called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy “the leader of the democratic world” and said the world admires him, while at the same time he called Trump a “traitor to the democratic world” who cannot condemn the deaths of the war. The latter seemingly depends on one’s viewpoint, as Trump has repeatedly said that too many people are dying as a result of the conflict that he wants to see come to an end.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Fearless, Nhl, Goalie, Russia, Ukraine, Putin, Trump, Sports 

A male athlete beat at least eight females in a hurdles race in California, to the cheers and support of the crowd in attendance.

The male athlete, allegedly named Abigail Jones, was called out by former NCAA swimmer Kaitlynn Wheeler after he competed in and won a two-school varsity challenge between Martin Luther King High School and Santiago High School.

A male athlete, “competing on the GIRLS’ team at MLK HS in Riverside, CA took 1st in the 300m hurdles tonight,” Wheeler wrote.

She added that the boy barreled past two female competitors to take the lead near the end of the race.

“This is NOT fairness. We need an immediate investigation!” Wheeler added.

Along with a screenshot of the results, showing Jones as the winner, was a video of the girls’ race.

In the video, multiple fans are heard cheering and yelling “Go Abby!” and “Come on, Abby!”

After Jones seemingly increased his effort to win the race in the last 50 meters, a public address announcer is heard saying, “What an amazing race! For [Martin Luther] King, Ms. Jones, 47.36!” referring the boy and his finish time.

‘Why am I getting displaced when I worked so hard?’

Martin Luther King High School is the same California school where two young girls complained that there was a boy on the cross country team who did not have to adhere to the same standard or attend the same number of practices. It is unclear whether Jones is that same boy.

One of the girls, Taylor Starling, claimed she was “removed” from her varsity girls’ team and replaced by a newly eligible male transfer student who received “favorable treatment.”

In 2024, the 16-year-old and her friend Kaitlyn said their own athletic director compared them to Nazis when they decided to stand up for themselves.

The girls wore T-shirts that read “Save Girls’ Sports” on the front and “It’s Common Sense. XX ≠ XY” on the back. The athletic director allegedly responded to the shirts by saying wearing such messaging around a transgender student was like wearing a swastika around a Jewish student.

After announcing a recent lawsuit against their school district, Starling was quoted as saying, “There’s a transgender student on the team. Why am I getting displaced when I worked so hard and gone to all of the practices, and this student has only attended a few of the practices?”

Starling’s father, Ryan, recently spoke to Fox News and revealed he had asked the young girls if they were ready to fight such a battle.

“I asked Taylor and Kaitlyn, ‘Are you prepared to deal with this? Are you going to be able to walk through the hallways in her school and [have people] dislike you, call you names, and call you out?’ And they were,” the father stated.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Fearless, Track & field, California, Women’s sports, Trangenderism, Sports 

Four new bills focused on protecting abortion care and “gender-affirming health care” are currently working their way through the Colorado legislature.

One such bill, H.B. 25, is focused on protecting “access” to this gender-affirming health care.

“Whenever you see that word ‘access’ used by progressives, what they mean is that they are forcing you to pay for something. They’re forcing the taxpayer to pay for something, to pay for transition so-called or to pay for abortion, and this grants access to people who maybe wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford it without the help of taxpayer dollars,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” explains.

“This bill codifies protections for gender-affirming health care in state law. It mandates that all health insurance plans in Colorado cover ‘medically necessary gender-affirming care,'” she adds.

“No gender-affirming care is medically necessary,” Stuckey says.

However, while concerning to begin with, there’s another part of H.B. 25 that puts parents and their custody of their children in jeopardy.

One part of the bill, known as the Kelly Loving Act, was passed by the Colorado House on April 6 and now awaits review in the Colorado Senate.

“This is a very scary part of this bill,” Stuckey says. “The courts must consider deadnaming, all these euphemisms, misgendering, threats to publish material related to gender-affirming care — so like outing someone — as coercive control when determining parenting time and child custody.”

“They must look at all of these things when they are determining parental custody, like a divorce custody battle, when it comes to how these parents treat their children,” she explains.

“So, they could accuse a parent of coercive control if a parent, for example, threatens to publish the individual’s sensitive personal information, including sexually explicit material or material related to gender-affirming health care services or make reports to the police or authorities or deadnaming or misgendering the individual or individual’s child,” she continues.

An example Stuckey uses is a woman who is in a custody battle and is getting divorced from her husband who has now declared that he’s a woman. If she continues to call him Frank when he wants to be called Sally, the judge has to consider this in the custody battle when awarding custody to parents.

“So, the parent who acknowledges reality, acknowledges the reality of their ex-spouse’s gender or acknowledges the reality of their child, refuses to affirm these newfound identities, then that parent could be punished and should be punished, really,” Stuckey explains.

“Basically, the state will steal your child from you, will take away your custody rights from your child, if you affirm biological reality,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video, Free, Camera phone, Sharing, Video phone, Upload, Youtube.com, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Relatable, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Gender affirming care, Dead naming, Colorado bill hb25, Custody battle, Transgender rights, Lgbtqia agenda, Trans children 

Paramount Global has reportedly agreed to terminate its diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, which have included racial quotas for staff and writers.

Along with its subsidiary CBS, Paramount was sued by America First Legal on behalf of script supervisor Brian Beneker, who worked on the show “SEAL Team,” a Paramount+ original series.

A lawsuit in February alleged that the companies engaged in discriminatory practices that were in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Beneker claimed that Paramount and CBS implemented racial quotas for writers’ rooms. This claim was supplemented by public statements from George Cheeks, then-president and CEO of CBS, who said that he had set a goal for CBS’ writing rooms to have 40% non-white staff members. A reported 17 of 21 shows on the network met or exceeded the target, which was subsequently followed by a demand that “half of all writers will be non-white” by “the 2022-2023 broadcast season.”

Cheeks was touted in public reports as CBS’ first black, biracial, and gay president.

‘Diversity quotas that discriminate on the basis of race are unlawful.’

Beneker’s complaint alleged that he was repeatedly denied promotions to a full-time “SEAL Team” staff writer position while at least six “black, female, or gay” writers were hired, despite having no writing credits or having what was described as limited experience.

Beneker said he asked the showrunner why he was being passed over, and the showrunner allegedly stated that Beneker did not “check any diversity boxes.”

— (@)

AFL reported that as a result of the lawsuit, Paramount has since stopped setting numerical goals related to race, ethnicity, sex, or gender; stopped collecting data on the race, ethnicity, sex, or gender of applicants; and removed a 5% funding bonus for programs advancing DEI goals.

The legal group also said that Beneker has now agreed to dismiss his claims about the company after reaching a resolution.

“Paramount Global and CBS Studios have agreed to a settlement in a lawsuit America First Legal brought on behalf of our client Brian Beneker. America First Legal is pleased to see Paramount and CBS publicly back off their DEI requirements and return to merit-based considerations,” said Nick Barry from America First Legal. “Diversity quotas that discriminate on the basis of race are unlawful. Others in the entertainment industry should take note.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Dei, Diversity equity inclusion, Hollywood, Quotas, Movie studio, Politics 

A male has been charged with aggravated arson “purpose to destroy forest,” jail records say, in connection with a New Jersey wildfire that reportedly is one of largest in the state over the last 20 years.

Joseph Kling, 19, of Ocean Township also was charged Wednesday with arson, the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office said in a news release.

The cause of the fire was ‘determined to be incendiary by an improperly extinguished bonfire.’

There is no bail listed for Kling, jail records also say.

The wildfire was first located Tuesday morning in Ocean Township, officials said, adding that emergency personnel observed a fire within the Forked River Mountains Wilderness Area of the Ocean County Natural Lands Trust. The area is about 60 miles east of Philadelphia and about 10 miles west of the New Jersey shore.

The prosecutor’s office’s Major Crime Unit-Arson Squad, the New Jersey Forest Fire Service, the Ocean County Fire Marshal’s Office, and New Jersey State Fire Marshal’s Office plotted the origin of the fire through GPS and said the cause of the fire was “determined to be incendiary by an improperly extinguished bonfire.”

Kling set wooden pallets on fire and then left the area without fully extinguishing the fire, the prosecutor’s office said.

Kling was taken into custody at Ocean Township Police Headquarters and then taken to the Ocean County Jail, where he awaits a detention hearing, officials said.

The wildfire is one of largest in the New Jersey over the last 20 years, Patch reported. The wildfire has been 50% contained, officials said Thursday.

— (@)

You can view a video report here about the arrest.

Anything else?

WPVI-TV said it’s “peak forest fire season” in the Pinelands wilderness area, which covers more than 1 million acres and is about the size of the Grand Canyon.

New Jersey Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way (D) declared a state of emergency in response to the wildfire, the station said.

The growing wildfire forced 5,000 residents to evacuate Tuesday night, WPVI said, citing the New Jersey Forest Fire Service. As 6:30 a.m. Wednesday, all evacuation orders were lifted, the station said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​New jersey, Wildfire, Bonfire, Wooden pallets, Joseph kling, Arson charge, Aggravated arson charge, 19-year-old male suspect, Arrest, Crime 

In December 2021, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) met with multiple individuals linked to a $250 million COVID-19 fraud scheme that centered on stealing taxpayer funds intended to feed hungry children. After the meeting, he and his son Jeremiah, a member of the Minneapolis City Council, received campaign donations from multiple individuals connected to the fraud scheme.

Audio from the meeting, which came up during a recent court hearing, has prompted questions about Ellison’s links to the fraudsters, and in turn, an effort on his part to cure the narrative.

Background

The Department of Justice announced criminal charges in September 2022 against dozens of individuals linked to a $250 million fraud scheme that exploited a federally funded child nutrition program. Former Attorney General Merrick Garland indicated at the time that it was the “largest pandemic relief scheme charged to date.”

The New York Post noted that of the 70 people charged in connection to the scheme, the Justice Department has so far secured 44 convictions or guilty pleas. Two of the fraudsters, Aimee Bock and Salim Said, were convicted by a federal jury last month.

During the pandemic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture dropped some of the standard requirements for participation in the Federal Child Nutrition Program. For-profit restaurants could now participate in the program, and off-site food distribution to kids outside of educational programs was permitted.

Bock, Said, and scores of other bad actors in Minnesota rushed to exploit the loosened rules.

According to the Justice Department, Feeding Our Future, a nonprofit organization that was already a sponsor participating in the nutrition program, opened 250 program sites throughout the state of Minnesota to “receive and launder the proceeds of their fraudulent scheme.”

The nonprofit, run by Bock, went from disbursing roughly $3.4 million in federal funds in 2019 to nearly $200 million in 2021.

‘I’m not here because I think it’s gonna help my re-election.’

Feeding Our Future employees recruited various individuals and entities to open sites under the program that falsely claimed to be serving meals to thousands of kids daily.

Bock and Said, then-owner of Safari Restaurant, apparently created fake meal counts on the basis of fake attendance rosters replete with the names and ages of kids who were supposedly fed at taxpayers’ expense.

The fraudsters used the proceeds of their scam to buy luxury vehicles, fund international travel, and buy real estate. The fraudsters not only bought property in Minnesota, Ohio, and Kentucky but in Kenya and Turkey, as well.

The meeting

The Minnesota Star Tribune reported that Ellison met with people connected to the Feeding Our Future case on Dec. 11, 2021. Audio of the meeting, which took place one month before the FBI raided the nonprofit and the fraud case was publicized, was caught on tape.

The group that met with Ellison, which partly consisted of individuals under FBI investigation, reportedly complain in the recording published by the Center of the American Experiment that they were being targeted by state agencies and that this unwanted attention was fueled in part by racial animus.

During the meeting, the group vowed to throw its financial and political weight behind Ellison, who was then running for re-election, if he would — in the words of Abshir Omar, a Feeding Our Future consultant — be a “true and steadfast partner to fight for basic justice.”

Ellison expressed sympathy for the group — at that point already embroiled in litigation with the state — and indicated he would take their concerns to his staff, state agencies, and potentially the governor, reported the Tribune.

On the tape, Ellison can apparently be heard telling the group, “I’m not here because I think it’s gonna help my re-election.”

In the days that followed, individuals who attended the meeting, along with their family members and others connected to the Feeding Our Future case, dumped over $20,000 into the campaigns of Ellison and his son Jeremiah.

‘I did nothing for them and took nothing from them.’

Among the many donors linked to the case who made maximum donations to Jeremiah Ellison were:

Salim Said, an individual reportedly present at the meeting who ran the fraud scheme with Bock;
Ikram Mohamed, a Feeding Our Future consultant present at the meeting facing multiple criminal charges in the case;
Gandi Yusuf Mohamed, another defendant accused of fraudulently receiving and laundering over $1.1 million in nutrition program funds who also donated $2,500 to Keith Ellison’s campaign;
Abdinasir Mahamed Abshir, who pleaded guilty to wire fraud;
Abdulkadir Nur Salah, who pleaded guilty to wire fraud;
Mukhtar Mohamed Shariff, sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison for defrauding the U.S. government of $46 million; and
Khalid Omar, director of the Dar Al-Farooq mosque, one of the sites where fraudsters falsely claimed to have distributed 18.8 million meals.

Brian Evans, a spokesman for the Democratic AG, told the Tribune, “Nothing improper happened whatsoever.”

Republican lawmakers don’t appear entirely convinced of the innocence act.

Minnesota House Republican Floor Leader Rep. Harry Niska stated earlier this month, “It’s disturbing to learn that Attorney General Ellison met with and offered verbal support to criminal defendants at the heart of the largest pandemic fraud scam in the country. He was even offered campaign contributions in this meeting, which he later accepted.”

“Earlier this session, Democrats voted to block legislation that would give taxpayers more transparency into the operations of the AG’s office,” continued Niska. “This incident underscores the need for that legislation and raises questions about why Democrats blocked it in the first place.”

“Minnesotans just heard their attorney general offering support to individuals who were orchestrating the largest pandemic-related fraud scheme in the nation,” said state Rep. Kristin Robbins, chair of the Minnesota House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee. “This demands additional scrutiny, as (the) attorney general’s duty is to defend state agencies and provide rigorous oversight of Minnesota businesses and charities.”

Additional scrutiny might provide answers to the questions the Tribune raised in a 2022 report about Ellison’s failure to flush out the fraudulent activity sooner. The report noted:

If Ellison’s office had used its investigative power to pull bank records, it could have found that the alleged conspirators paid at least $524,579 in bribes and laundered $3.2 million in program funds between July 2020 and March 2021, prior to the FBI’s involvement.

The narrative curation

In an op-ed Monday, Ellison insisted that his meeting with suspected fraudsters ahead of an FBI raid “was routine” and that he “made no promises” when they asked for help.

The Democratic AG did his best to downplay the meeting, writing, “If you read nothing else in this piece, here’s what you need to know: I took a meeting in good faith with people I didn’t know and some turned out to have done bad things. I did nothing for them and took nothing from them.”

Ellison curiously omitted any mention of the campaign donations that poured in after the meeting. He alternatively suggested that when the “scammers” suggested that they would contribute to his campaign if he helped them, he “shut that down immediately.”

The op-ed is carefully worded.

For instance, Ellison does not claim that the fraud scandal had not taken shape until after his meeting but rather that it had not taken “shape in earnest” until the following month. He also does not assert that the FBI did not share anything about their investigation prior to January 2022 but that it wasn’t until January that the FBI “shared with my staff attorneys anything about the size of their investigation or the individuals they were targeting.”

This carefully chosen language conveys that he went into the meeting blind about the nature of those in the room with him — even though his office stated in September 2022: “Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and his office have been deeply involved for two years in holding Feeding Our Future accountable.”

“As for the meeting — if I had had any way of knowing beforehand who those people were and what they’d done, I never would have agreed to it,” wrote Ellison. “But I’m not going to stop meeting with folks in good faith because a few bad people tried — and failed — to run their scheme on me.”

Evans, Ellison’s spokesman, suggested to the New York Post that the FBI was partly responsible for the Democratic AG meeting with the fraudsters.

“The FBI shared almost no information with other state officials about its investigation, including the targets of the investigation,” said Evans.

The spokesman noted further that “the campaign has no intention of keeping contributions from anyone indicted in the Feeding Our Future fraud scheme.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Corruption, Keith ellison, Minnesota, Democrat, Democratic, Fraud, Fraudster, Feeding our future, Somalian, Somali, Politics 

It’s a familiar pattern. Wealthy, self-righteous elites who crisscross the globe by private jet turn around and shame others for doing the same — so long as it’s done with less glamor and more purpose. The latest target of their selective outrage? Six women who took a private spaceflight last week aboard Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin rocket.

You’d think such a moment — an aerospace engineer, an entrepreneur, and other accomplished women making history on a suborbital mission — might warrant celebration. Instead, it drew scorn. According to Hollywood’s self-appointed moral authorities and their Instagram followers, this was a grave offense against the planet and the poor.

These flights are more than joyrides. They’re test beds for innovation, job creation, and future scientific breakthroughs.

What the climate elites ignore — again — is that progress for women, on Earth or in space, depends on one thing they take for granted: energy.

Access to reliable, affordable energy is the cornerstone of women’s liberation in the developing world. It means light to study at night, clean water, safer childbirth, personal security, and a future that doesn’t begin and end with gathering firewood. The freedom to dream big, like flying to space, starts with the freedom to flip a switch.

Classic virtue-signaling

Gayle King, one of the passengers and a trailblazer in journalism, rightly called the backlash “elitist and sexist.” But she left something out: it’s not just sexist. It’s sanctimonious, selective, and suffocating. These are the trademarks of climate virtue-signaling.

Here’s how the game works in today’s inverted moral order: Jet to Davos or Cannes to lecture the public on climate change and you’re hailed as enlightened. Board a rocket as a civilian scientist or entrepreneur, and suddenly you’re a villain — a carbon criminal with the wrong pedigree.

Leonardo DiCaprio can bounce between islands on a yacht to “save the seas,” and no one complains. John Kerry can cross the Atlantic alone in a jet to accept a climate award, and the hypocrisy goes unmentioned. But let six women go to space without the blessing of the green aristocracy, and the mob lights its torches.

Companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX aren’t just about space tourism. They’re pushing technological boundaries that benefit everyone — from global internet access to environmental monitoring. These flights are more than joyrides. They’re test beds for innovation, job creation, and future scientific breakthroughs.

And here’s the larger truth: Abundant, affordable energy is the single most powerful engine of human progress. Societies with the highest energy access are the ones where women thrive. Education, health care, and economic opportunity all expand when energy is plentiful. When the climate movement demonizes innovation and blocks energy development, it’s not saving the planet — it’s stunting the dreams of billions, especially women and girls.

But the climate elites aren’t interested in nuance. Their worldview leaves no room for liberty or aspiration — only guilt, rules, and control.

No apologies

What makes this worse is their arrogance. As if launching six women into space is somehow a threat to “equity.” These women didn’t beg permission from the climate commissars. They didn’t issue carbon apologies. They didn’t buy indulgences from Greenpeace. They flew — because they could. That’s what really infuriates their critics.

The same people who shame Americans for driving pickups or heating their homes sip imported oat milk and scold others from first-class lounges. They claim to speak for justice, but their double standards always circle back to their own comfort.

Instead of condemning these women, we should be applauding them. In an age where pessimism is the norm and grievance is currency, their boldness reminds us of what ambition without apology looks like.

We should be asking: How can we empower more women — not just to fly to space, but to lead in science, business, and technology? The answer is energy. The free market — not fearmongering — will launch the next generation of pioneers.

This was a win for human achievement. No amount of Hollywood hand-wringing can diminish it.

To the ladies of Blue Origin: Don’t let the sanctimonious elites pull you down. While they stare at the sky, you’ve already touched it.

​Opinion & analysis, Blue origin female flight, Katy perry, Gayle king, Jeff bezos, Space travel, Energy, Innovation, Green hypocrisy, Hollywood elite, Feminism, Leftism, Environmentalism, Carbon, Indulgences, Greenpeace, Science, Technology 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ripped into a report claiming he had a makeup studio at the Pentagon and took a jab at failed vice presidential candidate Tim Walz.

The report said that Hegseth ordered modifications to a room next to the Pentagon press briefing room to install a makeup studio. The retrofitting was reportedly intended to prepare him for television shots and would cost thousands of dollars, according to sources who spoke to CBS News.

‘The leftist “news” media would have loved that.’

Hegseth denied the report on social media Wednesday.

“Totally fake story. No ‘orders’ and no ‘makeup’ — but whatever,” he wrote.

“We should have installed tampon machines in every men’s bathroom at DoD instead — the leftist ‘news’ media would have loved that,” he added.

The jab was seemingly a reference to a popular talking point against Democrat Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who ran for vice president in the 2024 election. During the campaign, Republicans mocked him for signing a law requiring public schools in his state to provide tampons and menstrual pads to all students, including boys.

Democrats have been calling for Hegseth’s resignation since an embarrassing leak of defense plans related to an attack on the Houthi terror group. Far-left Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas pounced on the makeup studio report to mock Hegseth and the Trump administration.

“Pete Hegseth is treating the Pentagon like it’s a Fox News set—ordering a makeup studio while leaking sensitive information in Signal chats,” she posted. “This is what happens when you put clout-chasers in charge of national security.”

President Donald Trump has dismissed the criticism and said he stands by Hegseth.

Since the devastating election for Democrats, Walz has said that the country just wasn’t ready for the supposedly positive tone of the Democrats’ messaging.

“We were pledging to be inclusive. We were pledging to bring people in,” he said in December. “Donald Trump has said that that isn’t what he wants, and so if that’s what America is leaning towards, I guess for me, it’s to understand and learn more about America because I thought that they were going to probably move towards a more positive message.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Pete hegseth makeup studio, Pete hegseth controversy, Tampon tim walz, Dems vs hegseth, Politics 

Almost two-thirds of all adults in California, and even more parents of children in public schools, think kids should play in sports based on sex.

A new study from the Public Policy Institute of California showed the reality of how parents feel in the state, despite legislators not backing them on the issue.

The recent survey of nearly 1,600 California adult residents saw that 65% of adults and 71% of public school parents supported the idea of requiring children with gender dysphoria to compete on teams that match with their sex. The study noted that while the majority agreed with the sentiment across regions and demographic groups, there was less of an agreement across political lines. While 91% of Republicans said boys should not be in girls’ sports, the number dropped to 71% for independents, with Democrats virtually split on the issue at 49%.

Even though the debate on the issue seems all but over, Democrats in California’s legislative assembly shot down two recent Republican bills to ban males from female sports, and according to Politico, are expected to do the same for an upcoming state Senate proposal.

The lack of protective legislation has left some young female athletes vulnerable in the state, including Taylor Starling from Martin Luther King High School. Starling spoke at a state assembly meeting recently and told state legislators she was “replaced” on her track team by a male student.

“I was removed from my varsity girls’ team and replaced by a newly eligible male transfer student who received favorable treatment,” the 16-year-old claimed.

Starling has a lawsuit against her school district and California Attorney General Rob Bonta; a court date is set for May 15.

School safe zones

In the same survey, Californians revealed bizarre views regarding the removal of illegal immigrants, specifically those who are public school students (and their families). Sixty-five percent of adults and 74% of public school parents said they are “very concerned or somewhat concerned” about the enforcement of immigration policy, with 63% and 72%, respectively, in favor of public school districts refusing to cooperate with federal authorities and acting as a “safe zone” for illegal immigrants.

Perhaps ironically, most Californians were also concerned that young children who do not speak English are not prepared for kindergarten. This likely would include those same “undocumented” students.

At the same time, around 40% of those surveyed said there were not enough resources for students whose first language is not English.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Fearless, California, Women’s sports, Transgenderism, Sports 

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that he will be meeting with Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of the Atlantic who most recently broke the now-infamous “Signalgate” story.

Trump asserted that Goldberg had previously published “fictional stories” about the president and his administration. Despite this, Trump will be interviewed by Goldberg and other journalists from the outlet for a story entitled “The Most Consequential President of this Century.”

‘I am doing this interview out of curiosity, and as a competition with myself, just to see if it’s possible for The Atlantic to be “truthful.”’

“Later today I will be meeting with, of all people, Jeffrey Goldberg, the Editor of The Atlantic, and the person responsible for many fictional stories about me, including the made-up HOAX on ‘Suckers and Losers’ and, SignalGate, something he was somewhat more ‘successful’ with,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

One “hoax” Trump is referring to includes Goldberg’s article from September 2020 that claimed the president called Americans who died in combat “suckers” and “losers.” The article relies on anonymous sources who alleged that Trump talked down on fallen soldiers during a 2018 trip to France, which was heavily refuted by over a dozen on-the-record sources, including several administration officials.

“Jeffrey is bringing with him Michael Scherer and Ashley Parker, not exactly pro-Trump writers, either, to put it mildly!” Trump added. “The story they are writing, they have told my representatives, will be entitled, ‘The Most Consequential President of this Century.”

Although Goldberg’s journalistic career has not always been flattering to the president, Trump said he was open to the interview for personal reasons.

“I am doing this interview out of curiosity, and as a competition with myself, just to see if it’s possible for The Atlantic to be ‘truthful.’ Are they capable of writing a fair story on ‘TRUMP’? The way I look at it, what can be so bad – I WON!”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Donald trump, Signal chat, Signal leak, Signal gate, Jeffrey goldberg, The atlantic, Fake news, Legacy media, Mainstream media, Trump administration, Politics 

The Trump administration has explicitly threatened, and in some cases suspended, the funding of universities across the country, citing violations of federal law and policy.

Amid this governmental campaign to fight anti-Semitism on campus, keep men out of women’s sports, maximize viewpoint diversity, eliminate discriminatory DEI practices, and kick divisive critical race theory programming to the curb, Harvard University has emerged as the administration’s white whale.

Democrats and other leftists have, through their overreactions to the administration’s handling of Harvard, given away their own suspicions that the 389-year-old institution’s neutralization as a political entity and restoration to former glory would mark a turning point — perhaps not an end to the left’s long march through the institutions but certainly a landmark arrest of the American campus slide into lawlessness, lunacy, and identitarianism.

This concern appears to ground Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer’s (N.Y.) statement, “The Trump administration is making unprecedented demands of universities aimed at undermining or even destroying these vital institutions.”

‘Tactics like these likely will have massive long-term consequences.’

“Universities must do more to fight antisemitism on campus, but the administration should not use it as an excuse for a broad and extra-legal attack on these institutions,” continued Schumer. “Harvard is right to resist.”

The concern similarly lurks in the background of Vox senior politics correspondent Andrew Prokop’s assertion that “the assault on Harvard is part of a broader Trumpian assault on elite universities, which is itself part of a yet broader federal assault on progressive institutions and groups deemed enemies of the president.”

Prokop added, “Tactics like these likely will have massive long-term consequences, forever transforming the relationship between the federal government and academia.”

Despite the alarmist rhetoric peddled by activists and Democratic lawmakers, the Trump administration’s insistence that institutional beneficiaries of federal funding hold up their ends of the bargain — especially in the case of Harvard University — appears to be neither unlawful nor unprecedented.

While the Trump administration is less ambiguous in its language and more confrontational with its actions — which have in a number of cases already borne fruit — it is simply exercising muscles previously flexed by previous governments to ensure federally funded universities comply with federal civil rights law and public policy.

Now

The Trump administration has threatened, frozen, and/or temporarily suspended federal funding to a number of schools in recent months. For example, the administration:

temporarily paused U.S. Department of Agriculture funding to the University of Maine System while ensuring its seven universities and law school were in compliance with Title IX and Title VI, which ban sex and race-based discrimination;
brought Columbia University to heel by announcing the end of $400 million worth of grants and contracts after the institution failed to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic attacks;
froze over $1 billion in federal funding for Cornell University and around $790 million for Northwestern University amid investigations of anti-Semitism and racial discrimination;
threatened to freeze $510 million of Brown University’s federal funding amid investigations into the institution’s DEI initiatives and alleged anti-Semitism;
paused around $210 million in research grants to Princeton University pending an investigation — reportedly opened by the Biden Department of Education in 2024 — into anti-Semitism on campus; and
suspended approximately $175 million in grants and contracts to the University of Pennsylvania over its policies enabling men to compete in women’s sports.

While the Trump administration has taken a similar approach to Harvard, the country’s oldest university has proven a tougher nut to crack.

Blaze News previously reported that the administration notified Harvard University President Alan Garber and Penny Pritzker, senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation, on April 11 that billions of dollars in federal funds were at stake unless the institution agreed to implement a number of “critical reforms.”

‘Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions.’

The government specifically asked for Harvard’s cooperation in implementing these reforms:

foster “clear lines of authority and accountability,” empower tenured professors who are devoted to the scholarly mission of the university, reduce the power held by students and untenured faculty, and reduce forms of governance bloat;
adopt merit-based hiring and admissions policies and cease all discriminatory admissions, hiring, promotion, and compensation practices;
“reform its recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students to prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism”;
commission an external party to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity;
reform programs with “egregious records of anti-Semitism or other bias”;
eliminate DEI-based policies; and
clamp down on student disruptions and misconduct.

The university, which has an endowment of $53.2 billion, initially responded by suggesting the necessary reforms were already underway and that the Trump administration’s demands were unlawful.

Barack Obama, a Democrat whose administration threatened its fair share of universities’ federal funding, was among the liberals who celebrated Harvard’s defiance, writing, “Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions — rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect.”

‘That stops under the Trump Administration.’

Evidently not interested in playing Obama-supported games, the Trump administration provided the Massachusetts university with a steady stream of bad news.

For starters,

the administration reportedly launched a review of
around $9 billion in grants and contracts with the university over
possible violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act;

the Education Department’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced a $2.2 billion freeze in multi-year grants and a $60 million freeze in multi-year contract value to Harvard;
the National Institutes of Health reportedly
told grant managers to halt disbursements to Harvard;
the Department of
Homeland security
announced the cancellation of two six-figure grants
and indicated the university’s ability to enroll foreign students was in jeopardy; and

the administration appeared
poised at the time of writing to pull $1 billion of Harvard’s funding
for health research.

Julie Hartman, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, told Blaze News in a statement, “The Department has given Columbia and Harvard every opportunity to come into compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws.”

“On March 10, OCR sent letters to both universities reminding them of their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus,” continued Hartman. “ED has also attempted multiple times to engage in negotiations with both of these universities, and the Department hopes to continue negotiating with them to protect students’ civil rights.”

“In the past, educational entities were allowed to violate Title VI with little to no enforcement action from the federal government,” added the ED spokeswoman. “That stops under the Trump Administration. We will not allow taxpayer funds to sponsor discrimination against American students.”

After the administration began derailing the school’s gravy train, Harvard doubled down on its defiance.

When announcing the university’s lawsuit against the administration on April 21, Harvard President Alan Garber suggested that the pause on injections of taxpayer dollars into his wealthy institution were “unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.”

“These actions have stark real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the standing of American higher education in the world,” wrote Garber.

Garber is hardly the first in recent weeks to suggest the Trump administration’s handling of Harvard’s defiance was somehow unlawful, harmful, or unprecedented.

Andrew Tyrie, senior fellow at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Harvard Kennedy School, previously told the Harvard Gazette, “This is weakening the United States and imperiling the prosperity and the security of millions of Americans.”

‘This is the first time an administration has tried something like this.’

Joshua Cherniss, an associate political theory professor at Georgetown University, said, “I study, to some extent, authoritarian regimes, and I think that some of what we’re seeing — while it’s not equivalent to fully formed authoritarianism — is starting to approach it in terms of trying to have the government dictate the ideas that are taught, that can be expressed and that can’t be expressed.”

While there has been much of this pearl-clutching about threats to Harvard’s gravy train, there has also been shirt-rending over the Trump administration’s threat to Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

Trump recently wrote, “Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’ Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!”

“To my knowledge, this is the first time an administration has tried something like this,” said R. William Snyder, a professor at the business college of George Mason University, told CNN. “The whole purpose of higher education is to educate the masses. Just because they educate in a way that you don’t like, is that grounds to terminate their tax-exempt status? I’d say no.”

Contrary to these critics’ suggestions, this was not, however, the first time an administration threatened tax-exempt status or funding.

Then

Like Synder, many critics of the president’s proposal to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status appeared to strategically develop long-term memory loss.

Manhattan Institute fellow Christopher Rufo and Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett were, however, happy to remind such critics that should Harvard lose its tax-exempt status over alleged noncompliance with federal law or policy, it wouldn’t be the first.

Bob Jones University, a private university in Greenville, South Carolina, had racist policies on its books in the mid-20th century — including prohibitions on interracial dating and marriage. Determining that the school’s discriminatory policies did not serve a public purpose and were contrary to established public policy, the IRS revoked the school’s tax-exempt status in 1975. This decision prompted a heated legal battle.

Ultimately, in Bob Jones University v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in 1983 that the IRS had authority to deny status to Bob Jones University, Goldsboro Christian School, and other institutions with racist policies.

Powerline recently noted that Harvard, like BJU, has already been found by the Supreme Court to engage in illegal race discrimination — meaning the path to status revocation might be an altogether simpler matter, assuming an activist judge isn’t ready to throw more caltrops before the administration.

Just as revoking a misaligned university’s tax-exempt status would be nothing new, the Trump administration’s threats to universities’ federal funding are similarly business as usual.

While the Trump administration has followed through by suspending or freezing funding to a number of universities for their alleged noncompliance with federal law and policy, the Biden administration appeared keen to do something similar — efforts that in a number of cases resulted in agreements and resolutions.

In the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel, the Biden Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights opened hundreds of investigations into complaints about anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While such investigations are customarily backed by the implicit threat of suspending noncompliant schools’ federal funding, NPR noted that Biden officials expressly threatened to cut funding to schools that failed to take aggressive remedial action.

The Education Department noted in its 2024 fiscal year annual report that the University of Illinois, Drexel University, and Brown University remedied compliance concerns identified by the OCR, thereby preserving their funding.

While concerns were expressed about the possibility that these investigations could chill free speech on campus, critics were not up in arms as they are now.

There also does not appear to have been leftist apoplexy when years earlier, the first Trump administration’s Education Department OCR took the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to task after concluding on the basis of nearly 400 reports of sexual harassment and sexual violence that the institution was out of compliance with Title IX. The government ultimately secured a resolution agreement with the school in place of fines or denial of funding.

The Obama administration similarly threatened federal funding for schools that fell out of line with federal law and policy without the same volume of uproar seen today.

For instance, the Obama Education Department’s OCR came after Tufts University for Title IX violations, specifically with regard to its handling of sexual harassment and misconduct complaints. It also notified schools that noncompliance with Title IX could result in the OCR initiating “proceedings to withdraw Federal funding by the Department or refer the case to the U.S. Department of Justice for litigation.”

In 2016, the Obama administration circulated guidance stating that so-called gender identity was protected under Title IX.

Politico noted at the time that the advisory included “a threat that the Obama administration has leveled against North Carolina in the standoff over the state’s law blocking legal protections for gay and transgender individuals: If a state fails to comply with the administration’s interpretation of the law, it runs the risk of being sued by the federal government and losing federal funding, particularly for education.”

In April 2011, the Obama ED OCR established mandates requiring universities to reduce students’ due process rights. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression indicated that failure on the part of universities to heed the regulations, which were announced in a letter from then-Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali, faced federal investigation and a potential loss of federal funding.

Obama also proposed shifting federal funding away from universities perceived as failing to keep net tuition down.

The previous two Democratic administrations appear to have liberally threatened schools’ funding without the accompaniment of a chorus of doomsdayers warning of the coming peril and civilizational harms. Their threats also paved the way for those issued in recent weeks by the Trump administration.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Politics, Harvard university, Defunding, University, Federal funding, Education department, Department of education, Ocr, Office of civil rights, Title vi, Title ix, Compliance, Donald trump, T3 

Residents in Purcellville, Virginia, appeared to successfully pressure the town council on Tuesday to backtrack from its plan to dissolve the local police force.

Purcellville Town Council members voted on April 9 to eliminate the police department, citing multiple reasons, including staffing issues. They argued that the move would save the town more than $3 million after falling into $50 million of debt to construct a wastewater treatment plant.

‘The four of you snuck agenda items in at the end of the meeting and took away my lawful right to comment on them.’

The town council hinged its support for the department’s elimination on the fact that Purcellville is rated as one of the safest towns in the state, and the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office already patrols the town from 1 a.m. to 6 a.m. The sheriff’s office also manages school resource officers.

However, locals felt that the town council concocted the plan to dismantle the police force behind closed doors and failed to seek input.

“The four of you snuck agenda items in at the end of the meeting and took away my lawful right to comment on them,” one resident told the council, according to WJLA.

The sheriff’s office released a statement that appeared to support residents’ concerns.

“Loudoun Sheriff Mike Chapman has neither been consulted about nor agrees with the representations in the document published in the Purcellville Town Council meeting packet describing the dissolution of its Police Department and replacement with services provided by the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office,” the statement read. “Unfortunately, nothing in the published document has been discussed with Sheriff Chapman or the LCSO’s Leadership Team.”

“While the LCSO is willing to provide law enforcement support and services to the Town of Purcellville, the Town Council has no jurisdiction to place conditions or requirements on the LCSO should its Police Department be dissolved,” the sheriff’s office added.

Outraged residents packed the town council’s Tuesday meeting to express their disapproval of the plan. Locals also launched a recall effort to remove several council members and Vice Mayor Ben Nett.

During the meeting, the council members seemed to cave under the community’s pressure, voting instead to fund the police force through next year. However, members plan to hold a full budget session to consider the department’s future.

The vote to keep the police force followed news on Monday that the Office of Attorney General authorized the state police to open a criminal investigation into Nett over a potential conflict of interest — while serving as vice mayor, Nett was also employed with the Purcellville Police Department. He was terminated from the force earlier this month.

Commonwealth’s attorney Bob Anderson stated that Nett has been “prevented from accessing all police department records, voting on all matters involving the PPD and attending all meetings involving discussions about PPD.”

Anderson claimed that Nett’s support of disbanding the department appeared to be a “retaliation” over his recent termination and “a blatant conflict of interest.”

Nett did not respond to WTTF’s request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​News, Virginia, Purcellville virginia, Purcellville police department, Purcellville town council, Police, Public safety, Politics