Tag: donald trump

Tetris Fires Off Warning to White House Over Parody, Implies Trump’s ‘Build the Wall’ Arcade Game Looks Like Copyright Infringement

The company that owns Tetris has publicly threatened the White House over a game that plays like the classic block-stacker, saying it takes copyright infringement “very seriously.”

The Trump administration launched an online arcade of MAGA-themed retro games on Thursday, including a Tetris-style “Build the Wall,” subtitled “Zombie Border Siege.”

In the game, players stack falling blocks into a southern-border barrier and try to keep cartoon zombies and other figures from crossing.

If the stack hits the top, the screen reads “BORDER BREACHED.”

The White House X account plugged the launch with the line “Build the wall. Deport. Fill a Trump Account.”

Naturally, leftists were outraged by the game.

Keep reading

Trump Education Department Goes on the Warpath Against School Districts Enabling Teacher Sex Crimes

In a move to reduce the epidemic of teacher sexual misconduct, the Trump Administration has launched a nationwide crackdown on school districts that enable these disturbing offenses against children that continue to generate weekly headlines, Breitbart News has learned.

This week alone, three cases made the news:

  • New Jersey special education teacher, 45, a married mother of two, was sentenced to 12 years in prison for having sex with an 8th grader.
  • A 34-year-old Riverside, California teacher and swim coach pled guilty to two counts of sexual penetration and other sex crimes on a 14-year-old child.
  • And, a 26-year-old teacher in the tiny eastern Washington town of Warden was sentenced to 15 years for repeated sex with a 13-year-old and filming the encounters.

The new effort appears particularly focused on what is known as “passing the trash” — the act of concealing sexual offenses and assigning the teacher to another school or recommending him or her as a good hire in another district.

The Department of Education (ED), which is leading the new probe, said in a recent statement:

The Trump Administration has observed a troubling and recurring pattern in schools across the nation of credible reports of sexual abuse and harassment by adults in positions of authority going uninvestigated or of suspected offenders being transferred to new schools or roles in the district.

However, that announcement, like many of Trump’s official actions, was ignored by major news networks and legacy print media.

While incessant Trump critics have accused the president of narrowing investigations and outright killing the federal education department, his administration in fact ramped up “educational sexual misconduct” reporting near the end of his first term.

The new policy meant to get a better handle on the problem had to overcome a court challenge to the reporting rules by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Announcement of the new 2026 crackdown comes following a blistering “Dear Colleague” letter sent out to U.S. school districts by ED Secretary Linda McMahon last month, which has been obtained by Breitbart News.

McMahon cites the epidemic being enabled by “institutional silence and complacency” by school districts and teachers’ unions being committed “to shield their members from disciplinary actions.”

McMahon called such practices a failure of their “moral and legal responsibilities to parents and students.”

Two decades-old laws are in play in the effort, an ED source who asked for anonymity told Breitbart News:

  • A Title IX amendment in 1972 which requires schools with “knowledge of sexual harassment or sexual assault” to “promptly respond in a manner that is not deliberately indifferent.”
  • The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires local districts receiving federal funds to prohibit schools from quietly removing perpetrators by helping them get jobs at other institutions — the practice known as “passing the trash,” the source said.

Secretary McMahon in her letter promised those who fail to follow federal laws will face the loss of federal funding, which virtually all school districts depend on for various local programs.

“This epidemic of nationwide sexual abuse in our schools must end,” she concluded.

In short, though schools are largely controlled by local school boards, the Trump administration and ED appear to be on the warpath.

Keep reading

Arizona Rancher Tells Trump That Dem Gov Katie Hobbs Wants to Evict Him From Family Land to Build Foreign Company’s Solar Energy Plant

An Arizona rancher told President Trump on Friday that Democratic Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs would have taken his land away and given it to a foreign renewable energy company if the Trump administration had not intervened. 

Casey Murph, a fifth-generation Arizona rancher who leases land from the state for his H-Y Cattle Company in Navajo County, said that Hobbs wants to take away his land for a Danish energy company, Ørsted, to develop.

According to American Stewarts of Liberty, Murph’s family has used the roughly 4,000 acres of land in Northern Arizona since the 1870s, decades before Arizona even became a state in 1912.

In 2022, Murph began receiving notices from the state that foreign developers wanted his land for a renewable-energy project. In 2025, Hobbs signed an executive order granting large-scale energy infrastructure manufacturers priority access to state lands and easing restrictions on the so-called green energy projects.

“Her task force created a map of all the state lands throughout the state and color-coded those lands according to solar favorability,” Murph previously said, noting that his land was designated as less suitable for agriculture than renewable energy.

During an executive order signing ceremony on Friday, Murph revealed to the President that Hobbs wants to kick him off his family’s land of over a century to build a solar energy plant.

“It’s been in my family for over 100 years. Katie Hobbs has offered those lands up to solar development companies,” Murph said.

Keep reading

Trump Admin Drafts Policy to Let Married Stay-at-Home Parents Collect Child-Care Aid Instead of Paying Strangers to Raise Their Kids

The Trump administration is drafting a Health and Human Services policy that would, for the first time, let a married parent who stays home with the children collect federal child-care money that Washington has spent thirty years routing almost exclusively to day-care centers.

The New York Times, citing people familiar with the talks and a draft document, reports the change is a priority for Vice President JD Vance and would tap the Child Care and Development Fund, the 1990s program built to help low-income parents pay for care so they could work or go to school.

Typical aid runs about $9,000 per child a year.

Under the draft, a married couple in certain income brackets could use that assistance for “parent-based childcare,” meaning one spouse stays home while the other works at least 35 hours a week.

“The change would create the only federal subsidy to pay parents to stay home and raise their children, one of the most significant efforts to date by the Trump administration to harness federal funds to promote a traditional view of families,” the NYT reports.

No new act of Congress is required for this change.

The Times reported, as if it were a negative, “The policy change would effectively create a government incentive for parents to stay home with their children, an idea embraced as part of a broader conservative effort to advance policies that promote more mothers staying at home.”

A federal program that will pay a stranger to raise a child and will not pay a mother or father to do it is not neutral.

Keep reading

Donald Trump Just Asked SCOTUS To End the Trans Military Circus Once and For All

Joe Biden let the Pentagon run gender experiments on the military for four years.

Now a pair of Obama and Clinton judges think they outrank the Commander in Chief.

And Donald Trump just asked the Supreme Court to end the transgender military circus once and for all.

The Judges Who Think They Command the Military

Two Democrat-appointed judges on the D.C. Circuit – one picked by Obama, one by Clinton – ruled in June that Pete Hegseth can’t discharge the transgender troops currently serving under an injunction.

That ruling declared the Hegseth policy was likely driven by “hostility” rather than military necessity.

The Trump-appointed dissenter on that same panel said it plainly: the Constitution assigns authority over military service to Congress and the Commander in Chief – not to federal judges.

The Trump-appointed judge was right.

Solicitor General John Sauer called the majority ruling “gravely erroneous” and filed a petition for certiorari on August 28.

He argued the policy doesn’t discriminate against transgender people – it disqualifies individuals with gender dysphoria, a medical condition that affects deployability and readiness.

The government isn’t required to build a perfect case when it comes to military standards. It only has to show a reasonable connection to readiness – and that bar is obvious.

Why SCOTUS Already Answered This Once

This isn’t new territory for the justices.

In May 2025, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority already paused a separate injunction – a Washington state judge’s order blocking the broader ban across the entire military.

That ruling cleared the way for the Pentagon to implement the policy and begin separating trans-identifying service members who hadn’t voluntarily left.

The D.C. Circuit’s June 2026 ruling in Talbott v. United States reopened a hole the Supreme Court had already sealed – protecting a group of individual plaintiffs from discharge while their case heads toward a January 2027 trial.

Keep reading

Trump ambassador vows NATO-like reforms to UN after terror scandal: ‘Clean this place up’

President Donald Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations is vowing to force a massive reform at the global agency, pledging to slim it down through privatization and create more accountability in the wake of revelations that one of its relief agencies in Gaza funded employees who participated in the 2023 terrorist attack in Israel.

“The charge from the president is to clean this place up and get it working for the American people,” U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz said Thursday night in a wide-ranging interview on the Just the News, No Noise television show that focused on ending abuses and fraud in American foreign aid.

“What President Trump has done with NATO, we’re looking to do to the United Nations,” he added.

Waltz sharply criticized the Biden administration for turning a blind eye to fraud across America’s multibillion foreign aid system and specifically for re-funding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) despite evidence of close ties to the terror group Hamas.

Trump ended funding for UNRWA after taking office in 2025, and the USAID inspector general revealed last month that more than 100 workers funded by UNRWA have been identified as having participated in the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas atrocities in Israel.

Waltz said those revelations are a wakeup call for the world that the U.N. is not serving its charter, and the Trump administration has already forced significant changes in recent months.

“We forced them to take their first budget cut ever in their 80-year history. They are going to fire 3,000 U.N. bureaucrats out of the headquarters building in New York. We’re going to get more of our aid dollars,” he said. “…And then there’s 90,000 U.N. peacekeepers around the world. We’ve cut 25% of them. So we put the U.N. on a diet.”

Waltz said the next round of reforms that the U.S. will force as the largest contributor to the U.N. will be modeled after Trump’s effort to make European allies pick up a greater share of the NATO burden.

“The American people are generous people when it comes to tsunamis or earthquakes, like we just had in Venezuela, or other types of famine. But we need to know that it’s not filtering through a bloated bureaucracy; that it’s actually getting to people in need,” he said. “We’re making it leaner and more focused.”

“I think people rightly ask why we’re even involved at all. I say two things. Number one, you need one place in the world where everyone can talk, and if we just walk out, I don’t want to see the U.N. in Beijing or Brussels or somewhere else, we need to get in there and fight and win for American interests,” Waltz added. “And then number two, there’s a burden sharing component to it. I don’t want to see U.S. troops in places like Gaza or, you know, dealing with the gangs in Haiti when the U.N. is willing to go in there and we can push that agenda. I think that’s something that’s in line with the president’s America First foreign policy.”

Waltz succinctly summarized Trump’s policy toward the U.N.

“So, diplomacy first, words before bullets, and burden sharing are two of the reasons we’re still trying to keep this place up. But ultimately, that’s the charge from President Trump: Help it realize its potential, and the U.N. should be helping him craft these peace deals around the world,” he said.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer agreed during the show on Thursday that the U.S. should continue to cut funding for the U.N., particularly as it relates to USAID funding, which has already seen cuts under the Trump administration.

Keep reading

Trump Censorship Machine Loses Again in Court

The Trump administration’s crusade to crush campus criticism took another wallop on Friday in a California courtroom. Federal judge Noël Wise ruled that the Trump administration’s “ideological-deportation policy” brazenly violated the US Constitution.

The Stanford Daily—one of the best-known college student newspapers in the nation—sued the Trump administration for changing its “immigration policy and pattern of enforcement, namely by arresting, detaining, and deporting students with F-1 visas when those students use their freedom of speech to express opinions that the government does not like.” It asserted that the Trump administration’s “actions have specifically impacted Stanford Daily by decreasing the quantity and diversity of opinion pieces The Stanford Daily is able to publish on the conflict between Israel and Palestine.” Foreign students who had written on the issue requested that their previous articles be deleted, and other foreign students were no longer willing to comment on hot issues.

The Trump administration claims unlimited discretion to silence foreign students by deporting those whose opinions it disapproves of. Judge Wise wrote, “The language of the [First] Amendment makes clear that it is not the government that gives freedom of speech to the people. Instead, that freedom is imbued in the people. . . . It is not the government’s to take.” This is a notion that conservatives instinctively understand when it comes to the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense. But many people fail to recognize the same right for freedom of speech. Conor Fitzpatrick—the chief supervising attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)—which represented the student newspaper, declared, “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.” FIRE president Greg Lukianoff clarified the scope of the ruling:

This ruling does NOT say the government must admit anyone, issue anyone a visa, or grant anyone citizenship. It says that once a person is lawfully here, the government cannot deport them because they engaged in protected speech. The government cannot tell a legal immigrant: An American is free to say this, but if you say it, you’re out.

George Porteous—Editor in Chief of Stanford Daily—hailed the decision: “The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation. Today’s victory means they won’t have to.” But it remains to be seen whether this latest judicial rebuff slows the Trump censorship juggernaut.

Keep reading

Trump Will Demand Repayment From the EU Over Biden’s Massive Military Aid to Ukraine

Rather belatedly, but it will be demanded.

In the context of a social media burn against ‘SCUM’ journalists who are suggesting that the missile and ammo stockpiles would be dangerously low, President Donald J. Trump suggested that the European Union should repay the US for the untold billions that creepy Joe Biden’s administration sent to Ukraine.

Le Monde reported (translated from the French):

“Donald Trump on Thursday criticized his predecessor, Joe Biden, for providing Ukraine with hundreds of billions of dollars in aid and ammunition for free, believing that the Europeans should have borne the cost and announcing his intention to ask them for the money.

‘Hundreds of billions of dollars have been given for free to Ukraine and NATO, money that Europe would have paid if it had just been asked, but we will claim this money, even if it’s a little late!’ the US president wrote on Truth Social.”

Keep reading

Trump’s Saudi Nuclear Agreement May Prolong the Iran War

A final deal between the United States and Iran is slipping further out of reach. Since the Memorandum of Understanding collapsed in July, the prospects for reviving it have deteriorated by the day. While Tehran publicly demands a return to the MOU, Trump’s current position is that even if Iran reopened the Strait of Hormuz, he would neither return to the agreement nor lift the blockade on Iran. And even in the unlikely event that he did, the MOU could not come back into force as long as Israel continues to bombard Lebanon. Iran is unlikely to accept an MOU minus Lebanon: its demand for a regional ceasefire is non-negotiable.

But even if these obstacles were resolved, profound differences over the nuclear issue would remain. And those differences have now grown dramatically more severe because of Trump’s nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia. The details of the deal were just made public, and Kelsey Davenport at the Arms Control Association has published an excellent FAQ addressing its most important aspects.

The bottom line is: Trump is granting Saudi Arabia access to the same uranium-enrichment technology the United States has sought to deny Iran for more than three decades, while imposing a far weaker inspection regime on Saudi nuclear activities. In effect, Washington is providing Riyadh a pathway to the bomb while insisting that Iran have no enrichment capability whatsoever – the infamous zero-enrichment objective.

As ACA writes,

“the Trump administration rejected key nonproliferation conditions for U.S. nuclear cooperation that have long-standing bipartisan support and are internationally recognized best practices.

Most critically, the deal does not require Saudi Arabia to adhere to the more intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement, known as the Additional Protocol.”

As a point of comparison, Iran began voluntarily implementing the Additional Protocol (AP) under Obama’s nuclear deal in 2016 and was expected to ratify it once the United States formally lifted sanctions through Congress. That never happened, however, because Trump withdrew from the agreement in May 2018.

Moreover, Trump’s agreement with Saudi Arabia gives the kingdom a pathway to develop a uranium-enrichment program reaching 20 percent. Again, the comparison with Iran is revealing. When Iran expanded its enrichment to 20 percent in 2010 to produce fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor – which, ironically, the United States had given Iran in the late 1960s as part of the Atoms for Peace program – Washington pointed to the move as further evidence of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons ambitions.

State Department spokesperson Philip Crowley said on February 11, 2010, that Iran’s decision to begin enriching to 20 percent “further solidifies… our impression and that of the international community that Iran’s nuclear intentions are anything but peaceful.” At the UN Security Council, then-Ambassador Susan Rice argued that Iran’s decision moved it “closer to weapons-grade material,” as she made the case for new UN sanctions against Tehran.

Now, Trump wants Congress to approve a deal with Saudi Arabia that gives the kingdom access to precisely that technology – but with far fewer inspections – while bombing Iran to prevent it from having any enrichment at all.

Keep reading

Tyranny by Technicality: The Supreme Court Will Not Save Our Republic

“The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.”—Justice William O. Douglas

For years, we have been warning that the U.S. Supreme Court would not save us from the American police state.

That warning has not grown less urgent. It has simply become more complicated.

The danger today is not merely that courts will favor order and procedure over freedom. It is that by the time justice makes an appearance, it will arrive so narrowly, so procedurally and so late that the government will already have prevailed.

Consider the fight over President Trump’s massive $400 million White House ballroom.

Lower courts found serious reason to doubt Trump’s claim to unilateral authority to tear down the historic East Wing and proceed with the project without congressional approval, and they ordered above-ground construction halted.

Those orders were stayed while the administration appealed.

Construction continued.

Then the administration argued that the project had progressed so far that stopping it had become impractical.

On August 31, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5–4 vote, allowed the construction to continue—not because it determined that Trump had acted legally, but because the majority concluded that the preservationists challenging the project likely lacked legal standing to sue.

The Supreme Court expressly declined to decide whether the project itself was lawful.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joining the Court’s three liberal justices in dissent, warned that allowing the project to proceed was “no victory for the separation of powers.”

Therein lies the problem with justice in the age of the American police state: by the time the courts finally decide whether government officials have overstepped their constitutional authority, the deed may already be done, the right already violated and the damage already inflicted.

The building is already gone. The troops are already deployed. The surveillance system is already operating. The people are already detained. The agency is already dismantled. The data is already collected. The war is already underway.

And whatever constitutional principle eventually emerges from the litigation arrives too late to undo the damage.

At what point will “We the People” be told that we, too, lack standing to object to the destruction of our republic?

The Founders built safeguards into the constitutional system to guard against any one branch of government becoming all-powerful: If the president overreaches, Congress is supposed to stop him. If Congress fails to do its duty, the courts are supposed to intervene. If a lower court gets it wrong, the Supreme Court will set things right.

That is how the system is supposed to work.

Keep reading