White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed President Donald Trump was the creator of the phrase “peace through strength,” despite it being originally credited to a Roman emperor.

Leavitt appeared Monday morning on Fox News to address the United States’ attack on Iran this weekend. In the clip, surfaced by journalist Aaron Rupar, she said the bombing was an example of Trump’s devotion to peace.

“Nobody knows what it means to accomplish peace through strength better than President Trump. He is the one who came up with that motto and that foreign policy doctrine. He successfully implemented it in his first term; and this is one of many steps he is taking to successfully implement peace in his second term,” Leavitt said.

READ MORE: Karoline Leavitt Says Qatar Won’t Expect Anything in Return for Deluxe Jet

Despite Leavitt’s claims, the phrase is first attributed to the Roman Emperor Hadrian. Hadrian ruled from 117 to 138 AD. He is perhaps best known in modern times for building Hadrian’s Wall, a wall running across what’s now England originally used as a defensive fortification by the Roman Empire. Hadrian’s Wall still exists and was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1987.

The doctrine of peace through strength has also been used throughout American history. President George Washington famously said that “if we desire to secure peace…it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.” In the Federalist Papers, founding father Alexander Hamilton argued for keeping a standing army during peacetime as a deterrent force.

“Though a wide ocean separates the United States from Europe, yet there are various considerations that warn us against an excess of confidence or security… The improvements in the art of navigation, have, as to the facility of communication, rendered distant nations, in a great measure, neighbors. Britain and Spain are among the principal maritime powers of Europe. A future concert of views between these nations ought not to be regarded as improbable,” Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 24. “Politicians have ever with great reason considered the ties of blood as feeble and precarious links of political connection. These circumstances, combined, admonish us not to be too sanguine in considering ourselves as entirely out of the reach of danger.”

The phrase has also been used as the motto of the United States’ Eighth Air Force as well as the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan.

Though “peace through strength” has been used throughout history, in modern times, it’s been most associated with the aircraft carrier’s namesake. President Ronald Reagan first used the phrase during his 1980 campaign to unseat President Jimmy Carter to describe his approach to foreign policy. The phrase has been used in every Republican Party platform since then.

In other words, if Trump did indeed “come up with that motto,” as Leavitt says, the media has been focusing on the wrong things. The man clearly has time-travel technology he’s keeping secret from the rest of the world.

Watch above or at this link.

In a lengthy post to X, formerly Twitter, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) slammed President Donald Trump for breaking his campaign promises of “No more foreign wars. No more regime change. World Peace.”

Greene’s Monday morning post criticized the Trump administration for not just bombing three Iranian sites, but for changing its claims about the success of the strikes.

READ MORE: Marjorie Taylor Greene Tops List of Ultra MAGA Hardliners Pursuing Promotions — and Power

“I spent millions of my own money and TRAVELED THE ENTIRE COUNTRY campaigning for President Trump and his MAGA agenda and his promises. And Trump’s MAGA agenda included these key promises: NO MORE FOREIGN WARS. NO MORE REGIME CHANGE. WORLD PEACE. And THIS is what the people voted for,” Greene wrote. “Only 6 months in and we are back into foreign wars, regime change, and world war 3.”

“After the bombs were dropped, we were told ‘complete success’ and Iran’s nuclear capabilities were totally wiped out. Then it quickly turned to Iran’s nuclear facilities ‘partially damaged’ and now it’s ‘we don’t know where their enriched uranium is,'” she continued.

Greene’s comment about Iran’s enriched uranium refers to conflicting statements by members of the Trump administration. On Sunday, Vice President J.D. Vance said Iran still has its uranium stockpile. However, the following day, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the strikes had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear sites, including its uranium stockpiles.

Though a longtime supporter of Trump, this weekend’s attack on Iran has led Greene to criticize the president for the first time. On Sunday, Greene shared a long post to X stating that she’d never known any American who was “the victim of a crime or killed by Iran,” saying the effort against Iran would be better used in the War on Drugs.

“I’m 51 years old. I’m GenX. I’ve watched our country go to war in foreign lands for foreign causes on behalf of foreign interests for as long as I can remember. I was in 10th grade when Desert Storm started and my father before me was sent to Vietnam, another senseless foreign war. America is $37 TRILLION in debt and all of these foreign wars have cost Americans TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of dollars that never benefited any American,” she wrote. “I’m sick of it.”

“I can easily say I support nuclear armed Israel’s right to defend themselves and also say at the same time I don’t want to fight or fund nuclear armed Israel’s wars,” she added.

Greene is not the only MAGA figure to criticize Trump’s moves against Iran. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said Sunday “there was no imminent threat” from Iran. In response, Trump posted to his social platform Truth Social saying that Massie “is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is.” Trump then promised to campaign against Massie in the upcoming Republican primary. On Monday, he doubled down, re-sharing his original Truth Social post, adding “GET THIS ‘BUM’ OUT OF OFFICE, ASAP!!!”

While other companies like Ford, Harley Davidson and Home Depot are turning their back on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies, Costco fought back, saying that their success is due to "respect and inclusion."

A group of shareholders brought a proposal to the board of big-box retailer Costco Wholesale, requesting the company drop its DEI policies. The proposal cites "a number of DEI-related lawsuits" and pointed to other large companies like Alphabet, Meta and Microsoft dumping DEI policies.

"It's clear that DEI holds litigation, reputational and financial risks to the Company, and therefore financial risks to shareholders," the proposal read.

READ MORE: Costco Customer Refuses to Wear a Mask Because He’s ‘Not a Sheep’ and ‘Woke Up in a Free Country’ – Gets Kicked Out

The Costco board unanimously rejected this and urged all shareholders to vote against the proposal.

"Our Board has considered this proposal and believes that our commitment to an enterprise rooted in respect and inclusion is appropriate and necessary. The report requested by this proposal would not provide meaningful additional information to our shareholders, and the Board thus unanimously recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal," the board wrote.

"For our employees, these efforts are built around inclusion – having all of our employees feel valued and respected. Our efforts at diversity, equity and inclusion remind and reinforce with everyone at our Company the importance of creating opportunities for all. We believe that these efforts enhance our capacity to attract and retain employees who will help our business succeed. This capacity is critical because we owe our success to our now over 300,000 employees around the globe," it added.

And Costco did not pull its punches while dismissing the anti-DEI proposal.

"The proponent professes concern about legal and financial risks to the Company and its shareholders associated with the diversity initiatives. The supporting statement demonstrates that it is the proponent and others that are responsible for inflicting burdens on companies with their challenges to longstanding diversity programs. The proponent’s broader agenda is not reducing risk for the Company but abolition of diversity initiatives," the board wrote.

The proposal was initially brought to the board by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, according to CNN.

While corporate skittishness may be driving other companies to drop DEI policies, MK Chin, an associate professor and Jerome Bess Faculty Fellow at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business, said that DEI policies can lead to better employee bases.

“Millennials tend to prefer companies to stand up, and they expect—even require—CEOs to speak up on these socio-political issues. Millennials are becoming more of a center of this economy. They’re becoming more important customers with greater disposable income. Boomers are retiring or retired. Generation Xers are getting into their 50s and 60s. Considering this trend in demographics, pulling back from this initiative could have a long-term impact,” Chin told LGBTQ Nation.

“Attracting and retaining human capital might have a bigger impact. They are customers, but they’re also employees. And a good amount of research shows millennial employees tend to prioritize the importance of purpose and values at the workplace. So if dumping these DEI initiatives is perceived as ‘we’re not treating everyone as whole,’ that could hurt in terms of attracting and retaining higher-quality human capital,” Chin added.

Though other companies have been skittish when anti-DEI activists like the NCPPR have brought concerns, Costco appears to be bearing Chin's thesis out. Costco is seen as one of the most progressive companies, with its many sustainability policies, urging suppliers to use more efficient packaging and partnering with organizations to make sure their products are sustainably sourced. It's also known for high wages for its employees and for taking steps to reduce emissions and embrace green energy.

And it turns out, progressivism is profitable for the company, which regularly reports increases in profits.

Photo by Tony Webster via Wikimedia Commons

Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie have joined former Rep. Matt Gaetz's (R-Fla.) call to release the "congressional sexual slush fund," a list of congresspeople accused of sexual harassment.

On Thursday, both Greene (R-Ga.) and Massie (R-Ky.), posted to X calling for the release of information from the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, which handles complaints of harassment by members of Congress.

"Congress has secretly paid out more than $17 million of your money to quietly settle charges of harassment (sexual and other forms) in Congressional offices. Don’t you think we should release the names of the Representatives? I do," Massie tweeted, along with a video of Massie at the June 14 House Judiciary Committee hearing about former President Donald Trump's hush money case.

READ MORE: GOP Congressman Who Cost Taxpayers $84,000 in Sexual Harassment Suit Refuses to Quit but Won’t Run for Re-Election

Greene retweeted Massie's post, adding, "Yes. I want to release the congressional sexual slush fund list. Tax payers should have never had to pay for that. Along with all the other garbage they should not have to pay for."

Yes. I want to release the congressional sexual slush fund list.
Tax payers should have never had to pay for that.
Along with all the other garbage they should not have to pay for. https://t.co/8CyCO0haHk
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) December 26, 2024

Concern about the "slush fund" has been circulating since the story first broke in 2017. However, it has picked up steam recently during the House Ethics Committee's investigation of Gaetz. Last week, Gaetz suggested that he would show up on the first day of Congress to file a motion calling for the release of this information before resigning.

“Someone suggested the following plan to me: 1. Show up 1/3/2025 to congress 2. Participate in Speaker election (I was elected to the 119th Congress, after all…) 3. Take the oath 4. File a privileged motion to expose every ‘me too’ settlement paid using public funds (even of former members) 5. Resign and start my @OANN program at 9pm EST on January 6, 2025,” he posted to X, alongside a “thinking” emoji.

What Greene calls a "congressional sexual slush fund" refers to the payments made by the OCWR, formerly known as the Office of Compliance. The OCWR was established by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. The OCWR is sort of like Congress' HR department. In addition to handling harassment complaints, it also makes sure that Legislative Branch properties adhere to OSHA regulations, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other administrative concerns.

Though it was reported in 2021 that over $18.2 million had been paid in settlements since 1997, not all of those funds were used in sexual harassment suits. Some of the money has been used to pay for workplace safety and pay disputes, according to RealClear Policy. In addition, some politicians accused of sexual harassment have paid victims out of their own pockets.

That said, the OCWR has not released much information about these settlements, and it's unclear how much of that money was used specifically on sexual harassment cases. In addition, many harassment claims are settled in mediation, according to CNN, so knowing the amount of money spent on sexual harassment claims could still underreport the number of cases.

Though thanks to Gaetz's pushing, Republicans have recently embraced requiring the OCWR release this information, it's had bipartisan support in the past. In 2017, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) called the OCWR "an enabler of sexual harassment" due to the secrecy, according to Politico.

“Make no mistake that the fault of the current complaint process lies within Congress, which authored and passed this deeply flawed legislation that established the Office of Compliance and its burdensome complaint process,” Speier told Politico at the time. “It is our responsibility to fix this law and do better for our employees.”

Speier, joined by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), proposed the Member and Employee Training and Oversight on (ME TOO) Congress Act in 2017, which would require the OCWR to identify congress members who settled sexual harassment suits and pay back the Treasury for funds paid to their victims, according to Vox.

It was passed in the House that November. The Senate referred it to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, but the bill ultimately died in committee.

MAGA world is fighting over the H1-B visa, which allows nonimmigrant aliens to work in the U.S. in specialized occupations. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) entered the fray with a new screed blaming youth culture.

The main fight over H1-B is between big tech and immigration hardliners in the Republican party. People brought over to work on a H-1B visa have specialized skills. These skills can be in any industry—for example, the Department of Labor’s own page specifically calls out “fashion models of distinguished merit and ability” as eligible. But it’s tech workers at the center of the latest row.

H1-B visas became a flashpoint following President-elect Donald Trump naming Sriram Krishnan as AI policy adviser, according to Newsweek. Though a naturalized American citizen—and thus not covered by the H1-B—his Indian heritage caused some, including Laura Loomer, to suggest that Silicon Valley is icing out American workers from employment.

READ MORE: Marjorie Taylor Greene Accuses Biden of Legalizing ‘Human Trafficking of Millions’ in Immigration Row

Big tech however, has said that its hiring policies are necessary to get the greatest talent, leading some others, like Greene, to put the blame at Americans’ feet for not getting hired.

“However, I fully believe we must make the hard and necessary changes here in the U.S. to educate, build, and facilitate a solid foundation of knowledgeable, highly skilled, talented, well paid, AMERICAN workers. Not having this is like having a crumbling foundation in our house and currently we are importing foreigners to hold up the foundation walls and plug the leaks,” Greene wrote, in part, on Friday morning in a long post to X (formerly Twitter).

Citing her experience owning a construction company, she blames American culture for not “[respecting] hard work and productivity.”

“Too many of our young people, are killing their bodies and minds on alcohol and drugs, wasting years and money earning useless college degrees, chasing unrealistic dreams, spending all their time trying to be the next you tuber/content creator/social media influencer instead of pursuing a useful skill set/trade/education in order to become a part of our much needed American workforce,” she wrote.

“If you fall in this category, put down the selfie light, and go apply for a job and replace the H1-B visa holders and all the other skilled labor jobs that foreign workers are taking and American companies are desperately trying to hire,” she added.

“It’s called building a career, you work your way up.”

However, while “building a career” was more common in the past in America, career progression has stalled for many, according to research from recruiter Hays USA. Almost half of workers surveyed—48%—say they don’t have any opportunities to progress, according to the trade magazine The HR Director.

“Workers are clearly feeling stuck as they have limited opportunities to progress their careers both within and outside of their organisations. Our research highlights a critical issue for employers: as soon as workers feel more confident to move jobs, we’re likely to see part two of the Great Resignation,” Hays UK&I COO Pam Lindsay-Dunn told the magazine.

Layoffs are also common as companies, even when experiencing massive profits, still downsize. Over half of workers, 53%, say they “feel replaceable,” according to Forbes. And one need only look to the games industry to see why—despite $184 billion in sales, there were over 10,000 layoffs in 2023, according to Polygon.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has blocked Robert Roberson, a man given a death sentence based on the discredited “shaken baby syndrome,” from testifying at the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence.

Roberson’s execution date was set for October 17, but the Texas Supreme Court granted a stay of execution so he could testify, according to the Austin Chronicle. Roberson was scheduled to testify on December 20, but Paxton filed a motion on the 19th, telling prison officials to ignore a subpoena issued by the House committee, declaring it invalid.

Roberson was due to testify about the state’s “junk science law.” That law is supposed to provide new trials when a person is convicted based on flawed forensic evidence, according to the Texas Tribune. However, critics allege the law rarely actually allows new trials, the Chronicle reports. The committee was supposed to hear Roberson’s story to help determine if the law is ineffective.

READ MORE: Texas AG Ken Paxton Threatens Democrat-Leaning Counties Not To Mail Out Voter Registration Forms

Roberson was convicted in 2003 of capital murder following the death of his 2-year-old daughter, according to Newsweek. At the time, a doctor said the girl had died from “shaken baby syndrome,” defined as head trauma due to shaking. Shaken baby syndrome has been controversial since it was first coined. Biomechanics scientists say that shaking a baby can’t create a force strong enough to cause the type of trauma seen in these sorts of cases, according to the New Jersey Monitor. It’s often used as a catchall type diagnosis, when a baby dies but has no other signs of abuse.

In Roberson’s case, the child had been chronically ill, Newsweek reported. She had a fever and respiratory issues, which likely caused her death.

Other cases based on shaken baby syndrome have been overturned. This includes a 2000 case in Dallas, where Andrew Wayne Roark was initially sentenced to 35 years in prison in the death of his girlfriend’s 13-month-old. The Texas Supreme Court overturned Roark’s conviction this year about a week before Roberson was due to be executed, according to KERA-FM.

Despite this, Texas officials have declined to address Roberson’s case. Though Gov. Greg Abbott pardoned four people this week, Roberson was not one of them, according to the Houston Chronicle. In October, Paxton called attempts to delay Roberson’s execution “eleventh-hour, one-sided, extrajudicial stunts that attempt to obscure the facts and rewrite his past,” according to the Tribune. At the time, Abbott agreed, saying the House had “stepped out of line” in its attempts to delay execution so Roberson could testify.

Last year, Paxton was impeached by the state House on 20 separate articles of impeachment. The Texas Senate, which skews Republican 19 to 12, voted to acquit. The charges mostly centered around allegations Paxton used his position to help a campaign donor under investigation by the FBI for fraud.

A new date for Roberson’s execution has not been set.

Outgoing Representative Annie Kuster (D-N.H.) said that she made the decision not to run for her seat again after meeting with President Joe Biden early in the campaign and seeing his decline.

Kuster, 68, said this March she would not run for re-election to the House seat she’s held for nearly 12 years. She told the Boston Globe on Thursday that she’d made the decision after flying with Biden on Air Force One. She says that though she felt he was capable of serving the rest of his term as president, she could see the signs of aging.

“Just in my heart, [I] reached the conclusion that this would be a very challenging campaign for him, and to put himself out there for another four-year term was was going to be a struggle,” she told the Globe.

READ MORE: Two-Thirds of Americans Want Age Limits for Politicians, Supreme Court

She also suggested that Biden’s advisers may have tried to hide the effect that the president’s age had on him, but wasn’t sure how much the party had. When the Democratic party first started floating the idea of replacing him on the ticket, she compared it to discussing end-of-life care for loved ones.

“It was painful. I haven’t had these kind of conversations since I talked to my own parents about, you know, their aging and their limitations,” she said.

Kuster hopes other senior citizen politicians follows her lead.

“I’m trying to set a better example,” she said. “I think there are colleagues — and some of whom are still very successful and very productive — but others who just stay forever.”

Incoming President Donald Trump is back on his quixotic plan to buy Greenland for the United States. But that’s not the first time the United States has expressed interest in buying the vast expanse of ice and tundra.

Trump’s most recent attempt to get the Denmark-owned self-governing territory is wrapped up in his announcement of Ken Howery as ambassador to Denmark. In 2019, Howery was named Trump’s ambassador to Sweden.

“For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” Trump said.

READ MORE: ‘America’s Dumbest Senator’: Ron Johnson Dragged for ‘Incredibly Ignorant’ Claim About How Greenland Got Its Name

Trump’s interest in Greenland started during his first term, when billionaire and former Estée Lauder chairman Ronald Lauder suggested the president buy the territory. In August 2018, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) met with Danish ambassador Lars Gert Lose on Trump’s behalf to float the proposal. At the time Cotton said that Greenland was “vital to our national security,” according to TalkBusiness.

Denmark refused offers, with Denmark’s foreign policy chair calling it a “terrible and grotesque thought,” according to the New York Times. Indeed, the proposal was first reported on as one of Trump’s jokes.

The most recent attempt is just as unpopular with the Danes and the Greenlandic people.

“Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom,” Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede told Reuters.

As strange as it may seem, Trump is not the only president to try to get Greenland. Nor is the idea quite as baffling as it initially sounds. Though the territory is mostly covered in ice—with areas of pure ice—it has lots of mineral resources, including stores of uranium, coal, gold and rare earth metals, not to mention oil and gas.

Greenland is also well positioned politically. There are a number of American military bases in the territory, and it boasts frequent visits from diplomats and military officials. It was even called “the most strategic location in the Arctic and perhaps the world” by Walter Berbrick of the U.S. Naval War College, who has urged the United States to increase ties to Greenland—and even called the purchase of the territory a “strategic option” that “deserves serious consideration.”

The first time the U.S. thought about buying Greenland was in 1867 when Secretary of State William Seward, under President Andrew Johnson, proposed buying it and Iceland from Denmark for $5.5 million in gold, or about $117.2 million in today’s money. The offer was never made to Denmark however. That same year, Seward negotiated the Alaska Purchase from Russia for $7.2 million ($129 million today).

In 1946, President Harry Truman’s Secretary of State Owen Brewster tried again. He offered $100 million (or about $1 billion in today’s money) in gold bullion. While the offer was popular in the American government, Denmark balked. The main reason cited was that Danes saw Greenland as part of Denmark’s cultural identity and a connection to the country’s history as Vikings, according to The Conversation.

That refusal appeared to settle things. America was happy to merely work with Denmark and Greenland without actually owning it until Trump stepped in. It remains unlikely that Denmark will ever sell—in fact, Greenlandic independence appears to be a surer bet. But one can only assume that Trump won’t stop trying.

Former Representative Matt Gaetz suggested that he could “go after” his “former colleagues in Congress” the day before the House Ethics Committee report came out.

Gaetz made his comments Sunday afternoon at Turning Point USA’s “AmericaFest” event in Arizona, according to The Hill.

“My fellow Floridians have asked me to eye the governor’s mansion in Tallahassee, maybe [be appointed as] special counsel to go after the insider trading for my former colleagues in Congress. It seems I may not have had enough support [to be confirmed as Attorney General] in the United States Senate. Maybe I’ll just run for Marco Rubio’s vacant seat in the United States Senate and join some of those folks,” Gaetz said.

READ MORE: Gaetz Rages at Secret Vote to Release Ethics Report, Insists He Was ‘Fully Exonerated’

This is not the first time Gaetz has suggested he might retaliate against the House. Last week, he suggested on X (formerly Twitter) that since he was elected to the new Congress—despite resigning the position when incoming President Donald Trump initially named him as his pick for Attorney General—he could participate in the vote for House Speaker.

“Someone suggested the following plan to me: 1. Show up 1/3/2025 to congress 2. Participate in Speaker election (I was elected to the 119th Congress, after all…) 3. Take the oath 4. File a privileged motion to expose every ‘me too’ settlement paid using public funds (even of former members) 5. Resign and start my @OANN program at 9pm EST on January 6, 2025,” he wrote, alongside a “thinking” emoji.

There are reports other Republican representatives are working to make Gaetz’ threat a reality, according to Politico. Though Politico did not name which representatives were involved, one potential Gaetz ally is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who backed his threat on X, according to Newsweek.

“If Congress is going to release one ethics report, they should release them all. I want to see the Epstein list. I want to see the details of the slush fund for sexual misconduct by members of Congress and Senators. I want to see it all,” she wrote.

The House Ethics Committee report released Monday found that while the claims that Gaetz violated sex trafficking laws were unsubstantiated, other accusations against him were supported by evidence. The report says the committee found evidence that Gaetz paid thousands of dollars for sex; violated Florida’s statutory rape law; used cocaine, ecstasy and marijuana illegally; violated the rule on accepting gifts from lobbyists; gave friends special privileges and favors; and tried to obstruct the committee’s investigation.

Gaetz sued in an attempt to block the release of the report, claiming the committee no longer had jurisdiction. Gaetz denied the allegations.

“Once released, the damage to Plaintiff’s reputation and professional standing would be immediate, severe and irreversible, particularly because: a. The Committee’s findings would carry the imprimatur of official Congressional action; b. Media coverage would be immediate and widespread; c. The allegations would permanently remain in the public record,” Gaetz’ attorneys wrote in the suit, according to Deadline.

The committee said that a majority of its members had voted that the release of the report was still in the public interest despite Gaetz’ resignation from Congress.

Image via Shutterstock

Former President Donald Trump has declined Vice President Kamala Harris’ offer of a second debate. He compared himself to a top boxer, declaring himself the winner and wondering why he should bother with a rematch.

Trump and Harris had their first debate Tuesday night on ABC. Shortly afterward—less than an hour, according to ABC News—the Harris campaign asked for a followup debate in October. Fox News offered to be the host, which should have appealed to Trump, considering he wanted Tuesday’s debate to be hosted on the conservative-leaning cable news outlet. But apparently, he’s changed his mind.

“In the World of Boxing or UFC, when a Fighter gets beaten or knocked out, they get up and scream, ‘I DEMAND A REMATCH, I DEMAND A REMATCH!’ Well, it’s no different with a Debate. She was beaten badly last night. Every Poll has us WINNING, in one case, 92-8, so why would I do a Rematch?” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday.

READ MORE: MAGA World Threatens to Boycott ABC After Trump’s Disastrous Debate Performance

Though Trump declared himself the winner, that is not a common belief. Many networks declared Harris the winner, including Fox News. Trump is correct that one poll did have him winning 92% to 8%, but that was an online poll from Newsmax. Newsmax is a far-right media outlet. It came to prominence during the 2020 election when Trump turned against Fox News for becoming the first outlet to declare President Joe Biden the winner in Arizona, a battleground state. Newsmax promoted Trump’s unfounded claims of voter fraud.

Trump shared a number of other polls on his Truth Social account shortly after the debate, but most were from explicitly pro-Trump outlets like the Daily Caller, or were taken on X, formerly Twitter, which has skewed right following Elon Musk’s takeover of the social media platform.

Polls from more mainstream outlets, however, told a different story. Newsweek’s reader poll showed Harris ahead nearly 2 to 1. CNN’s poll had a similar spread, with Harris declared the winner by 63% of viewers. In the Washington Post’s poll of 25 uncommitted swing-state voters, 23 said Harris did better. YouGov’s polling was closer, but Harris still pulled ahead 43% to 32%.

Pundits and experts also awarded the win to Harris. NPR said the debate “wasn’t close.” The New York Times said Harris “rattled” Trump.

Former Republican Representative Liz Cheney predicted Sunday many Republicans will actually end up voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.

The former Wyoming representative appeared on ABC’s This Week to urge her fellow Republicans to dump former President Donald Trump and endorse Harris as she has.

“Given the closeness of this election, particularly if you’re going to find yourself voting in a swing state, you’ve got to take the extra step if you really do recognize the threat that Donald Trump poses. Then it’s not enough to simply say, ‘I’m not going to vote for him,’” she said.

READ MORE: Liz Cheney Stomps Mitch McConnell for ‘Political Calculation’ to Ignore Trump’s Election Crimes

But she also said that even if many Republicans don’t follow her lead and denounce the former president, they’ll take advantage of the privacy of the polls to secretly support the Democratic candidate.

“It’s a secret ballot,” Cheney said. “At the end of the day, you just have to wrestle with your own conscience when you’re there in the voting booth. And I would expect that you will see far more Republicans and independents, you know, when the time comes, and they’ve got to make that decision, make the right decision.”

This would be the opposite of what some believe happened in 2016. Polls at the time generally showed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the lead over Trump. But when the election happened, though Clinton won the popular vote, it wasn’t enough to tip the Electoral College in her favor.

Over 70% of Republican insiders felt the polls underestimated Trump’s support, according to a Politico article from October 2016.

“I personally know many Republicans that won’t admit that they are voting for Trump. I don’t like admitting it myself. It won’t matter if Hillary is up more than 5 points, but we might be in for a surprise if Hillary’s lead is less than 5 points on Election Day,” an unnamed Virginia Republican told the outlet at the time.

In a 2016 interview conducted before the election, Trump’s then-campaign manager Kellyanne Conway pointed out that Trump polled better in anonymous online polls than in more traditional polling, according to WJLA.

“It’s become socially desirable, especially if you’re a college-educated person in the United States of America, to say that you’re against Donald Trump,” she said.

A 2019 study found that this was indeed the case. The study found that 54% of those polled voted for Trump but kept their preference a secret publicly. When broken out by gender, 57% of men and 50% of women polled kept their Trump vote a secret.

Ohio Senator JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential candidate, said Monday that if he were in former Vice President Mike Pence’s place, he would not have certified the election on January 6, 2021.

Speaking as part of a panel on the All-In Podcast, Vance told cohost Jason Calacanis the issue wasn’t necessarily Pence deciding not to “overturn the election results,” but rather that “Mike Pence could have done more to sort of surface some problems.”‘

Calacanis replied by asking Vance directly if he would have certified the election.

READ MORE: ‘BadgerPundit’: Top Trump Attorney in Fake Electors Plot Hid Secret Twitter Account

“I happen to think that there were issues back in 2020, particularly in Pennsylvania. Even some of the courts that refused to throw out certified ballots did say that there were ballots that were cast in an illegal way. They just refused to actually decertify the election results in Pennsylvania,” Vance said. “Do I think that we could have had a much more rational conversation about how to ensure that only legal ballots are cast? Yes. And do I think that Mike Pence could have played a better role? Yes.”

Calacanis asked Vance again if he’d have certified the election, and Vance appears to back the plan to send fake electors to cause confusion in the certification process.

“I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors and let the country have the debate about what actually matters and what kind of an election that we have. That’s what I would have done,” Vance said. “The important part is we would have had a big debate. And it doesn’t necessarily mean the results would have been any different, but we would, at least, have had the debate in Pennsylvania and Georgia about how to better have a rational election system where legal ballots are cast.”

Democrats heavily criticized Vance’s statement.

“Donald Trump picked JD Vance as his running mate because he knows that Vance will do what his last vice president wouldn’t—undermine our democracy and help him try to overturn election results. Now, Vance is making it clear: instead of certifying the 2020 election, Vance ‘would have asked the states’ to send slates of fake electors and throw our election into chaos to help Trump stay in power. Vance is clearly laying out the stakes of this election for our democracy and our basic freedoms, and showing voters that if given the chance, he’ll try to replace the rule of law with the rule of Trump,” Alex Floyd, the rapid response director for the DNC, said in a statement.

Vance’s claims of there being illegal ballots in Pennsylvania appears to be based on a claim from former President Donald Trump in 2022. Trump said that a then-recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that ballots sent in undated envelopes will not be counted in that year’s election meant that the 2020 election was “rigged, but they’ll let that result stand.”

The Associated Press debunked Trump’s claim, reporting that not only did Trump misrepresent the court’s ruling, but even if his claim was accurate, throwing out these ballots would not have mattered in the election.

Democratic vice presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz mocked the recent increase in anti-LGBTQ book bans during a speech for the Human Rights Campaign.

Delivering the keynote Saturday evening at the HRC’s National Dinner, Walz made fun of recent attempts to ban children’s books like And Tango Makes Three, according to LGBTQ Nation. That beloved kid’s book is based on the true story of two gay penguins in a zoo who raised a chick on their own.

“[In Minnesota], we banned banning books, especially banning LGBTQ books,” Walz said. “This is what these folks are focusing on, spending all their time. Like reading about two male penguins who love each other is somehow going to turn your children gay, and that’s what you should worry about.

READ MORE: Drag Queen Story Hour Interrupted by Neo-Nazis Seen in Terrifying Video

“But here’s what I’ll tell you, it’s a fact of life: Some people are gay. But you know what’s not a fact of life? That our children need to be be shot dead in schools. That’s not a fact of life. Folks are banning books, but they’re okay with weapons of war being in our schools.”

On Thursday, Ohio Senator JD Vance addressed the September 4 shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia. Walz’s opponent in the vice presidential race was criticized for characterizing school shootings as a “fact of life.”

“I don’t like that this is a fact of life,” Vance said, according to the Associated Press. “But if you are a psycho and you want to make headlines, you realize that our schools are soft targets. And we have got to bolster security at our schools. We’ve got to bolster security so if a psycho wants to walk through the front door and kill a bunch of children they’re not able.”

Attempts to block children from accessing LGBTQ-themed children’s books have ramped up in the last few years. In July, a law went into effect in Idaho that bans “obscene materials” from being seen by people under 18. While that may sound on its face to be unobjectionable, the law defines the term broadly. One of the types of content flagged as “obscene” is portrayals of “homosexuality.” There is no additional clarification to determine if this means sex acts, or the mere existence of gay people. If a library violates this law, it is hit with a $250 mandatory fine. If a patron should sue, there is no cap to the amount of money a judge could award them in damages, according to LGBTQ Nation.

LGBTQ-themed books are also frequently challenged and banned. In 2022, over half of the top 13 most-challenged books had queer themes or characters, LGBTQ Nation reported.

Walz has not made a secret of his support for the LGBTQ community. When he was a teacher, he was the advisor to his school’s Gay-Straight Alliance, according to the New York Times.

GOP vice presidential candidate and Ohio Senator JD Vance is responsible for a “surge” of new Democratic Party donors and volunteers, the House minority whip said on Monday.

Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) was interviewed on CNN Monday morning by Kate Bolduan about the November election. During her interview, she talked about what voters “in purple, red and blue districts” thought about Vance.

“They don’t trust JD Vance to order doughnuts. They certainly don’t trust him to order American families on if, when and how they can have children. So we’re seeing a surge of volunteers, a surge of first time donors, and we know that Kamala Harris is the underdog going into this, but momentum remains on her side,” Clark said.

READ MORE: ‘Bullying Needs to Stop’ Says Ex-Beauty Pageant Winner After JD Vance Refuses to Apologize

The line about ordering doughnuts refers to an August stop by Vance to Holt’s Sweet Shop in Valdosta, Georgia that was broadcast by C-SPAN and went viral. In the awkward clip, Vance ends up asking for “just whatever makes sense,” instead of ordering a specific type of doughnut. Vance later expressed sympathy for the doughnut shop clerk who served him in an interview with NBC News.

“I just felt terrible for that woman,” Vance said. “We walked in, and there’s 20 Secret Service agents, and there’s 15 cameras, and she clearly had not been properly warned, and she was terrified, right? I just felt awful for her.

“We don’t want to have these scripted events — I don’t want to go and do three takes of buying Doritos at a Sheetz. I like to get out there and talk to people, and we want to make sure we’re doing it but definitely make sure that people are at least OK with being on camera, or we’re going to walk in and you’re going to have a person who has, practically, a panic attack because she’s got 15 cameras in her face.”

Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign has made headlines for the amount of funding it’s raised. During August alone, her campaign raised three times more money than former President Donald Trump’s campaign, according to the Guardian. And in July, at the very start of the Harris campaign, over 170,000 volunteers joined with her, according to Axios.

Current polling shows Harris and Trump in a dead heat. A New York Times poll published Monday shows Trump leading Harris by only 1%, with 48% of polled voters saying they’d pick the former president.

Seven swing states have been declared toss-ups, according to new analysis of political polling.

The Center for Politics updated its prediction for the 2024 presidential election on Tuesday, moving North Carolina from “leans Republican” to “toss-up,” joining six other states. The full list of toss-ups is North Carolina, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia.

Not counting the swing states, the Center for Politics estimates that the Democrats will likely get 226 electoral votes, with the Republicans getting 219. That leaves a total of 93 electoral votes believed to be in play.

READ MORE: GOP Reps Refusing to Join Sedition Caucus Admit Electoral College Is ‘Only Path’ for Republicans to Win White House

When it comes to the seven swing states the Center for Politics listed, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all have Vice President Kamala Harris slightly ahead — by between 1.3% and 4%. Former president Donald Trump is leading in Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina, by margins of 0.4% to 1.4%, according to 270toWin.com.

If the election breaks out along 270toWin’s current polling for these seven states, that would put Harris in the lead, picking up 55 of the remaining electoral votes, compared to just 38 additional electoral votes for Trump.

In 2020, Biden won six of these seven states, with North Carolina going to Trump. As the polling may suggest, these were by thin margins. Trump won North Carolina by 1.34%, and Biden won the other states by a range of 0.23% to 2.78%. Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin all had Biden win by less that 1 percentage point.

The reason why presidential elections usually fall to the swing states is due to the Electoral College. Each state is given a number of electoral votes based its number of senators and representatives, with all states having at least three. This gives smaller states a bit more power in choosing the president at the expense of larger ones.

Critics of the Electoral College system say this means that voters in larger states have less of a say in the presidential race.

“The fact that in presidential elections people in Wyoming have [nearly four] times the power of people in California is antithetical at the most basic level to what we say we stand for as a democracy,” Harvard University political scientist Gautam Mukunda told NPR in 2021.

Abolishing the Electoral College could prove difficult, however. As it’s enshrined in the Constitution, it would require a constitutional amendment to throw it out. An amendment needs to be passed by a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress, but three-quarters of states also need to ratify it. Since that would include a number of the smaller states which have outsized power in the Electoral College, that’s unlikely to happen.

Lincoln Project cofounder George Conway has jokingly offered to provide free legal services to the SuperPAC should former President Donald Trump follow through with his threat to sue the organization over an advertisement.

The “Failures” advertisement aired on Fox News last week. It accused Trump advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles of failing to foresee that President Joe Biden would drop out of the election.

“They told you that Biden should never quit — that you should spend all that time, all that money, so much money, focusing on Biden. How he’s too old,” an announcer reads during the ad. “Now it’s Harris. She’s younger than you — by a lot. Faster on her feet. Better than Biden was on camera. They were wrong. But they’re wrong a lot. Wrong that Vance would help you. You know he’s terrible. Wrong that you have the race sewn up. It’s sad, Donald. They spend more time trying to keep you under control than trying to win.”

READ MORE: Watch: Lincoln Project ‘Double Dog Dares’ Trump to Sue After He Threatens Them Over Ad Saying He Waged ‘Biggest Scam’

On Friday, the Trump campaign sent the Lincoln Project a cease and desist letter, which the SuperPAC posted to Threads. Trump’s lawyer, David A. Warrington, claimed the “Failures” spot was defamatory to LaCivita, Wiles and the Trump campaign. Warrington said the ad’s claims “are a complete fabrication, and defame the Campaign’s leaders,” and “would harm the Campaign by discouraging future contributions.”

Tuesday morning the Lincoln Project confirmed that it would not be removing the “Failures” advertisement, and followed up with a new spot, “Futile.”

“This is the third time you’ve threatened to sue the Lincoln Project. This time, it’s because we told you the truth about how your campaign is failing, broken and dead in the water, wrong that you have the race sewn up. Sad, Donald. We told you, Chris and Susie made a mistake when they bragged that Biden would stay in the race. It’s embarrassing, Donald. Your whole campaign is a hot mess. You’re terrible on camera these days. You just look old, tired and [expletive] crazy America, America’s just done with you, Donald, and with the political team you have, there’s nothing you can do but, lose, lose, lose,” the announcer says in the new clip.

Conway shared “Futile” on Tuesday morning, along with a needling caption.

“If @realDonaldTrump’s campaign were to sue @ProjectLincoln, it would be required to produce all its electronic and physical documents, and to provide testimony from Trump and senior campaign officials, about their strategy and what those officials told Donald himself. I hereby volunteer to review those materials, and to conduct those depositions, pro bono,” Conway wrote.

Though a cofounder, Conway left The Lincoln Project in 2020 to “devote more time to family matters.” His wife at the time was Trump’s senior counselor and former campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway. In 2023, the couple announced they were getting divorced.

The Supreme Court has made its second ruling this week that limits government agencies’ ability to act on Friday.

Friday morning, the Court released its ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Prior to the ruling, fisheries were required to allow federal officials on board their ships to make sure that overfishing doesn’t occur; the base of the suit is that the fisheries objected to having to pay the salaries for these officials.

The legal precedent at the center of the case is what’s known as the Chevron doctrine, based on the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. Inc v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. That ruling held that government agencies have the ability to interpret statutes in their sphere of influence where ambiguity exists, even if judges may disagree about an interpretation.

READ MORE: Supreme Court Throws Out Perdue Bankruptcy Plan That Protects Sackler Family

In this case, the National Marine Fisheries Service has interpreted the law to mean that fisheries have to pay officials’ salaries, while the fisheries argued that this overstepped the agency’s bounds.

Critics of this ruling, including Justice Neil Gorsuch, have argued that Chevron gives agencies too much power.

“[Gorsuch] argues that it is fundamentally the province of courts to say what the law is, and that Chevron makes it too easy for courts to simply find ambiguity in text and then defer to government agencies. He and others argue that it systematically tilts the power in a case in favor of the government and allows judges to abdicate their responsibility to engage in vigorous statutory review,” Sanne Knudsen, professor of environmental law at the University of Washington School of Law, said in a 2023 interview.

In Friday’s 6-3 ruling, made along ideological lines, the Court agreed with Gorsuch’s take. The opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, explicitly overrules Chevron.

“[C]ourts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous,” Roberts wrote.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas added that Chevron violates the separation of powers, as it “compels judges to abdicate their Article III ‘judicial Power,'” and “permits the Executive Branch to exercise powers not given to it.”

The mention of separation of powers is interesting, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in the other ruling that limited an agency’s powers this week accuses the Court of threatening the concept of separation of powers.

“The majority today upends longstanding precedent and the established practice of its coequal partners in our tripartite system of Government. Because the Court fails to act as a neutral umpire when it rewrites established rules in the manner it does today, I respectfully dissent,” Sotomayor wrote.

In that case, SEC v. Jarkesy, the Court ruled that the Securities Exchange Commission was unable to issue civil penalties without a trial. The SEC was initially given this power as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The Court struck this element of Dodd-Frank down in a 6-3 ruling, again along ideological lines. The court ruled, in another decision written by Roberts, that it violated the Seventh Amendment, the right to a jury trial.

The liberal justices joined in a dissent that accused the Supreme Court of not acting neutrally in its ruling requiring jury trials for civil penalties.

Until the ruling in the case SEC v. Jarkesy, when the Securities Exchange Commission discovers securities fraud, the agency had the option of taking the offender to trial, or adjudicating the matter itself. Until 2010, though, if the SEC wanted to issue a civil penalty against an offender, it would have to go to federal court.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protect Act was passed in 2010, following the housing market crash in 2008. The new law allowed the SEC to issue penalties on its own.

READ MORE: Supreme Court Throws Out Perdue Bankruptcy Plan That Protects Sackler Family

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that this element of Dodd-Frank violated the Seventh Amendment, the right to a jury trial. The Court said that since the Seventh Amendment blocks Congress from the ability to “withdraw from judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law,” and securities fraud is a matter of common law, it applies.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent and was joined by the other two liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued that federal agencies have always had the ability to order civil penalties to those who violate the law without a jury trial. Sotomayor argued that agencies previously had the right to make the decisions, and though the adjudications were subject to review by the courts, it wasn’t required.

Both sides cite the 1977 case Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which said that the Seventh Amendment did not apply to federal agencies adjudicating violations of public rights statutes. The conservatives argued that Atlas Roofing didn’t apply as the public rights exception was not “‘in the nature’ of a common law suit.”

The liberals disagreed, and argued that the ruling flew in the face of Atlas Roofing.

“Today, for the very first time, this Court holds that Congress violated the Constitution by authorizing a federal agency to adjudicate a statutory right that inheres in the Government in its sovereign capacity, also known as a public right,” Sotomayor wrote. “That is plainly wrong. This Court has held, without exception, that Congress has broad latitude to create statutory obligations that entitle the Government to civil penalties, and then to assign their enforcement outside the regular courts of law where there are no juries.”

Sotomayor’s dissent then accused the conservative majority of threatening the separation of powers the U.S. government is built on.

“Here, that threat comes from the Court’s mistaken conclusion that Congress cannot assign a certain public-rights matter for initial adjudication to the Executive because it must come only to the Judiciary,” she wrote.

“The majority today upends longstanding precedent and the established practice of its coequal partners in our tripartite system of Government. Because the Court fails to act as a neutral umpire when it rewrites established rules in the manner it does today, I respectfully dissent.”

A U.S. magistrate judge ruled that LGBTQ veterans discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” can proceed in their suit against the Department of Defense.

The suit, filed by five veterans, alleges that they faced discrimination because they were given other-than-honorable discharges from the military. The vets are asking the DOD to remove all references to sexual orientation from their discharge paperwork and for the discharges to be converted to honorable.

The plaintiffs say that the process to correct discharge paperwork is “burdensome, opaque, expensive, and for many veterans virtually inaccessible.” By having non-honorable discharges, LGBTQ vets are unable to reenlist. It’s also difficult for them to prove military service, the plaintiffs say, and they are blocked from veteran services via the Department of Veterans Affairs.

READ MORE: ‘So. Tell Me. Are You Transgender?’ — After DADT: Transgender Life In The US Military

“Because of the circumstances and language of my discharge, which served as a painful reminder of the trauma I experienced, I was never able to proudly say that I served my country,” said Steven Egland, a U.S. Army veteran and one of the plaintiffs.

“Following my Other Than Honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy, which was accompanied by terrible harassment on my ship, I experienced homelessness and shame,” Lilly Steffanides, another plaintiff and U.S. Navy Veteran, said. “After many years, I reconnected with the veteran community and do my best to act as a leader and supporter for other LGBTQ+ veterans like me. I am joining this lawsuit because I want justice for my LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters, and I want my service to my country to be recognized as honorable.”

The DOD argued that the suit should be dismissed because the process for correcting records is neutral. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero disagreed, saying that by not remedying this type of discharge, it “gives rise to a plausible inference of discriminatory intent,” according to Bloomberg Law.

The DOD also argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were untimely. Spero disagreed, ruling that the process of having to apply for their records to be corrected itself results in trauma, Bloomberg Law reported.

The suit says over 35,000 members of the U.S. military had been discharged for real or perceived homosexual behavior between 1980 and 2011, the year the homosexuality restriction was lifted. The original memorandum repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” said it was unnecessary to update the discharge paperwork for those thrown out of the military by the policy, according to Bloomberg Law.

In February 2024, the DOD said that it was working to upgrade LGBTQ vets’ discharges to honorable, according to DAV.org.

David Pressman, the openly gay U.S. ambassador to Hungary had harsh words for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at a Pride event. The speech came after the cancellation of an event about human rights scheduled to take place at the parliament building.

On Saturday, the ambassador to Hungary held a family Pride event at his home. During his speech, Pressman slammed Orbán and his government for using a “machinery of fear” as an apparatus to crush the LGBTQ community, according to the Guardian. He shared a story of how the country’s state-run media implied that he was a danger to children.

“At a Pride march organised by Hungarians in Pécs last year, I walked alongside a friend, fellow ambassador, and fellow parent,” Pressman said. “The cameras of the government-controlled media were trained on me – as they are right now – and filmed us as he introduced me to his 5-year-old child.

“The news that evening reported on ‘spotting’ my interaction with this child, and sinisterly described that I was seen ‘interacting with children’. They didn’t need to finish the sentence – they let fear do the rest.”

READ MORE: Republicans Are Secretly Meeting With Allies of ‘Putin’s Buddy’ Orbán to End Ukraine Aid: Report

The ambassador to Hungary had prepared the speech for a planned LGBTQ human rights event on June 21 at the parliament building. The event had been planned by Dávid Bedő, the chairman of the centrist opposition party, Momentum, according to The Daily Beast. Bedő had put in a request for the event, which was to take place in a meeting room, not on the floor of the parliament.

The speaker of the parliament, László Kövér, ignored the request until pressed. The day before the event was scheduled, Kövér denied the request, citing a bylaw that said the speaker must “protect the dignity of the parliament.” Kövér is one of the co-founders with Orbán of the far-right Fidesz party.

This Saturday was Budapest Pride, according to Pink News. The march brought out over 30,000 people, including Pressman. Homosexuality is technically legal in Hungary, but in 2021, Orbán’s government passed a law similar to Russia’s ban on LGBTQ “propaganda.” In the face of sanctions from the EU, Orbán refused to relent.

Two years ago, Orbán attended CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, in Texas. His speech condemned the LGBTQ community.

“Hungary shall protect the institution of marriage as a union of one man and one woman,” he said at the time. “Family ties shall be based on marriage or the relationship between parents and children. To sum up, the mother is a woman. The father is a man. And leave our kids alone. Full stop. End of discussion.”

Former head of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele accused the judge of dragging her feet in former President Donald Trump’s case about improper handling of classified documents.

On Friday, Trump’s defense lawyers put forth a motion to dismiss special counsel Jack Smith under allegations that he was illegally appointed, according to the Associated Press. Despite admitting that Smith’s appointment appears to be supported by precedent, Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon agreed to a three-day hearing to determine the challenge’s validity, according to The Washington Post. While defense attorneys will often challenge the standing of the prosecution, not every challenge necessarily warrants a full hearing.

Steele called out Cannon on Sunday’s edition of Inside with Jen Psaki on MSNBC. He called the particular challenge against Smith a “long shot,” according to The Hill, and said most judges would dismiss it out of hand.

READ MORE: Judge Cannon’s ‘Mind Boggling’ Move Could Put Witnesses at Risk, Experts Warn

“But apparently, Judge Cannon just had to have a hearing about it. It’s the last delay tactic from a judge who’s wasted countless months on frivolous motions. She has all but refused to allow Trump’s case to go to trial and still, still hasn’t even set a date for the trial to begin,” Steele said. He also accused Cannon of “effectively putting the prosecution on trial.”

Cannon has faced much criticism over her handling of the Trump documents case. In May, she postponed the trial indefinitely, putting the kibosh on hopes that the case would be heard before the November election. Her reasoning was that it would be “imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court,” referring to motions like the one to dismiss Smith.

Rulings like this have led legal experts to trash Cannon. Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis called Cannon “incompetently bad.” George Conway, a lawyer and founder of the conservative anti-Trump The Lincoln Project, said Cannon “doesn’t know the most basic rule governing criminal conspiracies.” Conway’s comment was in response to Cannon appearing unfamiliar with the Pinkerton rule, which holds that everyone involved in a conspiracy can be held liable for crimes committed by co-conspirators. This appears to back up NBC News legal analyst Joyce Vance’s statement that Smith has to “spoon feed… the law” to Judge Cannon.

One month ago, Laurence Tribe, a top constitutional scholar and University Professor Emeritus at Harvard, said that Cannon would likely be removed from the Trump documents case.

“Cannon’s wildly lawless rejection of Special Counsel Smith’s clearly correct request for a gag order against fake and dangerous claims that the FBI was ordered to assassinate him is good news,” Tribe wrote on X. “It’s the smoking gun that will finally lead to her removal from the stolen secrets case.”