An image and model of President Donald Trump’s proposed triumphal arch to commemorate the country’s 250th anniversary are displayed during a public meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts at the National Building Museum on April 16, 2026 in Washington, DC. The Commission of Fine Arts voted unanimously to move forward with a proposed 250-foot arch informally dubbed the “Arc de Trump” that would sit in a roundabout near Memorial Bridge on the Arlington, Virginia side of the Potomac River between Arlington Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump announced that his proposed Triumphal Arch in Washington, D.C., will double as a high-security military base equipped with drones and sniper ammunition. The monument is part of his broader initiatives to celebrate America’s 250th birthday and “beautify” the nation’s capital.
In a Truth Social post on Sunday, President Trump stated that the new 250-foot arch Triumphal Arch will not just be for looks, but will also house a “top-grade military complex” at the request of the armed forces
Trump Truth Social Post
“At the strong request of the United States Military, and for National Security purposes, I have agreed to convert the magnificent Triumphal Arch, planned since the Civil War Era many years ago, at the Receptive Circle adjoining the Arlington Memorial Bridge, into a top grade Military Complex/Triumphal Arch, to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas, and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage,” Trump wrote. “There will be no facility like this anywhere in the World. Out of the 59 top cities and Capitals, Washington, D.C., IS THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD THAT DOES NOT HAVE A TRIUMPHAL ARCH, but it will now and, by far, the greatest of them all! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
Originally proposed in April, construction on the 250-foot monument was expected to break ground near Arlington National Cemetery.
However, the plans have been met with critics expressing worry that the massive arch will block views of major D.C. landmarks and the Arlington National Cemetery. Concerns have also been raised about its close proximity to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA).
Nonetheless, FAA cleared the arch on Friday, stating that it would not pose as a hazard to incoming or departing flights into DCA, according to CBS News.
President Trump cut his weekend at Camp David short and returned to the White House as the State Department issued a regional security alert for Americans in the Middle East. The warning came after Houthi forces launched missile and drone strikes that Saudi officials say included an attempted ballistic missile toward Riyadh. This cluster of events arrived days after President Trump told Axios he is weighing whether to “annihilate” the Iranian regime — a line that made everyone sit up and stare.
What happened: Security alert, Houthi attack and presidential movement
The State Department’s TravelGov advisory told Americans in the Middle East to “exercise heightened vigilance” and warned of “potential flight cancellations, airspace closures, and travel disruptions.” At the same time, Saudi authorities and the Saudi‑led coalition reported that air defenses intercepted a ballistic missile fired by the Houthis, who claim they struck “sensitive targets,” including energy sites. Video and schedule updates show President Trump returning to the White House earlier than planned, though the White House has not publicly explained why.
Context — and a blunt line from the president
President Trump told Axios he is “approaching a critical juncture” on the Iran conflict and asked, “Do I want to go in and annihilate them [the Iranian regime] or do I not? It’s a big decision. Anything could happen with me.” That kind of blunt talk matters. It can deter foes, reassure allies, or raise the temperature in a region already on a hair trigger. Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Pentagon leaders say forces remain positioned to respond if needed. In short: the risk of miscalculation is real.
Did the security alert prompt the presidential return?
We don’t have a public answer yet. Reporters noted the president’s sudden return, but the White House has not tied it directly to the TravelGov advisory or the Houthi strikes. That silence leaves room for rumor and media spin — and Americans deserve clarity. If the move was precautionary, say so. If it was diplomacy, say so. If it was both, say that too. Leadership is not supposed to be a suspense thriller.
What Americans should expect — and what leaders should do
Travelers in the region should heed the State Department’s call for heightened vigilance and be ready for disruptions. Politically, Washington needs clear public signals: firm posture to protect U.S. interests, support for our allies, and honest explanations for decisions that affect American lives. President Trump’s tough language may be strategic. But tough talk without clear plans and calm communication risks turning a contained flare into a bigger fight. That’s a gamble no one should cheer for.
The Federalist Society’s recent webinar made one thing plain: the fight over birthright citizenship didn’t end with the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara. Legal heavyweights told a live audience that Congress still has tools to push back, and they named the likely routes. That matters because if lawmakers don’t act, the status quo that rewards “birth tourism” will keep rolling along — much to the frustration of millions of Americans who want clear, sensible rules about who becomes a citizen at birth.
Federalist Society panel: Congress has the power to respond
On the webinar, Gene P. Hamilton blasted the Court’s ruling as “outcome‑oriented,” saying it ignored the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Steven J. Menashi disagreed with some of Hamilton’s history lessons but agreed on the practical point: Congress can pass laws to limit or clarify who gets automatic citizenship. That’s the news here — top conservative lawyers and jurists openly urging Congress to use its power to force the issue back into the courts or change the law outright.
Kavanaugh’s concurrence and the legislative pathway
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s separate opinion in Trump v. Barbara is the roadmap they cited. Kavanaugh said Congress could amend the federal statute that recognizes birthright citizenship — 8 U.S.C. §1401(a) — without running afoul of the Court’s constitutional holding. Lawmakers already have a clear vehicle: bills like the Birthright Citizenship Act (H.R. 569) would rewrite the statute to exclude certain classes of noncitizen parents. That means the debate can move from constitutional hair-splitting into plain, messy politics — where it belongs.
White House actions and the inevitable legal clash
The White House didn’t wait. The President issued executive actions in August aimed at curbing “birth tourism” and carving out categories the administration says shouldn’t produce automatic citizenship. Predictably, those orders are being challenged in court. Panelists at the Federalist Society were frank: any serious change — whether legislative or executive — will trigger lawsuits and eventually bring the issue back before the Supreme Court. That’s not a bug; it’s the plan. Use the law to create a case, then let the courts sort it out.
Why Congress should stop watching and start legislating
Here’s the blunt takeaway: if you’re tired of the legal limbo and the policy games, you should want Congress to act. The Supreme Court’s majority stuck with a territorial reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. Kavanaugh and others handed lawmakers a statutory fix they can pursue. Republicans who campaigned on border control and rule of law should move H.R. 569 or a similar bill to the floor, hold hearings, and force a clear choice. If the Court won’t deliver the result conservatives want, then Congress must do its job — even if that means sparking another courtroom showdown. After all, democracy was designed to have several checks, not just one nine-person panel deciding everything.
Retired Border Patrol Chief Chris Clem told Newsmax's "The Count" that an immigration ad by Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, R-Fla., amounted to pandering, and said he hoped it "blows up in her face."
Salazar, a three-term House member first elected in 2020, released the ad Thursday, telling Trump directly that "some of your immigration enforcement efforts have gone too far," according to Time.
"In July, 50% of the 50,000 people that were detained had no criminal record," she said in the ad, Florida Phoenix reported.
Separately, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced that Border Patrol apprehensions along the southwest border in July were 94% lower than the Biden administration's monthly average and 96% below the December 2023 peak.
The agencies said the figures marked 15 consecutive months without the release of a single apprehended migrant into the U.S. interior.
Speaking Saturday, Clem called border security "an enduring mission" and said officials "continue to need to put the foot on the gas."
Reflecting on the numbers, he said President Donald Trump had accomplished in "one month" what his predecessor could not manage "in 19 months," crediting the shift to a White House willing to "trust the men and women" doing the job at the border.
"We absolutely have seen that it can be sustained," Clem said, adding that "we are no longer tolerating catch and release."
Clem then criticized Salazar's ad. "Well, it was a terrible ad, and it is pandering," he said, arguing that the congresswoman conflated enforcement against lawbreakers with immigration overall.
Trump, he said, is targeting people "in violation of the U.S. immigration codes and U.S. Laws," and he dismissed Salazar's message as "a bunch of nonsense that is just pandering."
"I hate losing slots in Congress, but my gosh, that was terrible," Clem added.
Asked whether the border numbers would help Republicans keep their House majority in November, Clem said: "Midterms are always going to be, you know, tricky."
The Cook Political Report rates Salazar's seat "Likely Republican" as she faces Democrat Eliott Rodriguez in November.
Minnesota may have once been the land of a thousand lakes. Now it's the land of a thousand fraud cases.
A $2 million "anti-ICE" fraud fund that was intended to help those who were "harmed" by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers enforcing the law was recently frozen because of — you guessed it — fraud.
The Hennepin County Small Business Recovery Fund was established to provide grants of between $3,000 and $10,000 to brick-and-mortar businesses suffering financial hardship because of Operation Metro Surge, according to the county's own guidelines.
The county received roughly 300 applications. Only 82 ultimately received grants totaling about $500,000, while more than 200 applications were flagged for potential fraud.
And we're not talking about somebody forgetting to attach the right paperwork. Officials reportedly encountered applications containing false information, businesses that couldn't be found during site visits, and suspiciously similar language that appeared to have been generated by artificial intelligence and copied across applications.
We wouldn't be surprised if a "Quality Learing Center" was trying to get paid.
At some point, county officials apparently decided they'd seen enough. "Then at a certain point we're like, 'OK, we're getting declining results on that,'" Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Lunde said. "And so we said it's time to stop the program. So we just stopped processing at that point."
That's one way of putting it. Lunde was considerably more pointed when discussing what the attempted fraud said about the environment in Minnesota.
"The fact that people, after all this fraud, felt that they could apply and get away with it, I think it's a problem because clearly there's no fear out there," he said.
That's the part that should make Minnesota taxpayers' ears perk up. The state has spent years dealing with major fraud cases involving taxpayer-funded programs. The most notorious is Feeding Our Future, the sprawling federal child-nutrition fraud case in which prosecutors alleged approximately $250 million was stolen through bogus meal claims.
Gov. Tim Walz has acknowledged Minnesota's fraud problem and said it is his "responsibility to fix it," while arguing speciously that Republicans have exaggerated or politicized the scandals. He has also pushed back on President Trump targeting Minnesota's Somali community, saying an entire community shouldn't be blamed for crimes committed by individuals.
Fair enough. The entire state can be guilty. The point is to shut it down, not to encourage it further.
Hennepin County has supplied an almost painfully ironic addition to the story. This particular program was created because county officials said businesses were suffering under the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. The county's guidelines specifically cited declining customers, temporary closures and workforce disruptions caused by Operation Metro Surge.
Then people started trying to defraud the government assistance program. More than 200 applications were reportedly flagged out of roughly 300 received.
And perhaps the most Minnesota-in-2026 detail of all? Some of the questionable applications were apparently generated with AI.
Instead, it became another Minnesota program dealing with rampant fraud. At least this time, officials pulled the plug before the entire $2 million walked out the door.
But the political fallout isn't going away. As my colleague Teri Christoph recently noted, the Minnesota senate race is tightening. One of the reasons is the endless fraud. Somebody's got to put a stop to it.
Editor’s Note: Republicans are fighting for election integrity by requiring proper identification to vote. It's common sense, yet Democrats are spreading lies about the impact of such a measure.
I guess the point of Jessica Tarlov on Fox is supposed to be "balance."
But she's so out of balance and out of reality most of the time; she's not actually doing a good job on behalf of the Democrats. Although, to be fair, it would be hard to do a good job for them when their positions are so awful.
Tarlov appeared on Bill Maher's Real Time show on Friday. Christopher Rufo was another panel guest. Tarlov tried to sell Maher on the idea that the Democrats were "less crazy" than the Republicans. That made Bill Maher almost fall off his chair, laughing in astonishment at such an assertion, as our sister site Twitchy reported.
"Have you seen the Democratic...," he can't even finish; he's laughing so much. He asked her if she was being sarcastic, if she really thought the Democrats were less crazy.
"Maybe not inside," she admitted, but arguing they were when they "go out and give a speech, talking about the economy and corruption..."
Now that's gold - her admitting, yes, they are crazy on the inside, no matter what they are saying on the outside. They should run that in ads on a loop. But she's obviously not living in reality there.
Rufo interrupted Tarlov, "They're wearing Carhartts and pretending to be less crazy. That's what's happening." That had the audience laughing their heads off.
Maher then dunked all over Tarlov's hot take: "They're communists who think the Islamists are the good guys. Are you kidding? Less crazy?" Is she not following the Democratic Socialists of America, Maher asks her.
Tarlov then notes she has to "see them every day" because she "works at Fox News." Yes, because at least Fox is doing some coverage of the DSA, while the liberal media is basically glossing over the threat that they pose and/or ignoring the issue.
Maher says the DSA folks are doubling down on the crazy. He's certainly right on that. He's wrong, though, to say this election is not about them. It most certainly is. The more you let them in the door, the more they flood in, and the more radical the Democrats become.
Democrats can talk about "affordability" and pretend they care about people. But everything was worse under them; why would anyone believe that they can do better? Inflation went up over 9 percent under Joe Biden. Gas prices went higher than they are now.
Well, that backfired.
Jessica Tarlov really thought she could convince Bill Maher Democrats are less crazy than Republicans.
Maher thought she was kidding. "Oh, you're being sarcastic."
His reaction was priceless when he realized she wasn't.
Remember, Democrats are the party of open borders, communist candidates, Islamist apologists, and men in women's sports.
When you've lost Bill Maher on this, you know you've lost America.
If Democrats win the midterms, it will be because of the war and the economy.
"Less crazy" will have nothing to do with it.
If the Democrats can't even convince Maher here that they're sane, what do they think the normal people in the center are going to think of them? They're not enamored of any of this Democrat craziness.
The last time I remember thinking about Macklemore, the 43-year-old d****e-pencil mustachioed Eminem wannabe, was when he won a Grammy more than 10 years ago. Not because of his music –I don’t care for crap music – but because he was always giving acceptance speeches about gay people and against Jews, so the leftist media loved him for it.
Then the time came for him to make another hit record and, as happens with most everyone in music except a very few, he discovered he was more of a gimmick than a talent – the Dubai chocolate of white-guy rap.
He quickly faded away because that’s what flashes in the pan do.
Ed Sheeran is not a flash in the pan. He’s not my style either, though he’s closer to my taste than the snowflake because Ed has musical talent and can write a clever lyric, but he has proven himself to have staying power and to create a lot of music over time that people like. Good acts change, not with the times but with the soundtrack of times themselves. The Beatles never made the same album twice, let alone the same single. They innovated and grew. Sheeran did too. Macklemore did not.
When someone in Ed Sheeran’s camp asked Macklemore to join him as one of his opening acts on a North American tour, it should have been met with joy and relief – Macklemore was spared the county fair circuit and would be exposed to a massive audience that either never knew he existed or had forgotten. Either option would mean sales and streams of his music; a little mailbox money that hasn’t been cluttering up his bank account for a while.
You’d think he’d be grateful for that. You would be wrong.
Rather than do the job for which he was contracted, Macklemore saw an opportunity to attack Jews and America and defend terrorists and communists. People who did not pay to see one of nearly a half a dozen opening acts were suddenly being lectured by a dumb bigot who used to be somebody.
Turns out, audiences don’t go to concerts for upside-down morality lectures.
Rather than be grateful for the opportunity to play for an audience that was not his, Macklemore took a dump on stage in front of them and proclaimed anyone who did not appreciate his BM to be a monster.
If it were his audience, fine – he can dump all over them. They’re there for him, and him being a Cro-Magnon moron with a 50 IQ is expected. But I promise you, no one paid Ed Sheeran prices to see ANY of the opening acts, even Billie Eilish’s brother/creepy love interest/whatever the hell he is.
It was the ultimate disrespect for Sheeran, who was giving them all access to audiences they otherwise could not pull together to save their lives.
It didn’t matter; they hate Jews, capitalism, the United States and whatever else is trendy among the Democratic Socialists of America. They are all a cancer on society, and they’re all on their way back to the coffeehouses and anonymity they crawled out from under.
Other opening bands quit in “solidarity” with Adolf Macklemore, forfeiting the biggest break they’re ever going to see. It’s funny, because I bet they all thought it would lead to something for them. But the left rallies around people only for the moment they are useful, then they dump them and move on. Remember Bob Vylan? Few Americans do, but they're the latest never-was band to shoot themselves in the foot for antisemitism and treating Palestinians like pets.
Their US tour was canceled, and they are less than the Pet Rock did in cultural significance.
We’re only a few years away from some left-wing singer setting themselves on fire on stage to protest whatever these incapable-of-thinking drones are told should matter more to them than anything else, and I’m here for it.
If these people want to commit career suicide, great; if they want to commit more than that, I support their ability to do so. Just do it to your own audience, not one someone else earned through hard work and talent.
If people like Macklemore want to strap on an explosive Arafat doily and take out their own stage, I’d support that. My problem comes in when they inflict themselves on others – the “murder/suicide” people who should reverse the order, whether it’s career or otherwise.
It’s not censorship to face consequences for your actions; it’s called adulthood. Censorship is when government silences you and throws you in prison. Consequences are the direct results of your own actions. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot, a bigot…or a Democrat. But I repeat myself.
Derek Hunter is the host of the Derek Hunter Show on WMAL in Washington, D.C., and has a free daily podcast (subscribe!) and is the author of the book Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses, and the host of the weekly “Week in F*cking Review” podcast where the news is spoken about the way it deserves to be. Follow him on X at @DerekAHunter.
Members of the liberal media are lashing out at President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke press access from some of the worst offenders in the world of lying for political gain.
Yesterday, Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW, and Politico would no longer be given special access to the White House, saying that the outlets “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America,” and indicated that additional outlets would have their access revoked in the coming days.
Apparently thinking that Trump had bluffed about their access being revoked, White House correspondents for CNN and MS Now attempted to gain access to the premises on Saturday morning, only to discover that Trump wasn’t joking.
Now, CNN and MS Now are attempting to claim that special access to the White House is a First Amendment right, and have announced that they intend to “take any and all steps necessary to defend” that right, but seemingly did not consider committing to accurately reporting as a solution to the slight.
The U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Office of Legal Counsel has determined that prohibiting licensed dealers from selling handguns to law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20 is unlawful under the U.S. Constitution.
On Friday, the office released a nearly 50-page opinion explaining that federal statutes 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) do not comply with the Second Amendment based on the Supreme Court’s rulings in cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and Wolford v. Lopez
The Office of Legal Counsel argued that “the people” protected by the Second Amendment includes the 18-to-20 age range.
“Eighteen-year-olds may vote, serve on juries, be drafted, and face adult criminal penalties, including capital punishment,” said Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser for the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. “The Constitution protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms. The Department of Justice may not constitutionally seek to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns to law-abiding adults who, in nearly every other relevant respect, are members of the political community.”
“The Office of Legal Counsel found no Founding era history or tradition of precluding legal adults from purchasing firearms to protect public safety,” the DOJ stated in a press release. “To the contrary, at the Founding, militia statutes overwhelmingly required service beginning at 18 and required enrollees to furnish their own arms.”
Kris Brown, president of Brady: United Against Gun Violence, pushed back against the opinion, arguing that young adults possessing firearms pose a heightened threat to the public.
“While the DOJ legal opinion does not change the law itself, it merely reflects the erroneous views of the Trump administration. The decision not to enforce the law will make it easier for young adults — a community at higher risk for gun violence — to obtain firearms,” she wrote.
The Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun rights group challenging the restriction in a lawsuit, told Axios that the “federal government cannot justify denying [18- to 20-year-olds] access to handguns based solely on age.”
The group said it agrees with the new opinion, but wants the DOJ to do more, like apply the rationale to the purchasing of ammunition, which is also restricted for adults under 21 under the statute.
“We conclude that a bar against young adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty purchasing commonly used firearms falls squarely ‘within the plain text of the Second Amendment,’” the opinion reads.
