As COVID-era subsidies for health insurance are set to expire, millions of Americans are bracing for significant premium increases. The expiration of enhanced premium tax credits could lead to average premium hikes of over 114%, impacting low- and middle-income enrollees the hardest.

## Millions Face Health Insurance Premium Hikes as Subsidies Expire

The expiration of enhanced premium tax credits (PTCs) at the end of this year is poised to significantly impact millions of Americans who rely on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for health insurance.

With over 24 million people enrolled in ACA plans, many are facing the prospect of double-digit premium increases alongside reduced federal subsidies, which have made health coverage more affordable since their introduction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Health insurers are proposing a median rate increase of 18% for 2026, a sharp rise from the 7% increase seen in the previous year.

This increase is attributed to rising medical costs, a sicker risk pool due to the expiration of enhanced subsidies, and other factors.

If Congress does not act to extend these subsidies, many enrollees will experience a "double whammy" of losing their tax credits while also facing higher premiums.

The enhanced PTCs, which were first introduced in 2021 and extended through the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, have allowed many low- and middle-income individuals to afford health insurance by significantly lowering their premium contributions.

For instance, an individual earning $28,000 would see their annual premium payment rise from approximately $325 to $1,562 if the enhanced credits expire.

This represents a staggering increase of over 75% in premium costs for many enrollees.

The potential consequences of these changes are dire.

Analysts estimate that if the enhanced subsidies are not renewed, the average premium for subsidized enrollees could more than double, increasing from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026.

This could lead to a significant drop in enrollment, with estimates suggesting that ACA enrollment could fall by as much as 57% due to the combination of expiring tax credits and new paperwork requirements.

The political landscape surrounding this issue is complex.

With Congress currently deadlocked over government funding, the fate of the enhanced subsidies remains uncertain.

Democrats are advocating for the extension of these subsidies as part of any funding deal, while Republicans have indicated they will only negotiate on the issue once the government is funded.

This impasse leaves millions of Americans in limbo as the open enrollment period for ACA plans approaches on November 1.

The expiration of enhanced PTCs will disproportionately affect those with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level, who will lose their eligibility for subsidies altogether.

For example, a couple earning $85,000 could see their annual premium payments rise by over $22,600, making health insurance unaffordable for many.

Conversely, lower-income individuals may also face increased costs, albeit to a lesser extent, as they will still qualify for some level of financial assistance.

The implications of these changes extend beyond individual finances.

Health policy experts warn that a reduction in coverage could lead to increased emergency care needs, straining hospitals and potentially resulting in closures or higher costs for those who remain insured.

As more individuals drop out of the insurance market, the risk pool will become sicker, leading to further premium increases for those who remain enrolled.

In summary, the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits at the end of this year poses a significant threat to the affordability of health insurance for millions of Americans.

With rising premiums and reduced subsidies, many individuals may find themselves unable to afford necessary medical care, leading to broader public health implications.

As Congress continues to debate the future of these subsidies, the urgency for action grows, with millions of lives hanging in the balance.

Millions Face Health Insurance Premium Hikes as Subsidies Expire

millions-face-health-insurance-premium-hikes-as-subsidies-expire

A segment from '60 Minutes' about the Trump administration's immigration policy was mistakenly aired on a TV app after being pulled from broadcast. The segment included interviews with deported migrants detailing abuse and raised questions about journalistic independence.

## '60 Minutes' Segment on Trump Immigration Policy Mistakenly Aired

A segment about the Trump administration's immigration policy that was abruptly pulled from "60 Minutes" was mistakenly aired on a TV app, igniting a public debate about journalistic independence.

The segment featured interviews with migrants who were sent to a notorious El Salvador prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, under President Donald Trump's aggressive crackdown on immigration.

The story was initially pulled from Global Television Network, one of Canada's largest networks, but it still ran on the network's app.

Global Television Network quickly corrected the error, but copies of the segment continued to circulate online before being taken down.

A CBS spokesperson stated that "Paramount's content protection team is in the process of routine take down orders for the unaired and unauthorized segment.".

In the segment, two deported men reported experiences of torture, beatings, and abuse.

One Venezuelan migrant described being subjected to sexual abuse and solitary confinement, while another, a college student, recounted being beaten by guards who knocked out his tooth upon arrival.

"When you get there, you already know you're in hell.

You don't need anyone to tell you," he said.

The segment also included numerous experts who questioned the legal basis for the hasty deportation of migrants amid pending judicial decisions.

Reporters corroborated findings from Human Rights Watch, indicating that only eight of the deported men had been sentenced for violent or potentially violent crimes, according to available ICE data.

The decision to pull the story, which was critical of the Trump administration, led to widespread accusations that CBS leadership was attempting to shield the president from unfavorable coverage.

Journalist Sharyn Alfonsi, who reported the story, asserted in an email to fellow "60 Minutes" correspondents that the segment was factually correct and had received clearance from CBS lawyers and its standards division.

CBS News chief Bari Weiss commented that the story did not "advance the ball" and noted that the Trump administration had refused to provide a comment for the piece.

Weiss expressed a desire for a greater effort to obtain the administration's perspective and indicated she looked forward to airing Alfonsi's report "when it's ready.".

This incident has placed one of journalism's most respected brands back in the spotlight, raising questions about whether Weiss' appointment signals a shift towards a more Trump-friendly direction at CBS News.

The controversy surrounding the segment underscores ongoing tensions in media coverage of the Trump administration and the challenges faced by journalists in maintaining editorial independence.

The airing of the segment, albeit mistakenly, has reignited discussions about the role of media in reporting on sensitive political issues and the implications of editorial decisions in the current political climate.

'60 Minutes' Segment on Trump Immigration Policy Mistakenly Aired

60-minutes-segment-on-trump-immigration-policy-mistakenly-aired

The debate over indoctrination in classrooms has intensified, with concerns about the influence of political ideologies on education. Critics argue that schools should focus on objective teaching rather than promoting specific beliefs, ensuring that students develop critical thinking skills without bias.

## Local Opinion: Indoctrination Must Stay Out of the Classroom

The issue of indoctrination in education has become a contentious topic in recent years, with many parents and educators expressing concern over the influence of political ideologies in classrooms.

The fundamental role of education should be to foster critical thinking and a love for learning, rather than to impose specific beliefs on students.

Recent actions by political leaders have highlighted the growing concern over what is perceived as radical indoctrination in K-12 education.

For instance, a presidential order emphasized the need to eliminate practices that imprint anti-American ideologies on students, arguing that such approaches undermine critical thinking and sow division among young people.

The essence of education lies in its ability to present diverse perspectives and encourage students to think independently.

However, when classrooms become echo chambers for specific ideologies, they risk stifling open dialogue and critical examination.

This concern is echoed in the legal requirements for political impartiality in schools, which mandate that educators present a balanced view of political issues and prohibit the promotion of partisan political views.

The introduction of ideologies that categorize students as either victims or oppressors based on immutable characteristics can lead to a divisive educational environment.

Such practices not only violate principles of equality but also infringe upon parental rights, as they often occur without parental consent or oversight.

Moreover, the push to include ideologies like "White Privilege" or "unconscious bias" in curricula has been criticized for promoting discrimination rather than fostering understanding.

Critics argue that these concepts can create a sense of guilt or division among students, which is counterproductive to the goal of unity and mutual respect.

In contrast, a focus on teaching the scientific method and critical inquiry can empower students to explore complex issues without being confined to a single narrative.

For example, science education should prioritize objective knowledge and the scientific method, rather than introducing unscientific dogma under the guise of fairness.

The challenge lies in maintaining a balance between teaching about important social issues and ensuring that students are not subjected to indoctrination.

Educators must navigate the fine line between fostering an inclusive environment and promoting specific political agendas.

This requires a commitment to impartiality and a dedication to presenting multiple viewpoints, allowing students to form their own opinions based on evidence and reasoned argument.

As discussions around indoctrination continue, it is crucial for educators to remember their role as facilitators of knowledge rather than advocates for particular ideologies.

The goal of education should be to equip students with the tools they need to think critically and engage thoughtfully with the world around them.

This approach not only respects the diversity of student backgrounds but also prepares them to participate in a democratic society where multiple perspectives coexist.

In conclusion, the call for a return to impartial education is not merely a political stance; it is a fundamental principle that underpins the integrity of our educational system.

By ensuring that indoctrination remains out of the classroom, we can foster an environment where students are encouraged to think for themselves and engage with a variety of ideas, ultimately enriching their educational experience and preparing them for the complexities of the world.

Local Opinion: Indoctrination Must Stay Out of the Classroom

local-opinion-indoctrination-must-stay-out-of-the-classroom

A federal appeals court has upheld a ruling mandating the Department of Veterans Affairs to construct 2,500 housing units for unhoused veterans on its West Los Angeles campus. The decision is seen as a significant step towards addressing veteran homelessness in the region.

## Appeals Court Ruling Boosts Housing for Unhoused Veterans in LA

A federal appeals court has upheld a landmark ruling requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to construct over 2,500 housing units for unhoused veterans on its West Los Angeles campus.

The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the VA to build 750 temporary units within 18 months and 1,800 permanent housing units within six years, marking a crucial victory for veterans' rights and housing access in the region.

The ruling, issued on December 12, 2023, found that the VA had "strayed from its mission" by leasing land to commercial interests, such as a baseball field for UCLA and a sports complex for Brentwood School, rather than focusing on the needs of veterans.

Judge Ana de Alba emphasized the plight of unhoused veterans, stating, "There are now scores of unhoused veterans trying to survive in and around the greater Los Angeles area despite the acres of land deeded to the VA for their care".

McDonough, was initiated by a group of disabled veterans who argued that the lack of on-campus housing prevented them from accessing essential healthcare services.

The ruling is seen as a potential turning point in the fight against veteran homelessness, which affects an estimated 3,000 veterans in Los Angeles alone.

Mark Rosenbaum, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, described the ruling as "the most important ruling in the history of this country concerning the rights of veterans." He expressed hope that this decision would lead to the end of veteran homelessness in the area, stating, "After this case, there should be no such thing as a homeless veteran".

The Ninth Circuit's decision largely affirms a previous ruling by US District Judge David O.

Carter, who found that the VA had discriminated against disabled veterans by failing to provide adequate housing on the 388-acre property, which was originally deeded for their care in 1888.

The court's order also invalidated several commercial leases that did not primarily benefit veterans, including those with Brentwood School and Bridgeland Resources, while allowing UCLA's lease for its baseball stadium to remain intact, a point that Rosenbaum plans to challenge further.

The ruling mandates that the VA must not only construct the required housing units but also ensure that veterans' disability payments do not count against their eligibility for supportive housing.

This change is expected to facilitate access to housing for many veterans who have been previously excluded due to income restrictions tied to their benefits.

Rob Reynolds, an Iraq War veteran and advocate for veterans, called the ruling "long overdue," emphasizing that veterans should not have to fight for access to housing and services after serving their country.

He noted that the ruling could pave the way for similar actions across the country, allowing disabled veterans to demand the housing and care they deserve.

The appeals court's decision has been met with mixed reactions from the entities involved.

While Brentwood School expressed a willingness to work with the VA and the plaintiffs to create an agreement that benefits veterans, UCLA has maintained its position regarding its lease, which Rosenbaum argues does not primarily serve veterans' interests.

As the case returns to the District Court for implementation, advocates are hopeful that the construction of housing units will proceed swiftly, especially as the need for immediate solutions grows more urgent with the onset of winter.

The ruling is seen as a significant step towards ensuring that the West LA VA campus fulfills its original purpose of providing a home for veterans, as articulated by Judge Carter: "What was once a home for disabled soldiers must fully reopen its gates and become a robust community for veterans once again".

The implications of this ruling extend beyond Los Angeles, potentially influencing how veterans are supported and housed nationwide.

As the dialogue around veteran homelessness continues, advocates stress the importance of ongoing policy reform to ensure that veterans receive the care and respect they deserve.

Appeals Court Ruling Boosts Housing for Unhoused Veterans in LA

appeals-court-ruling-boosts-housing-for-unhoused-veterans-in-la

US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr has declared a public health emergency in Washington state following severe flooding caused by heavy rains. The declaration aims to assist Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and facilitate access to essential health services during the crisis.

## Public Health Emergency Declared in Washington State After Flooding

Kennedy Jr declared a public health emergency on Wednesday due to severe flooding in Washington state caused by heavy rains and overflowing rivers.

This emergency declaration is primarily focused on aiding Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries who may be particularly vulnerable during such disasters.

The flooding has led to thousands of evacuations, breached multiple levees, and damaged numerous highways across the region.

Tragically, one fatality has been reported as a result of the flooding.

The declaration from Kennedy follows an emergency declaration issued by President Donald Trump on December 12, which unlocked federal resources to assist in the response efforts.

As part of the emergency response, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is providing access to its emPOWER program, which offers data on Medicare enrollees who rely on electricity-dependent medical equipment.

This information is crucial for ensuring that vulnerable populations receive the necessary health care services during and after the flooding.

John Knox, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), stated, "HHS stands ready to assist state and local response efforts in the state of Washington due to the potential health care impacts from severe storms." He emphasized that the agency is prepared to support local actions to save lives and maintain the delivery of health care services.

In addition to the emergency declaration, HHS has waived penalties for hospitals that may violate federal health privacy rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) during this crisis.

This waiver is intended to facilitate the provision of care to those affected by the flooding without the concern of legal repercussions for privacy violations.

The federal Disaster Distress Helpline is also available for crisis counseling, providing support to those impacted by the disaster.

The multilingual hotline is accessible 24 hours a day at 1-800-985-5990.

The emergency declaration is retroactive to December 9, indicating that the situation has been critical for some time.

Furthermore, a windstorm forecasted to hit western Washington could exacerbate existing problems, as saturated soil may lead to fallen trees and power lines.

However, the intensity of the windstorm is now expected to be less severe than initially predicted.

Washington Governor Bob Ferguson has indicated plans to request a major disaster declaration from President Trump, which could potentially unlock tens of millions of dollars in federal assistance to address the aftermath of the flooding.

This request comes as the state continues to grapple with the extensive damage caused by the recent storms.

In a related political context, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown has filed a lawsuit against Kennedy regarding his administration's stance on gender-affirming care providers, calling it "cruel and unnecessary." This lawsuit marks the 49th legal action taken by Washington against the federal government since Trump took office.

As the situation develops, state and federal agencies are working together to ensure that residents affected by the flooding receive the necessary support and resources to navigate this challenging time.

Public Health Emergency Declared in Washington State After Flooding

public-health-emergency-declared-in-washington-state-after-flooding

President Donald Trump announced that the US military conducted airstrikes against Islamic State militants in northwest Nigeria, targeting groups accused of attacking Christians. The strikes were carried out at the request of the Nigerian government, amid ongoing concerns about religious violence in the region.

## Trump Orders US Airstrikes Against ISIS in Nigeria

President Donald Trump announced on Christmas Day that the United States has conducted airstrikes against Islamic State (ISIS) militants in northwest Nigeria.

The strikes were executed at the request of the Nigerian government, which has been grappling with escalating violence from extremist groups in the region.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump described the operation as a "powerful and deadly strike" against what he termed "ISIS Terrorist Scum," emphasizing that the group has been targeting and killing innocent Christians.

He stated, "I have previously warned these Terrorists that if they did not stop the slaughtering of Christians, there would be hell to pay, and tonight, there was." The US military's Africa Command confirmed that the airstrikes resulted in the deaths of multiple ISIS militants in Sokoto state.

The airstrikes come after weeks of Trump highlighting the plight of Christians in Nigeria, claiming they face an "existential threat" from Islamist militants.

He has previously threatened military intervention, criticizing the Nigerian government's efforts to combat the violence.

The US has been conducting intelligence-gathering flights over Nigeria since late November, indicating a heightened focus on the region's security situation.

While the Nigerian government has acknowledged the presence of armed groups targeting both Muslims and Christians, it has rejected the framing of the violence as solely religious persecution.

Officials argue that the situation is complex and involves various factors, including competition for resources between different communities.

Nigerian Foreign Minister Yusuf Maitama Tuggar stated that the recent airstrikes were part of ongoing security cooperation with the US, involving intelligence sharing and strategic coordination.

The population of Nigeria is nearly evenly split between Muslims and Christians, with significant tensions arising from historical grievances and competition over land and resources.

Analysts have noted that violence in Nigeria often transcends religious lines, with many victims from both faiths.

Despite Trump's assertions, human rights groups have reported that there is no substantial evidence to suggest that Christians are disproportionately targeted compared to Muslims in Nigeria.

The violence has been attributed to a variety of factors, including criminal activity and local disputes, rather than a singular focus on religious persecution.

The airstrikes mark a significant escalation in US military involvement in Nigeria, which has been plagued by violence from groups like Boko Haram and ISIS West Africa Province for over a decade.

These groups have been responsible for thousands of deaths, primarily affecting local populations regardless of their religious affiliations.

As the situation evolves, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth expressed gratitude for the cooperation of the Nigerian government, indicating that further military actions may be considered depending on the circumstances.

In the wake of the airstrikes, Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu reiterated his commitment to protecting all citizens, regardless of their faith, and emphasized the need for peace and religious tolerance in the country.

The US military's actions in Nigeria reflect a broader strategy to combat terrorism in West Africa, where extremist groups have exploited weak governance and socio-economic challenges.

The ongoing conflict poses significant risks not only to Nigeria but also to regional stability and international security.

As the US continues to engage in military operations abroad, the implications of these actions will be closely monitored, particularly in the context of Trump's broader foreign policy agenda and his positioning as a candidate for the 2024 presidential election.

The airstrikes in Nigeria are part of a series of military interventions that have characterized Trump's return to the White House, raising questions about the future of US involvement in global conflicts and the administration's approach to international relations.

The situation in Nigeria remains fluid, and the international community will be watching closely as the US and Nigerian governments navigate the complexities of combating terrorism while addressing the underlying issues that fuel violence in the region.

Trump Orders US Airstrikes Against ISIS in Nigeria

trump-orders-us-airstrikes-against-isis-in-nigeria

Donald Trump has garnered support from various celebrities and public figures as he campaigns for the 2024 presidential election. This article explores notable endorsements from the entertainment industry, sports, and religious leaders, highlighting the diverse reasons behind their backing.

## Trump's Celebrity Supporters: Notable Endorsements for 2024

As Donald Trump embarks on his campaign for the 2024 presidential election, he has received endorsements from a range of celebrities and public figures.

This support spans various sectors, including entertainment, sports, and religious communities, reflecting a broad coalition of backing for the former president.

Several prominent figures from the entertainment industry have publicly endorsed Trump.

Actors, musicians, and television personalities have rallied behind him, citing his policies and approach to governance as reasons for their support.

Notably, some entertainers view Trump as a champion of free speech, particularly in light of concerns over censorship in the media and entertainment sectors.

For instance, Jim Caviezel, known for his role in "The Passion of the Christ," has likened Trump to a Biblical figure, suggesting that he is a leader chosen for a divine purpose.

This sentiment resonates with many of Trump's supporters who believe he embodies a fight against perceived moral decay in society.

Trump's appeal extends into the sports world, where various athletes have voiced their support.

Figures from baseball, basketball, and mixed martial arts have publicly backed his candidacy, often highlighting his commitment to American values and patriotism.

This endorsement from sports personalities not only amplifies Trump's visibility but also connects with a demographic that values traditional American ideals.

### Religious Leaders and Their Influence

Religious figures have also played a significant role in Trump's support base.

Prominent evangelicals, such as Reverend Franklin Graham, have been vocal about their belief that Trump was chosen by God to lead the nation.

This perspective is particularly influential among evangelical voters, who make up a substantial portion of Trump's support.

They appreciate his administration's focus on appointing conservative judges and defending religious freedoms, which they see as critical issues in the current political landscape.

### The Broader Impact of Celebrity Endorsements

The endorsements from celebrities and public figures serve to enhance Trump's image as a leader who resonates with diverse segments of the American populace.

These endorsements can sway public opinion and mobilize voters, particularly among younger demographics who may be more influenced by celebrity culture.

Moreover, the financial backing from some of these celebrities can also play a crucial role in Trump's campaign strategy.

As seen with the surge in shares for media outlets like Newsmax, which has been supportive of Trump, there is a clear market interest in his political endeavors.

This financial aspect underscores the interconnectedness of celebrity influence and political campaigning in the modern era.

As Trump continues his campaign for the 2024 presidential election, the support from celebrities and public figures remains a vital component of his strategy.

Their endorsements not only bolster his image but also reflect a broader coalition of support that spans various sectors of American society.

Whether this backing will translate into electoral success remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly plays a significant role in shaping the narrative of his campaign.

In summary, Trump's celebrity supporters highlight the diverse and multifaceted nature of his appeal, showcasing how endorsements from the entertainment and sports industries, along with religious leaders, contribute to his ongoing political narrative.

Trump's Celebrity Supporters: Notable Endorsements for 2024

trump-s-celebrity-supporters-notable-endorsements-for-2024

The White House is set to unveil plans for a new ballroom in the East Wing, a project spearheaded by President Trump. The ballroom, which will accommodate up to 999 guests, is privately funded and aims to enhance the White House's event hosting capabilities.

## White House Plans Trump's East Wing Ballroom for January Reveal

The White House is preparing to present plans for a new ballroom in the East Wing, a project that has been a long-standing ambition of President Donald Trump.

This ballroom is expected to significantly enhance the White House's capacity for hosting large events, accommodating up to 999 guests, nearly double the size of the current East Room, which holds about 200 people.

The ballroom will be part of a larger renovation project that includes the complete demolition of the existing East Wing, which has served various functions since its construction in 1902.

The new structure is projected to cover approximately 90,000 square feet and is designed to reflect the classical architectural style of the White House.

Construction is set to begin in September 2025, with completion anticipated before the end of Trump's term in January 2029.

The project is estimated to cost around $250 million, funded entirely through private donations, including contributions from major corporations and individual donors.

Trump has emphasized that no taxpayer money will be used for this project, stating that it is backed by "many generous Patriots, Great American Companies, and, yours truly.".

The decision to demolish the East Wing has sparked controversy, with critics expressing concern over the loss of historical architecture and the lack of transparency regarding the funding and planning processes.

Thompson has called for accountability from the corporations involved, demanding details about their contributions and any potential conflicts of interest.

Renderings of the new ballroom suggest a lavish design, reminiscent of the gilded ballroom at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

The White House has stated that the ballroom will not only serve as a venue for state dinners and other significant events but will also eliminate the need for temporary structures that have been used in the past.

As the project moves forward, the White House has committed to keeping the public informed about developments through updates on their official website.

The upcoming presentation in January is expected to provide further insights into the design and functionality of the new ballroom, as well as the overall vision for the East Wing renovation.

In summary, the White House's plans for a new ballroom reflect a significant shift in how the historic building will accommodate large gatherings, while also raising questions about the implications of such a major renovation on its historical integrity.

White House Plans Trump's East Wing Ballroom for January Reveal

white-house-plans-trump-s-east-wing-ballroom-for-january-reveal

President Trump's recent economic policies have sparked debate over their impact on the wealth gap in America. While the administration touts a 'Golden Age' for the top 10 percent, critics argue that these measures have led to rising unemployment and economic instability for the broader population.

## Trump's Policies Favor the Wealthy Amid Economic Challenges

President Donald Trump's administration has declared a new 'Golden Age' for America, particularly benefiting the top 10 percent of earners.

This narrative, however, is met with skepticism as economic indicators suggest a troubling trend for the average American worker.

In a recent address, Trump claimed that his policies have ushered in a period of unprecedented economic success, citing a surge in small-business optimism and a significant electoral mandate from the recent elections.

Topic

Politics

Recent articles:

'60 Minutes' Segment on Trump Immigration Policy Mistakenly Aired

Local Opinion: Indoctrination Must Stay Out of the Classroom

Appeals Court Ruling Boosts Housing for Unhoused Veterans in LA

Public Health Emergency Declared in Washington State After Flooding

Trump Orders US Airstrikes Against ISIS in Nigeria

Trump's Celebrity Supporters: Notable Endorsements for 2024

White House Plans Trump's East Wing Ballroom for January Reveal

Trump's Policies Favor the Wealthy Amid Economic Challenges

Jerome Powell's Insights on Interest Rates and Inflation

Government Inflation and GDP Figures: A Misleading Snapshot

Scott Bessent: Private Economy Thriving Under Trump

Court Orders VA to Build Housing for Veterans in West LA

Trump Unveils New 'Trump Class' Battleships for Navy

Visa Ban Signals US Free Speech Tensions Over Online Regulation

California Flooding Prompts State of Emergency Declaration

Women in Politics: Reflections from Trailblazing Lawmakers

Trump Administration Considers Land Exchange with SpaceX in Texas

Trump-Epstein Files: Implications for US Politics and Society

13 Celebrities Who Supported Trump in 2025