ReportWire

Tag: Oval Office

  • Commentary: In disparaging Reiner, Trump shows the shriveled heart of an us-versus-them presidency

    When word came of Rob Reiner’s senseless death, America fell into familiar rites of mourning and remembrance. A waterfall of tributes poured in from the twin worlds — Hollywood and politics — that the actor, director and liberal activist inhabited.

    Through the shock and haze, before all but the sketchiest details were known, President Trump weighed in as well, driving by his diarrhetic compulsion to muse on just about every passing event, as though he was elected not to govern but to serve as America’s commentator in chief.

    Trump’s response, fairly shimmying on Reiner’s grave as he wrongly attributed his death to an act of political vengeance, managed to plumb new depths of heartlessness and cruelty; more than a decade into his acrid emergence as a political force, the president still manages to stoop to surprise.

    But as vile and tasteless as Trump’s self-pitying statement was — Reiner, he averred, was a victim of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and, essentially, got what he deserved — it also pointed out a singular truism of his vengeful residency in the Oval Office.

    In recent decades, the nation has had a president who lied and deceived to cover up his personal vices. Another who plunged the country into a costly and needless war. A third whose willfulness and vanity led him to overstay his time, hurting his party and America as well.

    Still, each acted as though he was a president of all the people, not just those who voted him into office, contributed lavishly to his campaign or blindly cheered his every move, however reckless or ill-considered.

    As Trump has repeatedly made clear, he sees the world in black-and-white, red-versus-blue, us-versus-them.

    There are the states he carried that deserve federal funding. The voters whose support entitles them to food aid and other benefits. The sycophants bestowed with medals and presidential commendations.

    And then there are his critics and political opponents — those he proudly and admittedly hates — whose suffering and even demise he openly savors.

    When Charlie Kirk was killed, Trump ordered flags be flown at half-staff. He flew to Arizona to headline his memorial service. His vice president, JD Vance, suggested people should be fired for showing any disrespect toward the late conservative provocateur.

    By noteworthy contrast, when a gunman killed Minnesota’s Democratic former House speaker, Melissa Hortman, Trump couldn’t be bothered with even a simple act of grace. Asked if he’d called to offer his condolences to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a personal friend of Hortman, Trump responded, “Why waste time?”

    This is not normal, much less humane.

    This is not politics as usual, or someone rewarding allies and seeking to disadvantage the political opposition, as all presidents have done. This is the nation’s chief executive using the immense powers of his office and the world’s largest, most resonant megaphone to deliver retribution, ruin people’s lives, inflict misery — and revel in the pain.

    There were the usual denunciations of Trump’s callous and contemptuous response to Reiner’s stabbing death.

    “I’d expect to hear something like this from a drunk guy at a bar, not the president of the United States,” said Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who is retiring rather than seeking reelection in 2026. (Which may be why he was so candid and spoke so bracingly.)

    But this time, the criticisms did not just come from the typical anti-Trump chorus, or heterodox Republicans like Bacon and MAGA-stalwart-turned-taunter Marjorie Taylor Greene. Even some of the president’s longest and loudest advocates felt compelled to speak out.

    “This is a dreadful thing to say about a man who just got murdered by his troubled son,” British broadcaster Piers Morgan posted on X. “Delete it, Mr. President.”

    More telling, though, was the response from the Republican Party’s leadership.

    “I don’t have much more to say about it, other than it’s a tragedy, and my sympathies and prayers go out to the Reiner family and to their friends,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told CNN when asked about Trump’s response. House Speaker Mike Johnson responded in a similarly nonresponsive vein.

    Clearly, the see-and-hear-no-evil impulse remains strong in the upper echelons of the GOP — at least until more election returns show the price Republicans are paying as Trump keeps putting personal vendettas ahead of voters’ personal finances.

    One of the enduring reasons supporters say they back the president is Trump’s supposed honesty. (Never mind the many voluminously documented lies he has told on a near-constant basis.)

    Honesty, in this sense, means saying things that a more temperate and careful politician would never utter, and it’s an odd thing to condone in the nation’s foremost leader. Those with even a modicum of caring and compassion, who would never tell a friend they’re ugly or call a neighbor stupid — and who expect the same respect and decency in return — routinely ignore or explain away such casual cruelty when it comes from this president.

    Those who insist Trump can do no wrong, who defend his every foul utterance or engage in but-what-about relativism to minimize the import, need not remain in his constant thrall.

    When Trump steps so egregiously over a line, when his malice is so extravagant and spitefulness so manifest — as it was when he mocked Reiner in death — then, even the most fervent of the president’s backers should call him out.

    Do it, and reclaim a little piece of your humanity.

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Five Reasons Donald Trump Fell For Zohran Mamdani

    “One of the things that President Trump is really good at is he’s a really good listener,” says Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang

    JIM WATSON/Getty Images

    Some Mamdani-loving billionaire got on the horn

    Long branded a horrific hellhole by Fox News, San Francisco has been bracing for Trump to deploy the National Guard to the famously liberal town since he started rolling troops into Democrat-led cities earlier this year. In October, the incursion seemed inevitable—that is, until a couple oligarchs, including billionaire Salesforce founder Marc Benioff and billionaire Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, called Trump and told him to stand down. Trump complied.

    “One of the things that President Trump is really good at is he’s a really good listener,” Huang told the SF Chronicle about the call. “If you appeal to him, logically, pragmatically, with common sense, he will listen.” Benioff’s Mamdami-aligned creds have recently taken a beating, but it wasn’t that long ago that he backed a hefty tax on large corporations to generate funds to fight homelessness. And Benioff was a White House guest on Tuesday, at the president’s dinner to fete Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. An ideal time, perhaps, to take the president aside and suggest a warm and friendly approach.

    Eve Batey

    Source link

  • Trump and Mamdani meet Friday in the Oval Office amid sharp exchanges

    President Donald Trump has called New York City’s Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani a “100% Communist Lunatic” and a “total nut job.” Mamdani has called Trump’s administration “authoritarian” and described himself as “Donald Trump’s worst nightmare.”So their first-ever meeting, scheduled for Friday at 3 p.m. EST at the White House, could be a curious and combustible affair.Despite months of casting each other as prime adversaries, the Republican president and new Democratic star have also indicated an openness to finding areas of agreement that help the city they’ve both called home.Mamdani, a democratic socialist who takes office in January, said he sought the meeting with Trump to talk about ways to make New York City more affordable. Trump has said he may want to help him out — although he has also falsely labeled Mamdani as a “communist” and threatened to yank federal funds from his hometown.But for both men, the meeting offers opportunities beyond any areas of potential bipartisan agreement.The two men are convenient political foils for each other, and taking the other one on can galvanize their supporters.Trump loomed large over the mayoral race this year, and on the eve of the election, endorsed independent candidate and former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, predicting the city has “ZERO chance of success, or even survival” if Mamdani won. He also questioned the citizenship of Mamdani, who was born in Uganda and became a naturalized American citizen after graduating from college, and said he’d have him arrested if he followed through on threats not to cooperate with immigration agents in the city.Mamdani beat back a challenge from Cuomo, painting him as a “puppet” for the president, and said he would be “a mayor who can stand up to Donald Trump and actually deliver.” He declared during one primary debate, “I am Donald Trump’s worst nightmare, as a progressive Muslim immigrant who actually fights for the things that I believe in.”The president, who has long used political opponents to fire up his backers, predicted Mamdani “will prove to be one of the best things to ever happen to our great Republican Party.” As Mamdani upended the Democratic establishment by defeating Cuomo and his far-left progressive policies provoked infighting, Trump repeatedly has cast Mamdani as the face of Democratic Party.For Mamdani, a sit-down with the president of the United States offers the state lawmaker who until recently was relatively unknown the chance to go head-to-head with the most powerful person in the world.The meeting gives Trump a high-profile chance to talk about affordability at a time when he’s under increasing political pressure to show he’s addressing voter concerns about the cost of living.But that’s if the meeting doesn’t turn rocky.A chance for some Oval Office dramaIt was not immediately clear whether cameras will be allowed into the meeting. Trump’s daily schedule said it will be private, but the president often invites in a small “pool” of reporters at the last minute.The president has had some dramatic public Oval Office faceoffs this year, including an infamously heated exchange with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in March. In May, Trump dimmed the lights while meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and played a four-minute video making widely rejected claims that South Africa is violently persecuting the country’s white Afrikaner minority farmers.A senior Trump administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions said Trump had not put a lot of thought into planning the meeting with the incoming mayor — but said Trump’s threats to block federal dollars from flowing to New York remained on the table.Mamdani said Thursday that he was not concerned about the president potentially trying to use the meeting to publicly embarrass him and said he saw it as a chance to make his case, even while acknowledging “many disagreements with the president.”If the president does use the meeting as a public confrontation, Mamdani may be uniquely ready for it.He, like Trump, was a relative political outsider who rose to victory with a populist message that promised a break from the establishment, known for his savvy navigation of the spotlight and a distinctive use of social media.Mamdani, who lives in Queens — where Trump was raised — also has shown a cutthroat streak. During his campaign, he appeared to borrow from Trump’s playbook when he noted during a televised debate with Cuomo that one of the women who had accused the former governor of sexual harassment was in the audience. Cuomo has denied wrongdoing.The moment evoked Trump’s tactics before a debate with Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, when he appeared with accusers of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who denied the accusations against him.___Associated Press writers Aamer Madhani in Washington and Anthony Izaguirre in New York contributed to this report.

    President Donald Trump has called New York City’s Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani a “100% Communist Lunatic” and a “total nut job.” Mamdani has called Trump’s administration “authoritarian” and described himself as “Donald Trump’s worst nightmare.”

    So their first-ever meeting, scheduled for Friday at 3 p.m. EST at the White House, could be a curious and combustible affair.

    Despite months of casting each other as prime adversaries, the Republican president and new Democratic star have also indicated an openness to finding areas of agreement that help the city they’ve both called home.

    Mamdani, a democratic socialist who takes office in January, said he sought the meeting with Trump to talk about ways to make New York City more affordable. Trump has said he may want to help him out — although he has also falsely labeled Mamdani as a “communist” and threatened to yank federal funds from his hometown.

    But for both men, the meeting offers opportunities beyond any areas of potential bipartisan agreement.

    The two men are convenient political foils for each other, and taking the other one on can galvanize their supporters.

    Trump loomed large over the mayoral race this year, and on the eve of the election, endorsed independent candidate and former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, predicting the city has “ZERO chance of success, or even survival” if Mamdani won. He also questioned the citizenship of Mamdani, who was born in Uganda and became a naturalized American citizen after graduating from college, and said he’d have him arrested if he followed through on threats not to cooperate with immigration agents in the city.

    Mamdani beat back a challenge from Cuomo, painting him as a “puppet” for the president, and said he would be “a mayor who can stand up to Donald Trump and actually deliver.” He declared during one primary debate, “I am Donald Trump’s worst nightmare, as a progressive Muslim immigrant who actually fights for the things that I believe in.”

    The president, who has long used political opponents to fire up his backers, predicted Mamdani “will prove to be one of the best things to ever happen to our great Republican Party.” As Mamdani upended the Democratic establishment by defeating Cuomo and his far-left progressive policies provoked infighting, Trump repeatedly has cast Mamdani as the face of Democratic Party.

    For Mamdani, a sit-down with the president of the United States offers the state lawmaker who until recently was relatively unknown the chance to go head-to-head with the most powerful person in the world.

    The meeting gives Trump a high-profile chance to talk about affordability at a time when he’s under increasing political pressure to show he’s addressing voter concerns about the cost of living.

    But that’s if the meeting doesn’t turn rocky.

    A chance for some Oval Office drama

    It was not immediately clear whether cameras will be allowed into the meeting. Trump’s daily schedule said it will be private, but the president often invites in a small “pool” of reporters at the last minute.

    The president has had some dramatic public Oval Office faceoffs this year, including an infamously heated exchange with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in March. In May, Trump dimmed the lights while meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and played a four-minute video making widely rejected claims that South Africa is violently persecuting the country’s white Afrikaner minority farmers.

    A senior Trump administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions said Trump had not put a lot of thought into planning the meeting with the incoming mayor — but said Trump’s threats to block federal dollars from flowing to New York remained on the table.

    Mamdani said Thursday that he was not concerned about the president potentially trying to use the meeting to publicly embarrass him and said he saw it as a chance to make his case, even while acknowledging “many disagreements with the president.”

    If the president does use the meeting as a public confrontation, Mamdani may be uniquely ready for it.

    He, like Trump, was a relative political outsider who rose to victory with a populist message that promised a break from the establishment, known for his savvy navigation of the spotlight and a distinctive use of social media.

    Mamdani, who lives in Queens — where Trump was raised — also has shown a cutthroat streak. During his campaign, he appeared to borrow from Trump’s playbook when he noted during a televised debate with Cuomo that one of the women who had accused the former governor of sexual harassment was in the audience. Cuomo has denied wrongdoing.

    The moment evoked Trump’s tactics before a debate with Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, when he appeared with accusers of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who denied the accusations against him.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Aamer Madhani in Washington and Anthony Izaguirre in New York contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Trump contradicts US intelligence on Khashoggi murder

    Alongside visiting Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, President Donald Trump forcefully defended the crown prince against accusations he ordered the 2018 murder of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi, an opinion columnist for The Washington Post.

    Khashoggi was visiting the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018 when he was kidnapped, killed and dismembered.

    In the Nov. 18 Oval Office event with Trump and Salman, ABC News reporter Mary Bruce addressed the crown prince. She said U.S. intelligence “concluded that you orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist.”

    “Why should Americans trust you?” she asked.

    Trump called ABC “fake news” but responded to Bruce’s question about Khashoggi’s killing.

    “As far as this gentleman is concerned, he’s done a phenomenal job,” Trump said. “You’re mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about. Like him or didn’t like him, things happen, but he knew nothing about it, and we can leave it at that. You don’t have to embarrass our guests by asking a question like that.”

    Was Trump right that Prince Mohammed — who was making his first trip to Washington, D.C., since the murder — “knew nothing about” it? That’s not what a U.S. intelligence community analysis found when it took up the question in 2019, during Trump’s first term. Experts said that the U.S. intelligence report has gained wide acceptance within foreign policy circles.

    “I certainly accept it,” Gregory Gause, an emeritus professor at Texas A&M University’s George Bush School of Government and Public Service, said.

    Steven Cook, a senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, agreed.

    “The CIA’s conclusion is the generally accepted account,” Cook said. “I don’t know anyone outside of Saudi Arabia who believes that the crown prince had nothing to do with it.”

    The White House did not respond to an inquiry for this article. 

    What did the U.S. intelligence report say?

    The report — covered by journalists in 2018 and declassified and released in 2021 — found that the crown prince, commonly known as MBS, “approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.” 

    The report said it based the conclusion on “the Crown Prince’s control of decisionmaking in the Kingdom, the direct involvement of a key adviser and members of Muhammad bin Salman’s protective detail in the operation, and the Crown Prince’s support for using violent measures to silence dissidents abroad, including Khashoggi.”

    The report said since 2017, Prince Mohammed “has had absolute control of the Kingdom’s security and intelligence organizations, making it highly unlikely that Saudi officials would have carried out an operation of this nature without the Crown Prince’s authorization.”

    The assessment found that the 15-member Saudi team that went to Istanbul included officials who worked for, or were associated with, a group headed by by Saud al-Qahtani, “a close adviser of Muhammad bin Salman, who claimed publicly in mid 2018 that he did not make decisions without the Crown Prince’s approval.”

    The team in Istanbul also included seven members of Prince Mohammed’s “elite personal protective detail” that “exists to defend the Crown Prince, answers only to him, and had directly participated in earlier dissident suppression operations in the Kingdom and abroad at the Crown Prince’s direction.”

    Given the crown prince’s degree of centralized control, the intelligence report said, “aides were unlikely to question Muhammad bin Salman’s orders or undertake sensitive actions without his consent.” 

    What has the crown prince said about his involvement?

    The crown prince denied knowledge of the plot to kill Khashoggi in a September 2019 interview with “60 Minutes.” 

    Asked whether he ordered the murder, the crown prince said, “Absolutely not. This was a heinous crime. But I take full responsibility as a leader in Saudi Arabia, especially since it was committed by individuals working for the Saudi government. … This was a mistake.”

    In the Nov. 18 Oval Office meeting, the crown prince did not directly respond to the accusation that he knew of the operation or planned it. 

    He said that the murder has “been painful for us in Saudi Arabia. We did all the right steps of investigation, etc., in Saudi Arabia, and we’ve improved our system to be sure that nothing happens like that. … It’s a huge mistake, and we’re doing our best that this doesn’t happen again.”

    In an X post after the Oval Office remarks, Khashoggi’s widow, Hanan Elatr Khashoggi, addressed Trump. “There is no justification to murder my husband,” she wrote. “While Jamal was a good transparent and brave man many people may not have agreed with his opinions and desire for freedom of the press. The Crown Prince said he was sorry so he should meet me, apologize and compensate me for the murder of my husband.”

    Source link

  • Commentary: He’s loud. He’s obnoxious. And Kamala Harris can only envy JD Vance

    JD Vance, it seems, is everywhere.

    Berating Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. Eulogizing Charlie Kirk. Babysitting the Middle East peace accord. Profanely defending the aquatic obliteration of (possible) drug smugglers.

    He’s loud, he’s obnoxious and, in a very short time, he’s broken unprecedented ground with his smash-face, turn-it-to-11 approach to the vice presidency. Unlike most White House understudies, who effectively disappear like a protected witness, Vance has become the highest-profile, most pugnacious politician in America who is not named Donald J. Trump.

    It’s quite the contrast with his predecessor.

    Kamala Harris made her own kind of history, as the first woman, first Black person and first Asian American to serve as vice president. As such, she entered office bearing great — and vastly unrealistic — expectations about her prominence and the public role she would play in the Biden administration. When Harris acted the way that vice presidents normally do — subservient, self-effacing, careful never to poach the spotlight from the chief executive — it was seen as a failing.

    By the end of her first year in office, “whatever happened to Kamala Harris?” had become a political buzz phrase.

    No one’s asking that about JD Vance.

    Why is that? Because that’s how President Trump wants it.

    “Rule No.1 about the vice presidency is that vice presidents are only as active as their presidents want them to be,” said Jody Baumgartner, an East Carolina University expert on the office. “They themselves are irrelevant.”

    Consider Trump’s first vice president, Mike Pence, who had the presence and pizzazz of day-old mashed potatoes.

    “He was not a very powerful vice president, but that’s because Donald Trump didn’t want him to be,” said Christopher Devine, a University of Dayton professor who’s published four books on the vice presidency. “He wanted him to have very little influence and to be more of a background figure, to kind of reassure quietly the conservatives of the party that Trump was on the right track. With JD Vance, I think he wants him to be a very active, visible figure.”

    In fact, Trump seems to be grooming Vance as a successor in a way that Joe Biden never did with Harris. The 46th president practically had to be bludgeoned into standing aside after the Democratic freakout over his wretched, career-ending debate performance. (Things might be different with Vance if Trump could override the Constitution and fulfill his fantasy of seeking a third term in the White House.)

    There were other circumstances that kept Harris under wraps, particularly in the early part of Biden’s presidency.

    One was the COVID-19 lockdown. “It meant she wasn’t traveling. She wasn’t doing public events,” said Joel K. Goldstein, another author and expert on the vice presidency. “A lot of stuff was being done virtually and so that tended to be constraining.”

    The Democrats’ narrow control of the Senate also required Harris to stick close to Washington so she could cast a number of tie-breaking votes. (Under the Constitution, the vice president provides the deciding vote when the Senate is equally divided. Harris set a record in the third year of her vice presidency for casting the most tie-breakers in history.)

    The personality of their bosses also explains why Harris and Vance approached the vice presidency in different ways.

    Biden had spent nearly half a century in Washington, as a senator and vice president under Barack Obama. He was, foremost, a creature of the legislative process and saw Harris, who’d served nearly two decades in elected office, as a (junior) partner in governing.

    Trump came to politics through celebrity. He is, foremost, a pitchman and promoter. He saw Vance as a way to turn up the volume.

    Ohio’s senator had served barely 18 months in his one and only political position when Trump chose Vance as his running mate. He’d “really made his mark as a media and cultural figure,” Devine noted, with Vance’s memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” regarded as a kind of Rosetta Stone for the anger and resentment that fueled the MAGA movement.

    Trump “wanted someone who was going to be aggressive in advancing the MAGA narrative,” Devine said, “being very present in media, including in some newer media spaces, on podcasts, social media. Vance was someone who could hammer home Trump’s message every day.”

    The contrast continued once Harris and Vance took office.

    Biden handed his vice president a portfolio of tough and weighty issues, among them addressing the root causes of illegal migration from Central America. (They were “impossible, s— jobs,” in the blunt assessment that Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, offered in her recent campaign memoir.)

    Trump has treated Vance as a sort of heat-seeking rhetorical missile, turning him loose against his critics and acting as though the presidential campaign never ended.

    Vance seems gladly submissive. Harris, who was her own boss for nearly two decades, had a hard time adjusting as Biden’s No. 2.

    “Vance is very effective at playing the role of backup singer who gets to have a solo from time to time,” said Jamal Simmons, who spent a year as Harris’ vice presidential communications chief. “I don’t think Kamala Harris was ever as comfortable in the role as Vance has proven himself to be.”

    Will Vance’s pugilistic approach pay off in 2028? It’s way too soon to say. Turning the conventions of the vice presidency to a shambles, the way Trump did with the presidency, has delighted many in the Republican base. But polls show Vance, like Trump, is deeply unpopular with a great number of voters.

    As for Harris, all she can do is look on from her exile in Brentwood, pondering what might have been.

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Gordon Findlay didn’t faint Nov. 6 in the Oval Office

    Video clips of a man collapsing Nov. 6 at President Donald Trump’s drug pricing announcement quickly spiraled into misleading narratives. 

    Dave Ricks, chair and chief executive officer of Eli Lilly and Co., was speaking in the Oval Office when a man standing behind him fainted. Television cameras captured Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. leaving the room as other people, including federal health official Dr. Mehmet Oz, treated the man who collapsed. 

    After White House officials paused the event, social media users misleadingly jumped to conclusions about the man’s identity and Kennedy’s response.

    “BREAKING: RFK Jr. flees the scene after Novo Nordisk Executive Gordon Findlay collapsed in the Oval Office,” says the caption of a Nov. 6 X post that had more than 3 million views as of Nov. 7.

    Other social media posts on TikTok and X shared similar claims, including X’s artificial intelligence-powered chatbot Grok, who responded to users that Gordon Findlay was the person who fainted in the Oval Office.

    These posts named the wrong person, and the White House disputes the explanation for Kennedy’s exit.

    Here’s what we know about the incident at Trump’s event with Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk executives to lower prices for popular pharmaceutical drugs such as GLP-1 weight loss medications.

    Gordon Findlay is not the man who fainted in the Oval Office

    In the clip, Ricks pauses his remarks and says, “Gordon, are you okay?”

    This likely made people think the person who collapsed was Gordon Findlay, Novo Nordisk’s global brand director based in Basel, Switzerland. 

    Multiple media outlets also identified the man as Findlay before later correcting their stories.

    But Findlay didn’t attend the White House event.

    Newsweek reported that Novo Nordisk said in a statement, “CEO Mike Doustdar and Executive Vice President of U.S. Operations, Dave Moore were the only two Novo Nordisk representatives in the Oval Office.”

    White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters who were rushed out of the room that the man who fainted was a “representative” of one of the companies at the event. 

    “During the Most Favored Nations Oval Office Announcement, a representative with one of the companies fainted. The White House Medical Unit quickly jumped into action, and the gentleman is okay. The Press Conference will resume shortly,” Leavitt said, according to an email to the press pool.

    When the press conference resumed, Trump said the man was fine, without naming him. 

    Ricks identified him as a guest of Eli Lilly in a press briefing after the event, The Hill reported

    Dan Diamond, a Washington Post White House reporter, wrote on his Substack that after talking to people with direct knowledge of the White House event, he learned that the man who fainted was an Eli Lilly patient who had been invited to the White House because of his experience of taking a GLP-1 drug.

    The claim that Kennedy fled from the scene is also misleading

    Social media users mocked Kennedy as fleeing the scene, but White House officials said that wasn’t what happened. 

    Kush Desai, White House deputy press secretary, responded to an X post from independent journalist and social media video clipper Aaron Rupar, saying that Kennedy rushed out of the event to seek medical assistance for the man who fainted.

    Our ruling

    An X post says, “RFK Jr. flees the scene after Novo Nordisk Executive Gordon Findlay collapsed in the Oval Office.”

    Findlay didn’t attend the White House event. The man who fainted doesn’t work for Novo Nordisk or Eli Lilly; he was an Eli Lilly GLP-1 patient and guest.

    Social media users said Kennedy fled the scene; a White House spokesperson wrote on X that Kennedy was seeking medical attention for the man.

    We rate this claim False.

    Source link

  • Trump at first says he is ‘not familiar’ with Minnesota Democrat’s assassination

    In response to a question about why he did not order flags lowered to half-staff to honor Melissa Hortman, the Democratic speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives who was assassinated alongside her husband this summer, Donald Trump initially said he was “not familiar” with the case.

    The question came up during a briefing in the Oval Office on Monday, in light of the president’s order last week to lower flags in response to the killing of rightwing activist Charlie Kirk.

    Trump was pressed on why he and Republicans continued cast blame the left for a rise in political violence when elected officials and activists from both parties have been targets.

    Related: Iowa official defies governor’s order to fly flags at half-staff for Charlie Kirk

    The exchange began when the reporter asked about the tributes paid by the White House to Kirk, the founder of the conservative youth activist group Turning Point USA and a close ally of the president and his family.

    “Do you think it would have been fitting to lower the flags to half-staff when Melissa Hortman, the Minnesota house speaker, was gunned down by an assassin as well?” asked Nancy Cordes, the chief White House correspondent for CBS News.

    “I’m not familiar. The who?” Trump replied, leaning in across the Resolute Desk.

    “The Minnesota house speaker, a Democrat, who was assassinated this summer,” she said.

    “Oh,” Trump replied. “Well, if the governor had asked me to do that, I would have done that.”

    Trump did not mention the Minnesota governor Tim Walz – a Democrat and the vice-presidential nominee in 2024 – by name, but suggested that had he made the request, the White House might have obliged.

    “I wouldn’t have thought of that, but I would’ve, if somebody had asked me,” Trump said. “People make requests for the lowering of the flag, and oftentimes you have to say no, because it would be a lot of lowering.”

    At the time, Trump said that speaking to Walz, a close friend of Hortman, would have been a “waste of time”.

    “I could be nice and call, but why waste time?” Trump said then, referring to Walz as “whacked out” and a “mess”.

    Kirk was fatally shot last week while speaking at Utah Valley University. In the wake of his death, Trump and other prominent conservatives have sought to place the blame for political violence squarely on Democrats, vowing to crack down on the left-wing groups and institutions they allege “fund it and support it”.

    As Republicans grieve the loss of Kirk, they have largely ignored the violence against Democrats, including Hortman’s assassination, the arson attack on the home of Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro, the violent assault on Paul Pelosi, the husband of former speaker Nancy Pelosi, and a thwarted plot to kidnap the Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer.

    House Republicans and a handful of Democrats gathered at prayer vigil for Kirk on Capitol Hill on Monday. In brief remarks, Representative Tom Emmer, a Republican from Minnesota, reflected on several recent incidents of political violence, including Hortman’s killing by “another evil coward” who also shot a second Democratic state lawmaker that night.

    Trump, who survived two assassination attempts during the 2024 presidential campaign, denied on Monday that he had blamed just “one side” before accusing the “radical left” of causing “tremendous violence”.

    “The radical left really has caused a lot of problems for this country,” he said. “I really think they hate our country.”

    Earlier on Monday, vice president JD Vance, a close friend of Kirk’s, said he hoped for national “unity” while hosting the slain activist’s podcast. But then he insisted that this was not a “both sides problem” and that Democrats were primarily to blame, despite widespread condemnation of Kirk’s killing by party officials and elected leaders.

    During the lengthy episode, Vance made no reference to Hortman or other acts of political violence, such as the 6 January assault on the US Capitol.

    “Something has gone very wrong with a lunatic fringe – a minority, but a growing and powerful minority on the far left,” he said, and committed to using the levers of the federal government to “dismantle the institutions that promote violence and terrorism in our own country”.

    Source link

  • Trump follows through on first-term promise moving Space Command from Colorado to Alabama

    President Donald Trump on Tuesday announced the U.S. Space Command headquarters would relocate from Colorado Springs, Colorado, to Huntsville, Alabama.

    In 2018, Trump signed an executive order reestablishing the space command during his first term. In 2023, former President Joe Biden decided to keep the headquarters in Colorado, where it was temporarily located.

    Trump’s announcement Tuesday officially reversed Biden’s decision and is consistent with his original plan.

    “The U.S. Space Command HQ will move to the beautiful locale of a place called Huntsville, Alabama, forever to be known from this point forward as Rocket City,” Trump said in a press conference.

    President Donald Trump speaks about the relocation of U.S. Space Command headquarters from Colorado to Alabama in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2025, in Washington. | Mark Schiefelbein

    The decision was criticized by Democrats, who say it will be costly to relocate the headquarters and puts jobs in jeopardy in Colorado.

    Trump said Tuesday that Colorado’s use of mail-in voting was a “big factor” for why the change was happening. Alabama allows absentee ballots that can be requested and returned by mail.

    Alabama, which voted in favor of Trump in all three of the elections he ran in, celebrated the decision with its congressional delegation joining Trump in the Oval Office for the announcement. The relocation is expected to bring jobs and investment to Huntsville’s Redstone Arsenal.

    “We had a lot of competition for this and Alabama’s getting it,” Trump said, acknowledging the state’s leaders flanking him on either side.

    The Air Force had previously said Redstone was the preferred location for the headquarters, but officials said new construction would have to happen in Alabama to support the operations already underway in Colorado. The Biden administration opted instead to overturn Trump’s decision and keep operations where they were.

    Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement Tuesday that Trump was playing “political games” with the military’s readiness and their families.

    “Moving Space Command Headquarters to Alabama is not only wrong for our national defense, but it’s harmful to hundreds of Space Command personnel and their families,” Weiser said.

    Donald Trump

    In this Aug. 29, 2019, file photo, President Donald Trump, left, watches with Vice President Mike Pence and Defense Secretary Mark Esper as the flag for U.S. space Command is unfurled as Trump announces the establishment of the U.S. Space Command in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. President Joe Biden has decided to keep U.S. Space Command headquarters in Colorado, overturning a last-ditch decision by the Trump administration to move it to Alabama and ending months of politically fueled debate, according to senior U.S. officials | Carolyn Kaster

    Weiser said his office had been preparing for Trump to make this announcement and is ready to challenge it in court.

    Trump’s announcement Tuesday was his first televised remarks in a week, since a three-hour Cabinet meeting last Tuesday.

    After several days with no public appearances, there was speculation online about the president’s health. He noted during the press conference that he had an “active” weekend by golfing, posting online and doing an hourlong interview with an outlet.

    Source link

  • Why Attacks on Trump’s Mental Acuity Don’t Land

    Why Attacks on Trump’s Mental Acuity Don’t Land

    Ten years ago, I stood in the back of a large room at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, watching Donald Trump ramble. The celebrity billionaire had been loitering on the fringes of American politics for a few years, but this was my first time seeing him give a proper speech. At least, that’s what I thought he was supposed to be doing. Speaking at the Politics & Eggs forum is a rite of passage for presidential aspirants, and Trump at the time was going through his quadrennial ritual of noisily considering a bid for office. Typically, prospective candidates give variations on their stump speech in this setting. Trump was doing something else—he meandered and riffed and told disjointed stories with no evident connection to one another. The incoherence might have been startling if I had taken him seriously. But the year was 2014, and this was Donald Trump—the man who presided over a reality show in which Gary Busey competed in a pizza-selling contest with Meat Loaf. Nobody took Trump seriously. That was my first mistake.

    Over the past decade, I’ve told the story of what happened next so many times that I can recite each beat in my sleep. The ride to the tarmac in the back of Trump’s SUV. The phone call from his pilot with news that a blizzard had shut down LaGuardia Airport. The last-minute decision to reroute his plane to Palm Beach, and his fateful insistence that the 26-year-old BuzzFeed reporter in the car (me) tag along. What was supposed to be a short in-flight interview turned into two surreal, and oddly intimate, days at Mar-a-Lago, which I spent studying Trump in his natural habitat.

    The article I published a few weeks later—“36 Hours on the Fake Campaign Trail With Donald Trump”—cannot exactly be called prescient, in that I rather confidently predicted that my subject would never run for office. But my portrait of Trump—his depthless vanity, his brittle ego, his tragic craving for elite approval—has largely held up. I described him on his plane restlessly flipping through cable news channels in search of his own face, and quoted him casually blowing off his wedding anniversary to fly to Florida. (“There are a lot of good-looking women here,” he told me once we arrived, leaning in at a poolside buffet.)

    Trump, suffice it to say, did not like the article, and he responded in predictably wrathful fashion. He insulted me on Twitter (“slimebag reporter,” “true garbage with no credibility”), planted fabricated stories about me in Breitbart News (“TRUMP: ‘SCUMBAG’ BUZZFEED BLOGGER OGLED WOMEN WHILE HE ATE BISON AT MY RESORT”), and got me blacklisted from covering Republican events where he was speaking. It was a jarring experience, but enlightening in its way. I’ve returned to it repeatedly over the years, mining the episode for insight into the improbable president’s psyche and the era that he’s shaped.

    As the tenth anniversary of my Mar-a-Lago misadventure approached this week, much of the conversation about Trump was focused on his mental competency. There were political reasons for this. Democrats, hoping to deflect concerns about President Joe Biden’s age and memory, were circulating video clips in which Trump sounded confused and unhinged. Trump’s Republican primary opponents had suggested that he’d “lost the zip on his fastball” or was “becoming crazier.” Nikki Haley had called on Trump (and Biden) to take a mental-acuity test. On social media and in the press, countless detractors have speculated that Trump is losing touch with reality, or sliding into dementia, or growing intoxicated by his own conspiracy theories. The sense of progression is what unites all these claims—the idea that Trump is not just bad, but getting worse.

    To test this theory, I went back and listened to the recording of my hour-long interview with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in 2014. Half-convinced by the narrative of the former president’s worsening mental health, I expected to find in that audio file a more lucid, cogent Trump—one who hadn’t yet been unraveled by the stresses and travails of power. What I found instead illustrates both the risks of returning him to the Oval Office and the futility of trying to prevent that outcome by focusing on his mental decline: He sounded almost exactly the same as he does now.

    This is not to say he sounded sharp. He struggled at times to form complete sentences, and repeatedly lost his train of thought. Throughout our conversation, he said so many obviously untrue things that I remember wondering whether he was a pathological liar or simply deluded.

    Take, for example, our exchange over Trump’s embrace of the “birther” conspiracy theory. Trump had notoriously accused President Barack Obama of forging his U.S. citizenship and, near the end of the 2012 election, had offered to donate $5 million to a charity of Obama’s choosing if he released his college transcripts.

    Here is what Trump said to me, verbatim, when I asked him about the stunt:

    Well, I thought it was good. I mean, I offered $5 million to his charity if he produced his records, so—to his favorite charity if he produced his records. Uh, and I didn’t want to see his marks; I wanted to see where it says “place of birth.” I wanted to see what he put on there. And to this day, nobody’s ever seen any of those records. Uh, they have seen a book that was written when he was a young man saying he was a man from Kenya, a young man from Kenya, ba ba ba ba ba. And the publisher of the book said, “No, that’s what he said,” and then a day later he said, “No, no, that was a typographical error.” Well, you know what a typographical error—that’s when you type the word, when you put an S at the end of a word because it was wrong. You understand that. The word Kenya versus the United States—okay. So he has a book where he said he was from Kenya. Uh, and then, uh, they said that was a typographical error. I mean, there’s a lot of things. Um, I mean I have a whole theory on it, and I’m pretty sure I’m right. Uh, but I have a whole theory as to where he was born, uh, and what he did. And if you noticed, he spent millions and millions of dollars on trying to protect that information. And to this day, I’m shocked that with the three colleges that we’re talking about—you know, Columbia, Harvard, and, and Occidental—that somebody in the office didn’t take that file and say, “Hey, here it is.” I just am shocked. But—and by the way, if it were a positive thing, I would say that it’s something he should’ve done. Because there were a lot of people that agree with me. You know, a lot of people say, “Oh, that was controversial.” A lot of those people in the room loved me because of it. You understand this. You know, there’s a group, a big group of people—I’m not saying it’s a majority, but I want to tell you, it’s a very strong silent minority at least that agrees with me. And I actually said that if he ever did it, I would hope that it showed that I was wrong. And that everything would be perfect. I would rather have that than be right.

    A couple of minutes later, I asked Trump about the charges of racism he’d faced as a result of the birther crusade. His response:

    Don’t forget, Obama called Bill Clinton a racist, and Clinton has never forgiven him for it. Um, uh, many, they called many—anytime anybody disagrees with Obama, they call him a racist. So there have been many people called racists. No, that didn’t, it never stuck in my case, uh, at all. It’s something I was never called before, and it never stuck. At all. But if you notice, whenever anyone got tough with Obama, including Bill Clinton, and including others, they would call him, they would call that person a racist. Uh, so, it’s, it was a charge that they tried, and it never stuck. And you know why it never stuck? ’Cause I am, I am, I am so not a racist, it’s incredible. So it just never stuck. As I think you would notice.

    What do you do with an answer like this if you’re a reporter? On a substantive level, it’s objectively detached from reality: Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and there is no record of his having called Bill Clinton a racist. On a sentence level, the remarks are incoherent, confused, repetitive, and syntactically strange. Transcribing Trump is a nightmare. So is fact-checking him. In the end, I quoted eight words from this rant—“I am so not a racist, it’s incredible.”

    Maybe that was a failure on my part. For years, a contingent of Trump’s critics have argued that journalists fail to show this side of the former president—that we sanitize him by extracting only his most coherent quotes for our stories. And I’ll be the first to admit that it’s difficult to capture Trump’s rambling rhetorical style in print.

    But does anyone believe that publishing those comments in full would have meaningfully changed the public’s perception of Trump, then or now? There may have been a time—in the 1980s and ’90s, perhaps—when he sounded more articulate and grounded in reality. But that Trump was long gone by the time he announced his first campaign. It was not a secret. We all watched those rallies on TV; we all saw him in those debates. And he was elected president anyway.

    There’s a simple reason coverage of verbal flubs, memory lapses, and general octogenarian confusion is more damaging to Biden than it is to Trump. Biden ran for president on a platform of stability and competence, and that image is undermined by suggestions of mental decline. Accusing Trump of going crazy doesn’t work because, well, he has sounded crazy for a long time. The people who voted for him don’t seem to mind—in fact, it’s part of the appeal.

    After listening to the old recording of my Trump interview, I called Sam Nunberg for a gut check. A former political operative with a thick New York accent and a collection of shiny neckties, Nunberg was the prototypical Trump acolyte when I first met him. But his relationship with his former boss has been rocky since he arranged for my access to Trump in 2014 and accompanied me on that trip to Mar-a-Lago: Trump theatrically fired him after my story came out, hired him back, fired him again, then sued him for $10 million, before eventually agreeing to a settlement.

    The two men haven’t spoken in years, according to Nunberg—but that hasn’t stopped reporters from calling him up for quotes about Trump’s mental state. “They’re wanting me to say he’s not the same,” Nunberg told me. “But I don’t see it, at least publicly. I think he’s the same guy.”

    And what kind of guy is that? “He’s reckless, and he’s a narcissist,” Nunberg said. But that’s not exactly news. He’s always been that way.

    McKay Coppins

    Source link