Trump Nominates Fox News Contributor as Next Surgeon General

President Donald Trump announced a new surgeon general nominee Thursday, and unsurprisingly, it appears to be someone that he’s seen make frequent appearances on Fox News.

In a post on Truth Social, the president announced that he had named Dr. Nicole B. Saphier to take the new post, calling her “a STAR physician who has spent her career guiding women facing breast cancer through their diagnosis and treatment while tirelessly advocating to increase early cancer detection and prevention, while at the same time working with men and women on all other forms of cancer diagnoses and treatments.”

This is a developing story.

As inflation hit 3.5 percent in March—its highest rate in three years—congressional Republicans are urging Americans to cover their eyes and ears.

The Commerce Department revealed Thursday that inflation has increased 3.5 percent since last year, thanks to surging gas prices amid the Iran war. Even if volatile energy and food prices are excluded, the inflation rate was still a shocking 3.2 percent.

Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina suggested the public should live more in the future than the depressing present. “The fact of the matter is that all of the cylinders are kicking,” he told Fox Business. “You can even feel in our environment how good things are getting. Gas prices continue to come down, which means that your groceries will come down a little bit as well. We’ve got a lot of good signs in the economy.”

Representative Tim Burchett of Texas admitted that gas prices are rising, but claimed Republicans were innocent in the matter.

“It has to do with the greed of the oil companies,” he said. “We buy zero oil from Iran. 90 percent of their oil they sell to China. They’re just gouging us. I blame Congress.” (Burchett is a member of Congress, where Republicans hold a majority in both branches.)

He continued: “Quit telling me, ‘Oil is a commodity, Burchett, you don’t understand it.’ We don’t prop up every other commodity with billions of dollars in offsets and rebates and all this garbage.”

Does Burchett understand global markets, though? While oil companies do lobby Congress aggressively (they mostly lobby Republicans, who overwhelmingly support fossil fuels), the price of oil is up right now because the Strait of Hormuz is closed, making it harder to export. Burchett seemed to understand this point until fairly recently. In 2022, he went on Newsmax and loudly blamed the war in Ukraine and the Biden administration for high gas prices.

Steve Scalise of Louisiana chimed in during a CNBC interview, though he didn’t have his numbers quite right. Asked about inflation by host Joe Kernen, Scalise said: “You go back two years ago, we were paying almost $6 a gallon for gas. Right now it’s in the 3’s.… It’s still 50 [percent down].”

“When were we paying $6?” host Joe Kernen asked. Gas peaked at a monthly average of $4.93 a gallon under Biden in June 2022.

“Two and a half years ago,” Scalise said.

“That wasn’t the average price,” Kernen said.

“Today we are 30 percent below where we were two years ago,” Scalise retorted, reducing his estimate down 20 points from the figure he’d just used. “We are lowering inflation.”

“You must have been on vacation in California,” Kernan said. “Two years ago, in April 2024, we were at about $3.65. We are actually above where we were then.” (Correct.) Scalise subsequently generalized his claim to say gas prices “were well into the fives under Biden.”

Another Texas Republican, Brian Babin, told MeidasTouch prices have “come down dramatically” since Trump took office. “The president keeps his promises,” Babin said. Asked to grade Trump’s economic policies, he said, “He’s got a B average right now. He had an A, it went to a B, and it’s gonna go back to an A.” Most Americans would disagree with Babin’s assessment, but cut him some slack; his net worth is over $2 million, so he’s a little out of touch.

Inflation is at its highest level in three years thanks to President Trump.

Prices are up 3.5 percent compared to last year, the biggest year-to-year increase in three years, the Commerce Department said Thursday. Much of this is attributable to gas prices due to the war in Iran. But even with fuel and food subtracted, inflation is still up by 3.2 percent, above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target.

The rising prices outweigh the modest 0.6 percent gain in U.S. workers’ incomes, the department’s report said. Any tax refunds that Americans receive are also being blunted by higher gas and food prices.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said Wednesday that cuts to interest rates are unlikely to happen for months due to the war. In contrast, last year, the Fed cut rates three times. Usually, the central bank prefers to keep rates unchanged, or it raises them to combat inflation.

All of this doesn’t bode well for the party in power. Trump and the GOP campaigned in 2024 on lower prices and against high inflation, but thanks to a war of choice and the president’s whimsical tariffs, the economic gains created by President Biden have been wiped out. Many voters who thought otherwise are now starting to open their eyes, and Republicans’ only hope might be blatant attempts to choose their own voters.

Trump administration officials arranged to share sensitive voter information with an outside group keen on undermining America’s electoral process.

Documents first obtained by advocacy nonprofit Democracy Forward via public records requests reveal correspondence between DOGE personnel and a key organization that fueled the 2020 election conspiracy, detailing how voter data would be transferred between the two entities.

The documents offer a clear trail of Trump administration officials working to share sensitive voter data with an external party in a covert arrangement.

While the messages were heavily redacted by the government prior to their release, at least one email illustrates the general tone between the unnamed organization and the government body as they shared password-protected information related to U.S. elections: “We live for this!” the conspiracy group wrote.

Most of the names and entities involved in the information exchanges were also redacted. Yet the emails showcase how government officials moved to exchange sensitive federal data with regard to election-related activity.

“The Trump-Vance administration continues to hide what it is doing with Americans’ personal data, who it has unlawfully shared it with, and why,” Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman told Democracy Docket.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration admitted to a similar scheme conducted by DOGE. In January, the Social Security Administration revealed via court filing that Elon Musk’s underlings had engaged in unauthorized communications and data planning with election-denial groups. The administration did not name the outside groups involved, but at least one stands out in the crowd.

Mere weeks into Donald Trump’s second term, election-denial group True the Vote appealed to federal employees at Musk’s slash-and-burn temporary advisory body.

Their original message was public, pasted to their website in early March 2025: “Given DOGE’s mandate to enhance governmental efficiency and your recent insights into federal data discrepancies, we urge you to extend your investigative rigor to the nation’s voter registration systems.”

“True the Vote stands ready to assist in this effort,” the group added.

True the Vote vehemently denied any involvement in the scandal at the time of the SSA admission.

The scheme could be a porthole into the Trump administration’s recent machinations, which involve an unprecedented effort to access state voter rolls nationwide and, with them, sensitive voter data on tens of millions of Americans.

The Justice Department has so far filed lawsuits against 30 states in an attempt to force the data’s release before midterms. More than a dozen Republican-led states, including Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming, have already handed over the data voluntarily or have promised to do so.

Judges across the country, however, have tossed the DOJ’s various cases, blocking the extraction in Rhode Island, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Oregon. A Trump-appointed judge also tossed the case in Arizona, ruling that detailed voter registration rolls are “not a document subject to request by the Attorney General” under federal law.

Republican-run states across the South are rushing to redraw their congressional districts and blunt the voting power of their Black residents after the Supreme Court’s ruling gutting the Voting Rights Act Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais.

The court voted 6–3 to throw out Louisiana’s congressional map and get rid of its only Democratic (and majority-Black) district. One day after the ruling, the state’s Republican governor, Jeff Landry, announced in a joint statement with Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill that the May 16 primary elections would be suspended to get a newly redrawn map in place.

“The State is currently enjoined from carrying out congressional elections under the current map,” Landry and Murrill said in their statement. “We are working together with the Legislature and the Secretary of State’s office to develop a path forward.”

Meanwhile, hours after the court decision, Florida passed a new congressional map redrawn by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis in the hopes of giving Republicans four more seats in Congress.

Mississippi Republican Governor Tate Reeves announced Wednesday that he would call the state legislature for a special session on congressional redistricting, which had been paused in anticipation of the court’s ruling. He celebrated the decision in a post on X, taking a shot at reproductive rights at the same time.

“First Dobbs. Now Callais,” Reeves posted. “Just Mississippi and Louisiana down here saving our country!”

Alabama’s Republican attorney general, Steve Marshall, said after the ruling that his state “will act as quickly as possible to apply this ruling to Alabama’s redistricting efforts,” taking aim at Alabama’s two Democratic (and majority-Black) districts.

Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who is running for governor, posted a proposed congressional map of the state on X, colored entirely red and eliminating the state’s lone Democratic and majority-Black district.

“I urge our state legislature to reconvene to redistrict another Republican seat in Memphis,” Blackburn posted. “It’s essential to cement @realDonaldTrump’s agenda and the Golden Age of America.”

In South Carolina, Republican legislators are openly discussing the possibility of redrawing their districts, welcoming the court’s decision.

“I was happy to see it. Uh, you know, I, I have, um, I’ve long advocated that we need to treat people equally, not based on the color of their skin, melanin content, anything like that, and, and people don’t vote based on their skin color, so that’s. That’s been my position,” Republican state Representative Jordan Pace, who had previously submitted a redrawn map of the state’s 6th congressional district in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling, told local TV station WLTX.

Hastily redrawn congressional maps will certainly face legal challenges, but the Supreme Court has now set a new precedent by striking down the 60-year-old Voting Rights Act. With the midterm elections just over six months away, courts will also be reluctant to rule on election law. If any of these new maps are in place by November, Donald Trump and the GOP may not lose the House of Representatives.

This story has been updated.

President Donald Trump’s outrageous claim that former FBI Director James Comey tried to put a mob-style hit out on him with a photograph of seashells is already falling apart.

Trump has claimed that “86” is a “mob term” for ordering a hit on someone, meaning that when Comey posted a picture of seashells arranged on the beach in North Carolina to read, “86 47,” he was calling to “86,” or kill, the forty-seventh president.

Speaking on CNN’s The Source Wednesday, Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor, challenged Trump’s claim, arguing that mobsters just don’t talk like that.

“There was a point in my life where I spent the better part of my waking hours either talking face-to-face with real-world mobsters, or listening to them talk to each other over wiretaps, body wires, or bugs,” Honig said. “I dealt with all five families: Gambino, Genovese, Bonanno, Lucchese, and Colombo. I dealt with bosses, underbosses, consigliere, capos, soldiers, associates, all the way down the line.”

“Never, ever. Not once did I hear any real-world gangster use the term ‘86’ to refer to a murder or anything, and God knows these guys had colorful lingo, but never that phrase,” Honig said. “I don’t know where the president’s getting this from. He said from some movie. They don’t use that term in The Godfather, The Sopranos, or Goodfellas. Maybe some old-timey movie, but that’s not reality.”

Honig also pointed out that when CNN’s Kaitlan Collins had pressed Trump earlier Wednesday on whether he really felt his life was in danger, the president had replied: “Probably, I don’t know.”

“Right there, that’s an acquittal,” Honig said. “Because prosecutors have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim believed that his life was in jeopardy.”

The brief indictment against Comey, listing charges that include making a threat against the president and transmitting it in interstate commerce, does not include this mobster argument. Rather, it claims that “86” was a symbol that a “reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to President Trump.”

But clearly there is nothing reasonable about Trump’s Mafia fiction—least of all any actual danger.

Maine Governor Janet Mills withdrew her campaign to represent the state in the U.S. Senate on Thursday.

Mills was the establishment Democratic favorite to replace Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who has held the seat since 1997. But she severely lagged in the polls behind progressive candidate Graham Platner.

In a statement released Thursday, Mills explained that her exit from the race boiled down to basic resources, specifying that she lacked the campaign funds to continue campaigning.

“While I have the drive and passion, commitment and experience, and above all else—the fight—to continue on, I very simply do not have the one thing that political campaigns unfortunately require today: the financial resources,” Mills said. “That is why today I have made the incredibly difficult decision to suspend my campaign for the United States Senate.”

Mills’s late entrance into the race last year hampered her fundraising abilities, and raised questions about her hunger to represent Maine in Washington. Within the first three months of 2026, Mills had raised just $2.7 million, a paltry sum for an establishment favorite expected to have the party’s wealth behind her. Mills’s fundraising efforts were eclipsed by Platner’s campaign, which raised $4.6 million in the same period.

Her withdrawal is a stunning loss for the national Democratic Party, not only as a sign of her waning popularity within the state, but also for the waning popularity of the national establishment that endorsed her.

For nearly two decades, New York Senator Chuck Schumer has selected the party’s Senate candidates with little opposition. That is no longer the case. Schumer’s political apparatus also faces contention in the midwest, where his preferred Senate candidates are facing tough primary competition in Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota.

The race to contest Maine’s Senate seat has also sparked a debate on age, challenging ideas about which generation of candidates should be representing the breadth of America. Platner, a Marine and Army veteran-turned-oyster farmer, is 41 years old. Mills, who has represented the Pine Tree State since the 1980s, is 78.

This story has been updated.

Despite all of the other issues in the country, Congress wants to waste its time on a bill condemning Hasan Piker.

Democratic Representative Josh Gottheimer and Republican Mike Lawler on Wednesday introduced a resolution to target “the rise of antisemitic, hate-filled rhetoric disseminated by prominent online personalities, including Hasan Piker and Candace Owens, and calling on social media platforms and public leaders to take stronger action against hate.”

“Piker has openly applauded Hamas’ terrorism, downplayed the mass rape of civilians on October 7th, and dehumanized Orthodox Jews as ‘inbred,’” Lawler said in a statement, taking many of those statements out of context. “Owens has trafficked in vile conspiracy theories, promoted blood libels, and platformed Holocaust deniers. With an audience of millions, they have a responsibility to confront hatred and bigotry in every form, not to amplify it to the masses. So if they won’t call it out, I will.

“I get that speaking up is not easy,” Gottheimer said. “But our constituents didn’t elect us to always take the easy path. That’s what principled leadership is all about.”

Piker, who has built a large following as a left-wing influencer on the Twitch streaming platform, has come under fire from pro-Israel advocacy groups like AIPAC as well as centrist organizations like Third Way for alleged antisemitic rhetoric in his anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian advocacy, despite his repeated condemnations of attacks on Judaism and the Jewish people. Owens, while criticizing Israel from the right, has engaged in openly antisemitic rhetoric, such as, “Jewish people control the media.”

Regardless, amid a war with Iran, a struggling economy, and numerous other legislative priorities in Congress, a symbolic resolution attacking two influencers can hardly be seen as a bipartisan priority for Congress. The resolution is not likely to deter any bigotry, either.

President Donald Trump’s indictments against his perceived political enemies are getting so flimsy, even he’s not sure he believes in them.

On Wednesday, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked Trump about the Department of Justice’s most recent target: former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump already tried and failed to throw in jail last year. (That case was thrown out after the courts discovered Trump’s prosecutor had been illegally appointed. Brilliant move, Mr. President.)

This recent indictment is built on a photo Comey posted on Instagram last year, in which seashells on a beach were arranged to write out “86 47.” The term “86” is often used in the restaurant industry to get rid of or cancel a dish, so the DOJ is jumping to the very reasonable conclusion that this constituted a threat to Trump’s life.

Collins asked Trump whether he actually thought Comey was threatening his life with the post.

“Well if anybody knows anything about crime, they know ‘86,’” Trump said. “It’s a mob term for ‘kill ’em.’ You ever see the movies? … I think of it as a mob term. I don’t know.”

Trump then began talking about mobsters before Collins wisely cut him off: “Do you really think your life was in danger?”

“Probably, I don’t know,” Trump replied. “People like Comey have created tremendous danger, I think, for politicians and others. You know, Comey is a dirty cop. He’s a very dirty cop. He cheated on the elections.”

Entertaining as Trump’s rambling monologues are, “Probably, I don’t know,” isn’t going to hold up in court. Comey can very easily defend himself by arguing his seashell art just meant he wanted to be rid of the president.

Even some congressional Republicans have expressed reservations about the Comey indictment, as it becomes clear average Americans care little about Trump’s revenge tour. North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed skepticism that the Comey case held water.

“I’ve used ‘86’ a lot of times,” Tillis told The Washington Post. “I’ve never said it with the intent of killing somebody.”

Representative Troy Nehls called the case “a stretch,” adding, “you can indict anybody for anything.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s blind loyalty to the Trump administration has put him at odds with his own beliefs.

During a House Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday, New Hampshire Representative Maggie Goodlander asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine if he agreed with a statement that America’s “military won’t follow unlawful orders.” Without hesitation, Caine answered: “I do.”

Hegseth, however, was quick to pick a bone with the benign principle—an inclination that immediately morphed into a liability for the Pentagon chief as he tripped over what turned out to be a quote from his own mouth.

“Mr. Hegseth, do you agree with that statement?” asked Goodlander.

“I do, but understand what you’re insinuating is a partisan point,” said Hegseth.

“I’m not, I’m actually quoting you directly, Mr. Hegseth, from April 12, 2016, and I appreciate that on the record you’ve clarified this important principle,” Goodlander said.

At the time, Hegseth had told an audience that he believed there “had to be consequences for abject war crimes.”

“That’s why the military said it won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander-in-chief. There’s a standard, there’s an ethos. There’s a belief that we are above so many things that our enemies or others would do,” Hegseth said in footage uncovered by CNN.

But Hegseth’s belief system has obviously morphed in the decade since. Last November, six Democratic members of the House and Senate—a coalition of veterans and former national security professionals that included Goodlander and Senator Mark Kelly—urged U.S. service members not to “give up the ship.”

In a video statement posted to Facebook, the bloc repeated that America’s military and intelligence communities “can” and “must … refuse illegal orders,” echoing Hegseth’s prior remarks. They made no reference to disobeying the Trump administration directly, only reminding people to uphold the Constitution.

The White House did not take the missive in stride. Instead, Donald Trump called for the coalition’s execution, writing on Truth Social that their behavior was “punishable by DEATH!”

Hegseth then attempted to censure Kelly, claiming that the retired U.S. Navy captain should not be afforded the same First Amendment protections as the general population. A judge did not agree, and the case was tossed in February.