Cognitive Decline? Trump Goes on Nonsensical Rant About Food Benefits

Donald Trump seems to think that cuts to food assistance mean cheaper and more abundant food for everyone.

“You campaigned on lowering the price of groceries. How can you justify cutting food assistance in this [budget] bill?” a reporter asked the president, on Capitol Hill Monday, after he emerged from a meeting with House Republicans.

The president’s response didn’t make any sense.

“Let me just tell you, the cut is going to give everybody much more food because prices are coming way down. Groceries are down,” Trump said. He added, “You know that eggs now? Way down. Everybody’s buying eggs. Grocery’s down. Energy’s down. Gasoline? They’re now buying—they’re buying gasoline now for $1.99.”

First of all, gasoline is not selling for that price anywhere in the United States, except possibly in wholesale markets. And cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, commonly referred to as food stamps, would not lower food prices. As the head of a Nevada food bank told NBC last month, “These reductions don’t just affect people facing hunger—they also hurt the retailers, farmers, and businesses that supply fresh, local food to our region.”

The president’s answer seems to miss the point of the question, which was calling into question Trump’s campaign promise of lowering food prices, in contrast to Republican plans to cut food aid and shift the cost to the states. The Republican budget would threaten benefits for close to 42 million low-income Americans and would have little effect on overall food supply or prices, which the president would know if he understood basic economics.

But Trump’s mismanagement of the economy, as seen in his nonsensical, flip-flopping tariff policies, demonstrate that he doesn’t know what he’s doing. His decisions are already causing food prices to go up, and retailers like Walmart are complaining. Trump and his allies are responding to their concerns with threats and no recognition that they’re responsible for the problems.

Either State Secretary Marco Rubio is playing dumb about Donald Trump’s new private jet from Qatar, or he’s actually dumb.

While testifying before Congress Tuesday, Rubio claimed that he had no knowledge of reports that ownership of the plane would eventually swap to Trump’s presidential library.

“It’s not your understanding that the plane ultimately will belong to Trump or to the president’s library?” pressed Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy.

“I’m not involved at that level, I’ve never heard that before,” the state secretary—whose job it is to manage and carry out U.S. foreign policy—said. “What I’ve heard is that plane will replace Air Force One, which is an Air Force plane.”

Murphy then made mention of Trump’s plans to meet this week with a couple hundred of the top investors in his cryptocurrency. Earlier this month, 19 of the top 25 holders registered on the meme coin site used foreign exchanges that exclude U.S.-based customers, reported Bloomberg, meaning that foreigners are effectively buying face-to-face time with the president.

“I don’t know anything about it, or didn’t even know there was a dinner Thursday night,” Rubio said.

“So you don’t know if any of the foreign individuals meeting with the president Thursday night, for instance, are on our list of sanctioned individuals or have connections to, let’s say, terrorist organizations abroad?” Murphy asked.

Rubio then deferred oversight of that responsibility to the Department of Homeland Security, repeating that he wasn’t aware of the dinner.

“You’re asking about a dinner that I don’t know anything about. I can’t answer you because I don’t know anything about this dinner. It’s the first I’ve heard of it,” Rubio said, claiming he doesn’t know the president’s “social schedule.”

Murphy then underscored the danger of major foreign interests potentially circumnavigating the State Department for unfettered access to Trump.

“It’s kind of naïve to believe that they aren’t going to be in that room talking about national security matters,” Murphy said. “I think that right there is a real problem for this committee, because there’s clearly a way around the State Department for foreign individuals of significant influence and wealth to be able to directly lobby the president of the United States. You are saying you don’t know this is happening; that in and of itself is a problem.”

Qatari leadership gifted Trump a super luxury jumbo jet earlier this month in an act that was widely interpreted as a foreign bribe, including by longtime supporters of the president’s agenda, such as far-right influencers Ben Shapiro and Laura Loomer. It was one of the most lavish gifts ever bestowed on a U.S. president.

Claiming that the plane is going toward the Defense Department is a convenient workaround that would allow Trump to ethically accept the pricy present, since it is obviously illegal for a president (or any U.S. public officeholder) to accept gifts “of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State,” per the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause.

Trump has claimed the jet is a “gift” to the Defense Department and thus the country—except that the plane is not actually being donated to the American people. Instead, Trump is opting to use the luxurious aircraft as his new Air Force One until “shortly before he leaves office,” at which point he will transfer ownership of the plane to his presidential library foundation, sources with knowledge of the arrangement told ABC News.

Richard Briffault, a Columbia Law School professor, told NPR News Trump’s decision to accept the jumbo jet is a “pretty textbook case” of violating the emoluments clause, clarifying that if Trump hands the jet over to his library after leaving office, then it’s “not really a gift to the United States at all.”

Elon Musk claimed Tuesday that he plans to back off from buying American elections, following his failed attempt to purchase a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat earlier this year.

While speaking remotely at the Qatar Economic Forum, Musk was asked whether he intended to go on another shopping spree during America’s upcoming midterm elections. The billionaire bureaucrat had dropped a whopping $228 million on Donald Trump’s campaign.

“Are you going to continue to spend at that kind of level on future elections?” asked Bloomberg’s Mishal Husain.

“I think, in terms of political spending, I’m going to do a lot less in the future,” Musk replied.

“And why is that?” Husain asked.

“I think I’ve done enough,” Musk said. Some laughter echoed throughout the hall.

“Is it because of blowback?” Husain pressed.

“Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. And I don’t currently see a reason,” he said.

Musk spent at least $20 million to back the Republican candidate in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race—but lost. Afterward, a humiliated Musk pretended he didn’t even care about the results, but it was too late: He’d proved himself a political liability instead of an asset.

Musk’s messy work with the Department of Government Efficiency has tanked public opinion of the current administration, while protesters across the country target their ire at the billionaire bureaucrat and his beloved Tesla dealerships. Musk shed 25 percent of his personal wealth in Trump’s first 100 days in office.

In a humiliating first-quarter earnings report, Musk’s Tesla said that profits had crashed by a whopping 71 percent, falling to a mere $409 million, compared with $1.39 billion from the same quarter last year. There was even a report that Tesla was looking to replace Musk as CEO, which the company promptly dismissed and which sent Musk into a rage.

Earlier in the interview, Husain had asked Musk about Tesla’s tough spot. “I wonder if some of what has happened to Tesla in the last few months—did you take it personally?”

“Yes,” Musk answered, to loud laughter in the audience.

“And did it make you regret, or think twice about, your political endeavors?” Husain asked.

After a long pause, Musk replied, “I did what needed to be done.”

Elon Musk is having a hard time explaining his cushy new Starlink contracts.

While speaking with Bloomberg at the Qatar Economic Forum Tuesday, the world’s richest man aggressively dodged a direct question about his space-based internet network’s reported deal with South Africa, which would circumvent the country’s post-apartheid laws.

After refusing to engage with the idea that there had been a conflict of interest between his work for the Trump administration and operating his multibillion-dollar international businesses, Musk pushed back against the question that foreign governments could be using deals with his companies in order to cozy up to the White House.

“Starlink is obviously a very good internet service,” said Bloomberg’s Mishal Husain. “It also had more contracts coming its way, and there is some evidence that companies are allowing access to it because they want to be close to the Trump administration and send the right signals.”

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is planning to offer Musk a Starlink contract ahead of Ramphosa’s meeting with Donald Trump, Bloomberg reported Tuesday, despite the fact that Musk’s business doesn’t fit the parameters of South Africa’s Black Economic Empowerment laws.

“That is being done on the event of the visit President Ramaphosa is expected to make to the White House. Do you recognize that as a conflict of interest?” Husain asked.

“No, of course not,” Musk responded. “First of all, you should be questioning why are there racist laws in South Africa. That’s the first problem; that’s what you should be attacking. It’s improper for there to be racist laws in South Africa.”

“The whole idea with what Nelson Mandela, great man, proposed, is that all races should be on equal footing in South Africa,” Musk continued. “Whereas there are now 140 laws in South Africa that basically give strong preference to if you’re a Black South African, and not otherwise.”

Musk then repeatedly pressed Husain on whether she believed that was “right,” while the moderator elaborated that the law was about to change to benefit Musk.

“Those rules were designed to bring about an era of more economic equality in South Africa, and it looks like the government has found a way to work around those rules for you,” Husain said.

“I asked you a question,” Musk said, eliciting an awkward laugh from the crowd. “Why do you like racist laws?”

“This is not for me to answer,” Husain said. “Now, you wouldn’t be trying to dodge a question that’s difficult for you to answer?”

The South African government’s Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment policy stipulates that all companies that do business in the nation must have at least 30 percent of their ownership or economic involvement owned by Black South Africans. Musk claimed Tuesday that he’s been rejected for a business license in his home country because he’s “not Black,” though Starlink has failed to meet the requirements for the license.

The mandate is a part of the country’s efforts to correct inequalities left in the wake of apartheid, striving to “advance economic transformation and enhance the economic participation of black people in the South African economy,” per the South African Department of Trade, Industry, and Competition.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., Musk has practically made the notion of diversity his enemy through his work at the Department of Government Efficiency, where he pitched to strip and defund federal agencies whose missions make mention of inclusivity efforts.

And on his social media platforms, the billionaire’s X-based artificial intelligence bot Grok has practically confessed that its algorithm was changed in order to accommodate Musk’s “white genocide” conspiracy regarding South Africa.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem just gave an absolutely incorrect definition of habeas corpus, displaying a deeply alarming lack of knowledge for someone overseeing the Trump administration’s illegal immigration crackdowns. 

“Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus?” Senator Maggie Hassan asked at a hearing on Tuesday.

“Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country—” 

“Let me stop you, ma’am. Excuse me, that’s incorrect,” Hassan replied.

“President Lincoln used it—” 

“Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people,” Hassan said, explaining an undergraduate-level principle to the acting DHS director. 

“If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason,” she continued. “Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea. As a senator from the ‘live free or die’ state, this matters a lot to me and my constituents, and to all Americans. So Secretary Noem, do you support the core protection that habeas corpus provides, that the government must provide public reason in order to detain and imprison someone?” 

“I support habeas corpus, I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not—”

“It has never been done without approval of Congress, even Abraham Lincoln got retroactive approval from Congress.” 

Senator Andy Kim gave Noem another chance to display her ignorance. 

“I wanted to just go back to something that was raised earlier about habeas corpus,” Kim said. “Can you confirm to us that you understand that any suspension of habeas corpus requires an act of Congress?” 

“President Lincoln executed habeas corpus in the past with, um, retroactive action by Congress. I believe that any president that was able to do that in the past, it should be afforded to our current day president. This president has never said he’s going to do this, he’s never communicated to me or his administration that they’re going to consider suspending habeas corpus,” Noem replied. “But I do think the Constitution allows them the right to consider it.”

“How many times has habeas corpus been suspended in our country?” Kim asked.

“Once that I know of.” 

“Four times.” 

“I’m not certain if that those were—”

“The instance that you’re referring to is one where the courts subsequently showed that Congress is the one that has the ability. Do you know what section of the Constitution the suspension clause of habeas corpus is in?” 

“I do not. Nope.” 

“Do you know which article it is in?” 

“No I do not, sir.” 

“Well it is in Article 1. Do you know which branch of government Article 1 outlines the tasks and the responsibilities for?”

“Yes.” 

“Which one?” 

“Congress,” Noem replied, proving the point Kim and Hassan had been trying to get across. 

This is an administration that has no knowledge of the Constitution because it could care less about following it. Stephen Miller himself said earlier this month that they’re trying to suspend habeas corpus because we’re being “invaded.” That couldn’t be further from the truth.  

Leo Terrell, a Trump-appointed lawyer in the Justice Department, wants to press charges against Jill Biden for “elder abuse.”

The former Fox News contributor posted on X Sunday night, shortly after Joe Biden publicly announced his cancer diagnosis, sharing a post calling out the former first lady for knowing about “President Biden’s health problems.”

“But still wanted him to run for President. Evil,” posted Ian Jaeger, a right-wing account, to which Terrell added his own commentary: “Elder Abuse! Criminal Charges??”

Terrell wasn’t the only figure on the right attacking the former president’s wife. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, took a shot at Jill Biden’s educational credentials, appearing to mistake her doctorate for a medical degree.

But while Trump Jr. is only a conservative influencer with a podcast, Terrell is the senior counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights in the DOJ, and could actually push for a trumped-up criminal investigation if he wanted. He would find no shortage of supporters on the right or in the White House, who have constantly pushed the narrative of the “Biden crime family” to distract from President Trump’s own criminal activities.

For the past two days, the right has run with a cover-up narrative about Joe Biden’s health on the part of Democrats, the left, the media, and anyone it distrusts, which apparently includes Jill Biden. To them, it’s a far more important subject than funding the government, or the current president’s own cognitive decline.

Donald Trump’s Justice Department is sending a message.

Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba announced late Monday that she had dropped charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for facing off with authorities at an ICE facility in his city earlier this month. But in a back-to-back press release, the Justice Department official revealed that the administration would instead be going after a sitting congresswoman who was also present that day.

Habba, Trump’s former personal attorney, declared charges against Representative LaMonica McIver for “assaulting, impeding and interfering with law enforcement,” and insisted that McIver’s conduct during the ICE facility clash “cannot be overlooked.”

“I have persistently made efforts to address these issues without bringing criminal charges and have given Representative McIver every opportunity to come to a resolution, but she has unfortunately declined,” Habba said in a statement.

McIver and Baraka have both denied accusations that they were violent at the protest.

“The charges against me are purely political—they mischaracterize and distort my actions, and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight,” McIver said in a statement.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries torched the Trump administration last week for the charges against Baraka and for hinting they would go after McIver next. Jeffries argued that threatening to arrest a sitting congresswoman for visiting an ICE facility would be a clear example of executive overreach.

“It’s a red line,” Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol at the time. “They know better than to go down that road.”

McIver visited the Ice facility earlier this month alongside Representatives Rob Menendez and Bonnie Watson Coleman, fellow New Jersey Democrats. Baraka joined the trio for a tour. The lawmakers were reportedly at the facility to serve a summons for code violations to a representative of the facility’s operating company, Geo Group.

After Baraka passed the entry gates, the group was barraged by agents, with at least one of the lawmakers getting shoved. Baraka was ultimately arrested, and Habba accused him of trespassing and ignoring multiple warnings from Homeland Security to leave the premises.

But the lawmakers did not interpret the events of the day that way.

“What we experienced was the weaponization, is the abuse of power.… They know who we are … they manhandled us and arrested the mayor,” Coleman said, adding that “if they can treat members of Congress like that, imagine how they treat people on the streets.”

Representatives from around the country echoed that sentiment. In a post on X late Monday, Texas Representative Greg Casar wrote that the charges against McIver should “send a chill down the spine of every American.”

“If the president can arrest law-abiding elected officials in an attempt to silence them, then no American is safe from his abuses of power,” he wrote.

Senator Cory Booker broke from the Democratic Party to confirm convicted felon Charles Kushner—father of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner—as the new U.S. ambassador to France.

Booker was the only Democrat to vote for the elder Kushner’s nomination. Kushner was convicted in 2005 for tax evasion, illegal campaign donations to the Democratic Party, and witness tampering. He even went so far as to retaliate against his sister—who was a cooperating witness against him— by paying a sex worker to seduce her husband and film it, likely for blackmail material. He was sentenced to two years in jail and was pardoned by President Trump at the end of 2020.

“Kushner admitted that he paid a private investigator $25,000 to arrange for the seduction and videotaping of the cooperating witness’ husband. Kushner admitted to personally recruiting the prostitute and instructing that the videotape be mailed to the cooperating witness,” the Department of Justice wrote in 2005. This is the man Booker bent over backward to make the new ambassador to one of our most important European allies.

Chris Christie, New Jersey’s former Republican governor, who investigated Charles Kushner as district attorney, described his case as “one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes” he’d encountered.

“I don’t sit here before you today and tell you I’m a perfect person.… I am not a perfect person.… I made a very, very, very serious mistake, and I paid a very heavy price for that mistake,” Kushner said at his confirmation hearing earlier this month. “I think that my past mistakes actually make me better with my judgment, better in my view of life, better in my values to really make me more qualified to do this job.”

Booker’s break from the party has caused some real backlash, especially after he evoked the “good trouble” of civil rights leader John Lewis in his record-breaking symbolic filibuster in the Senate in April, an act that inspired many and raised his presidential profile. It’s become clear once again that Booker is all talk.

Booker and the Kushners go way back. Charles Kushner helped fund Booker’s first failed mayoral campaign in 2002, and Booker came to his defense when he was convicted in 2005.

“Charlie has helped fuel my hope, as well as made me believe that even in the questionable world of New Jersey politics, there are still spirits who don’t simply act in their self-interest,” Booker wrote glowingly of Kushner before he was sentenced.

Booker maintained his relationship with the Kushners. In 2013, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner hosted Booker at their home in a fundraising event that raised $41,000 for Booker. He defended this relationship in 2017, well after their (unsurprising) conservative turn.

“Listen, I wouldn’t take a dime from them now, but this was a time when they were Democrats,” Booker said at the time. “I mean, they were supporting Hillary Clinton, uh, and the Kushner family were big New Jersey Democrats, and really helped to fight against Chris Christie and a lot of other folks.”

That sounds fine then, but now the Kushners are full MAGA. So how does Booker explain his most recent vote? Especially after his bleeding-heart filibuster?

“Cory Booker losing his newfound Resist Lib credentials by being the only Democrat in the Senate to vote to advance the nomination of convicted felon Charles Kushner (yes that Kushner) to become Ambassador to France is very funny to me,” political analyst Adam Carlson wrote on X. “Jersey gonna Jersey I guess.”

“There’s a lot going on in the world at the moment … and how’s the Senate spending its time?” Democratic Senator Tina Smith asked on X. “We’re voting on Jared Kushner’s dad (a convicted felon who Trump pardoned) to be Ambassador to France, sending a billionaire convicted felon (and relative) to serve as a top diplomat.”

Booker has yet to comment.

There’s no such thing as a free plane.

Donald Trump’s administration specifically sought out the luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from Qatar’s government to replace Air Force One, despite the president’s insistence that the plane was a gift, sources informed CNN.

A senior White House official told CNN that Trump tasked Steve Witkoff, the president’s special envoy to the Middle East (and shady crypto partner), with tracking down a replacement for Air Force One, after Trump learned that Boeing would not have new jets ready for another two years. Witkoff ended up leading initial conversations with the Qatari government, according to the White House official.

Boeing provided the Pentagon with a list of other clients who might be able to help with America’s search for a new plane, three sources told CNN. One of those sources said that Qatar was included on that list of clients and that the U.S. reached out about purchasing the luxury plane from the Qatari Defense Ministry, which indicated it was willing to sell. There were also discussions about leasing the plane, said another source.

Legal negotiations over the plane’s transfer are still ongoing, and it’s unclear how the plane went from being a potential purchase to a $400 million gift. Trump and his administration have repeatedly stressed that the plane will be free of charge, a gift of goodwill from a foreign government—sparking major backlash on both sides of the aisle over concerns of foreign corruption.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the potential transfer a “donation to our country” on Monday, but the plane is much more of a personal gift to Trump himself than to the people of the United States, whose tax-paying dollars could end up funding the costly rebuild for the president’s supposedly free gift.

Trump reportedly toured a Qatari plane with aides in February and began lamenting how luxurious the plane was compared to his own transportation options. Last week, Trump whined that the current Air Force One is a “much less impressive” plane than the lavish ones dictators use.

CNN’s reporting upends a recent claim from Senator Markwayne Mullin—which was then repeated by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—that negotiations to receive a plane from Qatar began under Joe Biden’s administration.

Donald Trump ranted and raved during a speech to Kennedy Center trustees Monday night, complaining about the 2020 election.

At the White House event, Trump bragged about bringing the upcoming Olympics and World Cup to the United States before segueing into the 2020 election.

“We got the Olympics, and then we got, through [FIFA head Gianni Infantino], he’s the boss, he’s a friend of mine, we got the World Cup,” Trump said. “I got them both, and I said, ‘Man, I won’t be president and they’re gonna forget that I got them. Nobody’s gonna mention it.’”

Then he went into his pet subject how the 2020 election was stolen from him.

“And then they rigged the election, and then I said, ‘You know what I’ll do? I’ll run again and I’ll shove it up their ass,’” Trump told the audience.

“If they would’ve left us alone, and wouldn’t have cheated on the election, and wouldn’t have rigged it, I would’ve been retired right now. I would’ve been happily doing something else, and instead they have me for four more years, can you believe that?” Trump continued.

Trump also complained about the Kennedy Center’s programming, which he promised would change.

“The programming was out of control with rampant political propaganda, DEI, and inappropriate shows,” Trump said. “They had dance parties for quote ‘queer and trans youth.’ And I guess that’s all right for certain people.… But that wasn’t working out too well.”

The speech Monday night was another example of Trump’s bitterness and cognitive decline. He’s fixated on perceived slights and wants to take revenge against his enemies. The president also wants to remake Washington in his own image, dictating everything he can, including a nonprofit arts center. Now that Republicans control Congress, there’s little that can stop him except the courts.