Trump Shits All Over Message of Charlie Kirk’s Widow at His Memorial

President Trump took the stage at Charlie Kirk’s memorial Sunday evening to promise more political violence and retribution against his enemies moments after Kirk’s wife, Erika, promised to forgive them. Both received similar applause. 

“In a private moment on his dying day, we find everything we need to know about who Charlie Kirk truly was,” Trump said at the podium. “He was a missionary with a noble spirit, and a great, great purpose. He did not hate his opponents, he wanted the best for them.”  

Then Trump went off script, turning the speech into something better suited for a campaign rally than a memorial. 

“That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent. And I don’t want the best for them, I’m sorry,” he said as the crowd roared with laughter. “I am sorry Erika. But now Erika can talk to me and the whole group, and maybe they can convince me that that’s not right. But I can’t stand my opponent.” 

Trump was referencing the slight 180 that Erika Kirk has done in her messaging since her husband’s killing. Initially, she claimed that “the evildoers responsible for my husband’s assassination have no idea what they have done.… If you thought that my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea. You have no idea what you have just unleashed across this entire country.”

This messaging fit in snugly with the other calls for war and revolution against the left from people like Elon Musk and Steve Bannon. But on Sunday, Erika Kirk made a point to emphasize that she forgave Tyler Robinson, her husband’s suspected assassin. 

“My husband, Charlie, he wanted to save young men, just like the one who took his life.… On the cross, our savior said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they not know what they do.’ That young man. I forgive him,” she said, evoking the actions of Jesus, while he took his dying breaths, in the Bible. 

Trump made it clear that he saw no value in that, and the crowd ate it up. Asking the president to embody Christlike qualities of forgiveness sounds like an insurmountable task, even for Erika Kirk. 

President Donald Trump will reportedly seek to increase the cost of an H-1B temporary visa by nearly 1,000 percent via a forthcoming proclamation. The program applies to foreign workers with bachelor’s degrees and job offers from U.S. employers in certain specialty occupations.

As soon as Friday, Bloomberg reports, Trump is planning on signing a proclamation barring entry under H-1B without a $100,000 payment. It is a marked increase from the $995 in fees currently required of H-1B applicants (a $215 registration fee, along with $780 for employer petition).

Economics journalist Catherine Rampell of MSNBC described the move as consistent with other Trump administration decisions poised to compromise “America’s role as a global leader in science and innovation,” including gutting the civil service, canceling research grants, and expelling international students.

“These are visas for skilled workers—doctors, scientists, and engineers,” wrote Representative Pramila Jayapal, a progressive Democrat, on X. “This move will hurt US innovation and exacerbate an already serious shortage of medical professionals. In what world does this make sense?”

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an American Immigration Council fellow, observed that the move would exacerbate an ongoing shortage of doctors in the U.S.: “Every year, hundreds of doctors get H-1B visas to help fill those gaps,” he noted. “If hospitals had to pay an additional $100,000 fee, it’s possible they would simply give up and not even try to fill positions.”

Reichlin-Melnick also pointed out that the action is “likely to be struck down in court,” given that the U.S. government lacks “statutory authority to impose fees designed to limit the use of a visa.” Sam Peak of the Economic Innovation Group too predicted that the administration will “get sued and lose” over the move, given that the Department of Homeland Security “has a biannual fee schedule where they can change fees after notice and comment.”

President Trump is taking deportation protections away from Syrian immigrants in the midst of a resurgence of militant groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

Around 6,000 Syrians are currently living and working in America under Temporary Protected Status. Now they will be forced to return to a country that the United Nations described as “fragile,” and rife with “sectarian tension” just one month ago.

The U.N. reported that Syria still “remained in a volatile and precarious phase” six months after the fall of President Bashar Al Assad in December 2024. “Member States warned of growing risks posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al-Qaeda, who continue to view the country as a strategic base for external operations.… The interim Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, led by Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), faced multiple security challenges, including asserting control over territory and diverse armed factions/fighters, as well as controlling foreign terrorist fighters, and countering ISIL resurgence.”

This does not sound like a stable, amicable situation to abruptly force Syrians to go back to. These people came here as civil war refugees under President Obama, and now they’re being forced back into a situation that has similarly devolved into factional violence.

Former Citizenship and Immigration policy head Amanda Baran told The New York Times that the Trump administration’s revoking of Syrian TPS while the country deals with an internal power struggle is “gutting for the thousands of Syrians here with T.P.S. and the communities in which they live.”

“Conditions in Syria remain dangerous and unstable, clearly warranting an extension under the law,” she continued. “This administration’s disregard for the expertise of human rights experts is having real, dire consequences on the lives of everyday people as demonstrated by this reckless decision.”

But the Trump administration sees it much differently.

“This is what restoring sanity to America’s immigration system looks like,” said Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary for public affairs at Homeland Security. “Conditions in Syria no longer prevent their nationals from returning home. Syria has been a hotbed of terrorism and extremism for nearly two decades, and it is contrary to our national interest to allow Syrians to remain in our country. T.P.S. is meant to be temporary.”

Syrians will have 60 days to gather their lives and leave the country, or face arrest and forced deportation.

The Trump administration has also spitefully moved to revoke the TPS status of people from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Cameroon.

If you donate to President Donald Trump’s vanity construction project, then you, too, could have the privilege of leaving a physical stain on American history: In exchange for contributions, donors may be able to have their names etched into the stone of the new White House ballroom.

The ballroom, which will cost roughly $250 million, will be paid for by private donors and the president himself, Trump has said. White House officials have said that nearly $200 million has already been pledged.

So far, Google, tobacco company R.J. Reynolds, government cybersecurity contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, data analysis and surveillance company Palantir, and weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin have all donated, with Lockheed Martin donating more than $10 million to the project.

Some officials from donor companies say that their decision to contribute was made out of a desire to show support for Trump while still backing a nonpartisan cause, as the ballroom will outlive the president’s term, according to CBS. Of course, their pledge agreements call the project “The Donald J. Trump Ballroom at the White House.” But that could mean anything!

Indeed, donations to the ballroom may well be even more meaningful to the president than these corporations realized, as its development has proven a balm to Trump while he mourns the death of ally Charlie Kirk. In times of trouble, some people look to family; others look to faith. Trump looks to construction.

Is it a scene “right out” of Goodfellas, or is it just another day under the Trump administration?

That’s the question that Texas Senator Ted Cruz is asking, after he likened Brendan Carr to a “mafioso” over the FCC chairman’s recent threats to punish TV networks that refused to expunge Jimmy Kimmel from the air.

“I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said, I am thrilled that he was fired,” Cruz said on his podcast. “But let me tell you: If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said; we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like’—that will end up bad for conservatives.”

The Texas Republican further condemned Carr’s actions as “dangerous as hell,” comparing the Trump administration’s slippery attraction to government-enforced censorship to the heinous power of the One Ring from Lord of the Rings. Opening the door to that at the federal level would not bode well when Democrats return to power, Cruz said.

“They will silence us,” Cruz continued. “They will use this power, and they will use it ruthlessly.”

But unlike some other conservatives who have chastised the Trump administration’s flagrant First Amendment overstep, Cruz actually wields a unique ability to hold Carr accountable: In addition to his other responsibilities, Cruz serves as the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has oversight authority over the FCC.

At a Politico event earlier this week—before the Kimmel fiasco—Cruz said that the First Amendment “absolutely protects hate speech,” even if it does not shield people from the “consequences” of their speech by their employers.

Kimmel’s late-night show was suspended indefinitely after he made supposedly controversial comments during his Monday night monologue about the political affiliation of Charlie Kirk’s suspected assassin. (Kimmel condemned Kirk’s death as a “senseless murder” but ruffled powerful feathers when he said that MAGA was rushing to claim that Tyler Robinson was “anything other than one of them”—which is technically true.)

On Wednesday, Carr suggested to YouTuber Benny Johnson that the FCC would open an investigation into anyone still platforming the comedian. Sinclair and Nexstar—two of the country’s biggest broadcasters—said they would no longer air Kimmel’s show. The timing was unmistakable: Nexstar, notably, is currently seeking FCC approval for a $6.2 billion deal to buy Tegna, an acquisition that would make Nexstar the biggest owner of local stations in the country.

President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social Friday boasting that China had approved a deal that would allow TikTok to keep operating in the United States under new ownership—but Chinese President Xi Jinping seems to think otherwise.

After the presidents spoke over the phone, Trump posted that they had “made progress on many very important issues,” including “the approval of the TikTok Deal.”

But the first official readout of the call, from an agency in Beijing, made no mention of the deal, according to Politico.

Instead, Xi reiterated China’s long-standing position that negotiations over the app will continue.

“China’s position on the TikTok issue is clear,” the readout said. “The Chinese government respects the wishes of companies and welcomes them to conduct commercial negotiations based on market rules and reach solutions that comply with Chinese laws.… China hopes that the U.S. will provide an open, fair, and non-discriminatory business environment for Chinese companies to invest in the U.S.”

TikTok’s future in the U.S. has been up in the air for months. Trump has repeatedly pushed back enforcement of a law that requires the platform to either be controlled by a U.S. company or banned. The most recent postponement was Tuesday, when Trump delayed the deadline again until mid-December.

Lawmakers purportedly passed the ban to address national security concerns, and to prevent China from collecting Americans’ data. But ever since the 2024 election, Trump’s become partial to the platform—not for its viral dances or indecipherable Gen Alpha memes, but because he thinks it helped get him elected.

Liberal-left nonprofits are, understandably, on edge as the Trump administration appears poised to treat the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk as a pretext for cracking down on liberal and progressive organizations.

In the immediate wake of the shooting, President Trump baselessly pinned the violence on the “radical left,” vowing to hunt down organizations that he claims “support” violence or “go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.” Earlier this week, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller similarly promised to pursue “an organized strategy to go after left-leaning organizations” that supposedly promote violence.

Attorney and commentator Norm Eisen—who runs one such group, Democracy Defenders Action—has circulated a draft open letter, titled “An Open Letter Opposing Threats by the Administration Against Nonprofits & Charities,” among allies, reported Gabe Kaminsky, of the conservative digital publication The Free Press, on Friday.

The statement, which begins by condemning Kirk’s murder, goes on to say:

It is un-American and wrong to use this act of violence as a pretext for weaponizing the government to threaten nonprofit and charitable organizations, other perceived adversaries, or any class of people. They did not commit this murder, and the vast powers of the government should not be abused to threaten their constitutionally-protected free speech and other rights.

Attacks on nonprofits threaten to impede “essential work,” the draft letter continues, including “working with faith communities, caring for vulnerable populations, upholding the Constitution, [and] defending the rule of law.” Urging the government to de-escalate, it concludes: “This moment of tragedy does not call for exploiting a horrific act to further deepen our divides and make us less safe. It calls for unity—unity against violence and unity of purpose as Americans.”

Vladimir Putin is once again calling Europe’s bluff. 

Three Russian fighter jets entered Estonian airspace on Friday in a significant display of aggression that will test NATO’s cohesiveness and President Trump’s patience. 

“Highly concerning reports of Russian violation of Estonian airspace. This incident, like other recent Russian violations of NATO countries’ airspace, once again illustrates the seriousness of the Russian threat to European security and the fact that our and NATO’s readiness is constantly being tested,” Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson wrote Friday on X. “The Swedish Air Force maintains a standing quick reaction alert to handle incidents such as this. As a NATO member, Sweden stands in solidarity with our allies and contributes to security in our region.” 

Estonia is the third NATO member to have its airspace intruded upon by either jet or drone in just a few days. 

“Russia has already violated Estonia’s airspace four times this year, which in itself is unacceptable. But today’s incursion, involving three fighter aircraft entering our airspace, is unprecedentedly brazen,” Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna told CNN. ““Russia’s increasingly extensive testing of boundaries and growing aggressiveness must be met with a swift increase in political and economic pressure.” 

It’s unclear whether that pressure will be enough to make the Kremlin back down, as it certainly hasn’t up to this point. Russia has enough cash and weaponry stockpiled to weather any sanction the EU may throw their way. The X factor here will once again be Trump and his attention span. For what it’s worth, Trump has spoken more negatively about Putin in recent days, telling the media Thursday that the Russian president had “let [him] down” in reaching peace talks.   

A federal judge struck President Donald Trump’s complaint against The New York Times Friday, dismissing the suit as just angry ramblings.

According to the clearly frustrated Judge Steven Merryday, the 85-page complaint filed by Trump’s legal team was, essentially, a pile of garbage.

“A complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective—not a protected platform to rage against an adversary,” the judge wrote. “A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner.”

Merryday’s striking of Trump’s complaint isn’t a commentary on the suit’s merits; rather, Merryday’s decision is a statement that long-winded gripes, repetitive and superfluous praises of the president, and an extensive list of Trump’s properties and media appearances have no place in a legal complaint. In 85 pages, only two counts of defamation are alleged.

Trump has 28 days to submit a new complaint—one that is no more than 40 pages long and a “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Trump’s suit against the Times claims that the paper and its reporters defamed him during the 2024 election, resulting in “enormous” economic losses and damaging his “professional and occupational interests.”

In response, a Times spokesperson said that the lawsuit is meritless and “lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting.”

“The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics,” the spokesperson said.

The Trump administration’s messaging on Russia’s recent incursions is loud and clear: It’s just not a big deal.

Speaking with Fox Business Friday, America’s NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker claimed that Russia’s threat was “a little overstated” and that the superpower was actually weaker than American and European media had portrayed.

“They have not had a lot of success. And to your point, Ukraine has actually taken back territory. And, you know, to me that points to a weakness in Russia,” Whitaker said. “As their economy continues to falter, I think their continuation of this war is going to be difficult.”

But European leaders do not feel the same way—particularly as Russia has escalated its position. Last week, Russian drones were spotted in Polish airspace, forcing the NATO ally to shut down four of its airports as it scrambled to fire up its defense systems against the incursion. Poland’s leadership invoked Article 4 of the NATO Treaty the following day, calling the ​​situation the “closest” that Poland had come to armed conflict “since the Second World War.”

Rather than de-escalate the brewing situation in Eastern Europe, Russia followed up the incursion by threatening Finland, another NATO ally. And on Friday, three Russian fighter jets flew into Estonian airspace.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s soft touch on Russia has been noted by both the Kremlin and America’s Western allies. Speaking inches away from Trump during a press conference in England Thursday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer insisted that the U.S. leader needed to “put extra pressure” on Russian President Vladimir Putin, underscoring that it’s only when the United States forces the Russian dictator’s hand that Moscow has “actually shown any inclination to move.”

Trump told reporters that he believed resolving the Ukraine-Russia conflict would be easy because of his “relationship” with Putin, but that the Russian leader had instead let him down. He also scolded European leaders for waylaying sanctions against Russia as they continue to consume the country’s oil, bolstering Russia’s economy in the process.

But overall, the U.S. president has little to show for the profound international recognition he’s offered the Kremlin over the last few months. Against the advice of world leaders, Trump invited Putin to Alaska in August—tasking U.S. soldiers to literally roll out the red carpet for the Russian dictator. It was the first time that Putin had stepped foot on U.S. soil in more than a decade.

Still, Russia has not agreed to peace terms in its ongoing war against Ukraine. The superpower has instead insisted on receiving “international legal recognition” of its 2014 annexation of Crimea, an internationally recognized portion of Ukraine, along with four regions it has claimed in the three years since it first invaded Ukraine.

Whitaker, however, is still holding out hope that his boss will make the best call.

“President Trump is going to continue to find the leverage and to find the conditions where he can bring both sides and mediate a resolution,” Whitaker told Fox Business.