Republican Aide Charged With Faking Violent Leftist Attack on Herself

A former congressional aide to a Republican congressman staged a fake anti-Trump attack against her over the summer and is now facing federal charges.

Natalie Greene, who used to work for Representative Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, allegedly paid a body modification artist $500 to physically wound her, tie her up with zip ties, and write “Trump Whore” on her stomach and “Van Drew is a racist” on her back, the New Jersey Globe reports.

All of this took place in July, with Greene’s friend calling 911 claiming the two had been ambushed by three men on a hiking trail in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey. When police arrived, they found Greene with her shirt pulled over her head, bound with black zip ties, and the words written on her body. She also said the attackers threatened her with a gun.

According to federal prosecutors, Greene, a Rutgers law student, was lying about nearly everything. She drove to Pennsylvania to hire the modification artist, providing a pattern she had already made. Greene had matching zip ties in her car, and according to cellphone records, and her friend had searched for “zip ties near me” two days before the supposed attack.

Days after the incident, while Greene was getting treated for her wounds, FBI investigators interviewed her and her friend, and their stories did not match. She has been charged with one count of conspiracy to convey false statements and hoaxes and one count of making false statements to federal law enforcement.

In a statement, Drew’s congressional office said they were “deeply saddened by today’s news,” adding, “While Natalie is no longer associated with the congressman’s government office, our thoughts and prayers are with her and hope she’s getting the care she needs.”

Donald Trump’s major electoral setback in Texas is thanks, in no small part, to Ted Cruz.

A three-judge panel ruled against the Lone Star State’s gerrymandering effort Tuesday, ordering Texas to return to its 2021 maps for the upcoming midterm elections. The decision was written by Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, whom Cruz recommended to the bench in 2019.

That realization has enraged some members of Trump’s base, who have questioned how the Houston native could have recommended someone who would rule against the president’s agenda.

“Brown was a clear miss by Ted Cruz,” argued conservative political strategist Mike Davis in a Fox News op-ed Wednesday.

Brown wrote in the Tuesday ruling that “substantial evidence” proved Texas had “racially gerrymandered” its latest districts.

Trump suggested in July that Texas could give Republicans five more House seats by flipping a handful of blue districts next year via “a very simple redrawing.” The Justice Department then threatened to take legal action on the matter, asserting that at least four Texas congressional districts were “unconstitutional” since the presence of multiple racial groups had made white people the regional electoral minority.

Redistricting is perfectly legal—so long as it complies with federal law. Trump’s directive for Texas forced the state to focus on race rather than politics, in defiance of national nondiscrimination laws. Brown noted in the legal opinion that if the effort had intended to thwart Democratic strongholds in the state, it would have also targeted majority white Democrat districts,” but those were “conspicuously absent.”

Brown determined that reverting to the 2021 map was a more adequate solution than providing Texas with the opportunity to draw up another plan, since not only was the 2021 iteration developed by the state legislature (as opposed to the state judiciary) but it has successfully been used in two previous congressional elections, as well as an ongoing special election. The judicial ruling effectively crushed Trump’s dream to reshape Texas to help Republicans in Washington.

Meanwhile, Cruz is laying the groundwork to run for president in 2028, though it’s unclear who in the MAGA movement will rally to his side.

The White House is so desperate to scrape together some “good news” that it’s trying to tout a decline in the number of new international students enrolling at American universities. That would actually be really bad—if it were the whole story, that is.

The number of new international students enrolling at American universities has decreased 17 percent since last year, according to the White House’s Wednesday “good news” roundup, which cited a recent survey from the Institute of International Education. The Trump administration celebrated the dip, claiming it was “reclaiming spots for American students on college campuses.”

But there’s more to this number than meets the eye. In fall 2025, 29 percent of institutions reported an increase in the number of new international students enrolling, 14 percent said the number was stable, and 57 percent said there was a decrease, according to the IIE study. However, the total number of international students only declined by 1 percent, and the number of international undergraduates actually increased by 2 percent. So it doesn’t look like too many spots were actually “reclaimed.”

The high percentage drop of enrollment can be explained by a significant drop in the number of students signed up for Optional Practical Training programs, which allow students to remain in the United States after they have completed their studies—a program that the State Department is planning to gut. It seems that international students are still studying in the United States; they’re simply taking their newfound knowledge with them after they finish school to make their home countries great instead of ours.

An enrollment dip is still not good news, however. International students paying full tuition and higher fees can help to cross-subsidize lower in-state tuition for American citizens. Outside of the financial incentive, involving international students in U.S. higher education has had tremendous positive outcomes for American society and higher education.

This study comes after the Trump administration revoked more than 6,000 student visas in August and arrested multiple foreign-born students and faculty over their speech or political affiliation, making clear that international students are not safe to remain in the United States. Ninety-six percent of institutions said that the dip was the result of concerns about visa applications, and 68 percent said it was due to travel restrictions, according to the study.

At the same time, the Trump administration has moved to increase the cost of an H-1B temporary visa by a factor of more than 10,000 percent, creating a sky-high financial barrier to those wishing to come to the United States for work.

Donald Trump’s claim Tuesday that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman “knew nothing about” the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi may be undercut by a phone call he had with the monarch.

Democratic Representative Eugene Vindman said in a speech on the House floor Tuesday night that he reviewed the phone call at the time when he was a staffer on the National Security Council during Trump’s first term, calling it as problematic as the one between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Trump that led to the president’s impeachment in 2019.

“After the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, I reviewed a call between the president and the Saudi crown prince. The American people and the Khashoggi family deserve to know what was said on that call. If history is any guide, the receipts will be shocking,” the Virginia congressman said, calling for the president to release the full transcript of the call.

The phone call Vindman is referring to is suspected to be from June 2019, when the White House reported that a call took place.

On Tuesday, when a reporter asked bin Salman and Trump about the U.S. intelligence conclusion that the crown prince personally ordered Khashoggi’s killing, Trump rushed to bin Salman’s defense.

“You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking something like that,” Trump snapped. He added, “A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen.”

Based on Trump’s close ties with MBS, as the crown prince is commonly known, the phone call may be damaging to the president, especially considering that Trump claims to have protected MBS from congressional action over Khashoggi’s murder during his first term.

“I saved his ass,” Trump said to reporter Bob Woodward for his 2020 book Rage. “I was able to get Congress to leave him alone. I was able to get them to stop.”

The White House is close to implementing a new rule that would effectively eradicate congressionally approved whistleblower protections.

Congress has passed several laws since the 1970s extending protections to federal workers who call out governmental wrongdoing. But the Trump administration is planning on chipping away at that by updating its policy on accountability, which would “exclude senior employees from legal protections that prohibit U.S. government agencies from retaliating against whistleblowers,” reported Reuters Tuesday.

Federal employment attorneys noted that the new policy would make targets out of the people most likely to find themselves in positions to uncover serious corruption.

“Translation: Trump can fire federal employees who point out that he’s broken the law. That’s pretty damn dark,” wrote Miles Taylor, an ex–Homeland Security official who drew national attention in 2018 when he anonymously penned an op-ed for The New York Times claiming to be part of the internal “resistance” against Trump’s first-term agenda.

It would follow through on Donald Trump’s April proposal to create a new federal employee category to “enhance accountability.”

“This rule empowers federal agencies to swiftly remove employees in policy-influencing roles for poor performance, misconduct, corruption, or subversion of Presidential directives, without lengthy procedural hurdles,” reads a White House fact sheet from the time on the proposed changes.

The Office of Personnel Management estimated at the time that the switch-up could affect as many as 50,000 positions across government agencies.

The Trump administration told Reuters Tuesday that the new rule would not strip employees of their current protections but would “put individual federal agencies in charge of enforcing those safeguards.”

“This administration is making good on its determination to silence dissent in all forms, creating a culture of fear, silence and intimidation,” Andrew Bakaj, chief legal counsel of the nonpartisan group Whistleblower Aid, told Reuters in a statement.

President Trump joked (we think) about firing Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent while Bessent was sitting right in front of him.

“Interest rates are down despite the Fed. I mean Scott, you gotta work on this guy. He’s got some real mental problems. He has something wrong with him,” Trump said while addressing the Kennedy Center on Wednesday, referring to current Fed Chair Jerome Powell. “I’ll be honest, I’d love to fire his ass. He should be fired. Guy’s grossly incompetent. And he should be sued for spending $4 billion to build a little building. I’m building a ballroom that’s gonna cost a tiny fraction of that.

“You gotta work on him, Scott,” Trump continued. “The only thing Scott’s blowing it on is the Fed. Because … the rates are too high, Scott. And if you don’t get it fixed fast, I’m gonna fire your ass, OK?” The crowd roared with laughter. “I wanna get him out, Scott!”

This is a pretty stunning undermining of his own staff, even for Trump. And if the economy is doing so well, why is he so pressed about rates getting cut?

“Translation: the economy isn’t bad enough, let’s speedrun a recession!” California Governor Gavin Newsom’s press office posted in response.

Trump has been after Powell for months now, threatening to fire him over and over again for not cutting interest rates and refusing to fully capitulate to Trump’s aggressive economic plans.

It’s unclear how much power Bessent has to influence Powell’s job security, if any at all. Bessent is one of the front-runners for Powell’s job, although he has told the president he doesn’t want it. That’s probably a smart decision.

“I get that Treasury Secretary is a cool job ... but if I were a billionaire, there is [no] way I’m staying in a job that requires me to spin indefensible, economically-illiterate policies for a morally-corrupt boss who tries to humiliate me publicly,” Manhattan Institute senior fellow Jessica Riedl wrote on X. “I’d be on a beach somewhere.”

President Donald Trump’s newest plan to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would give President Vladimir Putin exactly what he wants—and Ukraine isn’t happy.

Trump’s sweeping new proposal would require Ukraine to give up Donbas, an industrial region in the eastern part of the country, the Financial Times reported Wednesday. The framework deal would also require Ukraine to reduce the size of its armed forces, and not to use certain weapons. The deal would make it significantly harder for Ukraine to defend itself from Russian military incursion, and move the country’s border with Russia closer to the Ukrainian capital Kyiv.

A senior White House official told Politico that a peace agreement could come “as soon as this week.” But it’s not looking likely that Ukraine will accept.

The newest proposal was tantamount to surrendering Ukraine’s sovereignty, one person familiar with the deal told the FT. They said that Russia was attempting to “play” the United States, which was eager to “show progress” had been made on the deal.

The 28-point plan was reportedly drafted by Trump’s special envoy and business partner Steve Witkoff in collaboration with Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, as a follow-up to the president’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza, according to Axios. Of course, Trump’s plan for Gaza was a resounding failure, as Israel has continued its campaign of deadly military strikes.

Earlier this week, Witkoff discussed the plan with Ukraine’s Minister of Defense Rustem Umerov, a Ukrainian official told Axios. Dmitriev said that Moscow is likely to accept the plan, saying, “We feel the Russian position is really being heard.”

Trump has already tried and failed to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to agree to concede territory during a disastrous meeting at the White House last month. Trump also reneged on an offer to supply Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles, and claimed that he didn’t think Ukraine stood a chance against Russia.

After Texas news outlets made a public records request to see emails between the office of Texas Governor Greg Abbott and tech oligarch Elon Musk’s companies, state officials took months fighting and delaying their release.

Then, they released 1,374 pages of mostly redacted documents, with all but 200 of those pages entirely blacked out.

According to The Texas Newsroom, a collaboration between NPR and Texas public radio stations that made the request, the emails don’t reveal much about the relationship between Musk and Abbott, or how the tech oligarch influences Texas’s government. The unredacted documents contained little new information, consisting mostly of things like old incorporation records and some meeting agendas.

Abbott’s office claimed over the summer that the governor’s emails with Musk were private and too “intimate or embarrassing” to be released to the public, which begs the question of what law protects that reasoning. Musk has also fought against disclosing communications, claiming that releasing emails could hurt his competitive advantage.

Musk has relocated many of his businesses to Texas and has lobbied for new state laws to help those companies, making his communications with the state of vital public interest to Texans. But thanks to a June court ruling, Texas officials have increased protections from having to disclose public records, leaving news outlets with little recourse to get more documents released.

In effect, Musk’s activities in Texas are taking place with little oversight or scrutiny. It seems that his presence in Texas shields him from accountability, and Abbott is only too happy to protect him.

Saudi Arabia is so invested in U.S. development that the country’s leadership is apparently willing to give more than they’ve got.

Hours after the U.S. president penned a $1 trillion economic agreement with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Donald Trump told a crowd at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum Wednesday that he had actually pressed for $1.5 trillion, billions more than the nation’s gross domestic product.

“While we were taking the picture, I said, ‘Could you make it $1.5 trillion?’ So he’s got something to think about,” Trump said, to laughs. “We’ll get something, I think we’ll get something.”

Given that Saudi Arabia’s GDP is $1.24 trillion, that seems unlikely.

The deal came as an enormous upgrade to Saudi Arabia’s previously pledged investment of $600 billion, the details of which included “investments and trade” but were otherwise vague. It also came after Trump promised to sell highly coveted F-35 fighter jets to the newly appointed non-NATO ally, ignoring Pentagon concerns that the sale could provide China with a golden opportunity to steal U.S. military technology.

“We will be doing that, we’ll be selling F-35s,” Trump told reporters at the White House Monday, adding that the Saudis “want to buy them, they’ve been a great ally.”

Trump has touted several major investment deals over the span of his second administration to detract from the failures of his wildly unpopular tariff plan, claiming that he has reeled in $17 trillion in just eight months. But that figure is fiction, even according to the digits highlighted on the White House website, which lists $8.8 trillion in active investment.

That includes the Saudi sum, as well as $600 billion from firms in the European Union, though the coalition of countries has made clear that the amount is simply an estimate of potential investment rather than a legitimate commitment.

It also includes a $1.2 trillion deal with Qatar, which was an “economic exchange” rather than direct investment; a seemingly impossible $1.4 trillion investment from the United Arab Emirates that is more than double that nation’s GDP, and $1 trillion from Japan, which in actuality is roughly half that and will be predominantly composed of loans.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hopes that Americans will save their $2,000 checks President Donald Trump promised for a rainy day—if they get them at all.

During a disastrous appearance on Fox News Tuesday, host Brett Baier asked whether Trump’s repeated promise to deliver $2,000 dividends of tariff money to every American would be inflationary.

“Well, there are a lot of things that are gonna happen next year, and that could be one of them,” said Bessent. “And maybe we could persuade Americans to save that.”

Bessent suggested that parents could potentially put the money into their children’s “Trump accounts,” where the government plans to deposit $1,000 for Americans born between 2025 and 2028. Parents are encouraged to contribute up to $5,000 annually. Bessent has claimed that the accounts will give disillusioned young people a stake in the economy, while providing a “backdoor” to privatize Social Security.

But if the secretary’s plan to fight steadily rising inflation relies on Americans not immediately spending a $2,000 check, we’re in some serious trouble. Americans are increasingly worried about how to pay for necessities such as food and health care, concerns helped in no small part by the Trump administration’s attacks on SNAP and Obamacare. Some extra cash would likely go straight into paying for bills.

It’s also not clear that an actual payout is coming. Earlier this month, Bessent claimed that the president’s promise of a two-grand payout “could come in lots of forms,” listing the supposedly “substantial” tax deductions outlined in Trump’s behemoth budget bill that passed in July, and falsely claiming that Social Security would no longer be taxed.

Additionally, Trump’s tariffs haven’t actually collected enough money to pay for the kind of payout the president promised. The Trump administration has collected more than $220 billion in tariff revenue, but the $2,000 paid to all 163 million Americans who filed their taxes would cost roughly $326 billion, according to CNN. So that would leave -$106 billion to pay off the national debt.