Trump Finally Admits Fault in D.C. Plane Crash After Blaming DEI

When a military helicopter collided with a passenger plane at Ronald Reagan National Airport in January and killed 67 people, President Trump absurdly blamed DEI, citing a “big push to put diversity into the [Federal Aviation Administration]’s program.”

“The FAA is actively recruiting workers who suffer severe intellectual disabilities, psychiatric problems, and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiative spelled out on the agency’s website,” Trump said then. 

Months later, the administration is eating its words, as it takes full responsibility for the crash and may end up paying for damages. 

“The United States admits that it owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs, which it breached, thereby proximately causing the tragic accident on January 29, 2025,” the Justice Department wrote in an admission of liability, brought forth by a lawsuit from a family member of one of the victims. “The collision could have been avoided.”

According to the DOJ, the Army pilots flying a Black Hawk helicopter that evening failed to “maintain vigilance” and “proper and safe visual separation” with the passenger plane. They admit that the accident would not have happened if the helicopter pilots were able to “see and avoid” the plane. 

Trump’s immediate finger-pointing at DEI—specifically at FAA workers with disabilities—was absolutely disgusting, tone deaf, and completely incorrect. But now that his government has admitted that it was its fault, and that it could have been avoided, the president is completely mum.   

It turns out that Donald Trump went pretty far to try and overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia.

The New York Times, citing a newly discovered recording, reports that Trump tried to persuade the speaker of Georgia’s House of Representatives to call a special session that would nullify his loss in the state. In a December 7, 2020, phone call, Trump told then-Speaker David Ralston that he could call the session by saying it was “for transparency, and to uncover fraud,” adding, “Who’s gonna stop you for that?”

Ralston, a Republican attorney, chuckled and said, “A federal judge, possibly.” Ralston passed away in 2022.

The Times obtained the recording Wednesday, less than a month after the criminal election interference case against Trump and 18 of his allies in Fulton County, Georgia, was dismissed. The audio record is part of several investigative documents from that case.

Trump’s call with Ralston lasted 12.5 minutes, during which Trump cited a series of false conspiracies of fraud in Georgia’s elections, claiming that he had actually won the state instead of losing by more than 11,000 votes. Trump said on the call that votes were “coming out of suitcases, luggage, and it was a lot of votes. It was probably more than 100,000. You know they ran them through three or four times, you know, the same votes.

“You know we won this thing by 400,000 or 500,000 votes,” Trump told Ralston, making up numbers out of thin air. “Just like we did Alabama and every other state in the South. And, uh, we won, we won, we won your state massively. They took votes away.”

Ralston didn’t keep the call to himself, telling special grand jurors investigating the case about what Trump told him. But the audio, and Trump’s exact words, were not public until now. Trump’s infamous demand to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in January 2021 to “find” 11,780 votes to overturn the election is more widely known.

The dismissal of the case, coupled with Trump’s election in 2024, means that the president is not likely to face justice over his attempts to overturn the election in Georgia, despite this damning recording. Trump has proven that if one has power, money, and the right political connections, they’re above the law in America.

Congress has frozen a Coast Guard admiral’s pending promotion until he explains the military branch’s disturbing stance on hate symbols.

Democratic Senators Tammy Duckworth and Jacky Rosen initially froze Admiral Kevin Lunday’s nomination to run the Coast Guard, questioning the maritime law enforcement branch’s new workplace harassment policy and its decision to downgrade swastikas and nooses from hate symbols to “potentially divisive.”

The senators’ objections effectively upend Lunday’s confirmation, which the Senate was scheduled to vote on this week, reported The Washington Post.

The fascism-friendly changes to the Coast Guard’s workplace harassment policy was abruptly reverted last month, mere hours after national news outlets began to report on the jarring update.

In a memo to personnel, Lunday—the Coast Guard’s acting commander—walked back the revisions almost as soon as they had been revealed, announcing that the prior version of the text was “canceled.”

“Divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited,” Lunday wrote in the memo, published November 20. “These symbols and flags include, but are not limited to, the following: a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups as representations of supremacy, racial or religious intolerance, anti-semitism, or any other improper bias.”

The memo also clarified that the display of Confederate battle flags was still prohibited, unless they are a part of a historical display. Weeks later, it’s still not clear exactly who led the charge to reclassify such symbols.

“The policy rewrite was bad staff work,” a Coast Guard employee told the Post anonymously. “But the Coast Guard’s hands were tied in how we were able to address the mistake.”

Still, the changes have been quietly implemented since the downgraded harassment policy went into effect Monday, according to internal branch correspondence provided to Congress. That’s given lawmakers pause.

Duckworth told the Post that she did not understand why Lunday would simply not “delete the absurd characterization that clearly states a noose and swastika are merely potentially divisive symbols,” especially after having conversations with Lunday in which he affirmed “directly to me” that both images qualify as hate symbols.

“This shouldn’t be difficult,” Duckworth said.

Rosen, meanwhile, wrote on social media that her hold would remain in place “until the Coast Guard provides answers.”

Even some Republicans, including Senators Dan Sullivan and James Lankford, are demanding an explanation.

“There is no reason why there should be conflicting policies in place,” Lankford said.

President Trump on Wednesday announced a $1,776 bonus for members of the military. The next morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth enthusiastically sold the “warrior divided” announcement as a Christmas bonus for all the troops’ hard work.

“Thanks to President Trump’s unwavering commitment to our warriors, and the provisions provided in the One Big Beautiful bill, more than 1.45 million service members will … receive a onetime, tax-free bonus of $1,776,” he said. “This warrior dividend serves as yet another example of how the War Department is working to improve the quality of life for our military personnel and their families.”

In actuality, the Trump administration is taking money that was congressionally allocated toward soldiers’ housing and repackaging it as this corny $1,776 gimmick, while Hegseth gushes over the move like he’s doing these people a favor. It was already their money.

“Congress appropriated $2.9 billion to the Department of War to supplement the Basic Allowance for Housing entitlement within The One Big Beautiful Bill,” a senior administration official told Defense One, noting that Hegseth directed $2.6 billion of the funds to be distributed. “Approximately 1.28 million active component military members and 174,000 Reserve component military members will receive this supplement.”

If the economy is so hot (it isn’t), and if tariffs have us raking in cash (they don’t), why can’t the Trump administration give its dear war fighters an actual Christmas bonus rather than frame scraps as sustenance?

For years, Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump built a tight-knit friendship on their shared hobby: hunting women for sport.

Despite Trump’s vehement denials of a meaningful connection to the deceased child sex trafficker, people around the pair of socialites were under the impression that Epstein and Trump were each other’s closest friends. A critical component to that friendship, reported The New York Times Thursday, was their mutual obsession with ensnaring, showcasing, and eventually bedding the most beautiful young women.

Stacey Williams, a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model who accused Trump of groping her at a party in 1992 while she was dating Epstein, told the Times that it was akin to “trophy hunting.”

In order to ascertain the depth of their relationship, the Times spoke with more than 30 former Epstein employees, victims of the financier’s abuse, and their mutual acquaintances. The newspaper also uncovered new documents that shed additional light on Epstein and Trump’s extraordinarily private relationship.

What reporters discovered was evidence of an enduring friendship founded on power and sexual entitlement.

“Neither man drank or did drugs. They pursued women in a game of ego and dominance. Female bodies were currency,” the Times reported.

Recently released documents and interviews reveal that Epstein claimed he “gave” Trump a 20-year-old woman he had previously dated; that Trump had made advances on one of Epstein’s employees aboard the serial abuser’s private jet, telling her that he could have anyone he wanted; and in another instance, Trump allegedly mailed Epstein modeling cards to peruse “like a menu,” according to another Epstein employee who spoke with the paper.

One woman, who was groomed for Epstein’s abuse by the disgraced financier’s longtime confidante Ghislaine Maxwell, anonymously told the Times that Trump was a regular in Epstein’s life. She said that Epstein often bragged about his relationship with Trump but also seemed to view him as competition.

“It was like a pissing contest—who had the most women,” she said.

The House Oversight Committee released more than 20,000 emails last month that it had obtained from Epstein’s estate. The documents included multiple mentions of Trump, such as in a 2011 email, when Epstein expressed he was grateful Trump had stayed quiet about details of Epstein’s life. The “dog that hasn’t barked is Trump,” Epstein wrote, despite detailing how Trump had spent hours at one of Epstein’s properties with a known victim.

But that should be just the tip of the iceberg. After months of dragging their feet, Republicans in both chambers of Congress passed a bill to release the investigation files related to Epstein and his potential associates. Trump signed the bill on November 19, starting a 30-day timer on the documents’ release. If everything goes to schedule, the files will be released Friday.

So far, the administration has already attempted to waylay public expectations that the files will be exposed to the full breadth of the document load, with FBI Director Kash Patel claiming that his agency is doing everything it can to release the portions of the files that are “lawful,” despite the fact that Congress mandated their entire release.