You Won’t Believe Who Trump Blames for Spirit Airlines Falling Apart

President Donald Trump claimed that former President Barack Obama blocked a merger with a defunct airline that hasn’t existed since the 1980s.

Speaking to reporters from the Oval Office Thursday, Trump appeared confused when he was asked whether the government planned to buy a stake in Spirit Airlines, the struggling discount carrier that has twice filed for bankruptcy.

“So, Spirit is, uh, an airline that’s had some trouble. They were going to merge with People Express, or one of them, a number of years ago and Barack Hussein Obama decided it was a bad idea,” Trump said. “How did that work out? It was bad for both of them. That would’ve been a natural merger.”

It would have been a distinctly unnatural merger, as People Express shuttered in 1987. Spirit Airlines as we know it didn’t formally exist until five years later.

It’s likely that Trump was referring to the Spirit’s attempted merger with JetBlue, which was successfully challenged in 2024 under Joe Biden’s administration over concerns that it would eliminate Spirit’s low-cost service, dull competition, and drive up prices.

The Trump administration reportedly neared a $500 million deal with Spirit Airlines Wednesday that would leave the federal government with a 90 percent stake in the company.

“We’re thinking about doing it, helping them out, meaning bailing them out or buying it. I think we just buy it. We’d be getting it virtually debt-free. They have some good aircraft, some good assets, and when the price of oil goes down, we’ll sell it for a profit,” Trump said.

“I’d love to be able to save those jobs, I’d love to be able to save an airline,” he added.

This decision further underscores Trump’s willingness to spend taxpayer dollars without congressional approval. And the president’s mistaking Jet Blue for People Express and Obama for Biden is just another instance of Trump’s apparent cognitive decline.

Lead Democrats on the House Oversight and Administration Committees are urging the U.S. Postal Service to refuse President Donald Trump’s executive order to illegally limit mail-in voting.

In a letter Friday to the U.S. Postal Service’s Board of Governors, shared exclusively with The New Republic, Ranking Members Robert Garcia and Joe Morelle argued the agency should refuse to implement an executive order instructing the USPS to refuse to deliver ballots of anyone who is not on a federal voting list.

The lawmakers argue in the letter that Trump has no authority over the USPS, which is an independent agency only accountable to its own board of governors.

The USPS is specifically barred from making “any undue or unreasonable discrimination among users of the mails,” the letter noted, and Trump’s executive order would have the agency illegally perform election administration duties.

Trump’s order, signed in late March, directed that states could notify USPS whether they plan to allow mail-in or absentee ballots up to 90 days before a federal election, and “should” notify the agency whether they intend to supply a list of eligible voters within 60 days of the election.

The order also directed USPS to produce a set of mail-in and absentee participation lists for each state, and refuse to deliver ballots for anyone who is not on them. However, there is no law that requires states to provide this information to the USPS, or authorizes USPS to require states to provide that data.

The timeline presented by the EO could potentially leave millions of Americans disenfranchised. “All 50 states and the District of Columbia allow voters to register to vote and apply to vote by mail until and up to 60 days before an election, with some states setting vote by mail application deadlines much later than 60 days,” the letter said.

“In addition, it is not clear how the Postal Service would reconcile differences or verify the accuracy of state-supplied voter lists alongside a DHS State Citizenship List. This EO will quickly create a two-tiered voting system where some Americans’ right to vote would be denied,” the letter said.

The Democratic lawmakers requested to know whether the board of governors planned to implement Trump’s order, and which specific provisions it would attempt to satisfy. They also requested a staff-level briefing be held to explain how the agency plans to respond, and address the concerns outlined in the letter.

Officials from at least two dozen states have already sued the Trump administration to oppose this executive order, which threatens states’ constitutional right to oversee their own elections. The letter points to Trump’s threats to “nationalize” or “take over” federal elections, as well as his baseless claims of voter fraud.

Republicans are also still attempting to pass the SAVE America Act, which would prohibit universal mail-in voting, although Senate Majority Leader John Thune has indicated the measure is not his top priority. Under that legislation, voters would have to submit an application to receive a mail-in ballot.

President Trump went on a long, angry social media tirade Thursday night while the entire country was asleep, once again raising doubts about his mental fitness and temperament.

Just after midnight, Trump reposted a message from the Border Patrol union calling on “extreme leftist advocate” Senator Chuck Schumer to resign over his recent comments in which he said “nobody respects” ICE or Border Patrol. Just one minute after that, Trump delusionally reposted a random allegation that former President Obama staged a “seditious conspiracy” to overthrow the U.S. government in 2016. He then made four more posts about how Obama and Hillary Clinton should be charged with treason. This was all before 1:00 a.m.

After his Obama derangement syndrome subsided, he argued that the entire 2020 election—which he lost—should be “permanently wiped from the books and be of no further force or effect!” if the Southern Poverty Law Center loses the DOJ lawsuit against them. (The case is unrelated to the 2020 election.) Then that was followed by a post attributed to actor Clint Eastwood talking about how great Trump is. Eastwood never said that.

Rather than posting about midterms, the affordability crisis, the war on Iran, or just not at all, the president of the United States is crashing out in the middle of the night, attempting to attack political opponents on no real grounds and relitigating an election that every sensible person knows he lost.

The Department of Defense is brainstorming ways to punish NATO members that didn’t support President Donald Trump’s war with Iran.

Reuters, citing an unnamed U.S. government official, reports that the federal government is considering suspending Spain from the transatlantic alliance and reevaluating the United Kingdom’s claim to the Falkland Islands. The official told the news agency that these options were laid out in an internal Pentagon email.

The Trump administration is upset at NATO countries that have refused to grant the U.S. access to their bases or rights to their airspace for the Iran war. The email, circulating at the highest levels of the DOD, reportedly said that those rights are “just the absolute baseline for NATO.”

If the U.S. wants to suspend member countries like Spain, it will likely run into pushback from other NATO members. One NATO official told Reuters that “NATO’s Founding Treaty does not foresee any provision for suspension of NATO membership.”

When asked about the email, the Pentagon’s press secretary, Kingsley Wilson, replied, “As President Trump has said, ​despite everything that the United States has done for our NATO allies, they were not there for us.

“The War Department will ensure that the President has credible options to ensure that our allies are no longer a paper tiger and instead do their part. We have no further comment on any internal deliberations to that effect,” Wilson said.

Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO, even prior to the Iran war, repeatedly threatening to leave the alliance over petty grievances such as countries rebuffing his desire to “take” Greenland. In recent weeks, he has complained that NATO members won’t help to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. On April 1, he again told Reuters that he was “absolutely, without question” considering leaving the organization.

But that would likely require approval from Congress, and Trump would have to go around it and invoke presidential authority over foreign policy, which would face legal challenges. And taking punitive action against our own allies would result in backlash domestically and abroad. But Trump does not respect long-standing alliances, and if he feels slighted, blowing them up is a strong possibility.

Donald Trump would get around to ending the bloody conflict in Iran, but come on—we all deserve a break once in a while!

That was essentially what the president told reporters on Thursday when asked about the ongoing war. After Trump falsely claimed the United States had been involved with Iran for only “five and a half weeks,” a reporter piped up.

“It’s [been] eight weeks that the U.S. now has been involved with Iran,” the reporter said. “You initially had said it would be four to six weeks and it would be over.”

“Well, I hoped that, but I took a little break,” Trump retorted. “I gave them a break.”

If true, the idea that Trump took a two-week-long break from dealing with the war is pretty insane. What was he doing during that period? Watching TV? Brushing up on his figure drawing? DoorDashing McDonalds to the White House? (He actually did do that last one.)

In terms of Trump’s claim that we’ve been at war for less than six weeks, we should note how easily the man elected to lead our country finds it to lie to the public. The reporter is correct in that the U.S. and Israel began launching military strikes on Iran on February 28. Including that day, it has been 55 days since the conflict began, or one day less than eight weeks.

If you wanted to be kind to Trump, you could argue that the ceasefire he announced on April 7—after threatening to destroy Iranian civilization earlier that day—means he is technically correct and the war is already over. Trump indefinitely extended the ceasefire on Tuesday.

But the Strait of Hormuz is still closed amid contentious peace talks, and the Marines fired at and seized an Iranian cargo ship on Sunday. While there is potential for both sides to come to an agreement soon, the conflict isn’t over yet.

Trump admitted as much when a different reporter asked how long he was willing to wait to get a response from Iran during his peace talks.

“Don’t rush me,” Trump said. “We were in Vietnam for 18 years. We were in Iraq for many, many years.” Oh well. At least now he’s actually calling it a war.

Our nearly 80-year-old president appears to have nodded off during a meeting, for the umpteenth time. 

President Trump’s eyes grew visibly heavy around the halfway point of his televised announcement of a deal with drug company Regeneron on Thursday afternoon, closing fully and reopening multiple times while suited Cabinet members and pharmaceutical executives stood behind him in the Oval Office. 

This is the same man who keeps calling former President Joe Biden “Sleepy Joe.” 

The last time Trump dozed off publicly was last month during a Cabinet meeting while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ranted against the media’s coverage of the U.S.-Israeli joint war on Iran and Lebanon. And just days before that, he seemed to fall asleep at a press conference about his Memphis Task Force. From the power naps to the unhinged, genocidal Truth Social posts, there is a wealth of evidence that would—at the very least—lead us to question Trump’s present mental acuity.  

The Department of Justice is auditing itself over the chaotic rollout of the Jeffrey Epstein files, the Associated Press reported on Thursday.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was pushed through Congress by an eclectic bipartisan group even after Donald Trump dismissed it as a “hoax,” made millions of government files on the convicted sex trafficker publically available.

But the slow, sloppy, and still incomplete rollout of the files led to serious questions about what the hell the Department of Justice was doing under then–Attorney General Pam Bondi. The DOJ continues to face accusations it is covering up evidence of Trump’s involvement with Epstein.

Now the department’s Inspector General’s Office is looking into the matter, particularly “how the department collected, reviewed and redacted materials in preparation for their release.”

The first issue relating to the rollout of the files is that the DOJ blew past the 30-day deadline it was given by Congress in November, claiming it needed more time as it had coincidentally discovered more records.

Bondi was also caught lying about the files. She bragged to Fox News in February 2025 that Epstein’s client list was “on her desk”—only for the DOJ to backtrack months later and say the list never existed.

In January, the department released approximately three million files. Great—except nearly 100 victims’ names and nude pictures were mistakenly left visible, while information that might have actually led to some justice being done was redacted. The DOJ withdrew thousands of the files, vaguely blaming the mistake on “technical or human error.” (When an individual releases dozens of nude photos of someone without consent, they go to jail. When Trump’s DOJ does it, no one is even fired!)

The aftermath of the rollout has also been frustrating. No one has been arrested in the U.S. for involvement in Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring, even with all the documents outlining his crimes as potential evidence. There are also 2.5 million files that have not yet been released, meaning tons of information about Epstein’s circle is still being withheld from the public.

In a perfect world, this audit would determine what went wrong and be the first step to a full release of the files. But the fact that the review is coming from inside the DOJ gives one little hope that anything will change within the department. Trump has also fired or demoted over 20 inspectors general during his second term, greatly limiting who is able to watch over his corrupt government.

President Donald Trump professes to be tough on crime, yet his administration has let go over 4,000 federal law enforcement employees.

Reuters, citing records it obtained from the Department of Justice’s management unit through the Freedom of Information Act, reports that several agencies have significantly cut their workforce. The FBI has lost 7 percent of its employees, 2,600 in all, since the 2024 fiscal year, while the Drug Enforcement Administration has lost about 6 percent. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has lost 14 percent of its employees.

The DOJ division that handles intelligence and terrorism, the National Security Division, has lost 38 percent of its workers, and told Congress in its last budget request that it had “unprecedented personnel constraints.”

Even the Bureau of Prisons hasn’t been spared: It lost 6 percent of its workforce, or 2,200 employees, with no reduction in the prison population. The bureau now has a staffing crisis, and has been forced to use teachers and nurses as prison guards, while leaving other posts empty.

“The administration talks a big game when it comes to crime and terrorism, but the fact ​that it’s hollowing out agencies tasked with addressing them shows that they don’t stand behind their words,” Stacey Young, a former DOJ lawyer, told Reuters. She now leads Justice Connection, a group that offers support to departing DOJ staff.

In addition to having fewer employees, many of these agencies have been tasked with assisting the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda instead of conducting their agency’s specific duties. Drug prosecutions are at their lowest levels in over 20 years. Meanwhile, the budget for the Department of Homeland Security has gone up by billions, with ICE becoming the highest-funded federal law enforcement agency in U.S. history.

On Thursday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was once again confronted with his elaborate lie regarding his close personal and business relationship with sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. His answer was pathetic.

“In October, you told the New York Post with colorful narration that the last time you saw Jeffrey Epstein was in 2005 when you took a tour of his house, which happened to be right next door to yours,” Democratic Representative Madeleine Dean said during Lutnick’s hearing before the House Appropriations Committee. “You claimed you and your wife were ‘so grossed out’ by this disgusting person, you swore you would never go back. But when the Epstein files came out, it turned out that was a lie.… You had visited Epstein’s private island in 2012, four years after Epstein pled guilty [to] soliciting a minor for prostitution and was labeled a sex offender. You brought along your wife, your kids, your nannies to the predator’s island.”

Dean also noted that just days after that 2012 island visit, Lutnick and Epstein signed a business deal together as “coinvestors in a digital advertising company,” collaborating on it until 2018.

“Secertary Lutnick, why did you lie to the New York Post about your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein?” Dean asked.

Lutnick began to offer a canned nonanswer, but his microphone was not turned on.

“Please don’t repeat your gracious offer to speak behind closed doors, not under oath, without the ability of this committee to question you,” Dean quipped. “The American people want to know. Why did you lie about your relationship with Epstein?”

Lutnick offered the canned nonanswer again, looking a bit uncomfortable.

“The House Oversight Committee and I have agreed—”

That was quickly shot down by Dean. “Reclaiming my time, I do not accept that answer,” she said. “We’ve heard that one.… Please answer the question. Why did you lie to the Post?”

“I have voluntarily agreed to spend the time and talk about it,” Lutnick replied, as if he was doing Dean some favor by offering to speak off the record about the massive, damning lie he told.

“Let the record reflect you’re dodging the question,” Dean replied. “The cover-up continues.”

Lutnick also refused to answer the other two direct questions Dean asked him about his connection to Epstein—particularly his financial connections, and whether President Trump was “concerned” about the commerce secretary’s chummy relationship with perhaps the most infamous predator of the century. It’s an absolute embarrassment that he is still operating in full capacity as commerce secretary.

The Trump administration is reupping its efforts to denaturalize U.S. citizens it sees as unworthy.

The New York Times reported Thursday that the Department of Justice has named 384 foreign-born Americans from whom it plans to revoke citizenship. The DOJ also told civil litigators to prepare to file suit against the individuals in 39 regional attorneys’ offices.

While 384 people is a small number compared to the more than 818,000 who became American citizens in 2024, the DOJ’s new focus on denaturalizations sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to new citizens having their passports revoked en masse in the future.

Naturalized residents who commit crimes, or who are found to have received citizenship illegally—such as through a fake marriage—can have their status taken away. While it is legal for the government to revoke someone’s citizenship, it is typically rare, happening an average of 11 times per year between 1990 and 2017. Those numbers then went up slightly after Donald Trump took office for the first time, to about 15 times a year.

But this year, the government has looked to denaturalize Americans at a level not seen since the early nineteenth century, as Trump wages war against the melting pot. The Times reports that the Department of Homeland Security was told earlier this year to find more than 200 denaturalization cases a month for the DOJ to prosecute.

The good news for naturalized citizens is that, besides being unable to run for president, they have essentially the same rights and protections as those born in the U.S. The government must prove its case for denaturalization through either a civil or criminal trial, a legal process that the Times calls “challenging and time-consuming.” Each person can also appeal their decision, meaning the government’s efforts will further tax an already overwhelmed court system full of immigration cases.

While the Trump administration has spoken about only denaturalizing those who have committed crimes or fraud, the president’s racist rhetoric and moves such as classifying antifa as a terrorist organization have created some concern that Trump could use denaturalization as a weapon against certain groups of immigrants.

“The government has used this power in the past to target people it views as political opponents,” Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, told the Times.