Karine Jean-Pierre's humiliating book tour is even worse than you think



Karine Jean-Pierre has been hawking a new book in a desperate attempt to cash in on her time as White House press secretary — and it's not going well.

Whereas fellow lesbian and propagandist Rachel Maddow of MSNBC suggested that the book was a "truly new and valuable contribution to our understanding of the Biden presidency," the Washington Post shredded "Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House Outside the Party Lines," noting that it was a "fascinating book for all the wrong reasons."

'Sorry, I'm not trying to be dense. I'm a little unclear about what this has to do with Democratic leaders.'

The reviewer — confronted with 180 pages' worth of Jean-Pierre's thoughts "written in the outmoded register of one of those lawn signs proclaiming that 'in this house, we believe kindness is everything'" — expressed amazement "that someone who writes in such feel-good, thought-repelling clichés was hired to communicate with the nation from its highest podium."

The Post concluded on the basis of the book that Jean-Pierre is a "blinkered" establishmentarian whose recent departure from the Democratic Party and identification as an independent "seems to be less of a strategy than a style"; whose "thinking remains so decidedly in the box"; and who "appears to have little authentic understanding of why her erstwhile party’s approval rating has cratered."

Journalist Matt Taibbi's review of the book for the Free Press was similarly damning, dubbing it "history's most incoherent memoir."

"Jean-Pierre had over a year to think about what to say about all this, and instead of writing the book the whole world wanted, the true story (complete with photos of Biden’s used-bib collection and pictorial toilet guides) of her frustration at having to be the public face of one of the most obvious and legally perilous cons in American political history, she denied there was anything to cover up, much less that she had responsibility for it," wrote Taibbi.

RELATED: Black lesbian former White House press secretary says Democrats lost because they ignored black women

Photo by Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images

In the book, Jean-Pierre reportedly rejects the obvious justification for Biden's ouster — the mental and physical decrepitude that had him tumbling, mumbling, and bumbling — and claims that she "saw Biden every day and saw no such decline." As for Biden's humiliating performance in his TV debate with President Donald Trump, Jean-Pierre blamed a cold and travel-related exhaustion.

Perhaps worse than the reviews for the book are Jean-Pierre's efforts to sell it on tour.

For instance, Jean-Pierre befuddled a sympathetic journalist with a series of word salads in her recent interview with the New Yorker.

Isaac Chotiner repeatedly pressed Jean-Pierre on her explanation for how and why the Democratic Party supposedly undermined former President Joe Biden ahead of the 2024 election.

When asked the second time why the Democrats had it out for Biden, Jean-Pierre said — in an interview the New Yorker indicated was edited for length and clarity — that:

they believed that he needed to step aside. There’s more to this than just that period of time. This is very layered, right? There’s a period of time that I questioned what was happening and how do we treat our own, how do we treat people who are decent people. And then you also have to think about how I’m thinking about this as a black woman who is part of the LGBTQ community, and living in this time where I also don’t think Democrats right now, Democrats’ leadership, is protecting vulnerable people in the way that it should.

The interviewer responded, "Sorry, I'm not trying to be dense. I'm a little unclear about what this has to do with Democratic leaders and many Democrats in the country thinking that Joe Biden was going to lose to Donald Trump — which was what the polls all showed — and therefore thinking that he should be replaced."

After Jean-Pierre launched into a rant about how "nobody knows" about what could have alternatively happened, Chotiner indicated that he had no idea what the former Biden spox was trying to say.

Toward the end of the viral interview, Jean-Pierre — who had made sure to mention her LGBTQ status and race numerous times and suggested the subtitle of her book, "Inside a Broken White House," was referring to the Trump White House — accused Chotiner of pushing Democratic Party talking points.

David Weigel, a political writer for Semafor who was among the multitude of critics awestruck by how badly the interview went, said, "Turns out you can do a career-ending interview even after your career is over."

Even Jean-Pierre's interview with Stephen Colbert — a liberal propagandist who helped raise millions for Biden's campaign last year — went off the rails when the CBS late-night host proved unwilling to buy what the former White House spox was selling.

Colbert, like Chotiner, asked Jean-Pierre to explain how the Democratic Party betrayed Biden. Even though that's a core claim in the former press secretary's book, she appeared unable to answer, launching into a speech about Biden's perceived accomplishments and how he was still "engaging, understood policy, and was always putting the American people first."

The late-night host pointed out that "it takes more than that to be the president of the United States, and in a moment of great pressure on stage, we saw someone shock us and worry us. And nothing could assuage that worry. So I don't think it was necessarily a betrayal of Joe Biden as other people saying, 'We don't think we were shown the Joe Biden that you saw.'"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

DOJ pardon attorney doubts validity of Biden autopen pardons as nullification campaign picks up steam



The campaign to throw out the Biden-era pardons for Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley, members of the Biden clan, former members of the House Jan. 6 select committee, and other controversial figures appears to be gaining momentum — and the Office of the Pardon Attorney made clear this week that it's onboard.

The House Oversight Committee alleged in its damning 100-page report on Tuesday that senior Biden staffers not only worked desperately to conceal the former president's rapid mental deterioration but usurped his authority with the help of the presidential autopen — a machine used to affix Biden's signature to a host of controversial executive actions and pardons.

'In theory, a court invalidation could result in restoration of penalties.'

"As President Biden was losing command of himself throughout his time in office, his executive actions — especially pardons, of which there are many — cannot all be deemed his own," said the report. "The authority to grant pardons is not provided to the president’s inner circle. Nor can it be delegated to particular staff when a president’s competency is in question."

Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) concluded that unauthorized executive actions signed by autopen were "null and void," then asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to review the validity of all executive actions taken during Biden's time in office.

Bondi confirmed on Tuesday that a review of the autopen use for pardons during the Biden era is underway.

Ed Martin, the U.S. pardon attorney at the DOJ, suggested in a letter on Monday to Comer that his investigation into the matter has turned up "disturbing findings" such that his office "cannot support the validity and ongoing legal effect of pardons and commutations issued during the Biden administration without further examination."

In the letter obtained by CNN, Martin suggested that Biden's admission to the New York Times that he "did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons that applied to large numbers of people" by itself "seems to raise serious questions of whether those commutations are valid."

RELATED: Biden freed killers with a pen he didn’t even hold

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Martin indicated that doubt over the validity of the commutations is further compounded by the suggestion in former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer's communications with the Biden White House that the autopenned commutations issued on Jan. 17 in the former president's name were legally flawed.

The pardon attorney raised other "defects" concerning the pardon process, particularly in the final weeks of the administration.

"My office cannot support the validity of AutoPen pardons for individuals such as Anthony Fauci, Adam Schiff, Mark Milley, and many more without further examination and fact-finding," wrote Martin. "In my tenure here, I have not seen any evidence supporting the theory that President Biden was personally aware and authorized these AutoPen'd pardons."

Martin, who alluded to a court ultimately weighing in on the validity of the pardons, told Comer, "If these pardons or commutations are challenged in any way, I recognize serious difficulties in defending them."

The Oversight Committee similarly foreshadowed a court voiding the pardons in its report, stating that "the Constitution is clear: 'The President shall ... have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.'"

The committee further quoted from a recent essay by constitutional scholar Philip Hamburger, a professor at Columbia Law School, which concluded, "The history confirms that the Constitution’s location of the pardon power is significant. The president must make the decisions, and the courts can hold pardons void if the decisions are made by others."

While the nullification campaign's success in the courts could spell disaster for Fauci, Milley, and others, some scholars have cast doubt on the likelihood of that outcome.

When asked whether the pardonees' convictions and legal vulnerabilities would be fully restored should their pardons be ruled invalid, Jeremy Paul, a professor of law at Northeastern University School of Law, told Blaze News, "In theory, a court invalidation could result in restoration of penalties. I see this as extremely unlikely."

"If the DOJ attempted to impose punishment upon the affected individuals, the individuals would raise the pardons as a defense in federal court," continued Paul. "Lower courts would issue rulings. The case could end up in the Supreme Court but that Court would not be required to hear the case."

Paul expressed doubt about whether the pardons could be invalidated in the first place, stating, "Unless evidence emerges that DOJ officials granted pardons in express opposition to President Biden's wishes, which seems highly unlikely, I cannot see any basis on which pardons could be deemed invalid."

Bernadette Meyler, a Stanford Law School professor, suggested to CNN that one way to go about trying to void a pardon would be for Attorney General Bondi to "sue for a declaratory judgment that the pardons were invalid because of some form of impropriety in the signing of them, or in the giving of the pardon."

Blaze News has reached out to the Office of the Pardon Attorney for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Truckers push back on driver-shortage ‘myth’ that has led to flood of foreigners in long-haul industry



Truck driving was once a career path that epitomized the American dream, offering high pay and lifelong job security. Yet in recent years, the industry has become trapped in a cycle of high turnover, continually refilling positions with inexperienced drivers, prompting concerns about road safety and national security.

Multiple truckers told Blaze News that the industry's challenges stem from the myth that it is battling a truck-driver shortage. This narrative has been used to justify heavy government intervention, including taxpayer-funded programs that cover training and recruiting costs, significantly reducing the financial burdens previously borne by carriers or aspiring drivers.

Those who reject the truck-driver-shortage claim argue that this taxpayer-subsidized setup effectively incentivizes labor dumping that masks high turnover caused by dismal wages and poor working conditions.

'We have an artificial supply crisis, not a driver shortage.'

Despite numerous government programs over the past several years addressing the so-called driver shortage, the issue persists, according to the American Trucking Associations, the industry's largest national trade organization. The association has claimed a driver shortage since the 1980s, estimating it to be around 60,000 drivers in 2023. It projected that the shortage may reach 160,000 by 2028.

Yet more than 450,000 new commercial driver's licenses are issued each year, according to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, and many of those drivers enter long-haul trucking. Under the Biden administration, states issued over 876,000 CDLs between January 2021 and April 2022.

The American Transportation Research Institute, the ATA’s research arm that conducts studies, including analyses to support its driver-shortage claims, has received over $8 million in government contracts since 2007.

In a 2024 report, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine pushed back on the ATA’s driver-shortage studies, noting that they had “been conducted using proprietary techniques and assumptions that are not publicly defined," adding that "it is not possible to evaluate the validity of their claims.”

“However, those claims are subject to, as a general matter, the basic economic principles of supply and demand. Notably, labor economists maintain that when demand for workers in an occupation increases, the normal response is to increase wages,” the report read.

RELATED: The fraud crippling American trucking: 'Ghost' carriers and 'NO NAME GIVEN' driver's licenses issued to foreigners

Photographer: Bing Guan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Plummeting retention

Some critics of the driver-shortage narrative contend that the real issue affecting the industry is driver retention caused by an unnatural suppression of wages and unsatisfactory working conditions, exacerbated by the Biden administration's open-border chaos. By the ATA's own estimates, the driver turnover rate is over 90%.

American truckers in the 1980s reportedly made an annual salary of more than $110,000, and today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median wage in 2024 was just over $57,000. One report indicated that between 1980 and 2018, the industry experienced a 21% average wage decrease, while some areas of the U.S. experienced a 50% decline.

Shannon Everett with American Truckers United rejected the ATA's narrative, arguing that if such a shortage did exist, wages would be on the rise.

“How can you simultaneously have a driver shortage and a collapse in pricing?” Everett told Blaze News. “The trucking industry shows no signs of escaping a three-year pricing crisis. We have an artificial supply crisis, not a driver shortage.”

He stated that the ATA’s shortage claims are “counterintuitive to supply and demand economics.”

Another issue impacting driver retention is declining working conditions. Truckers told Blaze News that many drivers are typically paid by the mile, meaning any time spent waiting to load or unload is not compensated. Drivers lose $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion in earnings to detention time, according to a 2018 study from the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General.

Some truckers argue that these slowdowns can create safety issues, as many drivers are in a rush to get back on the road to make up for the lost wages. These logistical inefficiencies stem from outdated warehouses, a need for more warehouse workers, and the lack of any direct and easily measurable cost impact on the retailers that operate the warehouses.

RELATED: The shocking details behind another fatal illegal alien truck crash

Photo by: Peter Titmuss/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Biden's taxpayer-funded solutions

The Biden administration sought to address these issues by effectively throwing money at the industry. In December 2021, former President Joe Biden announced an action plan stating that the DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration would provide over $30 million to states to “expedite CDLs.”

The administration’s Department of Labor and DOT partnered to launch the Driving Good Jobs initiative, which in part set out to “identify[] effective and safe strategies to get new entrants in the field from underrepresented communities, including women and young drivers between the ages of 18-20.”

The driver-shortage narrative has also been used to justify taxpayer-funded tuition assistance to driving schools, some of which are operated by large carriers. Aspiring drivers may qualify for Pell grants, with some driving schools eligible for federal student aid. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act could also help to cover these fees.

In 2023, Biden’s FMCSA awarded roughly $48 million in grant funding to increase CDL “training opportunities and continue to improve the process to obtain a CDL." The FMCSA also allocated $3.5 million to Commercial Motor Vehicle Operator Safety Training Grants, intending to “help reduce the severity and number of crashes involving commercial motor vehicles on U.S. roads by expanding the number of CDL holders possessing operator training.” This grant program prioritized active military members and veterans, but noted that “special consideration is given to students from underserved communities and refugees.”

’It’s classic corporate welfare combined with regulatory capture, Washington doing the bidding of the largest players at the expense of everyone else on the road.’

The ATA responded positively to the trucking action plan, stating that it was “encouraged that the Biden administration has not only recognized the importance of adding new and well-trained Americans to the trucking workforce, but has announced a path forward with what we believe will become a robust training opportunity for future commercial truck drivers.”

“Using apprenticeships will help any American pursue a career in this great industry for good wages and benefits in a safe manner without the significant debt many jobseekers can sometimes incur,” the ATA stated. “We applaud the Biden administration for taking these important steps and we look forward to working with them to ensure a smooth and rapid implementation of the commitments made.”

Meanwhile, Biden rapidly expanded so-called “lawful pathways” for foreign nationals, allowing asylum seekers, refugees, and those with Temporary Protected Status — even those who entered the country illegally — to apply for work authorization, thereby allowing them to join the trucking industry.

Biden's action followed the Obama administration’s decision to remove the requirement to place drivers out of service for failing to meet English proficiency standards, further contributing to the road safety and national security issues in America's trucking industry today.

“We believe that hundreds of thousands of refugees were intentionally dumped into the trucking industry for profit," Everett told Blaze News.

These government interventions prompted an artificial surge in new, inexperienced truck drivers entering the industry, which, in turn, justified depressed wages, as employers treat the roles as entry-level and disposable.

RELATED: Exclusive: DOT withholds $40M from blue state for flouting English requirements for truckers

Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Who does the ATA represent?

Collin Long, the director of government relations for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, told Blaze News, "The real issue isn’t a shortage of drivers, it’s a shortage of drivers willing to stay in an industry that treats them like disposable labor."

“The big carriers prefer to churn through cheap, inexperienced drivers instead of investing in training and fair pay for professionals,” he said. “It’s a dangerous business model that puts every family on the highway at greater risk. Experience leads to greater safety, and ATA’s churn-and-burn approach undermines both.”

While the ATA maintains that there is a driver shortage, critics argue that the organization does not fully represent the industry, citing that its board is dominated by executives from large carriers. Yet the ATA reports that 91.5% of the country's trucking companies operate 10 or fewer trucks. Critics also contend that the ATA has not adequately protected smaller trucking companies, instead prioritizing the interests of mega carriers.

‘If the ATA’s sole existence was to put the small guys out of business, they are very, very bad at their jobs.’

Long told Blaze News that the ATA’s policies have often been “detrimental to small-business truckers and to highway safety.”

“Whether it’s taxpayer-funded CDL mills or pushing to let 18-year-olds operate big rigs across the country, ATA’s agenda serves corporate megacarriers, not the men and women who actually keep America moving,” Long stated.

“OOIDA fights for small-business truckers trying to make a living, while ATA lobbies for policies that let the biggest carriers use taxpayer funds and government red tape to hamstring their competition,” he continued. “It’s classic corporate welfare combined with regulatory capture, Washington doing the bidding of the largest players at the expense of everyone else on the road.”

Everett similarly contended that the ATA "has evolved into an entity entirely focused on the interests of the billion-dollar mega carriers and power-only brokerages.”

When asked whether he believes the ATA has helped or hurt smaller trucking companies, Justin Martin, a 15-year trucking industry professional who goes by SuperTrucker on X, told Blaze News that it was a “very complicated issue."

“The gut instinct of most trucking companies, like the smaller guys, they think that the ATA hurts them. And if the ATA had their way, that is 100% true,” he explained. “But everything that the ATA has done has actually helped the small guys over the years because there are over half a million trucking companies in the United States. ... So if the ATA’s sole existence was to put the small guys out of business, they are very, very bad at their jobs.”

However, Martin argued that the ATA has been “messing with the wage mechanism” within the industry. He explained that by constantly pushing the claim of a driver shortage, it not only justifies government-funded driver training, but it also allows the ATA to increase rates for shippers.

The ATA did not respond to a request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Executive fiat': Biden-era rule change quietly permits H-1B visa holders to work remotely



Last week, a social media post went viral showing that a remarkable number of H-1B visa holders — brought to the U.S. ostensibly because American citizens already living here do not have the necessary skill sets in certain American industries — listed residential addresses as their “place of work,” according to government data. Upon further investigation, Blaze News discovered that not only were these claims true, but the legality of this loophole is strained, to say the least.

In a recent Blaze News column, Matt O'Brien, the deputy executive director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, argued that the H-1B program, and with it the de facto “work from home” proviso, has always benefited corporations and foreigners at the expense of American workers.

'Executive branch officials intrude into Congress's lawmaking authority by interpreting statutes in an unreasonably broad fashion.'

But are H-1B visa holders legally allowed to work from home? What is the legal basis?

RELATED: Project Firewall: DOL targets visa sponsors in unprecedented H-1B enforcement crackdown

Photo by MEGA/GC Images

Experts have raised concerns that government agencies likely do not have the authority to permit foreign nationals on nonimmigrant visas to work remotely. “There are numerous provisions throughout the H-1B statutes requiring employers to specifically identify all worksites where alien employees will be performing labor. These provisions were intended to ensure effective worksite enforcement, to protect American workers from unlawful competition, as well as to protect foreign workers from exploitation,” O’Brien explained.

Nevertheless, upon review of the laws surrounding H-1B regulations, Blaze News discovered that there are no mentions of “remote work” that would explicitly permit or forbid H-1B holders to work from home.

Rather, the H-1B “work from home” phenomenon can apparently be traced to a last-minute change made in the final days of the Biden administration after Trump won the 2024 election.

On December 18, 2024, the DHS filed the “H-1B Modernization Final Rule,” which took effect three days before Trump was sworn in to office. This lengthy document reveals a months-long deliberative process in which Biden officials relaxed H-1B enforcement standards to explicitly permit remote work — all under the pretext of “modernization.”

In the final rule, the DHS officially declares that remote work in “higher education, nonprofit research, or government research” would be permitted: “Work performed ‘at’ the qualifying institution may include work performed in the United States through telework, remote work, or other off-site work.”

These rule changes do not mention the names of other industries, such as the technology sector, indicating that the changes apply only to a discrete subset of H-1B-qualified positions.

The final rule also shifts from “where” duties should be “physically performed” to focusing on “the job duties” more generally. For example, when considering whether to approve an exemption for the number of H-1B visas, capped at 65,000 per year, the rule says that United States Customs and Immigrations Services “will focus on the job duties to be performed, rather than where the duties are physically performed.”

The final rule further revealed that an unnamed H-1B “advocacy group” lobbied USCIS to make the rules more permissive for remote work: “An advocacy group and a joint submission supported the proposal and stated that H-1B regulations should focus on duties performed rather than location of work performed.”

When a commenter raised an issue about an ambiguous loophole in the final rule that might lead to “fraud and abuse,” the DHS issued a flat denial that relied heavily on prepositions: “Congress chose to exempt … noncitizens who are employed ‘at’ a qualifying institution, which is broader than being employed ‘by’ a qualifying institution.”

Not only is this consequential loophole predicated on a subtle difference in prepositions; the response does not address the commenter’s concern about preventing fraud and abuse.

RELATED: White House's H-1B proclamation sparks confusion and backlash

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Another potential problem with this final rule is whether federal agencies in the executive branch have any legitimate authority to issue it at all since it seems to bypass congressional authority.

As O’Brien told Blaze News, “Remote work for H-1B workers [is] pure executive overreach. Remote work is permitted by Department of Labor regulations. However, those regulations do not trace back to any statutory source of authority as they should. Neither the initial H-1B legislation nor any of the subsequent amendments (the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act, and the H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004) mention remote work.”

The final rule is apparently an improvement upon a longer-standing regulatory interpretation of the law by the Department of Labor, which works in concert with USCIS and the DHS on the enforcement of H-1B regulations. In a 2008 fact sheet, the DOL apparently regards “place of employment” as “a location where the worker spends most of his/her work time.”

This interpretation does not appear to be explicitly exclusive to “work from home” employment situations, although, again, a review of the statute yielded no direct reference to remote work for H-1B nonimmigrant workers.

This indicates that USCIS and the DHS, under Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas, appear to have effectively rewritten legislation.

“Executive branch officials intrude into Congress' lawmaking authority by interpreting statutes in an unreasonably broad fashion,” O’Brien added.

“While Congress is certainly not immune from turning bad policy into law, at least it generally does so publicly, after considerable debate. But remote work, like employment for H-1B spouses, has never been debated by the representatives of the American people; it was simply imposed by executive fiat," O’Brien continued.

This apparent “executive fiat” from the Biden administration raises several issues that warrant more attention, not least among them the seeming senselessness of immigrants to the United States performing remote work. This “modernization” rule thus encourages an increase in H-1B visa immigration at a time when immigration seems to make less sense from a business perspective.

Blaze News contacted the DHS for comment and was referred to the White House. The White House did not respond to Blaze News’ request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!