Consumer prices are down — why can’t Democrats admit it?



The latest inflation report is in — and for the first time in nearly five years, the Consumer Price Index has dropped.

According to data released April 10, gas prices led the decline, falling 6.3% from February to March and nearly 10% year over year. That’s real relief for working families.

It’s easy to claim every success as earned and every failure as someone else’s fault. But that’s not leadership — it’s childishness.

But don’t expect Joe Biden to credit Donald Trump. That would mean acknowledging the obvious: These results aren’t from Biden’s policies — they’re from Trump’s.

Psychologists call it the “locus of control.” People with an internal locus believe they shape their own destiny. People with an external one think they’re at the mercy of circumstance.

Most people pick one or the other. But Democrats? They flip depending on who happens to sit in the Oval Office.

When inflation stayed low under Trump, they called it luck. When inflation hit a 40-year high under Biden, they blamed Vladimir Putin. And landlords. And grocery stores. And payment processors. Anyone but Biden.

That spin didn’t pay the bills — especially in minority communities hit hardest by inflation.

Federal Reserve data shows that black and Hispanic households spend a higher share of income on gas, groceries, and rent than white households. In cities like Atlanta, Detroit, and Charlotte, black renters saw double-digit rent hikes between 2021 and 2023.

What did we hear from the White House? Excuses. Deflection. “We’re building back better” — but for whom?

Trump gave us the answer. On day one, he signed executive orders to fast-track energy permits, cut red tape, reopen federal lands for drilling, and establish a new National Energy Council.

The results are clear. Energy prices are dropping. Inflation is cooling. And Americans — at long last — are catching a break.

Biden took the opposite approach. He vowed to “end fossil fuel,” killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, blocked offshore drilling, and even sold oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve — to China.

When energy prices surged, he pointed fingers. Biden blamed the war in Ukraine. But by January 2022 — before the invasion — gas prices were already up 40% year over year, and inflation had hit 7.5%.

The “Putin price hike” was a convenient distraction from Biden’s failed energy agenda.

And the scapegoating didn’t stop there.

When inflation hit every corner of the economy, Attorney General Merrick Garland pointed at Visa, accusing debit card fees of fueling the crisis. The fees in question? Fourteen cents on a $60 purchase.

Never mind that businesses willingly pay those standard fees. If they had a real problem with them, they could easily switch to any number of alternative companies or payment methods.

If Garland wanted real answers, he should have looked at Biden’s regulatory agenda. One study estimates those rules will cost the average family $47,000 over a lifetime.

When rents spiked, Biden and the Justice Department pointed fingers at landlords and pricing algorithms. They ignored the real drivers: millions of illegal immigrants increasing demand and federal mandates that jacked up compliance costs for builders. And the algorithms they blame? Those same tools recommend lower prices when inflation and demand cool down.

As grocery bills climbed, Biden blamed “shrinkflation” and greedy grocers and meatpackers. He ignored the real culprits: trillions in wasteful spending from the American Rescue Plan and the so-called Inflation Reduction Act.

This is the pattern: Jack up costs, then blame someone else. Spin doesn’t fill a gas tank in Jackson or put groceries on the table in Memphis. A press release won’t pay the electric bill in Columbia.

It’s easy to claim every success as earned and every failure as someone else’s fault. But that’s not leadership — it’s childishness. No kindergarten teacher would tolerate it. Voters shouldn’t either.

And they aren’t. Democrats are polling at 29% for a reason.

While the media tracks the stock market, Main Street is what matters. When gas prices jump 60%, hedge fund managers don’t suffer. It’s the single mom in Detroit, the delivery driver in Atlanta, and the grandmother in Baltimore stretching her Social Security check.

This isn’t academic. It’s survival.

Americans are done with excuses. They want results — and President Trump is delivering.

He didn’t just talk tough. He cut gas prices, cooled inflation, and restored energy independence. For communities crushed by elite policy failures, those results aren’t just political. They’re life-changing.

Telling America’s story is too important to leave to radicals



Every nation has a story. Recently, the Washington Post described the Smithsonian Institution, with its 21 museums and 14 educational and research centers, as “the official keeper of the American Story.” What kind of story have the Smithsonian museums been telling about our country?

On March 27, President Trump issued an executive order arguing that there has been a “concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history” and promote a “distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.” This “revisionist movement” casts American “founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light.” A White House fact sheet calls for “revitalizing key cultural institutions and reversing the spread of divisive ideology.” Vice President JD Vance, a member of the Smithsonian Board of Regents, will lead the administration’s efforts.

The debate over the Smithsonian is only one front in a wide-ranging, ongoing conflict over first principles and concepts of justice (equality versus equity).

Critics of the executive order responded quickly. They maintain that the Trump administration wants to “whitewash the past and suppress discussion of systemic racism.” The Smithsonian, the critics contend, is led by nonpartisan professionals whose aim is to be truthful and inclusive and tell the whole story of America, including groups that have been neglected in the past. Professor David W. Blight of Yale, president of the Organization of American Historians, complained that the executive order is a “laughable thing until you realize what their intent actually is and what they’re doing is trying to erode and then obliterate what we have been writing for a century.”

Is there a divisive ideology being taught, as the Trump administration maintains, and if so, what is it? What have university professors been writing about America, if not “for a century,” for at least the past decade? Professor Blight’s OAH revealed its ideology by embracing the New York Times’ 1619 Project, declaring:

The 1619 Project’s approach to understanding the American past and connecting it to newly urgent movements for racial justice and systemic reform point to … the ways in which slavery and racial injustice have and continue to profoundly shape our nation. Critical race theory provides a lens through which we can examine and understand systemic racism and its many consequences.

What do we call the ideology that, as the OAH explains, “acknowledges and interrogates systems of oppression — racial, ethnic, gender, class — and openly addresses the myriad injustices that these systems have perpetuated through the past and into the present”?

As most are aware, the ideology expressed by the OAH is dominant in universities today. It views American history negatively through the lens of “oppressors” (white males) versus “oppressed” and “marginalized groups.” This ideology has been variously called political correctness, identity politics, social justice, and wokeness. We could use Wesley Yang’s term “successor ideology,” meaning it is the new, radical, left-wing ideological successor to the old patriotic liberalism of politicians like Walter Mondale and historians like Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

Not surprisingly, given its pre-eminence in America’s universities, this divisive “successor ideology” is at the heart of the worldview propounded by the leaders of the Smithsonian.

Something rotten in the Smithsonian

The current secretary of the Smithsonian is Lonnie G. Bunch III, who is adept at dealing with donors, stakeholders, and Republican congressional appropriators. His language is mostly measured and reasonable. He talks in terms of truth, nuance, complexity, and nonpartisanship. But in reality, Bunch is a partisan progressive, a skilled cultural warrior, and a promoter of the leftist “successor ideology.”

Bunch partnered with and promoted the biased 1619 Project, which asserts that slavery is the alpha and omega of the American story and that maintaining slavery was a primary motivation for some American colonists who joined the revolutionary cause. The architect of the 1619 Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, bragged that it “decenters whiteness,” and she denounced her liberal academic critics as “old white male historians.”

Nevertheless, Bunch proclaimed, “I want the Smithsonian to legitimize important issues, whether it's 1619 or climate change.” Of the Smithsonian’s participation in the 1619 Project, he declared, “I was very pleased with it.” Bunch proudly noted that people “saw that the Smithsonian had fingerprints on [the 1619 Project]. And that to me was a great victory.”

Bunch pictures America as a nation in which systemic racism is pervasive. During the George Floyd riots, Bunch told the Atlantic, "It is really about systemic racism throughout, not just the police department, but many parts of the American system.”

Further, he made excuses for the violence in the summer of 2020, which resulted in more than a dozen Americans killed and between $1 and $2 billion worth of property damage:

How dare they loot. Well, that kind of protest is really one of the few ways the voiceless feel they have power. And while I am opposed to violent protests personally, I understand that frustration sometimes pushes you over the edge. I think what’s important for us to recognize is, let us not turn attention towards looting in a way that takes away what is the power of these protests.

Three years ago, the Smithsonian assisted in the creation of a new College Board AP course on African American Studies. Ethics and Public Policy Center scholar Stanley Kurtz has revealed how APAAS is a radical neo-Marxist, anti-American project that calls for the socialist transformation of the United States. APAAS is soaked in the tenets of critical race theory, flirts with supporting violence, and implicitly advocates dismantling the American way of life, including free-market capitalism. It is a curriculum where students learn from Frantz Fanon that America is a “monster” and from Aimé Césaire that Stalin’s Soviet Union was a model society. Nevertheless, the APAAS curriculum is promoted on the Smithsonian’s Learning Lab.

Under the leadership of Gov. Ron DeSantis, the Florida legislature passed the Stop Woke Act that bars APAAS from the state’s K-12 schools because it promotes the divisive concepts manifest in CRT. Lonnie Bunch and his close ideological ally Elizabeth Alexander, president of the Mellon Foundation, falsely accused DeSantis of ignoring African-American history. On the contrary, DeSantis created a new black history curriculum based on serious and accurate scholarship. In response to DeSantis’ opposition to APAAS, Bunch complained to Alexander:

I am upset because you know we were involved in helping [APAAS] and the notion that somehow simply having a course that forces us to understand complexity, nuance, and ambiguity is a problem, that’s a problem for all of America.

In truth, there is very little “complexity” and “nuance” in the Smithsonian-promoted APAAS. It is one-sided, partisan propaganda. Kurtz notes that APAAS is not in fact inclusive, ignoring the work of black conservatives “like Glenn Loury, Shelby Steele, or Robert Woodson” or even “liberal black intellectuals, like Randall Kennedy or John McWhorter.”

Bunch often talks in terms of “nonpartisanship” and promoting the best of historical and cultural scholarship. But at the same time, he promotes the progressive left agenda, stating that the “job” of the National Museum of African American History and Culture is “really to create new generations of activists,” and “for me it really is about how … museums play a social justice role.”

Our story

To use one of Lonnie Bunch’s favorite terms, what is the “context” in which President Trump issued his executive order? It recognizes that a left-progressive cultural revolution (the “successor ideology”) has marched through our universities, schools, foundations, and museums, transforming the story of America into a tale of oppression and exploitation. The woke revolutionaries aim to “fundamentally transform the United States” from a nation based on a natural rights concept of the equality of citizenship to “equity,” a system of racial-ethnic-gender group quotas and group consciousness.

The debate over the Smithsonian is only one front in a wide-ranging, ongoing conflict over first principles and concepts of justice (equality versus equity). If the cultural revolutionaries are “transformationist,” in the sense that they aim to deconstruct the American way of life, the position articulated by Trump’s executive order is “Americanist,” in the sense that it represents a cultural counterrevolution that affirms America’s past and principles.

Are the Organization of American Historians and the current leadership of the Smithsonian right that America is a nation built on “slavery, exploitation, and exclusion”? Or is the American story what British writer Paul Johnson described as one of “human achievement without parallel,” the story “of difficulties overcome by skill, faith, and strength of purpose, and courage and persistence”? Was Johnson right when he wrote, “The creation of the United States of America is the greatest of all human adventures” and that Americans “thrown together by fate in that swirling maelstrom of history” are “the most remarkable people the world has ever seen”?

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Meet the Millennial influencer running to be Michigan’s next US senator



The 2026 U.S. Senate race in Michigan now has its first official candidate: State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, a Millennial Democrat from Oakland County who shot to national attention with a viral floor speech. She’s betting that moment can carry her all the way to the world’s greatest deliberative body.

Before Democrats and their media lapdogs start drafting puff pieces and polishing the pedestal, they should ask a harder question: Who is Mallory McMorrow — and more importantly, who is she not?

This isn’t just political positioning. It’s a fundamental disconnect. McMorrow’s politics are tailored for retweets, not results.

McMorrow isn’t a product of Michigan grit. She’s a coastal transplant from suburban New Jersey with a degree from Notre Dame and a résumé that reads like a LinkedIn influencer’s dream. She landed in Michigan less than a decade ago and began branding herself as the conscience of the Midwest. But Michiganders know the difference between authenticity and ambition.

McMorrow presents herself as a pragmatic progressive. In reality, she mimics the Instagram-ready style of coastal elites and peddles the kind of policies that might play in Brooklyn or Silver Lake, but not in Battle Creek or Midland.

Take her recent appearance on “Off the Record” with Tim Skubick, a Michigan political staple. Asked about boys competing in girls’ sports, McMorrow didn’t just sidestep the issue — she leaned into it, defending the far-left line with social media polish and no concern for the working-class parents listening at home.

This isn’t just political positioning. It’s a fundamental disconnect. McMorrow talks unity and moderation while aligning herself with activists who push fringe agendas. She sells herself as a consensus-builder while alienating the very voters she claims to represent. Her politics are tailored for retweets, not results.

If Attorney General Dana Nessel jumps into the primary, that contrast will become impossible to ignore. Say what you will about Nessel — she’s blunt, combative, and never confused for anything but herself. She doesn’t hide her ideology or try to sugarcoat her record for the national press. In a matchup, McMorrow won’t just have to explain her platform — she’ll have to explain her reinvention.

A real race demands contrast and courage. Michigan voters don’t need more social media senators. They need leaders who know the price of gas, not just the latest polling memo. They need fighters who understand what Michigan families face every day — not what’s trending in a D.C. group chat.

To her credit, McMorrow is young, articulate, and eager to chart a new course. That’s not nothing. But the path forward for Michigan isn’t progressive posturing. It’s common-sense governance rooted in the lives of working families — not curated identities shaped by PR consultants and filtered through national donor networks.

Republicans need to seize this opportunity. Michigan requires a new generation of GOP leadership — grounded, principled, and ready to fight. I know that generation exists. I see it in the state legislature. I see it in young constitutional conservatives who understand the dignity of work, the sanctity of family, and the value of a dollar.

As a Millennial myself, I know we don’t need more viral fame. We need values. We don’t need slogans. We need substance.

In the coming months, you’ll hear a lot about Mallory McMorrow — there will be glossy profiles, glowing press, and lots of digital fanfare. But underneath the branding is a clear ambition: to take Michigan’s Senate seat and turn it into a springboard for the next liberal celebrity.

We’ve seen that movie before. We know how it ends.

The real question is whether Michigan voters will choose performance or principle.

I believe they’ll choose principle. Because in Michigan, authenticity still matters. Common sense still counts. And we still believe a senator should represent everyday citizens worried about the price of a gallon of milk — not the Met Gala elite sipping champagne just across the Hudson from McMorrow’s home state.

Zuckerberg courted China, silenced Trump, and called it ‘neutral’



Mark Zuckerberg appeared on “The Joe Rogan Experience” in January sporting a new hairstyle and a gold chain — an image makeover that began with the billionaire tech mogul sparring with MMA fighters in 2023. He cast himself as a reformed free-speech champion, admitting that under the Biden administration, Meta’s fact-checking regime had become “something out of '1984.'” Something, he said, needed to change.

What he didn’t say: Meta’s censorship playbook has long resembled the Orwellian dystopia he now claims to oppose.

‘Meta lied about what they were doing with the Chinese Communist Party to employees, shareholders, Congress, and the American public.’

Under Zuckerberg’s leadership, Meta has operated with "1984"-style control — censoring content, shaping political narratives, and cozying up to authoritarian regimes, all while pretending to remain neutral. While Zuckerberg criticizes China’s digital authoritarianism, Meta has adopted similar strategies here in the United States: censoring dissent, interfering in elections, and silencing political opponents.

Whose ‘shared values’?

Zuckerberg’s hypocrisy is increasingly obvious. His ties to China and Meta’s repeated attempts to curry favor with the Chinese Communist Party expose a willingness to bend democratic principles in the name of profit. Meta mimics China’s censorship — globally and domestically — even as it publicly condemns the CCP’s control over information.

For years, Meta attacked China’s censorship and human rights abuses. But as China-based tech companies gained ground, Zuckerberg’s rhetoric escalated. He warned about Chinese AI firms like DeepSeek, which were producing superior tools at lower costs. In response, Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan assured Americans that the company would build AI based on “our shared values, not China’s.”

Zuckerberg even declared he’d partner with President Trump to resist foreign censorship and defend American tech. But that posturing collapses under scrutiny.

Behind the scenes, Zuckerberg worked hard to ingratiate himself with the Chinese regime. As Steve Sherman reported at RealClearPolicy, Meta pursued “Project Aldrin,” a version of Facebook built to comply with Chinese law. Meta even considered bending its privacy policies to give Beijing access to Hong Kong user data. To ingratiate himself with the CCP, Zuckerberg displayed Xi Jinping’s book on his desk and asked Xi to name his unborn daughter — an offer Xi wisely declined.

These overtures weren’t just about market share. Meta developed a censorship apparatus tailored to China’s demands, including tools to detect and delete politically sensitive content. The company even launched social apps through shell companies in China, and when Chinese regulators pressured Meta to silence dissidents like Guo Wengui, Meta complied.

On April 14, an ex-Facebook employee told the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism that Meta executives “lied about what they were doing with the Chinese Communist Party to employees, shareholders, Congress, and the American public.”

Political meddling at scale

After the Trump administration moved to block Chinese tech influence, Meta backed off its China ambitions. But the company didn’t abandon censorship — it just brought it home.

In the United States, Meta began meddling directly in domestic politics. One of the most glaring examples was the two-year ban on President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram. Framed as a measure against incitement, the decision reeked of political bias. It showed how much power Zuckerberg wields over American discourse.

Then came the 2020 election. Meta, under pressure from the Biden administration, suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story — a move Zuckerberg himself later admitted. Though the story was legitimate, Facebook and Twitter labeled it “misinformation” and throttled its reach. Critics saw this as an obvious attempt to shield Biden from scrutiny weeks before Election Day.

Meta’s interference didn’t stop at content moderation. It also funded election infrastructure. Zuckerberg donated $350 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life and another $50 million to the Center for Election Innovation and Research. These funds were funneled into swing states under the guise of pandemic safety. But critics viewed it as private influence over public elections — a dangerous precedent set by one of the most powerful CEOs in the world.

Meanwhile, Meta executives misled the public about the company’s relationship with China.

Beyond corporate hypocrisy

Zuckerberg’s deference to China wasn’t a phase — it was part of a long-term strategy. In 2014, he wrote the foreword for a book by Xi Jinping. He practiced Mandarin in public appearances. He endorsed Chinese values in private meetings. This wasn’t diplomacy — it was capitulation.

Meta even designed its platform to comply with CCP censorship. When regulators in China asked the company to block dissidents, it did. When Chinese interests threatened Meta’s business model, Zuckerberg yielded.

So when he criticizes China’s authoritarianism now, it rings hollow.

Meta’s behavior isn’t just a story of corporate hypocrisy. It’s a case study in elite manipulation of information, both at home and abroad. Zuckerberg talks about free speech, but Meta suppresses it. He warns of foreign influence, while Meta builds tools that serve foreign powers. He condemns censorship, then practices it with ruthless efficiency.

Americans shouldn’t buy Zuckerberg’s rebrand. He wants to sound like a First Amendment champion on podcasts while continuing to control what you see online.

Meta’s past and present actions are clear: The company interfered in U.S. elections, silenced political speech, and appeased authoritarian regimes — all while pretending to stand for freedom.

Zuckerberg’s censorship isn’t a glitch. It’s the product. And unless Americans demand accountability, it will become the new normal.

SCOTUS Presses Pause On Trump’s Tren De Aragua Deportations

Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented

Trump’s border blitz puts military muscle to work



President Donald Trump has moved faster than anyone expected to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. His latest action — deploying the U.S. military to the Roosevelt Reservation, a 60-foot-wide strip of federal land spanning the border in California, Arizona, and New Mexico — is a necessary step to defend American sovereignty.

A White House memorandum issued April 11 authorizes the military to take temporary control of the corridor, detain individuals attempting illegal entry, and support key security operations, including barrier construction and surveillance. With drug cartels, human traffickers, and other criminal threats exploiting the southern border, this deployment offers a direct, long-overdue response to a crisis the political class has allowed to fester for years.

The military brings what civilian authorities can’t: logistical power, surveillance, and manpower. We’ve seen it work before.

Established in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt to safeguard the border, the Roosevelt Reservation provides the ideal legal framework for President Trump’s latest deployment. By designating the strip as a “National Defense Area,” Trump has empowered the military to act decisively within a clearly defined legal perimeter.

This renewed focus on border security comes none too soon. Under President Biden, the situation along the reservation deteriorated. In 2022, frustrated by the White House’s inaction, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) ordered shipping containers stacked along the reservation to block illegal crossings. His successor, open-borders Democrat Katie Hobbs, wasted no time removing them.

The Trump memorandum directs the Departments of Defense, Interior, Agriculture, and Homeland Security to transfer jurisdiction of the Roosevelt Reservation to the Pentagon. This move allows U.S. troops to detain border trespassers until Border Patrol can process them.

This isn’t “militarizing” the homeland — it’s using federal authority to defend it. The chaos Biden unleashed now demands real action. Trump’s strategy puts American citizens, not politics, first.

The need for this action is clear. Even with reports of fewer illegal crossings, the southern border remains a pipeline for deadly drugs like fentanyl — which killed more than 70,000 Americans in 2023. Cartels continue to exploit weak enforcement, using remote corridors like the Roosevelt Reservation to move narcotics and human trafficking victims deeper into the country.

Critics rushed to label Trump’s deployment an overreach, but their objections don’t hold up. Some claim the move violates the Posse Comitatus Act, the 1878 law restricting military involvement in domestic law enforcement. One activist even called the strategy a “crazy” attempt to skirt the law by labeling illegal aliens as trespassers on military land.

That argument is nonsense. The Posse Comitatus Act allows exceptions during national emergencies, and Trump’s declaration of a border emergency provides that authority.

What’s more, the military’s role under the April 11 memorandum is narrow and lawful. It simply detains border trespassers on federal land until civilian authorities take over. This mirrors past deployments under both Republican and Democratic presidents. The Pentagon isn’t rounding up citizens or patrolling cities. It is securing a narrow federal corridor explicitly designated for border protection.

Some Democrats and activist groups claim that deploying the military escalates tensions unnecessarily, especially since illegal border crossings have declined since Trump took office. But that argument misses the point. Crossings dropped because of Trump’s tough policies — not because the threat disappeared.

Cartels are opportunistic and fast-moving. They seize on any lapse in enforcement. The Roosevelt Reservation’s rugged terrain and rumored smuggling tunnels make it a prime target. A military presence deters those operations before they escalate.

Waiting for the next crisis — like the 2022 surge that saw more than 2.5 million migrant encounters — isn’t strategy. It’s surrender.

Open-border activists argue that Border Patrol or local law enforcement should secure the border alone. But that ignores reality. Of the border’s 1,954 miles, more than 700 run through rugged, hard-to-patrol terrain. Civilian agencies are already overwhelmed.

The military brings what civilian authorities can’t: logistical power, surveillance technology, and manpower. This isn’t theoretical. We’ve seen it work before. In 2018, during Trump’s first term, Operation Faithful Patriot provided vital support for wall construction in high-traffic zones — reducing illegal crossings where they were most severe.

Extending this strategy to the Roosevelt Reservation isn’t radical. It’s obvious.

Trump’s order rests on a simple truth: A nation without borders is not a nation at all. The new memorandum isn’t just defensible. It’s essential. Anyone who doesn’t see the military’s role in this crisis is clinging to the same mindset that let things spiral out of control in the first place.

Washington State U. punishes instructor, staffer charged with beating up Trump-supporting student of color wearing MAGA hat



Washington State University said it fired a staff member and relieved a graduate student instructor of teaching responsibilities after they were charged with physically attacking an undergraduate student of color who supports President Donald Trump and was wearing a Make American Great Again hat when he was assaulted.

According to a video report from Turning Point USA's Frontlines, WSU junior engineering student Jay Sani said WSU instructor Patrick Mahoney and staff member Gerald Hoff ambushed and physically attacked him outside of the Coug, a campus bar, on Feb. 28. The attack was captured on surveillance video and is included in the Frontlines video report, which you can view here.

In a Facebook post describing the attack, Sani said Mahoney 'crumpled' up his MAGA hat and 'threw it into the street, and yelled ... words to the effect of "go get it bitch."'

Phil Weiler, WSU's vice president for marketing and communications, sent Blaze News the following statement Friday:

Washington State University (WSU) is aware of an off-campus incident that occurred in February involving a WSU staff member, graduate student, and undergraduate student. After an investigation by the Pullman, Washington, police department, the WSU staff member and graduate student were arrested and charged with fourth-degree assault. In accordance with WSU policies, the staff member’s employment was terminated, and the graduate student was relieved of all teaching responsibilities.

While WSU remains committed to the freedom of speech and expression for all members of our university community, it will not tolerate acts of violence or hate speech. The university continues to review all complaints with the utmost of seriousness.

Sani said he was wearing a red Make America Great Again hat at the time of the attack and that Mahoney "ripped the hat off my head." In a Facebook post describing the attack, Sani said Mahoney "crumpled" up his MAGA hat and "threw it into the street, and yelled ... words to the effect of 'go get it bitch.'"

Sani said he threw his food at Mahoney's face but that Mahoney and Hoff ganged up on him, saying Mahoney "grabbed my chest and slammed it on the concrete as I was falling" and "punched me a bunch of times on the back" and that Hoff "kicked me a bunch of times too."

The Frontlines report includes images of Sani's "multiple scrapes and bruises" resulting from the two-on-one beatdown.

The video report also shows Pullman police catching up with Mahoney and Hoff on bodycam video timestamped in the early morning hours of March 1, just hours after the attack.

"I seen this guy f**king on campus before," Mahoney says on police bodycam video in reference to Sani. "I know he's, like, [a] f**king right-wing dude."

Mahoney also tells police, "I, like, grabbed his hat, threw it, and said, like, 'Go get it.'" Hoff admits to police that "we did grab him and bring him to the ground."

However, Mahoney is heard actually telling cops that he didn't hit Sani and that "I don't think I did f**king something illegal, right?"

A voice — presumably an officer — is heard saying on the bodycam clip that "it's unwanted touching," after which Mahoney says, "It's unwanted touching. I don't know what that is, right?"

Mahoney adds on the bodycam clip that Sani "wanted to fight" and "f**king got what was coming to him, right?"

You can view the complete police bodycam video here of officers interviewing and arresting Mahoney.

The Frontlines video report said Mahoney is a WSU graduate student and instructor who teaches a freshman-level political science class — and is a "notorious far-left activist who hates conservative values and is a regular at pro-Hamas protests in the city."

Mahoney also "has strong ties to the Democratic Socialists of America, progressive pro-labor groups, and is someone who publicly touts his admiration for the communist party," the video report adds, citing Sani. The video also points out a hammer and sickle pin seen on Mahoney's jacket lapel in his WSU headshot:

Patrick MahoneyPatrick Mahoney (Image source: Washington State University website)

In reference to Sani's skin color, he added in his Facebook post, "To make it clear, I hate to say this, but I'm brown, but forget it. I'm an engineering student that wants to get the degree and move on. So what if I like someone that you don't like. We have the 1st Amendment, and it's not okay that just because you don't like that person, I should be attacked for it. You had a chance in November to oust [Trump], but you didn't."

A Frontlines reporter knocked on Mahoney's door to inquire if he wanted to comment on the assault but that he replied, "No, go away," from behind the closed door.

The Frontlines video report added that "we were unable to reach Hoff to get his side of the story, but found his LinkedIn account indicating that he's employed at WSU. Again, the school would not comment on Hoff's status, either."

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

Dr. Oz Swearing-In Ceremony Halts After Girl Faints In Oval Office

'We are happy to say she is okay'

Trump drops 10,000 pages of RFK assassination files, exposing puzzling early death reports



Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced Friday that the Trump administration had released 10,000 new pages regarding the 1968 assassination of Democratic Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (N.Y.).

The long-since classified investigation documents were released as part of President Donald Trump's January 23 executive order directing the declassification of files on the assassinations of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, President John F. Kennedy, and Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.

'In my view, these documents provide the background to more questions than answers.'

"The Executive Order establishes the policy that, more than 50 years after these assassinations, the victims' families and the American people deserve the truth," read a White House fact sheet on the action.

During an April 10 Cabinet meeting, Gabbard told Trump she had "over 100 people working around the clock" scanning the relevant files.

"These have been sitting in boxes in storage for decades. They have never been scanned or seen before," she said.

Trump asked Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. how he felt about the news that the files on his father and uncle would be released in the coming days.

Kennedy responded, "I'm very gratified."

"I'm very grateful to you, Mr. President," he added.

On Friday morning, Gabbard told Fox News that the first batch of newly released files related to the government's investigation and "questions and theories that were being posed" concerning Sen. Kennedy's assassination.

The documents revealed that State Department cables were reporting on Kennedy’s death before it actually occurred.

Gabbard explained that the cables “showed different countries were sending messages to each other around Senator Kennedy’s assassination, saying that he had been assassinated, but that was before he was actually killed.”

"In my view, these documents provide the background to more questions than answers," Gabbard added.

"We're obviously not stopping here," she said. "We sent people out to hunt through different warehouses at the FBI and CIA, knowing there are likely other documents that have not yet been turned over to National Archives."

Gabbard noted that the second release would include more than 50,000 additional pages on the senator's assassination.

Kennedy Jr. responded to the document release, stating, "Lifting the veil on the RFK papers is a necessary step toward restoring trust in American government."

"I commend President Trump for his courage and his commitment to transparency," he added. "I'm grateful also to Tulsi Gabbard for her dogged efforts to root out and declassify these documents."

A White House spokesperson told Fox News Digital, "Nearly six decades have passed since the tragic assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and these historic files have been hidden from the American people all this time — until now."

"In the name of maximum transparency, President Trump has released over 10,000 pages of the RFK files with more to come," the spokesperson continued. "There has never been a more transparent president in the history of our country than President Donald J. Trump. Another promise made and promise kept."

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

Trump purges Clinton's $1B woke, audit-failing volunteer agency



The Trump administration on Wednesday placed most of AmeriCorps' full-time employees on administrative leave as it moves to reorganize the Bill Clinton-era volunteer agency.

The independent federal agency was established by Congress in 1993 to connect young Americans with community service opportunities, providing roughly a $4,000 stipend, housing accommodations, food, and a higher education grant, the New York Times reported.

'It is time to admit that this is a failed program that needs a complete overhaul or elimination.'

Despite receiving about $1 billion annually, AmeriCorps failed eight consecutive audits.

Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah) in December accused the agency of having "a long history of abusing taxpayer dollars."

"In 2023, the AmeriCorps inspector general issued a 'Management Challenges' report detailing significant challenges AmeriCorps faces. This includes being unable to detect fraud. We have no real idea when AmeriCorps will be able to have a clean audit again. In fact, this year's audit includes 78 recommendations still open, even after AmeriCorps said it addressed 20 last year," Owens said.

He called for AmeriCorps to be on the Department of Government Efficiency's "chopping block," arguing that it should not receive more taxpayer money while "it continuously fails to meet basic accountability standards."

"We can tell AmeriCorps to modernize and reform until we are blue in the face, but nothing will change unless we recognize the system is built on a flawed idea. It is time to admit that this is a failed program that needs a complete overhaul or elimination," Owens remarked.

Like many other federal agencies in recent years, AmeriCorps has become infiltrated with woke ideology, including climate change and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

Fox News Digital reported that the agency's 2024 annual management report listed "advancing racial and economic equity" as one of its key priorities.

"AmeriCorps has a decades-long commitment to advancing racial and economic equity through national service and volunteering," the report read. "These efforts are designed to expand pathways to opportunity for all Americans. Racial and economic equity will be central to AmeriCorps' planning and implementation of all priorities, ensuring AmeriCorps members and volunteers reflect the diversity of the American people and the communities in which they serve."

While Owens supports the elimination of AmeriCorps, a Trump administration official told the news outlet that the agency will receive an operational reset but will remain in existence.

On Wednesday, the White House placed 75% of the AmeriCorps full-time employees — 535 out of 700 staffers — on administrative leave while determining how it will reconfigure the agency. Additionally, agency contracts worth approximately $250 million have been terminated.

Anything else?

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) stated on Thursday that the state would file a lawsuit against the Trump administration to stop its reorganization efforts.

He wrote in a post on X, "DOGE's actions to dismantle AmeriCorps threaten vulnerable Californians, disaster response and recovery, and economic opportunities."

"California will be suing to stop this," Newsom concluded.

In a separate statement, he called Trump's actions a "middle finger to volunteers serving their fellow Americans."

Earlier this week, Newsom filed a lawsuit against Trump to block the administration from imposing increased tariffs. The governor has set aside $50 million to challenge the current administration.

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