McRib fake-out? Sticky lawsuit claims no 'actual pork rib meat' in fan-favorite McDonald's menu item



A class-action lawsuit filed last month is challenging McDonald's over a cult-favorite menu item, the McRib.

The lawsuit, filed on December 23 in U.S. District Court in Chicago, alleges that McDonald's engaged in false advertising when promoting the limited-time menu item.

'We've always been transparent about our ingredients so guests can make the right choice for them.'

The four plaintiffs in the complaint are Peter Le of Baldwin Park, California; Charles Lynch of Poughkeepsie, New York; Darien Baker of Chicago, Illinois; and Darrick Wilson of Washington, D.C.

RELATED: McDonald's team admits workload on hated AI Christmas ad 'far exceeded' live-action shoots

Photo by David Paul Morris/Getty Images

The complaint claims that the McRib "does not contain any meaningful quantity of actual pork rib meat — indeed, none at all." The plaintiffs claim that the fast-food chain uses lower-quality cuts of meat instead of rib meat, including, "inter alia, pork shoulder, heart, tripe or scalded stomach."

In December 2024, when the McRib was available, the complaint shows that the McRib was one of the most expensive individual items on the menu, even exceeding the price of a Big Mac on average.

As a result, had they "known that the McRib did not contain any actual pork rib meat, [the plaintiffs] would not have purchased the McRib or would only have purchased it for a lower price."

In a statement obtained by CBS News, McDonald's USA said, "This lawsuit distorts the facts, and many of the claims are inaccurate. Food quality and safety are at the heart of everything we do — that's why we're committed to using real, quality ingredients across our entire menu. Our fan-favorite McRib sandwich is made with 100% pork sourced from farmers and suppliers across the U.S. We've always been transparent about our ingredients so guests can make the right choice for them."

CBS also reported that McDonald's denied the specific claim that the McRib contains pork hearts, tripe, or scalded stomach and that the company said the McRib has a base of 100% seasoned boneless pork.

The complaint emphasizes that the marketing for the McRib was "materially misleading" for consumers, potentially affecting their purchasing decisions.

The McRib was first introduced in Kansas City in 1981.

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

Trump Admin’s Crime Crackdown Helps Drive Historic Drop In Murders

'Other cities that received National Guard support also saw notable declines'

DC police chief manipulated crime stats to make city look better, report claims



Resigning Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith deliberately manipulated Washington, D.C., crime data to appear lower, according to a new report.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's majority staff released an interim report on Sunday as part of its ongoing investigation into allegations that MPD leadership pressured commanders to alter crime stats. The committee launched the probe into the department in August.

'Chief Smith should resign today.'

After interviewing seven acting MPD commanders and one suspended MPD commander, the committee found that the department's leadership placed "a higher priority on suppressing public reporting of crime statistics than stopping crime itself."

The commanders allegedly told lawmakers that "they were not only pressured, but also instructed, to lower crime classifications to lesser intermediate offenses in such a way that those offenses would not be included in the [daily crime report] reported to the public."

Smith allegedly created a "toxic management culture" that propagated a "culture of fear, intimidation, threats, and retaliation," the report read.

Lawmakers concluded that the MPD's crime data remains at risk of manipulation despite Smith's recent resignation announcement.

RELATED: Whistleblower alleges widespread manipulation of DC crime stats, fueling Oversight Committee probe

James Comer. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

"Every single person who lives, works, or visits the District of Columbia deserves a safe city, yet it's now clear the American people were deliberately kept in the dark about the true crime rates in our nation's capital," stated committee Chairman Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.). "Testimony from experienced and courageous MPD commanders has exposed the truth: Chief Pamela Smith coerced staff to report artificially low crime data and cultivated a culture of fear to achieve her agenda. Chief Smith's decision to mislead the public by manipulating crime statistics is dangerous and undermines trust in both local leadership and law enforcement."

"Her planned resignation at the end of the month should not be seen as a voluntary choice, but as an inevitable consequence that should have occurred much earlier. Chief Smith should resign today," Comer added.

Former Police Commander Michael Pulliam was placed on administrative leave in May and later suspended after he was accused of manipulating crime data. Smith stated at the time that the department was committed to immediately addressing "any irregularity in crime data."

"Any allegation of this behavior will be dealt with through our internal processes, which will ensure those members are held accountable," she declared.

RELATED: DC police commander under investigation for allegedly manipulating crime stats

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

However, Smith announced her resignation last week, effective December 31. While she did not give a reason for her departure, some critics questioned the timing amid the ongoing allegations against her and the department.

These allegations against the department and its leadership emerged amid President Donald Trump's warning that his administration would take over D.C. if its leaders failed to address the area's crime crisis.

The MPD 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!

'Blind allegiance': Thune lays into blue states passing up Trump tax relief



With major tax breaks just around the corner, Senate Majority Leader John Thune reveals the real reason Democrats are skipping out on major tax breaks.

Several blue states across the country are opting out of the major tax breaks promised in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including provisions like deductions for seniors and no tax on tips. These tax breaks are set to go into effect on January 1, 2026.

'They are doing it because of Trump derangement syndrome or a blind allegiance to high-tax policies.'

These policies are popular across the political spectrum, yet Democrats are depriving their constituents of the opportunity to reap the benefits. Some of these states include Colorado, Illinois, New York, and Maine, as well as Washington, D.C.

The Treasury Department called this a deliberate act of "partisan stonewalling," suggesting Democrats are denying their constituents crucial financial relief.

RELATED: Blue-state ‘Grinches’ are stealing your tax relief, says Treasury Secretary Bessent

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

"This partisan stonewalling is a direct assault on the very families and workers liberal politicians claim to champion," the department stated. "By denying their residents access to these important tax cuts, these governors and legislators are forcing hardworking Americans to shoulder higher state tax burdens, robbing them of the relief they deserve and exacerbating the financial squeeze on low- and middle-income households."

Thune echoed the department's concerns, saying Democrats are getting in the way of overdue tax relief for millions of hardworking Americans.

"Affordability starts with more money in your pocket," Thune told Blaze News. "Republicans passed the Working Families Tax Cuts so that every working family, regardless of where they live, can have more money and new opportunities to get ahead."

"It is outrageous that Democrat politicians would try to stop seniors, tipped workers, and people who work overtime from receiving this historic tax relief," Thune added.

RELATED: ‘Very low-IQ person’: Jasmine Crockett launches Senate campaign with funny video that may give the GOP the last laugh

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Thune speculated that the Democrats' refusal to embrace even Trump's most popular policies is rooted in an inexplicable "blind allegiance" to high taxes, or just plain old Trump derangement syndrome.

"Whether they are doing it because of Trump derangement syndrome or a blind allegiance to high-tax policies, Democrat leaders like Governor Mills, Hochul, and Pritzker are making explicitly clear that Democrats prioritize high taxes and regulatory burdens over the financial well-being of the people they represent," Thune added, referring to Governors Janet Mills of Maine, Kathy Hochul of New York, and J.B. Pritzker of Illinois.

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

Jeanine Pirro Provides Shocking Detail About 2 National Guardsmen Shot In DC

'Sarah and Andrew, I believe, were sworn in less than 24 hours before they were shot'

Suspect In National Guard Shooting Received Humanitarian Parole From Biden Admin

Lakanwal received humanitarian parole from the Biden administration

Gunman Who Shot National Guardsmen Identified As Afghan National

The suspect shouted “Allahu akbar!” before opening fire

Blue cities reject law, reject order — and reject America



Allow me to shock some of my readers by declaring my opposition to President Trump’s plan to send the National Guard into crime-ridden cities. My objection has nothing to do with constitutional authority. Having studied the matter, I believe the president does, in fact, have the power to deploy federal forces to address rising urban crime.

History also shows such interventions can work. The drop in violence in Washington, D.C., after federal forces arrived to restore order is evidence enough.

If residents wanted leaders who took crime seriously, they would vote for them. Their refusal to do so exposes their political priorities.

I also concede that a case can be made for this step in the District of Columbia. Washington is under congressional jurisdiction, and the president, operating within that framework, has made the city safer for residents, political leaders, and foreign visitors. The mayor has even expressed appreciation for the assistance, although the District’s electorate — heavily black, heavily Democratic, and deeply hostile to the administration — continues to seethe at the very idea of federal involvement.

And for the record, the president is entirely justified in directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to pursue illegal aliens with criminal records. These offenders have no right to remain in the United States, and the Democratic effort to preserve them as foot soldiers for the party is as cynical as it is transparent. The administration deserves credit for removing these “high-value” assets from the Democratic client network.

Ungrateful, unwanted

My problem arises with Trump’s call for federal intervention in cities where the local government — and most of the population — passionately opposes it. Even if the president can deploy the National Guard without a governor’s approval, prudence suggests he shouldn’t.

I can think of few officials more odious than Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) or Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (D). Yet both remain far more popular in their city than Trump or the GOP. Johnson’s approval is collapsing, but it is almost certain that whoever succeeds him will be another black or Hispanic Democrat who wins votes by railing against our supposedly “fascist” president.

Residents of Chicago’s most violent neighborhoods express emphatic disapproval of Trump’s plan. These are people who live amid constant danger yet habitually vote for leftist mayoral candidates. The same pattern holds in Portland, Charlotte, St. Louis, and Baltimore — cities Trump proposes to “liberate” with federal intervention.

Voters chose this

I cannot imagine why Trump should insert himself where voters clearly do not want him.

If residents wanted leaders who took crime seriously, they would vote for them. Their refusal to do so exposes their political priorities. I consider those priorities misguided and even self-destructive, but it is absurd to claim “the people are demanding” help when most are vocally rejecting it.

Voters should be allowed to live under the governments they choose. If they wanted different policies, they would stop electing Democrats who call for defunding the police, eliminating bail, and condemning crime prevention as racist. Despite the Fox News narrative, minorities who vote this way are not “victims” of Democratic manipulation. That idea is as fanciful as the GOP refrain that today’s Democratic Party is simply the slaveholding party of the 1830s. Voters who elect leftist Democrats are not trapped. They are expressing, clearly, the type of society they want.

RELATED: ‘He's not that smart’: Homan lampoons Chicago mayor for pleading with UN to intervene against ICE

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

The vote that counts most

Ben Shapiro recently said something that rattled some listeners but which I find eminently defensible: If you abhor the politics of the place where you live, move. He followed his own advice, leaving deep-blue California for increasingly red Florida. Some interpret this as a call to uproot families and abandon long-standing communities.

But what exactly is the alternative? Should the federal government override election results because a city or state radicalized itself? Should Trump nullify votes? That will not happen. Nor can we easily disenfranchise those who lawfully exercise the franchise and continue electing the mayors, prosecutors, and governors responsible for our collapsing urban order.

Those who reject the leftist agenda retain one real option: vote with their feet. This path frees citizens from majorities who have democratically chosen anarcho-tyranny — not only for themselves but for everyone else who lives under their jurisdiction.

If a community insists on preserving violent disorder, permissive prosecutors, and ideological governance, the federal government cannot save them from themselves. Only the voters can. And until they do, they deserve the government they support.

Iran’s freedom fighters put America’s No Kings clowns to shame



Liberals in the United States keep pretending to “resist” a democratically elected president they smear as an “authoritarian.” Meanwhile, real resistance fighters push back against a real authoritarian regime — in Iran.

For well-to-do white liberals, “resistance” amounts to a bumper sticker, a hashtag, a chant, and a safe protest march. No American faces arrest for opposing President Trump or his policies. Police never cracked down on thousands of No Kings demonstrators. The government never shut down the internet. No American risks execution for demanding new leadership.

Partisan voices push the false claim that Americans must choose between sending troops or doing nothing. Anyone who actually listens to Iranian dissidents knows better.

Iranian dissidents face all of that and more. Their resistance carries the cost of blood, freedom, and life.

Last weekend, I saw real resistance up close. More than 1,000 Iranian dissidents gathered in Washington, D.C., for the Free Iran Convention to plan for a future free from the mullahs’ rule. Panels featuring scholars, women, young activists, and even voices from inside Iran painted a picture of a regime on the brink.

As the regime clings to power, it leans harder on censorship, torture, and public executions to keep Iranians living in fear.

This crackdown unfolds against an economy collapsing under its own weight. More than 80% of Iranians live below the poverty line. Inflation punishes the entire country. Unemployment keeps climbing.

The harsher the repression, the more Iranians recognize the only path forward is regime change.

In 2018, 2019, and 2022, Iranians took to the streets in nationwide uprisings. Thousands died. Tens of thousands went to jail. As 2025 unfolds, the question no longer asks if another uprising comes — only when.

The West now faces its own question: Will we be ready to support the Iranian people when that moment arrives?

Here at home, partisan voices push the false claim that Americans must choose between sending troops or doing nothing. Anyone who actually listens to Iranian dissidents knows better.

A third option exists — the one championed by Maryam Rajavi and the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a coalition that rejects both the shah’s dictatorship and the mullahs’ theocracy.

Rajavi, elected by the NCRI as president for the transitional period after the ayatollah's ouster, puts it plainly:

Neither appeasement nor war, but regime change at the hands of the Iranian people and their organized, legitimate, and just resistance. We do not seek money or weapons. We only ask that this resistance be recognized.

This resistance already lives and breathes inside Iran. The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran stands as the largest and best-organized opposition movement in the country. Resistance units operate in all 31 provinces. They have carried out thousands of attacks on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij — the regime’s main instruments of suppression.

These units organize protests, strikes, and anti-regime campaigns. Their intelligence network exposed Tehran’s clandestine nuclear program and uncovered terrorist plots funded by the regime.

RELATED: America’s addiction to Chinese money runs deeper than we care to admit

Photo Illustration by Sheldon Cooper/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

The cost has been staggering. Since 1981, the regime has killed more than 100,000 PMOI/MEK members. Countless others have been imprisoned, tortured, or targeted in state-funded smear campaigns.

The idea of negotiating with the Iranian regime belongs to the realm of fantasy. No meaningful difference separates so-called hard-liners from so-called moderates. Both factions produce economic ruin at home and terrorism abroad. Young Iranians see the truth plainly.

During the Free Iran convention, Seena Saiedian — an Iranian American and law student at the University of Virginia — captured the desperation:

The landscape for the youth in Iran is bleak: hyperinflation, high unemployment, censorship, repression. Iranian youth see no hope for moderating or reforming the current regime. By every metric, life gets worse. The root cause of every challenge Iran’s youth face is the current regime.

The Iranian dictatorship will collapse. History guarantees that. The only question: Will the United States shorten the Iranian people’s suffering or extend the mullahs’ reign of terror?

If we want a secular, democratic Iran — one capable of fostering peace in the region — we must say clearly that no negotiation can salvage the current regime. No deal will reform it. No diplomatic fantasy can tame it.

We must tell the Iranian people and the brave resistance units operating inside the country that the United States stands ready to recognize their efforts and their right to chart a future for a free Iran.

The United States doesn’t need to send money, weapons, or troops. The regime is already on the brink of collapse. The Iranian people are already mobilizing. They need moral clarity from the West — not silence, appeasement, or more excuses.

Supporting freedom against tyranny is the American way. It always has been. And standing with the people of Iran honors the moral foundations that built this nation.