Trump caught on live TV completely mesmerized watching himself on Fox News
Trump spent his Fourth of July doing what he loves most: watching Trump.
What had him so captivated? His own image on the very Fox News broadcast airing at that moment.
The network’s biggest names, including Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Bret Baier, and Brian Kilmeade, spent roughly a full minute calling on him to turn around and wave on live television.
“We see you, hi Mr. President! ” Harris Faulkner called out.
“See if he turns around for us! ” Kilmeade shouted.
On a day meant to celebrate the country, Trump gave America a perfect picture of his presidency: hypnotized by his own face on TV
Because the feed on Trump’s television was delayed by about 50 seconds, viewers watched the moment the panel’s calls finally reached his screen. Trump stood frozen, eyes locked on himself, without turning around or lifting a hand.
“We’re kind of waiting for the president to wave, but that’s okay,” a deflated Baier admitted as the network cut to commercial.
On a day meant to celebrate the country, Trump gave America a perfect picture of his presidency: hypnotized by his own face on TV
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday gave President Donald Trump’s administration another big win.
The nation’s highest court tossed a Biden administration ruling that regulated efficiency standards for furnaces and water heaters. In American Gas Association v. Department of Energy, justices on the high court vacated the District of Columbia district court’s ruling, which had upheld the Biden administration’s decision to enforce regulations on non-condensing appliances.
Lawyers for the American Gas Association and other trade groups said the Biden administration’s rules wrongly regulated the sale of commercial water heaters and furnaces. “The Department may not adopt standards that effectively eliminate from the market products that have distinct ‘performance characteristics,’” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in a brief to the high court.
The U. S. Supreme Court said that the D. C. district court should think again about its decision to uphold the Biden administration’s choice. The Trump administration asked the high court to overturn the decision.
Sauer said the Trump administration is thinking about how to get rid of the rules from the Biden administration that are at issue in the case. “The Department has determined that the rules at issue are factually and legally flawed, and the agency is considering a new rulemaking in which it would correct those errors,” Sauer wrote.
The case will return to the D. C. district court for further decision-making, where judges will likely issue a different ruling in light of the high court’s decision.
This Supreme Court ruling is a critical rebuke to years of unchecked bureaucratic overreach by the Biden administration. Biden officials sought to use environmental pretexts to dictate what Americans can buy for their own homes — from furnaces and water heaters to basic showerheads. This is the second blow to Biden’s liberal agenda.
The House of Representatives voted 226–197 on Wednesday to repeal Biden-era restrictions on household showerheads. The vote marks a bipartisan victory for
Republicans who say they are defending consumer choice against excessive federal regulation. The measure — formally titled the Saving Homeowners from Overregulation with Exceptional Rinsing Act, or SHOWER Act — drew support from 11 Democrats who joined the GOP majority in approving the bill. “Washington bureaucrats have gone too far in dictating what happens in Americans’ own homes,” said Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC) who sponsored the legislation.
“This is about defending consumer choice, pushing back on regulatory overreach, and standing up for
commonsense policy,” Fry added. The issue is a Biden-era interpretation of water-use standards that limited the combined flow rate of multi-nozzle shower systems, which effectively reduced water pressure per head in households that use multiple fixtures. The Department of Energy rule, finalized under former President Biden, required the total flow from all nozzles in a single shower unit to remain below the federal cap of 2. 5 gallons per minute — a standard that had remained largely unchanged since 1992. Republicans said the rule typified a broader effort by Democratic administrations to
regulate everyday life through the Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency.
“It seems like the Democrats want to tax you out of existence and overregulate you,” said Rep. John McGuire (R-VA). “So, this is a step in the right direction. Less regulation.” The SHOWER Act would codify an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in April of last year, which restored an earlier definition allowing each shower nozzle to be treated as its own “shower head” under federal law. That Trump directive effectively increased available water pressure for multi-head
fixtures and gave consumers more discretion in choosing their setups. “By codifying how different nozzles are categorized, the SHOWER Act offers a commonsense fix that will allow households to choose what meets their needs, not what Washington mandates,” said Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The world stopped breathing. With one Truth Social post, Donald Trump claimed the U.S. had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites, including Fordo—and global leaders scrambled into crisis mode. Iran vowed it “reserves all options.” Allies whispered of red lines crossed. Enemies spoke of revenge. In New York, at the UN, delegates stared at screens in horrified disbeli…
Trump’s declaration of a “very successful attack” on Iranian nuclear facilities instantly shattered any illusion of stability. In Tehran, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the strike
as “outrageous” and “criminal,” warning that Iran would respond under its right to self-defense. The language was cold, legalistic—and full of menace. “Reserves all options” was heard in every capital as a thinly veiled threat of escalation, maybe far beyond the region.
In Jerusalem and Washington, some hailed it as a historic victory, a decisive blow against a long-feared nuclear threat. But in European capitals, the mood was grim. Diplomats spoke of a world slipping back toward the brink, of treaties turned to ash overnight. At the United Nations, ambassadors weighed every word, knowing a single misstep could turn a dangerous moment into irreversible catastrophe. The world, once again, waited to see who would move next.
BREAKING: Mother Nature crashes Trump’s July 4th spectacle with 100-degree heat and a thunderstorm, forcing evacuation
Nobody invited Mother Nature to Trump’s 250th birthday party for America, but she showed up anyway, and she did not come in peace.
Mother Nature looked at all of it and said absolutely not.
First came the heat. Temperatures soared past 100 degrees across the east coast, forcing the abrupt cancellation of Saturday’s Independence Day parade through the capital, one day after Philadelphia canceled its parade too, in the very city where the Declaration of Independence was signed.
Then came the storm. As thousands of spectators who spent hours getting through security filed onto the Mall, dark clouds rolled in and the evacuation order went out. Many refused to leave at first, chanting “We want Trump!
” as the sky turned menacing. An hour later, the Secret Service ordered everyone out to a chorus of boos.
The military flyovers were canceled mid event
The crowd in MAGA hats ended up huddled under government building overhangs as rain and thunder took over the National Mall. The speech never happened.
Mother Nature did not ask for credit. She did not hold a press conference. She simply looked at Trump’s plan to make America’s 250th birthday all about himself and rained it out.
We would like to personally thank her for her service. See less
Happy 250th Birthday, America! On this Independence Day, millions of patriots across the
nation are celebrating the greatest country in the history of the world. From sea to shining sea, we honor the courage of our founders and the freedom they secured for us through blood, sweat, and unwavering faith.
No other nation has delivered more opportunity, innovation, and liberty to its people and the world.
Today we wave our flags high with pride. Thank you to every American who stands for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. May the next 250 years be even greater as we recommit to the principles that built this shining city on a hill.
New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani sharply condemned the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday after it allowed the Trump administration to move forward with ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants. “The Supreme Court just sparked one of the largest attacks on immigrants in modern American history,” Mamdani
said in a statement. “In one fell swoop, thousands of Haitians and Syrians now risk losing the right to live and work in the country they call home.” The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision allows the Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians who have been legally living and working in
the United States.
Mamdani argued the decision would have an especially significant impact on New York City. “These are people who fled earthquakes, famine, war and political violence,” he said. “People who came to this country looking for freedom, safety and democracy.” “They built lives here. They raised families here. They opened small businesses,
attended church and mosque, looked after their neighbors. America is home.”
The mayor said New York City would continue supporting immigrants affected by the ruling. “To the tens of thousands of New Yorkers with TPS who are watching the news, frightened about what comes next, hear me clearly: New York City is your home. You belong here. We will not
turn our backs on you.” He said the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs would soon provide additional guidance and directed immigrants seeking assistance to the city’s legal support hotline.
Background on Temporary Protected Status
Temporary Protected Status was created by Congress in 1990 to shield people from deportation if their home countries are
experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions. Haiti has been designated for TPS since 2010 following its devastating earthquake, while Syria has held the designation since 2012 because of its civil war. The Supreme Court’s decision directly affects Haitian and Syrian beneficiaries but could signal the court’s willingness
to uphold the Trump administration’s broader effort to end TPS protections for roughly 1.3 million immigrants from 17 countries.
The administration has already moved to terminate TPS for about one million people from 13 countries, including roughly 650,000 Venezuelans and 50,000 Hondurans. Decisions are still pending for approximately 200,000 Salvadorans
and 100,000 Ukrainians whose protections expire in the coming months. The Trump administration argued that the Department of Homeland Security-not the courts-has sole authority to determine whether TPS protections should continue. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority agreed, allowing the administration to move forward.
Steps
Immigration attorneys warned the decision could have far-reaching consequences. “The decision is definitely bad news,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of UCLA’s Center for Immigration Law and Policy, who represented Syrian TPS holders. “The implication of this is that at least most of the claims that have been litigated to challenge this
administration’s sort of illegal war on TPS are now foreclosed.” Lawyers representing TPS recipients maintain that both Haiti and Syria remain unsafe due to ongoing instability and argue the administration failed to properly evaluate conditions before ending the protections.
Supreme Court rulings generally become effective 32 days after issuance, and
the case must first return to the lower courts to implement the decision. That means Haitian and Syrian TPS holders are expected to retain their work authorization until at least late July. Advocates are encouraging those affected to explore other legal pathways, including asylum or employment-based visas, though they acknowledge those options have
become increasingly limited, The Associated Press reported. Others are urging Congress to intervene. “We also call on Congress to immediately restore these vital humanitarian protections that the TPS program represents,” attorney Melissa Keenan said, “for the sake of our clients and TPS holders, their families, and all of our communities.”
President Donald Trump and several of his allies are discussing a congressional effort to expunge his two impeachments, a symbolic move that supporters say would correct what they view as partisan actions while critics argue cannot erase historical events.
According to people familiar with the discussions, lawmakers are considering introducing a resolution
that would declare Trump’s 2019 and 2021 impeachments void.
The proposal would carry little legal effect because the Constitution provides no mechanism for reversing an impeachment once it has occurred.
“It should be done because I did nothing wrong,” Trump said in a phone interview this week.
“It was a rigged deal—it was a whole rigged situation,” he
added.
Trump later downplayed his own involvement in the initiative, saying, “If they want to do it, I’m honored by it.”
The effort is not expected to move forward until after the November election, according to people familiar with the discussions.
Even then, several Republican lawmakers have acknowledged that securing enough votes to pass such a resolution
could prove difficult.
House Speaker Mike Johnson confirmed he has discussed the proposal with Trump and other legal allies of the president.
Johnson said he has also spoken with Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz and conservative attorney Jay Sekulow, who represented Trump during his first impeachment proceedings.
“I think it makes a lot
of sense the more the evidence comes out, the more we know they really were sham impeachments,” Johnson said.
“It is a priority and something that Congress should make right,” he added.
Trump became the first president in U.S. history to be impeached twice.
The first impeachment occurred in December 2019 after the Democratic-controlled House charged him
with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over allegations that he pressured Ukraine to investigate then-presidential candidate Joe Biden.
The Senate later acquitted Trump on both articles.
In January 2021, just days before leaving office, the House impeached Trump again on a charge of incitement of insurrection following the Jan. 6 attack on the
The Senate again acquitted him after he had already left office.
The current proposal fits into a broader effort by Trump and his legal team to challenge various legal actions taken against him over the past several years.
His attorneys continue to seek reversal of his New York criminal conviction related to business records and have pursued
appeals in several civil cases.
The concept of expunging the impeachments has circulated among Republicans for years.
In 2023, then-Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Rep. Elise Stefanik introduced similar resolutions that failed to advance.
Interest reportedly intensified after the Trump administration declassified materials related to the investigation
surrounding Trump’s first impeachment.
Conservative journalist John Solomon and attorney Alan Dershowitz have argued that newly released information undermines key witnesses and could justify congressional action.
“I don’t see any reason why it couldn’t be done,” Dershowitz said in comments later shared by Trump on social media.
Dershowitz has also acknowledged
uncertainty about whether Congress possesses such authority.
“Nobody knows the answer,” he said.
Other legal scholars strongly disagree.
Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina, dismissed the proposal as legally baseless.
“It’s an absurd idea,” Gerhardt said. “It’s in the history books.”
“Historically, nobody
thought that Congress had this power, because Congress doesn’t have this power,” he added.
Supporters argue that a resolution would serve as a formal statement that the impeachments were politically motivated and should not stand as part of Trump’s legacy.
Critics counter that impeachment votes are completed constitutional actions that cannot be undone
through later congressional resolutions, The Wall Street Journal reported.
While any expungement measure would likely have no practical legal impact, it would reopen debate over two of the most contentious episodes of Trump’s presidency and could become another flashpoint in the ongoing political battle over his legacy.
