Latest News
Catherine Zeta-Jones and the U.S. Homeownership Divide
Catherine Zeta-Jones, born in Swansea, Wales, to working-class parents, came from humble beginnings. She told The Sunday Times that she and her husband, Michael Douglas, enjoy a life of homeownership with four properties: one in Canada, one in Spain, and two in New York — a country house and an apartment. She said, “I know it sounds very jet set, and I love to surround myself with beauty but it’s not excessive, it’s very comfortable.” The couple spends much of their time in Spain. Michael, now 80 and retired from acting, says he likes to “watch my wife work.” The lifestyle of celebrities like Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas, with multiple properties around the world, stands in sharp contrast to the reality for most people. Their story raises a bigger question: what does homeownership actually look like for ordinary Americans today? (RELATED: Kimmel’s Italian Citizenship: Turning Away From America) How Many Americans Are Homeowners? According to Realtor.com, 65.1% were homeowners in the first quarter of 2025. That figure is down 0.06 percentage points from the last quarter of 2024 and 0.05 from the same time last year. The rate has stayed above 62.9% since 1965, with the peak at 69.2% in 2004. Housegrail.com shows that home ownership varies by region: 62% in northeastern states like Maine and Pennsylvania 67% in the southeast and south-central U.S., from Virginia to Texas 71% in north-central states like North Dakota and Minnesota 60% in the west, from Washington to New Mexico Mortgages and Second Homes In 2023, only 39.8% of homes were mortgage-free. Mississippi and West Virginia had the highest share of mortgaged homes. California, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Virginia, and Massachusetts had the lowest. Housegrail states, “approximately 2.7% of the 78.7 million occupied homes are second homes — about 1.5 million properties. Vacant homes make up 11% of the national total.” While many Americans struggle to pay off a single mortgage, a growing number of wealthy buyers are looking beyond U.S. borders and investing in property overseas. Americans Buying Property Abroad A 2022 Coldwell Banker survey found that 67% of affluent Americans already owned investment property abroad. The largest share was held by those 55 and older. Overseas properties owned by U.S. citizens: 47,000 homes in 2019 29,800 homes in 2020 53,500 homes in 2021 61,000 homes in 2022 Top destinations to buy a home: Central America – 23% (Belize 16.2%, Costa Rica 15.2%, Honduras 15.2%, Panama 14.3%, El Salvador 13.7%, Guatemala 13.2%, Nicaragua 12.2%) North America (Canada & Mexico) – 20.5% Asia – 20.4% South America – 18.1% Europe – 14.1% Australia & New Zealand – 10.8% Caribbean – 9.4% Main reasons for buying a home abroad: rising cost of living (26.5%), surging home prices (26.5%), political climate (25.6%), and strong dollar (20.8%). While affluent buyers like Catherine Zeta-Jones and others expand their portfolios abroad, younger generations in the U.S. are finding it harder than ever to afford even a first home. The Homeownership Reality for Young Americans Younger generations are far less likely to own homes than their parents at the same age, according to Motley Fool Money: Millennials (age 27–42 in 2024): 51.5% own homes, much lower than Gen X and Boomers at the same age. Baby Boomers: At age 30, around 60% owned homes. By their early 40s, about 70%. Gen Z (under 27 years old): Only a small share own homes, in the single digits to low teens. These numbers show a sharp generational divide, but they also beg the question: why are young Americans falling so far behind? Why Young People Struggle Housing Costs: Home prices have outpaced wages. Student Debt: Younger buyers carry more education debt. Delayed Milestones: Many aren’t getting married or having kids. If they do, it’s delayed. Mortgage Barriers: High interest rates from 2022–2024 worsened affordability in recent years. Young Americans face steep barriers, making homeownership — once a standard milestone — harder to reach than ever. (RELATED: Post-COVID Homeowners Are In Dire Financial Situation And No One Is Talking About It) The Future of the American Dream From celebrities like Catherine Zeta-Jones with homes around the world to young Americans struggling to buy their first home, housing in 2025 shows a sharp divide. For many, homeownership is still the dream. But for younger generations, it feels further away than ever. For homeownership to become more attainable, interest rates must come down. Higher borrowing costs have crushed affordability and reduced purchasing power. Lower rates would ease monthly payments, open the market to first-time buyers, and make homeownership a reality for those just starting out. Without real relief, the next generation risks becoming a generation of renters, locked out of ownership and the wealth-building it brings. With the right economic conditions, however, young Americans could finally begin to turn the tide. Forget the Headlines. Challenge the Script. Deliver the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t tiptoe through talking points — we swing a machete through the media’s favorite lies. They protect power. We confront it. If you’re sick of censorship, narrative control, and being told what to think — stand with us. Share the story. Wake the people. Because truth dies in silence — and you weren’t made to stay quiet.
Trump and His ‘Art of the Deal’ for Ukraine Peace
President Trump met with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday to see if a deal could be reached to end the war in Ukraine. After the meeting, Trump told European allies that Putin proposed Russia take full control of the Donbas region. This move, Putin argued, would stop the fighting and bring peace. A European diplomat told Fox News that “President Trump supports the terms of this proposal.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, pushed back on that claim on “Sunday Morning Futures,” saying, “The president has said that, in terms of territories, these are things that Zelenskyy is going to have to decide on. These are things that the Ukrainian side is going to have to agree to.” Another masterclass from Secretary Marco Rubio. A must watch! pic.twitter.com/7NY6EHZHyh — Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) August 17, 2025 Donbas at the Heart of the Deal The Donbas region, home to 6.5 million people, includes Luhansk and Donetsk, according to the Ukrainian Research Institute of Harvard University. Ukraine still holds about 30% of Donetsk. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has vowed not to surrender that land. He insists giving up Donbas would be unconstitutional and warns it could enable future Russian offensives. NOW – Zelensky says Ukraine’s constitution makes giving up land “impossible,” and should only be discussed at a trilateral meeting; if Russia “refuses,” more sanctions “must” be imposed. pic.twitter.com/7wicKa5erW — Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) August 17, 2025 Despite this, Trump urged Zelenskyy to accept Putin’s offer. Zelenskyy will meet Trump at the White House on Monday to discuss the peace proposal. Trump Shifts Toward Peace Agreement Trump initially supported a ceasefire. But after his talks with Putin, he shifted toward a full peace deal. Russia, Trump said, wants a long-term settlement, not just a temporary fix. On Truth Social, Trump said on Saturday: “It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.” On Sunday, he said, “BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA. STAY TUNED! President DJT.” Mixed Reaction From Europe European leaders reacted cautiously. While they did not endorse Putin’s plan, they praised Trump’s leadership in seeking peace. (RELATED : The Trade Deal That Changed Everything: U.S.–EU Breakthrough) German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told ZDF television, “And the good news is that America is ready to participate in such security guarantees and is not leaving it to the Europeans alone.” About the possibility of a peace agreement, he said, “If that works out, it’s worth more than a ceasefire.” The European Commission issued a statement on Trump’s efforts, saying they: “welcomed President Trump’s efforts to stop the killing in Ukraine, end Russia’s war of aggression, and achieve just and lasting peace.” But skepticism remained. Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský posted: “From Putin, we heard the same propagandistic nonsense about the ‘roots of the conflict’ that his state television promotes. The problem is Russian imperialism, not Ukraine’s desire to live freely.” (RELATED: Alaska Hosts Historic Summit Between Trump and Putin) EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas posted on X: “President Trump’s resolve to get a peace deal is vital. The EU and our European partners worked to coordinate with President Trump ahead of Alaska meeting. But the harsh reality is that Russia has no intention of ending this war anytime soon.” Hungarian Prime Minister and friend of Trump, Viktor Orban expressed optimism, writing: “For years we have watched the two biggest nuclear powers dismantle the framework of their cooperation and shoot unfriendly messages back and forth. That has now come to an end. Today the world is a safer place than it was yesterday. May every weekend be at least this good!” Putin and Zelenskyy Respond Putin said his talk with Trump was “very frank.” He added: “We, of course, respect the position of the American administration, which sees the need for a speedy end to military actions. We would like to move to resolving all issues by peaceful means.” Several European leaders will join Zelenskyy in Washington by invitation of President Trump to continue negotiations for a peace deal and to keep them part of the process, as they are close to the region. On Sunday, Zelenskyy met in Brussels with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who will travel with him. Zelenskyy posted on X: “We agreed on the necessity of a ceasefire for subsequent diplomatic steps, effective security guarantees for Ukraine, and continued sanctions pressure on Russia.” I had an important meeting with President of the European Commission @vonderleyen in Brussels. Significant support for Ukraine in the context of the upcoming meeting with President Trump. Today, together and in several formats, we are determining what we will discuss in… pic.twitter.com/I8doSrACqR — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 17, 2025 Tomorrow will be the day to watch. Will Trump be able to make progress with Zelenskyy? Up to this point, he has been unwilling to make concessions. It remains to be seen if both sides can agree on a lasting deal. If anyone can make it happen, it is the Dealmaker-in-Chief. For him, negotiation is an art form he has long mastered. Forget the Headlines. Challenge the Script. Deliver the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t tiptoe through talking points — we swing a machete through the media’s favorite lies. They protect power. We confront it. If you’re sick of censorship, narrative control, and being told what to think — stand with us. Share the story. Wake the people. Because truth dies in silence — and you weren’t made to stay quiet.
Hunter Biden Mocks Melania Trump’s $1B Defamation Lawsuit
Biden Responds to Defamation Threat Hunter Biden isn’t backing down. On Thursday, the former first son responded to Melania Trump’s threat of a $1 billion defamation lawsuit. The claim stems from his statement that Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump. His answer was blunt: “F— that. That’s not going to happen,” he told Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan on YouTube. First Lady Melania Trump has threatened to sue Hunter Biden for $1B unless he retracts his false Epstein claims. “F**k that, that’s not going to happen.” – Hunter Biden Hunter is a low-life loser who belongs in a prison cell. Sue him into oblivion, Melania! pic.twitter.com/cTPE3aXnea — Christian Collins (@CollinsforTX) August 14, 2025 Public Challenge and Refusal to Retract “I also think they’re bullies, and they think that a billion dollars is going to scare me,” he said. “If they want to sit down for a deposition and clarify the nature of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein — if the president, the first lady want to do that, and all of the known associates around them at the time of whatever time that they met, I’m more than happy to provide them the platform to be able to do it.” (MORE NEWS: Kimmel’s Italian Citizenship: Turning Away From America) Biden made it clear he wouldn’t retract his comments. He brushed off Melania Trump’s warning and doubled down during the interview. He framed the lawsuit threat as intimidation and showed no signs of backing down. Legal Demands and Early Retractions Melania Trump’s legal team sent Biden a formal notice the day before the interview. The letter stated that he could be sued for defamation if he didn’t withdraw the comments. Two others also received similar warnings: James Carville and The Daily Beast. Both complied quickly. Carville deleted an episode of his podcast and issued an apology after speculating about a possible Epstein connection. The Daily Beast removed its article. Unlike Biden, they backed down immediately. Details of the Demand Letter Fox News obtained details of the August 6 demand letter written by Melania Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito. In the letter, Brito wrote: “Failure to comply will leave Mrs. Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to her to recover the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that you have caused her to suffer.” Brito gave Biden a deadline of August 7, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. to issue a full retraction and apology. The letter also accused Biden of trying to profit off Melania’s name and reputation. “Given your vast history of trading on the names of others – including your surname – for your personal benefit, it is obvious that you published these false and defamatory statements about Mrs. Trump to draw attention to yourself,” Brito wrote. Source Material and Public Record Biden defended his comments by citing several sources. (More News: EPA Pushes Green New Deal Into Political Obscurity) “What I said was what I have heard and seen, reported and written, primarily from Michael Wolff, but also dating back all the way to 2019 when the New York Times, I think … reported that sources said that Jeffrey Epstein claimed to be the person to introduce Donald Trump to Melania at that time,” he said in the interview that dropped Thursday. Michael Wolff is known for making controversial and unverified claims about Donald Trump. The 2019 New York Times reference added more fuel to a rumor that’s long been denied by the Trumps. Competing Accounts and Escalating Stakes Both Donald and Melania Trump have firmly denied the Epstein rumor. They maintain that they met in 1998 during New York Fashion Week at a party hosted by Paolo Zampolli at the Kit Kat Club. In her memoir, Melania Trump described their first meeting. She said Trump sat down next to her and started a conversation. “I found myself drawn to his magnetic energy,” she wrote. The couple married in 2005. Despite that timeline, Biden’s remarks have put the former first lady in a defensive position. And now that the deadline has passed with no apology or retraction, it’s unclear whether her legal team will file suit. President Trump’s Reaction President Trump confirmed his support for Melania’s lawsuit on Thursday, saying her told her to “go forward.” “I said, go forward. You know, I’ve done pretty well on these lawsuits lately. Jeffrey Epstein has nothing to do with Melania and I introducing. But they do that. They make up stories,” he told Brian Kilmeade on Fox News radio. Legal Exposure and Political Implications Biden’s refusal to retract has now moved from warning to reality. He continues to dismiss the legal threat and to stand by his statements. That could bring serious legal consequences. If Melania sues and proves her case, the damages could be massive. Biden is no stranger to legal battles. In January, hs father, former President Joe Biden pardoned him before two federal judges in California and Delaware were scheduled to sentence him on separate convictions. Without the pardon, he faced significant prison time. Hunter also sued multiple people for defamation. His targets included Garrett Ziegler, founder of Marco Polo, and Patrick Byrne, former owner of Overstock.com, over the salacious content of a laptop he left with a repairman in Delaware. He allegedly dropped the lawsuits because he ran out of money to pay his attorneys. With the deadline gone and no retraction, the fight could land in court. Legal experts note that public figures like Melania must prove “actual malice” in defamation cases — meaning the defendant knowingly lied or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That’s a high bar, but not impossible. For now, Biden shows no sign of backing down. Melania’s team is equally firm. Whether the dispute ends with a retraction or a courtroom showdown, the feud between the former first son and the former first lady is set to keep making headlines. Cut through the noise. Drown out the spin. Deliver the truth. At…
Kimmel’s Italian Citizenship: Turning Away From America
Jimmy Kimmel Chooses Italian Citizenship Jimmy Kimmel, the well-known late-night host, recently revealed that he has obtained Italian citizenship. At 57, Kimmel took this step through his grandmother, who was originally from Italy. Why? He says it’s because of President Trump and policies he strongly disagrees with. On Sarah Silverman’s podcast—Silverman is a longtime friend and former girlfriend—Kimmel shared his thoughts about the current state of America. He said things are much worse than he expected. “A lot of people I know are thinking about where are they going to get citizenship?” Silverman said. (RELATED: Trump: New Census Will Omit Illegal Immigrants) “I did get Italian citizenship,” Kimmel replied. He added, “As bad as you thought it was going to be — it’s so much worse. It’s just unbelievable. I feel like it’s even worse than he would like it to be.” See Ya! Late night host Jimmy Kimmel announces he has secured Italian citizenship – declares Donald Trump’s presidency is “so much worse” than he ever imagined. Can we hope he will ACTUALLY leave the country? pic.twitter.com/Q1cPTRlcg1 — Conservative Brief (@ConservBrief) August 9, 2025 Choosing Another Country Over Your Own Kimmel’s choice raises a serious question: why would a U.S. citizen, with every right and opportunity here, seek citizenship elsewhere? He does not have work overseas. He is a public figure who is choosing a second country because of political policies he disagrees with. This is part of a “fashionable” trend. Celebrities like Rosie O’Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres have also pursued citizenship in other countries. The message is clear: America is easy for some to give up if policies are inconvenient or uncomfortable. Instead of staying and fighting for their beliefs, they choose to leave. Dual Citizenship and Loyalty Dual citizenship has long allowed people to live, work, and vote in two countries—depending on the laws and residency requirements of the other country. But this can create a conflict of interest. If two countries have opposing policies, where does your loyalty lie? Full allegiance should always remain with the United States. Kimmel’s decision highlights this debate. When public figures turn their back on their home country, it sends a message that America is not worth defending or supporting. (MORE NEWS: SNAP Soda Ban: Ending Taxpayer Junk Food Subsidies) Immigration Rules Abroad Kimmel’s decision also underscores a reality many ignore: other countries do not welcome immigrants as freely as some assume. Many have strict guidelines for immigration—including secure borders. Many European countries actively deport illegal immigrants. Italy deports asylum seekers to Albania and strictly controls immigration. Ireland also has strict immigration laws and has deported Nigerian nationals and others. Most countries protect their borders and citizens, and some that face immigration challenges are actively working to correct them. Americans considering foreign citizenship often overlook these restrictions. Kimmel’s move benefits from his heritage and elite celebrity status. The average U.S. citizen would not find the same opportunities. Kimmel Keeping an Open Mind on Former Trump Supporters Despite his harsh views of President Trump, Kimmel defended the right to reconsider one’s stance. “Now you see these clips of Joe Rogan saying, ‘Why is he doing this? Why are you deporting people?’ And people go, ‘…you supported him.’ I don’t buy into that,” Kimmel said. “The door has to stay open. If you want to change your mind, that’s so hard to do. If you want to admit you were wrong, that is so hard and so rare to do. You are welcome.” Contrary to what this statement implies, Rogan questioning Trump’s deportation efforts doesn’t mean he is no longer a Trump supporter. People can disagree with specific policies or actions while still supporting the administration overall. The Real Cost of Convenience Policies may change, leaders may come and go, but walking away from the United States out of protest—or as a virtue signal—is not the solution. Americans enjoy freedoms and opportunities that no other country provides. Choosing another country reflects disloyalty to the very nation that gave them the platform they are now using to criticize it. Kimmel’s story is not just about one celebrity. It illustrates a larger discussion about loyalty, dual citizenship, and the responsibilities Americans have to their own country. Leaving the U.S. demonstrates that, in difficult times, some Americans prioritize personal comfort over national pride. Should dual citizenship be allowed? Some say no. And if it is allowed, should those individuals retain the right to vote in U.S. elections? If their total allegiance is not to the United States, probably not. The fact remains that only the elite can afford to pack up and move to a different country when they dislike how things are going. It’s not a realistic option for most people, and that further exemplifies the divide between Hollywood and real life. And let’s be honest—someone should probably tell him who the current Prime Minister of Italy is. Unmask the Narrative. Rip Through the Lies. Spread the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t polish propaganda — we tear it to shreds. The corporate press censors, spins, and sugarcoats. We don’t. If you’re tired of being misled, silenced, and spoon-fed fiction, help us expose what they try to hide. Truth matters — but only if it’s heard. So share this. Shake the silence. And remind the powerful they don’t own the story.
SNAP Soda Ban: Ending Taxpayer Junk Food Subsidies
The push to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) has made significant strides with the signing of waivers by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins. These waivers allow 12 states to ban the purchase of sugary drinks, candy, and desserts using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) vouchers, which are intended to help low-income families access nutritious food. This move marks a pivotal step in ending taxpayer subsidies for junk food. Six new states are joining the MAHA movement! Yesterday at the Great American Farmers Market, @secrollins and @seckennedy signed food choice state waivers for West Virginia , Florida, Colorado, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to remove unhealthy foods from SNAP.… pic.twitter.com/Q8sAqaDBQP — Dept. of Agriculture (@USDA) August 5, 2025 A Bold Step in SNAP Reform These states have approval and are now set to remove high-calorie, nutrient-poor foods from SNAP: Florida, West Virginia, Colorado, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Iowa, Nebraska, Arkansas, Indiana, and Idaho. This reform comes amid President Trump’s broader initiative to tackle the nation’s rising health crisis and prioritize food quality. “The number one purchase by SNAP recipients is sugary drinks,” said Secretary Rollins. “SNAP is a supplemental NUTRITION program, meant to provide health food benefits to low-income families to supplement their grocery budget, so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being.” .@SecRollins announces the signing of waivers removing unhealthy foods from SNAP in six more states: “SNAP is a supplemental NUTRITION program meant to provide health food benefits to low income families… the law states it and @POTUS‘ @USDA plans to deliver on it.” pic.twitter.com/Mby4uoQIdu — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) August 4, 2025 Despite the progress, implementing this policy at the federal level remains a challenge. Many lobbyists are fiercely advocating for the continuation of junk food eligibility, making it an uphill battle. Yet, the states are leading the charge, and 12 have now taken action, with 38 more to go. (RELATED: Tracy Beanz Reveals MAHA’s Mission & What Comes Next In Fascinating Interview) A Nationwide Call to Action Each state follows its own process to determine which foods are unhealthy and should be excluded. After this, they submit a formal request for approval from the USDA. The new food bans will take effect in 2026. The Trump administration is actively encouraging more states to apply for waivers, with each state playing a key role in shaping the future of SNAP. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary joined Rollins in announcing these waivers. Their support underscores the significance of this initiative in tackling the nation’s growing obesity and diabetes crisis. Ending the Sugar Subsidy Dr. Makary emphasized the importance of focusing on healthier alternatives to junk food, stating, “This begins the end of the government subsidization of our obesity, diabetes, insulin resistance epidemic.” He urged a national focus on the nutritional quality of food, rather than relying on medications to address the health crisis. “Forty percent of our nation’s kids now have a diagnosed chronic disease,” Dr. Makary added. “Thirty-one percent have diabetes, pre-diabetes, or insulin resistance. We have to talk about nutrients and fiber, not just Ozempic and other medications to medicate our nation.” Support for States and Local Leaders SNAP reform is a direct result of proactive state leadership. Governors from West Virginia, Florida, and other states have stepped up, requesting waivers and setting an example for the rest of the nation. Dr. Makary also praised the initiative, stating, “I hope to see all 50 states join this bold commonsense approach. For too long, the root causes of our chronic disease epidemic has been addressed with lip service only. It’s time for powerful changes to our nation’s SNAP program.” (MORE NEWS: Sweeney ‘Good Jeans’ Outrage Explained) What’s Next for MAHA? As the USDA and the Trump administration push forward with their efforts to reform SNAP, the question remains: Will other states follow suit? The battle is far from over. With 38 states still to act, the momentum needs to continue. But the steps taken up to this point have proven that meaningful change is possible. “It’s time for a change,” said RFK Jr. “And we’re seeing that change happen, state by state. We’re putting real food back at the center of SNAP, empowering states to lead the way in protecting public health.” Changing the Status Quo The fight to Make America Healthy Again is a real, tangible effort to reshape the way we view food, health, and public policy. With the signing of these waivers, we are witnessing the first steps toward a future where healthier food choices are accessible and where taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. As more states join this movement, the impact on public health could be profound. This is not just about banning soda and candy—it’s about changing the narrative around nutrition and ensuring that the poorest Americans are no longer subsidizing the very foods that contribute to chronic disease. The journey has just begun, but with the leadership of Secretary Rollins, Dr. Makary, and Secretary Kennedy, America is taking significant strides toward a healthier future. Forget the Headlines. Challenge the Script. Deliver the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t tiptoe through talking points — we swing a machete through the media’s favorite lies. They protect power. We confront it. If you’re sick of censorship, narrative control, and being told what to think — stand with us. Share the story. Wake the people. Because truth dies in silence — and you weren’t made to stay quiet.
BREAKING ALERT: Crime in D.C.: Trump’s Historic Action to Restore Order
President Donald Trump made bold moves to address the escalating crime in Washington, D.C. His recent actions come in response to the rising violence, car thefts, and carjackings plaguing the city. Trump signed an Executive Order and outlined a comprehensive plan to restore law and order, signaling a new era of federal intervention in local crime control. (RELATED: Trump Takes On Crime in D.C.) The D.C. Crime Crisis The crime rate in Washington, D.C., has reached alarming levels. Trump pointed out that “The murder rate in Washington today is higher than that of Bogota, Columbia, Mexico City…” He continued, “The number of car thefts has doubled over the past five years, and the number of carjackings has more than tripled.” These shocking statistics underscore the urgent need for action. FACT: D.C. Crime Is Out of Control. ⬇️ Our nation’s capital should be a symbol of patriotism for the American people—NOT a city of lawlessness. It ends today. pic.twitter.com/TdLERGXVVP — The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 11, 2025 The situation became even more dire last week. Edward “Big Balls” Coristine, a former DOGE staffer, was injured while defending a woman from a carjacking. A group of about a dozen young men attacked the woman. Coristine intervened, resulting in a concussion. Police arrested two 15-year-olds involved in the attack, but others remain at large. This event and others prompted President Trump to take immediate action. Federalizing D.C. Law Enforcement In a historic move, President Trump invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. This action places the D.C. Metropolitan Police under direct federal control. It gives the federal government the authority to oversee local law enforcement and take strong action to combat crime. Trump announced, “I am announcing a historic action to rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam, squalor, and worse. This is Liberation Day in D.C. and we’re going to take our capital back.” His declaration marked the start of a major federal effort to restore safety in the city. It’s “Liberation Day” in Washington, D.C. “Today, President Donald J. Trump took bold executive action to liberate Washington, D.C., from the cesspool of crime and homelessness that it has become after decades of unilateral Democrat leadership.”https://t.co/mL6oRxBW4Y — Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) August 11, 2025 National Guard Deployed to D.C. Trump also ordered the deployment of the National Guard. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth confirmed, “This morning, we have mobilized the D.C. National Guard… You will see them flowing through the streets of D.C.” A total of 1,000 National Guard troops have been sent to assist in law enforcement efforts. The deployment also leaves open the possibility of deploying active-duty military personnel if necessary. . @SecDef “Mr. President, it is an honor to be here and at your direction, this morning we’ve mobilized the D.C. National Guard… They will be STRONG and TOUGH, and they will STAND with their law enforcement partners.” pic.twitter.com/L6Bk5spgY2 — DOD Rapid Response (@DODResponse) August 11, 2025 Attorney General Pam Bondi, now in charge of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, was clear: “Crime in D.C. is ending and ending today. We are going to use every power we have to fight criminals here.” Immediate Law Enforcement Operations Trump’s plan includes aggressive law enforcement operations. These operations will target gangs, drug dealers, and criminal networks in D.C. U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro emphasized, “We need to recognize that the people who matter are the law-abiding citizens! President Trump is going to make sure these emboldened criminals understand: We see you, we’re watching you, and we’re going to change the law to catch you!” FBI Director Kash Patel echoed this sentiment, pointing to a similar operation in Northern Virginia. “We stood up a task force in Northern Virginia, [and] we said ‘Let’s let good cops be cops.’ In one month, we arrested 545 violent felons,” Patel said. “That simplicity in law enforcement is what’s coming to Washington, D.C.” Addressing Homelessness and Public Safety Trump’s plan goes beyond crime. He is also addressing the issue of homelessness in the city. “We are going to be removing homeless encampments from all over our parks… We’re getting rid of the people from underpasses and public spaces,” Trump said. The president emphasized that while law enforcement will be the priority, helping the homeless will still be part of the solution. “We’ll help them as much as you can help,” he added. A Nationwide Push Against Cashless Bail In addition to federalizing D.C. law enforcement, Trump is targeting the issue of cashless bail. He has called on Republicans in Congress to outlaw cashless bail systems nationwide. “That is what started the problem,” Trump said, blaming the practice for the rise in crime. He pointed to the Democratic Party’s weak stance on crime, accusing them of enabling criminals to avoid consequences. Trump’s legislative push would ensure that violent offenders are held accountable before they are allowed to return to the streets. (RELATED: Newsome Attacks Republicans On Violent Crime — Data Tell Different Story) Expanding Federal Control to Other Cities While Trump’s immediate focus is on D.C., he hinted at expanding this strategy to other cities facing similar crime issues. Trump mentioned that after federalizing D.C., he is considering the same approach for New York City and Chicago. Both cities have also seen rising crime rates, and Trump’s federalization strategy could be a model for other urban centers. The Path Forward: A Vision for Safer Cities Trump’s actions represent a significant shift in how the federal government deals with crime in American cities. By federalizing D.C. law enforcement, deploying the National Guard, and focusing on aggressive law enforcement tactics, Trump is taking unprecedented steps to restore order in Washington. His push to outlaw cashless bail and sanctuary cities, and his plans for further federal involvement in other cities, show his commitment to cracking down on crime nationwide. As the operation in Washington unfolds, Trump’s efforts may serve as a blueprint for other cities struggling with rising crime. His federal approach to crime…
Sydney Sweeney ‘Good Jeans’ Outrage Explained
Welcome to The Modern Memo — where lifestyle news isn’t shallow, soft, or sold out. From what you eat to what you buy, we cover the choices that shape your freedom, health, and future—without the influencer fluff or corporate agenda. Real life deserves real reporting. And we’re here to give it to you straight. When a Pair of Jeans Becomes a Political Flashpoint It was just an ad. At least, that’s what most people saw—a playful nod to style and wordplay. But in 2025, even a lighthearted fashion campaign can set off a political firestorm. And when American Eagle teamed up with Sydney Sweeney, the backlash revealed more about America’s culture wars than it did about denim. (MORE NEWS: Trump: New Census Will Omit Illegal Immigrants) From Clever Wordplay to Culture War On July 23rd, American Eagle released its new campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney with the tagline: “Sydney Sweeney has good jeans.” The ad played on the words jeans and genes. In a short video, the Euphoria actress joked: “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color… My jeans are blue.” For most viewers, it was harmless fun. But for loudest voices on the left, it became something darker. Online commentators and media outlets compared the Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ad to “Nazi propaganda” and “white supremacist eugenics” because she’s blonde and blue-eyed. CNN even called it a “scary white supremacist dog whistle.” Why American Eagle Isn’t Backing Down Despite removing the “genes” video from social media, American Eagle hasn’t abandoned the campaign. The company is still running the Sydney Sweeney “good jeans” ads across its platforms and has issued a public statement defending its decision on their Instagram. And it’s paying off. American Eagle’s stock price is up 20% since the campaign launch, boosted by a high-profile post from President Donald Trump praising the ad. Other prominent conservative voices have rallied to Sweeney’s defense. Megyn Kelly posted on X: Look how scared they are about the Sweeney ad – “it’s all a right-wing invention!!” Their party is paying millions to learn how to talk to young male voters and then their lunatic voters say you’re a Nazi if you like this gorgeous white blonde actress & it’s all blown to hell. https://t.co/JeJntXHlyE — Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) August 5, 2025 Vice President JD Vance also weighed in, posting: “[Democrats] have managed to so unhinge themselves over this thing. And it’s like — did you learn nothing from the November 2024 election?” “They have managed to so unhinge themselves over this thing.” Vice President JD Vance rips the left’s overreaction to Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle ad on @RuthlessPodcast pic.twitter.com/K2A59xwfHa — Fox News (@FoxNews) August 1, 2025 These defenses underline a growing belief on the right that the backlash is only helping the brand and pushing more young voters toward conservative politics. Amid the controversy, one major part of the campaign has been largely overlooked: the cause it supports. According to the American Eagle website: “A butterfly motif on the back pocket represents domestic violence awareness, an issue Sweeney is passionate about. 100% of the purchase price from The Sydney Jean will be donated to Crisis Text Line, a nonprofit offering free, 24/7, confidential mental health support.” Woke Advertising Is Losing Its Grip For years, corporations pushed political activism into ads. Many customers walked away. They wanted products, not politics. Now brands are moving back toward the middle. Sydney Sweeney fits that shift—beautiful, stylish, and a touch of old-school appeal. The “girl next door” is making a comeback. People are tired of the chaos of leftism. Now, companies are shifting to relatable ads with <gasp> sex appeal, like the days of Marilyn Monroe and Farrah Fawcett. It’s a cultural reset, and it’s working. (RELATED: Court Nixes California AI Deepfake Law, Free Speech Wins) What’s Driving the Cultural Divide Pew Research shows men—especially under 50—are moving toward the Republican Party. 55% of men voted for Trump in 2024, up from 50% in 2020. 46% of women voted for Trump in 2024, compared with 44% in 2020. Charlie Kirk tied this shift directly to the Sweeney outrage: Everytime they call Sydney Sweeney a fascist, 100 young men become registered Republicans. — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 4, 2025 Young men are waking up. They want to marry a “normie.” They want kids, a home, and a steady life. They don’t want the drama of woke culture. Sydney Sweeney isn’t just a woman in an ad. She represents what many men—and women—want back: normalcy, beauty, and stability. Sometimes an Ad Is Just an Ad The Sydney Sweeney “good jeans” backlash proves how quickly harmless marketing can become a political lightning rod. But here’s the truth: NO ONE should be shamed for being proud of their genes or their jeans. Appreciating beauty isn’t an insult to anyone else. We live in a culture that twists everything into controversy. Sometimes an ad really is just an ad. Unmask the Narrative. Rip Through the Lies. Spread the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t polish propaganda—we tear it to shreds. The corporate press censors, spins, and sugarcoats. We don’t. If you’re tired of being misled, silenced, and spoon-fed fiction, help us expose what they try to hide. Truth matters—but only if it’s heard. So share this. Shake the silence. And remind the powerful they don’t own the story.
Trump: New Census Will Omit Illegal Immigrants
Welcome to The Modern Memo — where our readers expect the truth, not the talking points. We don’t regurgitate headlines or echo the approved narrative. We ask the questions corporate media won’t and expose what they’d rather you ignore. If you’re looking for clarity in the chaos and facts without the filter, you’re in the right place. Trump: Don’t Count Illegal Immigrants in the Census As national redistricting debates continue, President Donald Trump has called for a major shift in how the U.S. counts its population. He recently announced plans for a new approach to the 2030 census — one that would exclude illegal immigrants. “People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS,” Trump said. He directed the Department of Commerce to begin work on a “highly accurate” count using modern data and lessons from the 2024 election. The Constitutional Mandate vs. Modern Reality The constitutional mandate for the U.S. census began in 1790, as required by Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1788. A census has been taken every 10 years since, and helps count the total number of people living in the country. However, the Constitution does not say whether illegal immigrants should be included. Congress decides how the count is done and what rules are used. That’s where the debate begins. The U.S. Census, since it began, has counted the “whole number of persons” living in the United States: Through the 1940s the census asked about citizenship and noted whether the person was: Naturalized Born in the U.S. An alien (non-citizen) Beginning in 1950-2000, the citizenship question was on the long form of the census and most households didn’t see it. In 2010, the citizenship question was removed. In 2020, when President Trump signed a memo to add the question back to the census, the Supreme Court blocked it in 2019. President Biden revoked the memo in 2021. Today, there is no citizenship question and all people living in the country are included. BUT, with mass immigration during the Biden Administration, the U.S. has never faced this kind of threat to elections through the census. (MORE NEWS: Trump’s EPA Pushes Green New Deal Into Political Obscurity) Why the Census Matters: Power and Money The census affects many things. It helps decide: How many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives How billions of federal dollars are shared between states Where new roads, hospitals, and schools are built How voting districts are drawn If illegal immigrants are counted, areas with more of them will get more representation and more money. This would unfairly boost political power in certain areas. Immigration Surges Raise the Stakes The Department of Homeland Security reported about 11 million encounters with people crossing the border illegally during the Biden Administration. Migrant crossings are down 99.99% under the Trump Administration. Many Americans are now asking: Should people who entered the country illegally be counted the same as those who are here legally? (RELATED: ICE Cooperation Gets CO Deputy Sued By AG) Proof of Citizenship and the Push for Integrity Although the census doesn’t decide who votes, it plays a critical role in shaping the electoral map. As concerns over election integrity grow, many are calling for stronger safeguards. This includes proof of citizenship requirements in voter registration and voting. In April of this year, Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly supported enshrining voter ID requirements into the state constitution — 63% for and 37% against. (RELATED: RESULTS: Wisconsin Supreme Court Election, Voter ID – Special Election) Federal Legislation Under Debate The SAVE Act — a federal bill requiring all voters in federal elections to prove their citizenship has passed the U.S. House of Representatives. It now awaits debate in the Senate. If passed, it would establish a uniform national standard and remove confusion between states. If the bill fails, however, the responsibility will fall back on states — each left to craft their own solutions, some of which may face legal hurdles. The Need for Census Clarity and Accuracy Whether for representation or handing out federal funding, accurate census data matters. Supporters of reform believe that counting the legal population is the only way the U.S. can maintain the legitimacy of a representative system. In a democratic republic, numbers don’t just guide decisions — they shape the whole government. That’s why who gets counted, and how, remains one of the most important questions facing the country. Final Thoughts The mass immigration we saw over the last four years was never just about “compassion.” It was about manipulating the map. We can stop pretending these are random people who came for a “better life.” This was a STRATEGY. From day one, the plan was clear. Flood deep blue cities and swing states with illegals, count them in the census, and boost seats, electoral votes, and political power. Endless federal money through NGOs funded this well-orchestrated plan of attack. Once they were in, amnesty would be granted, and those same people would become voters. That was the long game. It’s the reason sanctuary cities are so important to the left. And why court dates were set years away. It’s why voter ID laws are fought tooth and nail. Political design. Every caravan, busload, red-eye jet in the dead of night wasn’t about taking care of people. It was a ballot box delivery system. It bypasses the will of American voters and uses the census as a weapon. They never counted on a Trump win in 2024. They almost had it made. ALMOST. If we don’t stand up now, support strict immigration policies, and President Trump’s plan to reform the census, illegal immigrants will be the new blue voting bloc in the years ahead. The Constitution was written to make sure the citizens of this country were represented. It was NOT meant to be a tool for political gain through population padding. If we don’t draw a line here, we may never get a fair vote again….
Court Nixes California AI Deepfake Law, Free Speech Wins
Welcome to The Modern Memo — where our readers don’t come for fluff, filters, or focus-grouped headlines. They come for the truth. We don’t spin. We don’t censor. And we don’t dance around the narrative — we swing a machete straight through it. If it matters to America, we cover it — raw, real, and relentlessly honest. AI Deepfake Ruling a Major Win for Elon Musk’s X Platform A federal court has struck down an unconstitutional California law that limited free speech by controlling the use of AI-generated “deepfake” videos during elections. The law is one of the strictest in the United States. Elon Musk and his platform, X, joined the lawsuit to challenge the law and scored a major victory with this decision. However, the judge avoided ruling directly on free speech claims. Instead, he based his decision on Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act. This act protects online platforms from being held responsible for what their users post. What Was the Law About? In direct conflict with the First Amendment, the law signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom in 2024 aimed to block social media platforms from hosting AI-generated videos featuring politicians or public figures. Newsom pushed for the legislation after Elon Musk shared a viral AI video of then-Vice President Kamala Harris. She was portrayed as saying she was the “ultimate diversity hire.” Newsom said the video “should be illegal” and said he would sign a bill “in a matter of weeks to make sure it is.” (RELATED: Trump Dismisses Rumors of Targeting Elon Musk’s Companies, Calls for American Business to “Thrive Like Never Before”) Manipulating a voice in an “ad” like this one should be illegal. I’ll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is. pic.twitter.com/NuqOETkwTI — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) July 29, 2024 Why Was the Law Challenged in Court? The law gave the government too much control over what people could post online. It was designed to punish parody, comedy, and political satire—all forms of speech protected under the First Amendment. Those who challenged the law included: Christopher Kohls, the video creator who posted the Kamala Harris deepfake Elon Musk’s X platform, in a 65-page lawsuit, said the law targeted free expression The Babylon Bee, a conservative comedy and satire site Rumble, a video-sharing platform that competes with YouTube The plaintiffs argued that the law would: Discourage parody or humor about politicians Pressure platforms to over-censor content Violate the First Amendment by favoring some views over others Musk described the law as an attempt to “make parody illegal,” and said it would lead to unnecessary censorship. You’re not gonna believe this, but @GavinNewsom just announced that he signed a LAW to make parody illegal, based on this video 🤣🤣 https://t.co/bdykNuxe6G — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 18, 2024 What Did the Judge Say? On Tuesday, Federal Judge John Mendez struck down the law. According to Politico, Mendez said that platforms hosting deepfakes, “don’t have anything to do with these videos that the state is objecting to,” and that Section 230 releases them from liability. This ruling means the state cannot force platforms to remove deepfakes simply because they are politically misleading. Free Speech Question Left Unanswered—Or Is It? Even though the case was largely about First Amendment rights, Mendez did not rule on that issue. He said it was not necessary because the law already failed under Section 230. “I’m simply not reaching that issue,” he told the lawyers during the hearing. (RELATED: So-Called ‘Equality Act’ Could Undo Free Speech, Mandate Murder Of Unborn Children, Make Pedophiles A ‘Protected Class’) BUT this ruling is still a major victory for free speech advocates everywhere. In a free society, government officials don’t police political speech—especially during election season, when open debate matters most. The Constitution protects the First Amendment. It’s not a privilege granted by politicians. Final Thoughts This case isn’t just about deepfakes. It’s about who controls the narrative. The California government—from the governor down—tried to silence speech they didn’t like. They hid behind AI fears and “disinformation panic.” Judge Mendez saw through it. And free speech won. Let’s be clear: the law was never about protecting voters from disinformation. It was about protecting politicians. This bill was designed from the beginning to shut down criticism and uncomfortable truths in the name of “election integrity.” That is NOT what freedom is about. That is tyranny in disguise. If free speech is so easily discarded every time a politician doesn’t like a joke, a meme, or an article—like this one—then we don’t have a republic. We have a regime. Make no mistake. This ruling draws a line in the sand. It tells every governor, state legislature, every activist dreaming of being the thought police: you don’t get to dictate what Americans say, share, or criticize online. The PEOPLE hold the government accountable—even when it’s inconvenient. Especially when it’s inconvenient. The battle over AI is just beginning. While AI technology poses new risks, lawmakers will need to find ways to address those risks without infringing on constitutional rights. This ruling shows that broad, sweeping restrictions won’t survive in court. Other states that have or are considering similar laws will do well to remember this ruling. The Constitution isn’t optional. Protecting elections is important, but you can’t legislate your way around the First Amendment. Cut through the noise. Drown out the spin. Deliver the truth. At The Modern Memo, we’re not here to soften the blow — we’re here to land it. The media plays defense for the powerful. We don’t. If you’re done with censorship, half-truths, and gaslighting headlines, pass this on. Expose the stories they bury. This isn’t just news — it’s a fight for reality. And it doesn’t work without you.
Trump’s EPA Pushes Green New Deal Into Political Obscurity
Democrats Go Silent on the Green New Deal The Green New Deal was once the main climate push for Democrats. Now it’s barely mentioned in Washington. According to a Quorum chart posted by Axios, in the past three months, Democrats in Congress used the term only a handful of times on social media or in speeches. That is the lowest count since 2018, when it was first introduced. Meanwhile, Republicans are still talking about it — a lot. They brought it up more than 300 times in the same period, using it as proof that Democrats back costly and extreme policies. Axios: “Democrats aren’t explicitly disavowing the Green New Deal, but they’ve abruptly stopped talking about it” pic.twitter.com/mVM4F19SJD — Steve Everley (@saeverley) August 1, 2025 Big Names Drop the Plan Rep. Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey, the lawmakers who first pushed the Green New Deal, have not reintroduced it since April 2023. Many Democrats are moving away from strict climate mandates. Instead, they are talking about jobs, cost savings, and energy security. (MORE NEWS: Energy Department Admits Millions Of Americans Are At Risk Thanks To Grid Vulnerabilities) Some governors are supporting natural gas projects. Even a few lawmakers have traded in their electric cars for gas‑powered SUVs. The tone is different now, and the Green New Deal is no longer the centerpiece it once was. The 2009 EPA Climate Ruling That Started It All In 2009, the Obama‑era EPA issued the Endangerment Finding — a ruling that labeled carbon dioxide and several other greenhouse gases as a danger to public health and welfare. That single decision became the legal basis for almost every major climate regulation in the years that followed. It opened the door to: Federal electric vehicle production mandates Restrictions on gas‑powered appliances Strict tailpipe emission rules Airline emission standards Power plant shutdown orders By declaring CO₂ a threat, the EPA gave itself broad power to regulate entire industries. That authority survived multiple court challenges and was used heavily by both the Obama and Biden administrations. Zeldin Moves to Kill the Endangerment Finding On July 29, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a plan to repeal the Endangerment Finding entirely. He called it “the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States.” Zeldin said: “Many stakeholders have told me that the Obama and Biden EPAs twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year.” The EPA also stated: “We heard loud and clear the concern that EPA’s GHG emissions standards themselves, not carbon dioxide … was the real threat to Americans’ livelihoods. If finalized, rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations would end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families.” An August 3rd X post further solidified Zeldin’s stance on the Endangerment Finding. The Trump EPA won’t play along with the MANY mental leaps the Obama & Biden Admins used with the 2009 Endangerment Finding to creatively hoard themselves max power to jam through trillions of dollars of regulation, EV Mandates, and economic strangulation.pic.twitter.com/Mk5cTCzAX0 — Lee Zeldin (@epaleezeldin) August 3, 2025 A Blow to Costly Climate Rules Zeldin’s proposal would wipe out more than $1 trillion in regulations tied to the Endangerment Finding. These rules have hit vehicle manufacturers, power plants, heavy industry, and working Americans with higher costs and fewer choices. If the repeal is finalized: Federal climate mandates would be removed Electric vehicle quotas would be ended Regulatory control would shift back to states and local communities ESG‑driven industry restrictions would take a major hit The EPA under Zeldin is moving aggressively, framing this as a return to energy freedom and economic growth. It will lift the crushing burden from businesses and households. Critics warn it would remove key protections against climate change. (MORE NEWS: Texas Dems Flee to Stop Redistricting Map) Green Groups Lose Power While the EPA moves to dismantle its own authority, public enthusiasm for sweeping climate plans is also fading. Wind and solar still have majority support, but not as much as before. Republicans now strongly favor fossil fuel expansion. Environmental groups are struggling. The Sunrise Movement — once one of the most aggressive Green New Deal backers — raised less than $30,000 in the first half of 2025. That’s a fraction of what they raised during Trump’s first term. The Bottom Line Trump’s second term is changing climate politics at every level. Democrats are talking less about the Green New Deal. The EPA’s main legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases is under direct challenge. If Lee Zeldin’s repeal succeeds, the Endangerment Finding — and the regulations built on it — will be gone. That would mark the end of an era for federal climate policy and a dramatic shift in how the U.S. approaches energy, industry, and the environment. The once‑loud Green New Deal is now just a faint echo in Washington. Cut Through the Noise. Slice Through the Lies. Share the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t tiptoe around the narrative—we swing a machete through it. The mainstream won’t say it, so we will. If you’re tired of spin, censorship, and sugar-coated headlines, help us rip the cover off stories that matter. Share this article. Wake people up. Give a voice to the truth the powerful want buried. This fight isn’t just ours—it’s yours. Join us in exposing what they won’t tell you. America needs bold truth-tellers, and that means you.