Donald Trump
Trump Orders Military Pay Amid Government Shutdown
President Donald Trump has directed his administration to ensure that U.S. military personnel receive their paychecks on October 15 despite an ongoing government shutdown. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he had ordered Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to “use all available funds to get our Troops PAID on October 15th.” He added: “We have identified funds to do this, and Secretary Hegseth will use them to PAY OUR TROOPS. I will not allow the Democrats to hold our Military, and the entire Security of our Nation, HOSTAGE, with their dangerous Government Shutdown.” Trump cast this move as a direct pushback against what he called Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s “radical left” wing, accusing Democrats of threatening the security and stability of the nation by failing to fund essential government operations. (MORE NEWS: Letitia James Indicted: Virginia Grand Jury Charges NY AG) Shutdown Threatens Military Pay The government shutdown began October 1, after Senate Democrats repeatedly blocked clean continuing resolutions that would preserve funding at current levels. Because of this impasse, the Treasury and Department of Defense face constraints on processing regular payroll. Traditionally, Congress must act before October 13 to allow payroll mechanisms to run smoothly. Without such action, many active-duty personnel and National Guard members risk missing their standard mid-month pay. Trump, however, insists that military pay is nonnegotiable. He framed the issue as a moral and security imperative, vowing not to let politics jeopardize the livelihoods of those who serve. Republicans Criticize Democrats’ Position At the same time, House leadership has escalated criticism of Senate Democrats, particularly Schumer, according to Breitbart. Speaker Mike Johnson accused Democrats of shutting down the government to appease the “Marxist wing” of their party. He added that federal workers — including military families — are already feeling the effects of delayed pay. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer also blamed Schumer for leveraging federal employees and service members “as hostages.” He argued that Democrats are responding to pressure from more extreme factions within their caucus. Notably, some Republicans have claimed that Democrats plan to attend a political retreat in Napa Valley October 13–14, even while funding remains unresolved — a decision Republicans decry as tone-deaf during a shutdown. (MORE NEWS: Melania Trump Helps Reunite Ukrainian Children Amid War) Financial Strain on Military Families The shutdown has generated serious financial stress across military and civilian ranks. To ease the burden, institutions like Navy Federal Credit Union have already activated bridge loan and paycheck protection programs. During the last shutdown in 2019, Navy Federal processed more than $50 million in loans for about 19,000 recipients. Meanwhile, advocacy groups such as the National Military Family Association report a surge in letters to Congress. Nearly 100,000 messages have been submitted in support of the so-called “Pay Our Troops Act,” introduced by Representative Jennifer Kiggans (R-VA). Over 100,000 letters sent and counting. Military families have spoken: #PayOurTroops We’re waiting on Congress to act, but we’re not done yet. Every voice matters. Keep the pressure on until this becomes law. #MilitaryFamiliesServeToo #TogetherWereStronger #NMFA pic.twitter.com/ClXvuUcP03 — National Military Family Association (@military_family) October 11, 2025 Yet despite mounting pressure, Senate Democrats have repeatedly defeated short-term funding proposals purportedly designed to reopen agencies and restore pay. Trump’s Strategy: Bypass the Impasse In issuing his executive direction, Trump seeks to circumvent legislative gridlock altogether. By tapping into available or reserve funds, he aims to prevent service members from suffering due to congressional dysfunction. He reaffirmed that reopening the government should come first: “The Radical Left Democrats should OPEN THE GOVERNMENT,” he wrote, after which other priorities — including healthcare reform — could be addressed. Trump contrasts his approach with what he describes as Schumer’s willingness to gamble with national security and troop morale. He warns that unless Democrats act, they will be responsible for destabilizing the military’s financial footing. Political Stakes and Public Perception This move carries significant political implications. Ensuring troop pay during a shutdown allows Trump and Republican leaders to spotlight Democratic inaction. It also positions the GOP as defenders of military welfare, regardless of broader legislative standoffs. On the other hand, critics may challenge the legal or constitutional authority for deploying funds outside of congressional appropriation. The question of whether the executive branch can unilaterally direct pay during a lapse in appropriations is likely to spur debate. The Takeaway As the October 13 deadline looms, Congress will face intense pressure. If lawmakers refuse to act, Trump’s executive order may become a test case for how far a president can go to shield essential services during shutdowns. Still, without broad legislative cooperation, many government operations remain suspended. Even if troops get paid, other agencies will remain nonfunctional until Congress and the White House reach an agreement. In sum, Trump’s directive to pay U.S. service members amid a shutdown marks a bold attempt to sidestep gridlock, shore up military morale, and cast blame on Democratic leaders. Whether that gambit holds — legally, politically, and practically — depends on how both sides respond in the days ahead. 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.
Pregnant Women Take Tylenol to Defy Trump in Viral Trend
We have reached a new low. Pregnant liberal women are now posting videos of themselves swallowing Tylenol pills on camera, claiming they are doing it to “own Trump.” This strange new stunt comes in response to President Trump’s recent warning about the possible risks of acetaminophen use during pregnancy. Instead of sparking a thoughtful conversation, it has triggered a wave of performative defiance on social media. Trump’s Warning on Tylenol and Pregnancy President Trump, joined by health officials, spoke about studies suggesting a link between heavy acetaminophen use during pregnancy and rising autism rates. He stressed that pregnant women should be cautious and only use the drug when truly necessary, such as to control a high fever. The president pointed out that some groups who avoid pills altogether report lower autism rates. He made it clear that women should consult with their doctors before taking any medication while pregnant. Trump did not call for a ban. He did not say women could never take Tylenol. He simply urged caution, which is not unreasonable given the sensitive nature of pregnancy. His message was about protecting babies and making decisions with medical guidance. (RELATED NEWS: Autism Hope Grows With Promising Developments) Social Media Stunts: “Taking Tylenol to Own Trump” Instead of treating this like a serious issue, some women decided to make it a political spectacle. Videos popped up online showing visibly pregnant women holding up Tylenol pills and swallowing them on camera. Their captions read things like, “I trust science, not Trump,” or, “I’m a pregnant woman and I’ll take Tylenol if I want.” This kind of behavior isn’t empowering or brave. It is reckless performance designed to score political points. What is accomplished by risking your child’s health for likes, views, and applause from strangers online? The answer is nothing—except fueling more division and cheap political theater. Doctors were speaking out online, including Dr. Nicole Saphier: Pregnant women popping Tylenol like Tic Tacs just to stick it to Trump — please stop. Don’t weaponize your pregnancy for a political point. Consider acetaminophen only when absolutely necessary, for the shortest duration and lowest dose, even the makers of Tylenol say this. — Nicole Saphier, MD (@NBSaphierMD) September 23, 2025 Accusations of an “Attack on Women” Some activists went even further, claiming Trump’s warning amounted to an “attack on women.” They tried to frame his remarks as an attempt to control female bodies. In reality, the warning was about protecting unborn children from potential risks. The notion that caution equals oppression is absurd. Every doctor gives pregnant women advice on what to eat, drink, or avoid during those nine months. No sushi, no alcohol, limited caffeine—these are all common guidelines. Nobody calls that an “attack on women.” Yet when the warning comes from Trump, activists twist it into a political weapon. A Biden-Era Warning and the Scientific Debate During the Biden administration, a Salon article highlighted how the science around acetaminophen and developmental risk has long been contested. The article pointed to the SAME STUDIES used by the Trump administration and lawsuits alleging that prenatal exposure to acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol) could increase risks of autism, ADHD, and other developmental disorders. But as the article stresses, the science is not settled. One key study, published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2019, found that acetaminophen was “associated with increased risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder in children.” Meanwhile, a 2021 review in Nature Reviews Endocrinology argued that “prenatal exposure to APAP [acetaminophen] might alter fetal development, which could increase the risks of some neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders.” That same review called for more research and for “precautionary action.” In the Salon story, Matthew Rozsa writes: “The period of fetal development is a very vulnerable stage,” Hugh S. Taylor, chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at the Yale School of Medicine, told Yale News regarding his support of a 2021 statement urging pregnant women to exercise caution before taking acetaminophen products. “Things are moving, changing quickly. The changes that occur during that time period are then programmed for the rest of our lives. Things that don’t affect adults may affect these crucial developmental windows.” A 2018 study in the American Journal of Epidemiology cautioned that although “acetaminophen use during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk for ADHD, ASD, and hyperactivity symptoms,” the findings “should be interpreted with caution given that the available evidence consists of observational studies and is susceptible to several potential sources of bias.” In short: under the Biden administration, the narrative around acetaminophen in pregnancy was already tangled. The science shows potential signals. Political Symbolism Over Common Sense The real issue here is not Tylenol—it is symbolism. For some, taking a pill on camera became a way to show loyalty to their political tribe. What should have been a sober conversation about pregnancy and health turned into a circus act of defiance. This is what happens when politics consumes every part of life. A medical question becomes a test of party loyalty. A pain reliever becomes a culture war weapon. The baby in the womb becomes an afterthought while the spotlight shines on the mother’s political performance. Why This Matters At the heart of this mess is a deeper problem. Our culture rewards outrage and stunts more than responsibility and truth. Social media encourages people to seek attention by going to extremes. And when it comes to pregnancy, that is dangerous. Women should not be pressured into ignoring medical advice just to make a political point. Babies should not be put at risk so their mothers can rack up views on TikTok. Leaders should not be vilified for offering health warnings simply because of their political party. This story matters because it reveals how broken our discourse has become. When everything is viewed through the lens of politics, even a warning about a common over-the-counter drug becomes a battlefield. The Takeaway Trump’s point was simple: if risks exist, why not err on the side of…
TikTok: Trump Announces Deal With China
President Donald Trump says a deal has been reached with China over TikTok, with only final details left to lock in. According to Trump, he will speak directly with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Friday to seal the agreement. This move marks a turning point in the long-running battle over TikTok’s future in the United States. At the heart of the issue has always been the app’s most valuable asset—its recommendation algorithm—and now, after months of uncertainty, a path forward seems to be in place. NOW – Trump: “We have a deal on TikTok. I’ve reached a deal with China.” pic.twitter.com/GPlS4UJuQZ — Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) September 16, 2025 Why the Tiktok Algorithm Became the Flashpoint TikTok’s success comes down to its algorithm, the technology that drives the For You page. This is what keeps users hooked and what makes TikTok such a powerful platform. For years, U.S. officials worried that the algorithm, owned by TikTok’s parent company ByteDance in China, could be used to push certain narratives or collect sensitive data on American users. China, however, has been unwilling to give up one of its most prized technologies. That’s why this fight has never just been about a social media app—it’s been about national security, intellectual property, and global power. What the TikTok Deal Includes While we await details, the agreement Trump is expected to announce offers a compromise. Rather than stripping ByteDance of ownership altogether, the deal would allow the algorithm to be licensed to a U.S.-based entity. That means the technology would still belong to ByteDance, but it would operate under new safeguards inside the United States. American officials would have oversight of U.S. user data, and a third party could be put in place to manage the most sensitive parts of the system. This setup would give the U.S. more control over how TikTok runs here, while still letting China hold on to its intellectual property. (MORE NEWS: AI Is Taking Entry-Level Jobs and Shaking Up the Workforce) Why It’s Happening Now There’s urgency behind the timing. U.S. law set a deadline requiring TikTok to divest from Chinese control or face a potential ban. That deadline is fast approaching, and without an agreement, TikTok could vanish from American app stores. By announcing the deal now, Trump is signaling that the standoff is over. The planned phone call with Xi Jinping on Friday is expected to finalize the details and remove any last roadblocks. Both leaders want to avoid escalation, but both also want to show they are defending their nations’ interests. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent weighed in: Under President Trump, America is back. Talks with China are respectful and results-driven. @POTUS was ready to let TikTok go dark and made clear that we will never trade away national security. Thanks to his tough negotiating, a framework for a deal is in place, and China is… pic.twitter.com/3QdD4iro5U — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) September 16, 2025 Questions That Still Remain Even with a deal on the table, some big questions linger. Will American oversight of the algorithm be strong enough to satisfy critics? How much transparency will be built into the system so users can trust it? And will Congress sign off on the final arrangement, or push for even tougher conditions? On the Chinese side, export-control rules could also complicate how the licensing arrangement is structured. If Beijing insists on tighter restrictions, parts of the deal could face delays. Why This Agreement Matters Beyond TikTok If the deal is finalized Friday, it won’t just impact TikTok. It will set the stage for how countries around the world handle foreign-owned apps and technologies. Nations everywhere are wrestling with the same issues: data security, content influence, and who ultimately controls the technology behind powerful platforms. This agreement could become the blueprint for managing those challenges. It also feeds into broader U.S.-China relations, which remain strained over tariffs, trade restrictions, and technology policy. A successful deal here could cool tensions and open the door to cooperation in other areas. What Happens Next After the call between Trump and Xi, the next step will be writing the legal framework. That means spelling out who has authority over data, how licensing will work, and what safeguards will protect U.S. users. (MORE NEWS: AI Stethoscope Spots Deadly Heart Conditions 15 Seconds) If all goes as planned, TikTok’s millions of American users will be able to keep scrolling without interruption. But if the deal hits a snag, the threat of restrictions or even a ban still hangs in the balance. The Bigger Picture This announcement highlights how much bigger the TikTok story has become. It’s not just about a social media app anymore—it’s about technology, influence, and the balance of power between the world’s two largest economies. By stepping in and announcing a deal, Trump is moving the debate from endless speculation to concrete action. Friday’s call with Xi will be the real test, but for now, TikTok looks closer than ever to having its future in the U.S. secured. 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.
Trump Vows Tough Sanctions on Russia After Deadly Attack
President Trump responded firmly and vowed tough sanctions after Russia launched its most devastating assault on Ukraine since the start of the war. The strike involved 810 drones and multiple missiles aimed at Kyiv and surrounding areas. Ukrainian officials reported at least four people dead and more than forty injured. Among the targets was Ukraine’s central government headquarters, marking the first time Moscow directly hit that building. (RELATED NEWS: Trump and His ‘Art of the Deal’ for Ukraine Peace) Trump called the attack a deliberate escalation and promised to punish Russian President Vladimir Putin. He announced plans for a new wave of sanctions designed to cripple Russia’s ability to fund its war effort. The president emphasized that oil exports remain Russia’s economic lifeline, and those flows must be disrupted to reduce Moscow’s capacity to continue the assault. A “Phase Two” of Sanctions Trump described the upcoming measures as a “second phase” of economic pressure. While earlier rounds of sanctions restricted banking and trade, this next step will focus heavily on Russian energy. The president signaled that the United States will push for penalties not only on Russia itself but also on countries that continue to purchase Russian oil. Q: “Are you ready to move to the second phase of sanctions against Russia?” TRUMP: “Yeah, I am.” pic.twitter.com/ikRedacRms — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) September 7, 2025 Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed that Washington is exploring secondary tariffs on nations still engaging in oil trade with Moscow. These tariffs would place heavy costs on countries that attempt to skirt sanctions by buying Russian crude. The strategy is designed to make it more expensive for Russia’s largest buyers to continue their partnerships. India Already Targeted India quickly felt the impact of this new approach. The United States announced a fifty percent tariff on Indian imports, directly tied to New Delhi’s ongoing purchase of Russian oil. Ukrainian leaders praised the move, calling it a meaningful step toward weakening Russia’s funding pipeline. Critics, however, argue that tariffs will not achieve their full effect unless they target the largest consumers of Russian energy. China and India together account for most of Russia’s oil exports. Without stronger measures directed at both nations, sanctions risk losing their power. Energy analysts note that these penalties could disrupt global crude flows, raising costs for many countries. Europe and U. S. Push for United Strategy European leaders quickly rallied behind Washington’s strategy. Officials from the European Union met with U.S. representatives to coordinate the nineteenth package of sanctions since the war began. Talks focused on expanding restrictions on oil sales, tightening financial measures, and limiting access to key technologies. EU sanctions envoy David O’Sullivan stressed the importance of unity across the Atlantic. By working together, the United States and Europe aim to close loopholes and prevent Moscow from shifting its trade to willing partners. European Council President Antonio Costa added that the new sanctions would send a clear signal of resolve after the deadly strike on Kyiv. Ukraine Demands Swift Action Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky condemned the Russian assault as a crime against civilians. He urged allies to respond with action, not just words. That is why statements by state leaders and institutions must be backed by strong actions – sanctions against Russia and individuals connected with Russia, tough tariffs and other restrictions on trade with Russia. Their losses must be felt. That is what is truly convincing. — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) September 7, 2025 Prime Minister Yuliya Svyrydenko “condemned the assault as a blatant rejection of peace efforts.” Ukraine’s leaders framed the bombing as proof that Putin has no intention of de-escalating. Instead, they argued, Moscow is intensifying the war and must face the strongest possible response. The strike on the government headquarters underscored the danger of delay in international decision-making. Russia’s Defiance Despite growing pressure, the Kremlin dismissed the latest sanctions threats. Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said: “No sanctions will be able to force the Russian Federation to change the consistent position that our president has repeatedly spoken about.” Still, analysts note that energy revenue is critical to Russia’s survival. If oil sales fall sharply, the Kremlin will face mounting difficulty in financing both the war effort and its domestic programs. Even if sanctions do not alter Putin’s political stance, they could weaken its ability to sustain military operations at the current scale. Economic and Global Impact The threat of secondary sanctions could reshape energy markets worldwide. Restricting Russia’s oil buyers would redirect global trade flows and potentially create shortages in some regions. Traders warn that costs may rise as markets adjust, though supporters argue that the sacrifice is necessary to limit Russia’s war chest. For Western nations, the sanctions also carry risks. Higher energy prices could strain households and industries already coping with inflation. Leaders in Washington and Brussels stress that the long-term goal outweighs the short-term discomfort. By targeting Russia’s oil trade now, they believe they can shorten the war and reduce future instability. What Comes Next The coming weeks will test Western resolve. Trump has committed to a second wave of sanctions designed to cut deeper into Russia’s economy than ever before. Europe is preparing to match those measures with its own package. Together, these actions could finally limit the resources Russia depends on to sustain its invasion. The global energy market may feel the strain, but the underlying message is clear: Western powers are no longer content with symbolic measures. They are moving toward sanctions that directly threaten Russia’s ability to wage war. Whether these efforts succeed will depend on coordination, persistence, and the willingness of nations like China and India to resist or adapt. Bottom Line Trump’s vow to punish Putin after the deadly attack on Ukraine signals a decisive shift in strategy. The focus on oil revenues and secondary sanctions marks an escalation in economic warfare aimed at crippling Moscow’s war machine. Trump has given Putin every opportunity to come to the table with a serious plan and to stop the strikes long…
U.S. Confronts Venezuela Narco-State
Venezuela, once one of the wealthiest nations in South America, is now defined by authoritarian rule, collapsing infrastructure, and the largest refugee crisis in the Western Hemisphere. Nicolás Maduro has clung to power since 2013 through repression, sham elections, and close ties to drug cartels. His regime controls the judiciary, censors the media, and puts political opponents in prison. Sounds all too familiar. For ordinary Venezuelans, the result has been catastrophic: widespread shortages of food, fuel, and medicine, and the mass flight of more than seven million citizens seeking survival abroad. (MORE NEWS: Kilmar Abrego Garcia and the Deep Immigration Divide) The United States has not remained silent. Faced with a regime tied directly to narco-trafficking, the Trump administration recently deployed naval assets in the Caribbean in what was one of the largest U.S. military operations in the region since the 1989 Panama intervention. Maduro immediately claimed the Trump administration was “seeking a regime change through military threat.” That charge fits his propaganda playbook, but it misrepresents American intentions. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell explained, “This requires a whole-of-government effort… the Department of Defense will undoubtedly play an important role in meeting the President’s objective to eliminate the ability of these cartels to threaten the territory, safety, and security of the United States and its people.” In short, the U.S. was not aiming to topple Maduro by force. It is protecting American citizens and reinforcing the rule of law in a region plagued by cartel violence. Newsweek is reporting that Maduro has “mobilized troops along the coast and border with Colombia.” While U.S. officials have not signaled plans for a land invasion, Maduro has mobilized troops along the coast and border with Colombia. https://t.co/VKhOLKVhfI — Newsweek (@Newsweek) September 1, 2025 China and Global Critics Misread U.S. Intentions Predictably, America’s adversaries tried to spin the move as imperialism. China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning accused Washington of meddling, declaring, “We oppose the use or threat of force in international relations… under any pretext.” Beijing framed the deployment as interference in regional affairs, ignoring the obvious reality: Maduro’s Venezuela has become a safe haven for criminal cartels, which threaten America, our citizens, and our interests. National security requires decisive action beyond our borders when foreign regimes enable crime that spills into American communities. Fentanyl and cocaine do not respect borders. Neither should our response be to the cartels that traffic them. By misrepresenting America’s actions as an invasion, Beijing and Caracas both reveal their fear of U.S. strength. Critics who call this “foreign interference” fail to acknowledge that narco-terrorism is itself interference—an assault on sovereignty, law, and order. America is not building colonies in South America. It is stopping cartels from building empires of crime on our doorstep. President Trump has stated he is “prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding in to our country.” Encouraging Democracy Through Strength Beyond military deterrence, the U.S. has pursued a strategy of sanctions and indictments that weaken Maduro’s regime from within. The Department of Justice indicted Maduro and several top officials for narcoterrorism in 2020, offering a $15 million reward for information leading to his arrest. A larger package of sanctions targeted Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PDVSA, choking off the cash that funds Maduro’s patronage networks. These measures serve two purposes: they deprive the dictatorship of resources while giving hope to Venezuela’s democratic opposition. Figures like Juan Guaidó briefly gained international recognition as legitimate representatives of the Venezuelan people, though internal divisions later weakened the movement. Still, the U.S. policy of pressure keeps alive the possibility of peaceful political change. This is an example of strength used wisely. America does not have to invade to make an impact. By raising the cost of tyranny and supporting those who resist it, Washington advances freedom without repeating the mistakes of reckless interventions. As President Ronald Reagan once said, “We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression” (1983 speech, Orlando, FL to the National Association of Evangelicals). That lesson holds true in Caracas just as it did in Moscow. Strength Preserves Freedom At its core, the Venezuelan crisis is not only about one dictator. It is about whether authoritarian regimes and criminal cartels can operate freely in the Western Hemisphere. The principle is straightforward: a secure America requires a secure hemisphere. If drug cartels use Venezuela as a launching pad, then America has every right—and every duty—to respond with force, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure. The Trump Administration is defending its people, and without U.S. resolve, Maduro would operate with total impunity and the cartels would expand unchecked. The vision is not reckless intervention. It is principled strength—measured, deliberate, and unapologetic. America has a right to communities free from drugs and cartel violence, and it has a duty to expose the lies that keep Maduro’s narco-state alive. 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.
Democrats Fume as Trump’s Crime Crackdown Delivers Results
Outrage From the Left Democrats are in full meltdown mode over President Trump’s aggressive move to take on crime in Washington, D.C. They accuse him of overreach, authoritarianism, and election-year grandstanding. But beneath the outrage lies a deeper fear: that his approach might work—and that he plans to replicate it in other Democrat-run cities. From Capitol Hill to city halls in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Baltimore, Democrat leaders are scrambling to frame Trump’s actions as dangerous. Instead of celebrating safer streets in the nation’s capital, they appear more determined to deny Trump a victory than to bring relief to their own communities. (RELATED NEWS: Crime in D.C.: Trump’s Historic Action to Restore Order) Trump Points to Falling Crime Trump is already claiming success. He cites plunging homicide numbers and dramatic drops in carjackings since federal forces entered D.C. His allies argue the crackdown proves what voters have long suspected: when leaders back police and enforce the law, crime falls. That puts Democrats in a bind. Their opposition isn’t just to Trump—it looks like opposition to public safety itself. And it comes at a time when voters across the country list crime among their top concerns. HOME RULE: Democrats claimed crime was not an issue in DC, but given the fact homicides in Washington DC plummeted 71% and robberies by 60% following the takeover by President Trump i hope we can all agree they were lying. pic.twitter.com/f63wZ2hSvI — @amuse (@amuse) August 30, 2025 Expanding Beyond Washington The bigger story is Trump’s stated plan to bring the same strategy to other cities. He has publicly named Chicago, Baltimore, New York, and Los Angeles as possible targets. These are places long plagued by violent crime and failed leadership. For residents in those cities, the results in D.C. are hard to ignore. Trump’s message is simple: if Democrats won’t protect their own people, the federal government will. Democrats Circle the Wagons The response from blue-state leaders has been swift and furious. California Governor Gavin Newsom said Trump’s approach was “militarizing American cities.” Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker claimed it could be a plot to interfere with elections. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an order blocking local police from cooperating with federal troops. None of those responses directly address the falling crime numbers. Instead, they show Democrats more focused on preserving political power than on delivering peace and safety to neighborhoods desperate for both. (MORE NEWS: Minneapolis: Innocent Lives Lost and a Culture in Crisis) Mayor Bowser’s Balancing Act D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser illustrates the Democrats’ dilemma. At first, she denounced Trump’s move as authoritarian and even backed lawsuits against it. But as crime dropped, she began acknowledging the benefits of federal support. Bowser now tries to walk a tightrope—criticizing Trump’s methods while cautiously welcoming the results. “We greatly appreciate the surge of officers that enhance what MPD has been able to do in this city,” she said during a Wednesday press conference. “We know that when carjackings go down, when the use of gun goes down, when homicide or robbery go down, neighborhoods feel safer and are safer. So, this surge has been important to us for that reason.” Her shifting tone reflects what many Democrat officials likely recognize: opposing Trump outright risks alienating residents who want results, not political posturing. How Trump Did It For context, Trump invoked Section 740 of the D.C. Home Rule Act, placing the Metropolitan Police Department under federal control. He deployed about 800 National Guard troops along with other federal law enforcement to flood the streets. Critics call it unconstitutional. Supporters call it overdue. Whatever the label, it delivered a visible law-and-order presence in the capital—something voters notice. Voters See the Contrast Polling shows most D.C. residents opposed losing local control. But nationwide, support for Trump’s move runs higher, particularly among Republicans and independents. Democrats are left trying to argue process while Trump points to outcomes. That contrast—safer streets versus political bickering—could shape how voters see both parties heading into 2026. Trump frames himself as the man who gets results. Democrats risk looking like leaders more worried about denying him credit than keeping their own citizens safe. The Bottom Line The fight over D.C. isn’t just about one city. It’s about the future of law and order in Democrat-controlled areas across the country. Trump has made it clear he’s ready to act where local leaders refuse. Democrats, meanwhile, continue to shout about overreach and lawsuits, even as the numbers in Washington shift in Trump’s favor. Voters will decide which matters more—process or results. Right now, Trump is betting that safety on the streets will outweigh partisan talking points in the minds of everyday Americans. 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 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.
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.
Scott Jennings Warns Elon Musk Third Party Could Divide ‘Forces’ Trying To ‘Save Western Civilization’
Written by Daily Caller News Foundation Reporter/Clipper Jason Cohen. CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings warned Elon Musk on Sunday that his newly launched third party could divide the right and help Democrats win. Musk posted on X Saturday that he had just created the “America Party,” asserting it would restore “freedom” to Americans. Jennings said on “State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash” that the effort could backfire by splitting conservatives and Republicans who otherwise share core goals. (RELATED: ‘If I Was Waiting For FEMA, I Would Be Screwed’: You’ll Sob Watching What’s Happening In NC Months After Hurricane Helene) “It’s harder than it looks to start a political party. And, you know, we’ll see where they go with it. My humble advice to Elon, who I admire very much, actually, is that you may be dividing the forces of people who want to save Western civilization to the benefit of the people who don’t,” Jennings said. “And so, to the extent that this effort would divide conservatives and Republicans against each other, that wouldn’t be helpful, because it would leave the country to people who want unfettered immigration, who don’t share your fiscal views, and so on and so forth.” “So, we’ll see where it goes. I sort of hope everybody puts the band back together the way they had it back in 2024, because when everybody was working together, things worked quite well,” he added. Musk began to repeatedly float the idea of creating the “America Party” to cater to disaffected fiscal conservatives and libertarians after becoming frustrated by Republican lawmakers’ support for President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill — which the president signed into law on Friday. (RELATED: California Dems Blame Wildfires On Trump After Their Party Created Tinderbox Of Regs) However, political experts said that Musk’s billions would be better spent buying him influence within the GOP’s existing party structure instead of challenging America’s entrenched two-party duopoly. To continue reading this article, please click here. TMM Analysis We are living through a major social revolution, whether we want to admit it or not. Sometimes it can be hard to see the forest from the trees. But rest assured, change is here. We already lived through a major disruption with the MAGA movement upending years of Republican-In-Name-Only (RINO) leadership. So, does Musk have the power to create a third party? The short answer is: yes. The long answer is: yes, but he probably won’t see it come to fruition the way he truly desires. Unless he can harness the power of all those feeling disenfranchised by Trump Republicanism, far-leftist extremist Democrats (which seem to be the only Democrats who have any type of power), and bring all young people together under one umbrella that is both pro-life and pro-choice, pro-America, while also being pro-globalist, he doesn’t really stand a chance of making the difference he hope. (RELATED: Guys, We May Have Found The Most Addictive New Outdoors Show On YouTube) In the same way that the Tea Party, Libertarians, and the Independents do very little-to-nothing to change American politics, any new party would probably face the same negligible attention. It can be easy to think that you have power, particularly if you have a lot of followers on various Internet platforms, but none of this power is real. No matter how many likes, clicks, and followers you have, almost none of it translates into macro-real-world influence. People with major followings on X, who think they are the voices within American politics, do not seem to realize they actually have less influence that the women made famous through MomTok (Secret Lives of Mormon Wives). Isn’t that insanely humbling to realize? We are interested in what you think about the chances of Musk’s potential third party changing American politics forever. Email us at [email protected] with your opinion, as we want to hear it all!
Greed, Ambition, and the Fight for Women’s Sports: A Turning Point or Just a Temporary Win?
by Rebekah Howell On Wednesday (Feb. 5) surrounded by dozens of women and girls with smiling faces, President Trump signed an Executive Order in furtherance of two objectives: 1) prohibiting the use of federal funds for educational programs that treat women and girls unfairly and threaten their privacy; and 2) opposing biological men from competing in women’s sports. It was a remarkable, joyous occasion and it is an incredible Executive Order, but it is one that never should have had to be signed. So, how did we get to this place? “She gave everything she had, but then the league forced her to share a spot on the podium with a male swimmer who took her trophy while the media celebrated this stolen glory.” Trump recognizes @Riley_Gaines_‘s contributions at the signing of the executive order protecting… pic.twitter.com/o8lBMWvU9Q — The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) February 5, 2025 Some believe the Radical Left is solely to blame. Others argue it was the feminists in the 1970s, the ones who championed “reproductive freedom” and equal outcome as opposed to equal opportunity. Then there are those who say it is the LGBTQ activists who have dedicated their lives to promoting moral relativism. Each of these answers holds merit, but they all share a common thread—greed and an insatiable desire for more. The Radical Left wants more power. The feminists want more money, more “freedom”, and more accolades. The LGBTQ activists want more validation, hoping to justify a lifestyle that has left them broken, unfulfilled, and angry. And transgender athletes like Lia Thomas and CeCé Telfer want more medals. When I was growing up, culture declared that this search for more was admirable. It was ambitious, and ambition is a good thing. “Dream bigger,” they said. “You can do or have anything you want.” But overtime ambition turned into something else entirely. The principles of hard work and perseverance to achieve success gradually gave way to a mindset of cutting corners and cheating one’s way to the top. .@Riley_Gaines_ reacts outside the White House to Donald Trump’s EO banning men from women’s sports: “What we saw today is in total contrast to the treatment that we as women have received for the past four years…I’m overwhelmed with gratitude.” pic.twitter.com/f858BpDUAE — Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) February 5, 2025 And, for the last several years, cultural and political leaders defended this shift. Why? Greed. They wanted more power and more influence. To get that, they needed more people to follow them and vote for them. Did they really believe then that it was a good idea for biological men to compete against women? Do they still genuinely believe that now? It doesn’t matter. They too—in their futile search for more—subscribed to the same mindset of cutting corners to get to the top. They were more than willing to sacrifice objective truth due to their greed. 1 Timothy 6:9-10 says: “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.” The truth is that greed does lead to more—more greed and more discontentment. Or, as Timothy says, more ruin, destruction, and pangs. (POPULAR POST: ‘Separation Of Church And State Is So Stupid’: National Radio Host Joe Pags Goes Off) Thankfully, this Executive Order serves as a barrier to some of those driven by greed. Women and girls are now free to pursue their ambitions and receive the recognition they rightfully earned through their achievements. Is this merely a one-time exception, or does it signal a seismic shift in mindset? That depends on us. If we stay engaged and continue to stand for truth, this could mark a new era in America. If we grow complacent, however, this moment will fade into history as an anomaly rather than a turning point. So, will you speak boldly, act courageously, and remain steadfast in your convictions to ensure this is the foundation for radical transformation, and not just a fleeting victory?