Democratic Representative Seth Moulton is accusing the Trump administration of blaming Navy Admiral Frank Bradley for a controversial September airstrike in the Caribbean. The Trump administration is trying to make Admiral Bradley the scapegoat, according to Moulton.

According to HuffPost, the controversy centers on a military operation against a suspected Venezuelan drug boat. After the first airstrike hit the vessel, a second strike targeted survivors clinging to the wreckage. Moulton, a Marine Corps veteran, said that the administration is deliberately throwing Admiral Bradley under the bus to avoid responsibility.

“That’s exactly what’s going on,” Moulton said. “This administration has no respect for our uniformed services. We’ve known that from the very beginning, and that’s exactly what they’re showing right now.” The White House is telling a different story, however.

The White House is shifting blame to protect Hegseth

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed on Monday that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth didn’t even know the second strike was happening. She quickly pointed to Admiral Bradley, saying he worked within his authority when he decided to finish off the already-hit boat.

But Leavitt’s version contradicts a Washington Post report. That report suggests Admiral Bradley was following an order from Secretary Hegseth himself. According to the Post, Hegseth allegedly ordered the military to “kill everybody.” If true, this detail completely changes who made the final decision.

Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton, a Marine Corps veteran, weighs in on Secretary Pete Hegseth shifting responsibility for the double-tap strike on a suspected drug boat in September in the Caribbean. “What’s very clear is they’re throwing the admiral under the bus," says Moulton. pic.twitter.com/EHD8IsmZG6

— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) December 2, 2025

Secretary Hegseth has tried to control the damage, but his comments have been confusing. He posted on X Monday night supporting Admiral Bradley while also hinting that Bradley decided on the second strike. “I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made, on the September 2 mission and all others since,” Hegseth wrote, giving Bradley his “100% support.” This pattern of deflecting responsibility mirrors Trump’s recent accusations against Democratic lawmakers.

Let’s make one thing crystal clear:

Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since.

America is fortunate to have such men protecting…

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) December 1, 2025

The next day, Hegseth told reporters at the White House that he did not stick around to see the outcome of the second strike. This statement doesn’t clarify whether he gave the initial order or not.

President Trump also commented on the controversy. Speaking with reporters on Air Force One Sunday, Trump said he wouldn’t have wanted a second strike. He also said he believed Hegseth did not say the words the Washington Post reported.

Critics have pointed out that Trump’s defensive responses to criticism often follow this pattern. For Moulton, these conflicting statements reveal a bigger problem. He stressed that Hegseth “never takes accountability for his own actions.” Moulton said everyone must answer for military actions, including the Secretary of Defense and the commander-in-chief.

President Trump is hinting that he might completely get rid of personal income tax. He wants to replace it with heavy tariffs on foreign goods to pay for the government instead. This would totally change the economy if it actually happens.

According to Fox Business, podcaster Joe Rogan asked Trump if he was serious about removing personal income taxes for Americans. Trump answered with clear confidence, saying “Yeah, sure, why not?” He explained that tariffs could easily fund the government instead of taxing people’s wages. He’s now treating this as a serious policy goal for his administration.

Trump has been pushing this idea for a while now. He argues that the US needs to go back to an older system where global trade was the main way the government made money. In January, he said it’s time for the United States to return to the system that made the country richer and more powerful than ever before. He added that the goal should be to help American citizens by taxing foreign nations instead of taxing citizens to help other countries.

Trump’s latest tax proposal goes further than his earlier plans

“Whether you get rid of it or just keep it around for fun or have it really low, much lower than it is now, but you won’t be paying income tax,” Trump told the media after a cabinet meeting. 

Trump floated a different tax plan earlier in his second administration. That proposal only removed income tax for people earning under $150,000, with tariffs still replacing the lost money. Now he’s talking about removing personal income tax completely for everyone.

BREAKING: President Trump says he’s expecting the income tax to soon be ABOLISHED

There’d be NO better way to unleash the U.S. economy.

“I believe that at some point in the not too distant future, you won't even have income tax to pay, because the money we're taking in is so… pic.twitter.com/ifoCTmXYRA

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) December 2, 2025

Getting rid of income tax sounds great for most people. Your paycheck would be much bigger without federal deductions. But making this happen politically is very difficult. Removing the income tax would require huge changes to the entire US tax code. Major companies have faced their own tax controversies recently, showing how complicated tax issues can be.

Trump has a narrow majority in the House, so the proposal would likely face serious problems getting passed. It won’t be an easy fight, and there will probably be major pushback from both political parties.

President Trump wants to cut the income tax completely- replacing with tariffs- if he accomplishes this He will be the greatest President in American History since Andrew Jackson!
Would you like no income tax? Reply and let me know!
I bet I already know the answer! pic.twitter.com/rgje3PDyQk

— GrrrGraphics-Ben Garrison Cartoons (@GrrrGraphics) November 28, 2025

Trump’s views on taxes have changed a lot over his political career. Back in 1999, when he thought about running for president under the Reform Party, his focus was totally different. At that time, he reportedly considered a one-time tax on people’s net worth if they had wealth over $10 million. That’s completely opposite to his current plan of removing personal income taxes and shifting the cost onto global trade.

Removing income tax used to be considered a fringe political idea. But now, with Trump strongly pushing tariffs as the main way to make money, this concept has moved much closer to mainstream political debate. It shows how much the focus on tariff revenue has changed the conversation about how to pay for the federal government. The president has been making other controversial moves too, including telling government employees to stop certain practices that have been standard since 1988.

The White House just created a new webpage called “Media Offenders” to call out news outlets they say don’t give positive coverage of the president. The page has an “Offender Hall of Shame” and a “Media Offender of the Week” section that targets specific publications.

According to HuffPost, the page went live last week, and something strange happened right away. Fox News ended up on the list. The White House accused the conservative network of “bias” and being “woke.”

It turned out to be a big mistake. The White House had confused a reporter’s identity and thought they worked for Fox News when they didn’t. A spokesperson told The Washington Post the reporter didn’t work for the network at all. After Fox News complained, the White House removed them from the page over the weekend.

This media battle goes way beyond a simple website

The updated page says about the outlets it lists: “These outlets don’t just get it wrong – they do it over and over again.” For Monday’s edition, the White House named The Boston Globe, CBS News, and The Independent as the current “offenders of the week.” They’re accused of “subversion” for reporting last month that President Donald Trump suggested Democratic veterans in Congress should be hanged after those veterans told US military members to avoid following illegal orders.

The webpage is part of the president’s ongoing attacks on media outlets that criticize him. Last month, Trump called a veteran White House reporter “piggy” when she asked about the Jeffrey Epstein files. He also called an ABC reporter “insubordinate” for asking similar questions. The administration has faced backlash for other controversies too, including why gas prices vary across America.

NEW: Karoline Leavitt on the White House's brand new 'Media Offender of the Week' section on its website:

"Overwhelmingly, the fake news that we see pumped out of this building on a day-to-day basis — it's honestly overwhelming to keep up with it all, and to constantly have to… pic.twitter.com/mg5khsR8kD

— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 1, 2025

The administration has also filed lawsuits against media companies. They threatened to sue the British Broadcasting Corporation for $5 billion. The New York Times faced a $15 billion lawsuit that got thrown out. CBS News’ parent company was sued for $20 billion but settled for $16 million.

The Wall Street Journal faced a $10 billion threat, though Trump ally and Journal owner Rupert Murdoch made a deal. ABC News settled a defamation lawsuit from Trump for $15 million. This isn’t the first time the White House has tried controlling its image – they recently attempted to portray Trump as a gaming icon, which backfired with Halo fans.

The White House is using both public shaming through webpages and massive lawsuits to fight media outlets that report critically on the administration.

Cristiano Ronaldo surprised everyone when he showed up at the White House earlier this week for a fancy dinner party. The event happened right after President Trump met with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Ronaldo came with his fiancée Georgina Rodriguez. Other big names at the dinner included Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance.

According to The Sun, the famous Portuguese soccer player wore a classic black tuxedo to the formal event and spent time taking pictures with other guests. Someone even snapped a selfie that showed Ronaldo hanging out with Musk and FIFA’s head Gianni Infantino inside the White House. When Trump spoke at the dinner, he mentioned that his son Barron is a huge Ronaldo fan.

The next day, Trump posted something pretty unusual on Truth Social. It was an AI-made video showing him and Ronaldo kicking a soccer ball around the Oval Office, weaving between couches and even taking shots at the famous Resolute Desk. Trump called Ronaldo a “GREAT GUY” in his post and said meeting him was awesome, describing the soccer star as smart and cool.

The White House visit had interesting timing

The morning after the dinner, the White House released video footage of Ronaldo and Rodriguez taking a walk with Trump on the Presidential Walk of Fame. The video came with a caption that said “Two GOATS” and “CR7 x 45/47.” Later on, Ronaldo posted on Instagram to say thanks for being invited and for how nicely Trump treated him and his soon-to-be wife.

While they were at dinner, Trump talked about how much his son looks up to Ronaldo. He joked that Barron probably respects him a bit more now just because he got to introduce them. Trump also pointed out that the room was packed with some of the world’s top business leaders and sports stars.

US President Donald #Trump posted a video on Truth Social showing him playing football with Portuguese star #Cristiano Ronaldo, in a clip generated using artificial intelligence. pic.twitter.com/RqF949HGg7

— Forbes Middle East (@Forbes_MENA_) November 20, 2025

These days, Ronaldo plays for Al-Nassr in Saudi Arabia’s Pro League after leaving Manchester United back in 2023. At first, people thought he came to Washington as part of the Saudi prince’s group, but it turned out he arrived separately. In past interviews, Ronaldo has even called Mohammed bin Salman his “boss.” This isn’t the first time Trump has shared AI-generated content that has sparked conversations online.

View this post on Instagram

Not too long ago, Ronaldo sat down with Piers Morgan and said he really wanted to meet Trump. He called Trump the “president of peace” and said he thinks Trump is someone who could actually help change things in the world for the better. Ronaldo mentioned he knew Trump had gone to Saudi Arabia to see MBS.

This visit is happening just a few months before Ronaldo heads to the United States for the World Cup. He wrote on Instagram that he wants to help inspire younger people to work toward a future that’s brave, responsible, and peaceful. As artificial intelligence becomes more prevalent in political communications, concerns about AI security vulnerabilities continue to grow among tech experts.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that he is sure the Supreme Court will support President Trump’s tariff policies. But what happened during the court hearing earlier that day tells a different story, with several judges asking tough questions about whether the president actually has this kind of power.

According to The Hill, the legal fight is about whether Trump can put tariffs on imported goods the way he has been doing. Officials from 12 states run by Democrats and five small businesses say only Congress can do this, not the president.

Trump’s team says he can use a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act because he declared a national emergency in April. He said the emergency was about America’s trade problems with other countries and fentanyl coming in from Canada, China, and Mexico.

The justices seemed less convinced than Lutnick claims

When Lutnick appeared on Sean Hannity’s show, he said “the justices were on the president’s side” and told people watching that they were “hearing it here from me, President Trump is going to win this case.” He sounded very sure of himself even though the judges had spent nearly three hours asking difficult questions earlier that same day.

What the judges actually said during the hearing makes it look like this case might not go the way Lutnick thinks.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the government’s argument “is being used for the power to impose tariffs on any product, from any country, for any amount, for any length of time.” He said this looked like giving the president a huge amount of power, though he did not say the president definitely does not have it.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick declares Trump is poised to win after today’s Supreme Court tariff arguments:
 
"This was the Super Bowl of trade, and there were fireworks the whole time. The Justices were on the President’s side, and you’re hearing it here from me: President… pic.twitter.com/H0lLxDxxkQ

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) November 6, 2025

Even two judges that Trump himself picked for the Supreme Court asked hard questions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wanted to know if there was any past example of a president using power this way. Justice Neil Gorsuch worried about what might happen in the future if presidents got this much control over tariffs.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Chief Justice Roberts both talked about something called the major questions doctrine. This is a rule that says Congress cannot give away huge powers to the president unless it clearly says that is what it wants to do.

The Supreme Court has been hearing several big cases this year about how much power the president should have.

Trump has already lost this fight in two other courts. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade said the emergency powers law does not let the president control tariffs. Then in August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with that decision.

The Supreme Court judges will now talk about the case in private and write their decision. Lutnick might be confident, but the questions asked by judges from different political backgrounds show that Trump’s team will have a hard time winning this case.