Critics say the Trump administration’s move to limit editorial independence at Stars and Stripes threatens press freedom for U.S. service members
Blue Press Journal – The Pentagon faced a backlash following its decision to effectively take control of the legendary U.S. military newspaper Stars and Stripes and crack down on its apparent “woke” tendencies.
Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell on Thursday announced the publication would be returning to “its original mission: reporting for our warfighters.”
It follows a controversial Pentagon’s press corps edict that saw scores of reporters leave the building, and a new Trump “loyalty test” for Stars and Stripes reporters.
But free speech advocates hit out at out the decision to throttle an outlet that was first published during the Civil War, and whose editorial independence is mandated by Congress despite being part of Defense Department.
Tim Richardson, journalism and disinformation program director of PEN America, said the country “needs more independent reporting – not less” as Trump’s foreign policy positions turn increasingly aggressive.
“American troops overseas deserve credible, trustworthy news guaranteed by the First Amendment, a cornerstone of the Constitution they defend,” he said in a statement. “Instead, the Pentagon is trying to turn this independent newsroom into a mouthpiece for the administration’s political messaging.”
In a message to staff published in Stars and Stripes, Erik Slavin, the newspaper’s editor-in-chief, said “the people who risk their lives in defense of the Constitution have earned the right to the press freedoms of the First Amendment.”
“We will not compromise on serving them with accurate and balanced coverage, holding military officials to account when called for,” he added.
This is a Turning Point for America … Where do you stand?
In the wake of yet another deadly incident involving federal immigration enforcement, this time in Minneapolis, we’re forced to confront the grim reality of Donald Trump’s approach to law enforcement: cruelty isn’t a bug in the system — it’s the feature.
On Thursday, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot a 32-year-old Minneapolis woman during what officials described as a “targeted operation.” Eyewitnesses say she was sitting in her car, unarmed, when the agent fired. The incident has sparked outrage across the city and reignited criticism of ICE’s tactics, which have long been accused of operating with excessive force and little accountability.
The Politics of Defending the Indefensible
Some pundits claim that Trump’s—and the GOP’s—unwavering defense of these actions is “smart politics,” shifting public discourse away from other controversies like Jeffrey Epstein’s resurfaced ties to political elites or the worsening cost-of-living crisis. But let’s be clear: defending ICE after an act that looks, to many, like an execution in broad daylight, isn’t “smart.” It’s reckless.
ICE’s track record is already deeply unpopular. Polling from Pew Research and Gallup shows a majority of Americans disapprove of its methods, especially the high-profile deportations of families, the detention of children, and the use of militarized raids in immigrant communities. Trump’s ICE administration doesn’t just alienate progressives — it turns moderates and even some conservatives off.
When law enforcement violence starts landing squarely on U.S. citizens — particularly white, middle-class citizens who don’t fit the GOP’s caricature of “illegal immigrants” — it hits differently. The thought quickly shifts from “I don’t like seeing people brutalized” to “That could happen to me or my family.” That’s not a winning political strategy; it’s a ticking time bomb.
Minneapolis Officials Aren’t Staying Quiet
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey condemned the shooting, saying:
“We cannot normalize federal agents using deadly force in situations where it’s clearly avoidable. Our residents deserve safety, not fear.”
City Council Member Aisha Chughtai went further:
“This department operates with impunity, and it’s costing lives. ICE has no place in our city.”
Their words reflect a growing frustration among urban leaders over Trump-era immigration enforcement policies that have persisted well beyond his presidency.
Lessons from 2020 That Trump Still Hasn’t Learned
Trump’s political instincts on law enforcement are stuck in the summer of 2020 — a moment of mass racial justice protests and public reckoning over police brutality. Back then, he doubled down on defending every police action, no matter how egregious, and lost reelection in the process.
The reality is that public opinion doesn’t reward defending indiscriminate violence. People want safety, but they also want accountability. Minneapolis is still living with the trauma of George Floyd’s murder, and defending another federal killing in the city won’t play well — locally or nationally.
Why This Matters for 2026 and Beyond
With the 2026 mid-term elections looming, Trump’s embrace of ICE’s most aggressive tactics could further alienate swing voters. It’s one thing to talk about “law and order” in abstract terms; it’s another to defend an ICE agent shooting an unarmed woman in her car.
The GOP may think they’re steering the narrative toward “dangerous cities” and “radical protestors,” but the images coming out of Minneapolis tell a different story — one of excessive force, unchecked power, and an administration willing to defend the indefensible.
Trump DOJ’s Attack on Federal Reserve Independence Threatens U.S. Economic Stability
Blue Press Journal (DC) – In a stunning and unprecedented move, the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued subpoenas to the Federal Reserve and threatened criminal indictment against Fed Chair Jerome Powell. The action stems from Powell’s testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in June regarding the Fed’s $2.5 billion renovation of two office buildings — a project President Trump criticized as excessive.
While the stated justification for the investigation is alleged misuse of taxpayer funds, Powell has bluntly called the charges a “pretext” designed to undermine the central bank’s independence. This is not a routine dispute over budgetary planning — it is a direct confrontation that could shatter the long-standing separation between America’s political leadership and its monetary policy authority.
Why the Federal Reserve’s Independence Matters
The Federal Reserve is not a partisan institution. Its ability to set interest rates based solely on economic data, rather than political pressure, is a cornerstone of stable economic governance. Market confidence in the U.S. dollar, Treasury bonds, and the overall financial system depends heavily on the perception that Fed decisions are insulated from political whims.
If political actors can intimidate or remove Fed officials for refusing to follow a preferred interest rate path, the consequences will be severe. Investors may begin to doubt whether U.S. monetary policy is being driven by sound economic analysis or short-term electoral calculations. That uncertainty could increase borrowing costs, destabilize markets, and weaken the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency.
The Risk to Markets and the Economy
President Trump has repeatedly attacked Powell for not cutting interest rates as aggressively as he wants — especially with an eye toward stimulating short-term growth. But artificially low rates set for political purposes can have damaging effects:
Inflation Risk: Sustained rate cuts without economic justification can overheat the economy, driving up consumer prices.
Asset Bubbles: Cheap credit can fuel excessive speculation in housing, stocks, and other markets, leading to bubbles that eventually burst.
Weakened Global Confidence: If international investors believe the Fed is being controlled by political operatives, they may reduce exposure to U.S. assets, raising borrowing costs and hurting the dollar.
History offers clear warnings. Countries where central banks have been politicized — such as Turkey and Argentina — often face runaway inflation, capital flight, and prolonged economic instability.
Weaponizing the DOJ Against Independent Institutions
The DOJ’s role in this episode is equally troubling. Traditionally, the Justice Department has operated independently from the White House, refraining from targeting political adversaries without clear and compelling evidence. Under the Trump Administration, however, the DOJ has pursued investigations against a growing list of perceived opponents.
Serving subpoenas to the Fed in the midst of a dispute over interest rates sends a chilling message: any independent official who resists political directives could face criminal investigation. This politicization of law enforcement erodes public trust, not only in the DOJ but in the broader legal system.
Even some Republican lawmakers are sounding alarms. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina has stated that this legal maneuver removes any doubt about efforts within the administration to dismantle the Fed’s independence — warning that credibility is now at stake for both the DOJ and the Federal Reserve.
Short-Term Politics, Long-Term Damage
While the administration may view the investigation as a way to pressure Powell into lowering rates before his term ends in May, the long-term damage far outweighs any short-term gain. The moment global investors suspect that U.S. monetary policy is politically manipulated, they will adjust their strategies — moving capital elsewhere, demanding higher returns on U.S. debt, and hedging against instability.
Economic stability is built on trust in the institutions that manage it. Undermining that trust for political advantage is a dangerous gamble that could cost the United States dearly.
Defending the Fed Means Defending the Economy
The Federal Reserve’s independence is not a luxury — it is a necessity. Strong economies require central banks to act based on evidence, not election-year strategy. The Trump DOJ’s aggressive move against Jerome Powell is about more than building renovations; it is about whether America’s monetary policy will remain guided by data and public interest, or whether it will be subordinated to political intimidation.
If history teaches us anything, it’s that once the credibility of a central bank is lost, restoring it is painfully difficult. The United States must resist any effort to politicize the Fed — because protecting its independence is protecting the future of the American economy.
Federal Obstruction: Breaking Norms and Undermining Justice
Blue Press Journal – The recent killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jonathan Ross has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over transparency, accountability, and the role of federal law enforcement in local investigations. What should have been a cooperative, multi-agency effort to uncover the truth has instead devolved into a troubling example of federal obstruction — with the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) refusing to share critical evidence with Minnesota’s state investigators.
Minnesota Attorney General Ellison made multiple attempts to resolve the situation privately, but his requests were ignored. Only after holding a joint press conference with the Hennepin County District Attorney did he receive confirmation: the directive to block state access reportedly came directly from President Trump, who publicly referred to Minnesota officials as “crooked.” This raises a troubling question — why would the FBI and DOJ prioritize political loyalty over transparency in a homicide investigation? Justice requires evidence, and withholding it undermines public trust.
A Breakdown in Cooperation
According to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, the FBI initially agreed to work with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in a joint investigation. That agreement was abruptly rescinded, with federal agents reportedly withholding key evidence — including ballistic reports, weapon data, and crime scene materials — from state authorities.
Ellison, who has a history of productive collaboration with federal law enforcement, attempted to intervene. He reached out to contacts within the FBI and DOJ to resolve the impasse, but his requests were ignored. Even a formal letter pleading for cooperation went unanswered. The silence speaks volumes about the federal government’s approach to oversight in this case.
Political Interference at the Expense of Justice
The most concerning revelation emerged when Ellison discovered the reason behind the denial of his requests: the directive to exclude Minnesota authorities seemingly originated from President Donald Trump. This political interference — alongside Trump’s public declarations branding Minnesota officials as “crooked” — severely compromises the integrity of federal investigations.
The DOJ and FBI are supposed to serve the public interest, not political agendas. Yet the decision to block state investigators suggests that decisions within these agencies may be influenced more by partisan loyalty than by a commitment to truth.
A Troubling Double Standard
Even more disturbing is the selective release of evidence. While federal authorities refused to share investigative files with state officials, video footage from Ross’s cellphone was leaked to Alpha News, a Minnesota-based right-wing media outlet. This raises legitimate questions:
If the evidence is too sensitive to share with official investigators, why is it being provided to a partisan outlet?
Does this behavior reflect professional investigative standards — or an attempt to shape public perception before all the facts are known?
Ellison called this move “fundamentally unprofessional” and noted that the leaked footage undermines any rationale for withholding evidence from state authorities.
Echoes of the George Floyd Case
Ellison’s office previously prosecuted the officers responsible for George Floyd’s murder in 2020, an effort that relied heavily on gathering every available piece of evidence. He recognized a familiar pattern here: when government agencies are connected to a controversial killing, certain officials attempt to smear the victim’s character.
In the case of Renee Good, Ellison has been outspoken in defending her reputation. He emphasized that she was neither a domestic terrorist nor a threat to Ross at the time of the shooting, and that she was engaged in helping her vulnerable neighbors.
Why Transparency Matters
The refusal of the FBI and DOJ to cooperate with Minnesota’s investigation sends a dangerous message: federal agencies can act without meaningful oversight, even in cases involving lethal force against civilians. This erodes public trust and undermines the principle that justice must be both done and seen to be done.
Without full access to the evidence, state investigators are forced to rely on incomplete information, raising the risk of an inadequate or flawed conclusion. For the family of Renee Good — and for the public — this is unacceptable.
A Call for Accountability
The Renee Good case is more than an isolated incident. It is a test of whether the FBI and DOJ are truly committed to transparency, fairness, and cooperation with local authorities. If federal agencies can unilaterally block state-level investigations into killings by federal agents, then our system of checks and balances is in jeopardy.
Minnesota officials will continue their parallel investigation, seeking information directly from the public. But the broader question remains: will the FBI and DOJ choose accountability over political expediency?
Until they do, cases like Renee Good’s will serve as stark reminders that justice delayed — or denied — is justice betrayed.
Blue Press Journal – When President Donald Trump boasts about “acing” a cognitive exam for the third straight time, it raises more questions than it answers. Cognitive tests are not intelligence contests; they’re simple screening tools doctors use to evaluate memory, attention, and problem-solving skills—often in patients showing signs of cognitive decline. So why does Trump keep taking them, and why does he feel the need to advertise the results?
A standard cognitive test, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), might ask someone to identify animals from pictures, recall five words after a few minutes, or draw a clock showing a certain time. Scoring well doesn’t prove genius—it simply indicates that basic cognitive functions are intact. Most adults without impairment would easily “ace” it. That’s why medical experts find Trump’s repeated emphasis on his performance puzzling, even concerning.
Trump’s latest Truth Social post, insisting that anyone running for high office should undergo a “strong, meaningful” cognitive exam, feels less like a policy suggestion and more like projection. If he’s indeed taken the test three times, it suggests that either his doctors or his team are monitoring potential issues—or that he wants to preempt speculation about his health by loudly proclaiming his mental sharpness. The bruises spotted on his hands and his occasional slurred speech have only fueled public curiosity.
Critics argue that Trump’s obsession with “acing” a basic screening betrays insecurity rather than strength. Instead of reassuring voters, it highlights how defensive he becomes over any hint of vulnerability. After all, a healthy, confident leader doesn’t need to brag about remembering five words or drawing a clock correctly.
BLUE PRESS JOURNAL – The latest revelations from former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s closed-door interview with the House Judiciary Committee offer a sobering reminder of how far Donald Trump and his allies were willing to go to hold onto power after losing the 2020 election. While the session was held behind closed doors, reports of what was said inside make clear why some Republican lawmakers, including Committee Chair Jim Jordan, had no interest in making the testimony public.
Smith’s investigation—now dismissed—had sought to determine the extent of Trump’s direct involvement in efforts to overturn the election and his mishandling of classified documents after leaving the White House. What’s emerging from this new account is not just a picture of political hardball, but of a deliberate campaign built on lies that even Trump’s closest associates didn’t believe.
One of the most striking details involves Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer and architect of his post-election legal strategy. Smith’s inquiry reveals Giuliani admitted he didn’t believe the conspiracy theories he promoted—and neither did Donald Trump. This confession undermines the “Stop the Steal” narrative: it was not based on genuine grievance, but a calculated deception to inflame supporters and delegitimize a lawful election.
If Trump and Giuliani both knew their claims were false, then the entire post-election chaos—from the flood of lawsuits to the violence of January 6th—was built on a conscious lie. This undermines any argument that Trump was simply misled or acting out of misguided conviction. It paints a portrait of a leader willing to endanger democracy itself for personal gain.
The Republicans who sought to limit public access to Smith’s testimony likely understood how damaging such revelations could be. A clear-eyed look at the evidence doesn’t just implicate Trump; it also raises uncomfortable questions about those in Congress who continue to defend him, even as the factual record grows darker.
Trump’s defenders often dismiss these investigations as partisan witch hunts, but Smith’s work reveals a graver truth: a former president, aware of his loss, attempted to weaponize the government and his followers to maintain power. This behavior is not that of a patriot—it’s someone who views democracy as expendable.
As more details come to light, the question is no longer whether Trump believed his own lies. It’s whether the country is prepared to hold him accountable for them.
Blue Press Journal – President Trump’s recent revelation that he’s doubling down on aspirin therapy to “thin” his blood has once again exposed a confusing blend of self-diagnosis and bedside intuition—and it drew swift rebuttal from experts. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, the 79-year-old commander in chief explained, “I don’t want thick blood pouring through my heart. I want nice, thin blood pouring through my heart. Does that make sense?”
Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a respected cardiologist who treated former Vice President Dick Cheney, didn’t mince words when asked about Trump’s unconventional regimen on CNN’s The Lead. “That actually makes no sense,” Reiner declared. “When we use anticoagulant medications to prevent clotting, they don’t ‘thin’ the blood like changing gumbo to chicken soup. They simply reduce the chance of clot formation.” In other words, the president’s catchy metaphor has no basis in medical reality.
Beyond the semantics, Trump’s high-dose aspirin use carries risks. The American Heart Association warns that people over 70 using aspirin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke may face more harm than benefit due to increased bleeding risk. Self-medicating at that age is a gamble with serious consequences.
Trump, who has dismissed health concerns, favors his instincts over medical advice. At a time when cardiovascular vigilance is crucial, his cavalier attitude and reliance on pseudo-medical explanations highlight a troubling trend: expertise is overlooked when it conflicts with his gut feelings or media soundbites.
Blue Press Journal – President Donald Trump’s recent veto of a bipartisan measure to secure clean drinking water for thousands of Colorado residents has ignited a firestorm of controversy—particularly from within his own party. Rep. Lauren Boebert, a staunch MAGA ally, is publicly questioning whether the President’s decision constitutes “political retaliation” against her.
The bill in question, the Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act, aimed to fund a critical pipeline delivering clean water to roughly 50,000 people in the Arkansas River Valley. Despite Boebert’s sponsorship and the bill’s bipartisan support, the President rejected the measure.
While Boebert has consistently championed Trump’s “America First” agenda, she recently broke ranks over the administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. The Congresswoman has been vocal in demanding full transparency regarding the late child predator, who once referred to Trump as his “closest friend.”
In a statement released on X, Boebert expressed her dismay: “I sincerely hope this veto has nothing to do with political retaliation for calling out corruption and demanding accountability.” She emphasized that the American people deserve leadership that prioritizes essential needs over partisan squabbles.
This clash highlights a rare fracture in the Republican front. As constituents in Colorado await access to clean water, the situation raises uncomfortable questions about the cost of dissent and whether the White House is prioritizing personal grievances over the public good. For Boebert, the veto serves as a stark reminder that even loyal allies can find themselves at odds with the President when seeking accountability.
The latest cascade of documents released by Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. has turned another spotlight on the Trump administration’s flagrant disregard for the rule of law. A trove of roughly 3,000 internal files—of which a “few dozen” were handed over to the defense of Kilmar Ábrego García—reveals that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s office deliberately elevated Ábrego’s case to a “top priority” after a Supreme Court order forced the government’s hand. The timing, tone, and sheer obstinacy of the Justice Department’s actions paint a picture of vindictive prosecution that should alarm anyone who cares about a fair and impartial legal system.
Ábrego, a low‑level immigrant mistakenly deported in March 2025, had no pending criminal case when a routine traffic stop on November 30, 2022, was logged. After three years of inaction from the DOJ, on April 1, 2025—shortly after the Supreme Court ordered his return—the Justice Department abruptly closed his arrest file and initiated a prosecution campaign seemingly driven by political retribution.
The documents make clear that Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s office was the conduit for an explicit directive to Tennessee U.S. Attorney Robert McGuire: “targeting Kilmar Ábrego García was a top priority.” Blanche himself later confirmed to Fox News that the push came after a Maryland judge accused the government of “doing something wrong,” effectively admitting that the prosecution was a reactionary, punitive move rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.
The Supreme Court’s order, which was ignored for more than two months, demonstrates the administration’s contempt for judicial authority. In a system supposedly built on checks and balances, a president’s cabinet cannot simply trounce a high court’s mandate and then claim ignorance. The delay was not a bureaucratic hiccup; it was a calculated gamble that the political consequences of defying the Court would be minimal—a gamble that failed spectacularly.
What makes this case troubling is the broader pattern it reflects. Throughout Trump’s tenure, the Justice Department was weaponized to settle scores, targeting political opponents and silencing dissent. The Ábrego saga exemplifies this: a vulnerable immigrant, an ordinary traffic stop, and a sudden, high-profile prosecution following pressure on the administration.
The vindictive nature of this case hinges on timing, as legal scholars like Parloff have noted. No evidence suggests that Ábrego posed any danger or that his conduct warranted a federal indictment. Instead, the prosecution appears to be a punitive response to a judicial rebuke—exactly the kind of abuse of power the Constitution seeks to prevent.
Blue Press Journal – The Trump administration’s second term has been marked by controversy, but one of the most alarming developments has been the transformation of the Department of Health and Human Services under the leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Since taking office in February, Kennedy has been on a mission to reshape the department in his image, rejecting the medical establishment and promoting his own brand of pseudoscience.
One of the most significant changes has been the elimination of thousands of jobs within the department, a move that has been widely criticized by experts and lawmakers alike. According to a report by the Washington Post, the cuts have “decimated” the department’s capacity to respond to public health crises. The Post reported that the department had lost over 3,000 employees since Kennedy took office, with many more facing uncertainty about their future.
In addition to the job cuts, Kennedy has also frozen or canceled billions of dollars in scientific research, a move that has been denounced by the scientific community. The New York Times reported that the cancellations have “halted or delayed research into some of the most pressing health issues of our time, including cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and infectious diseases”.
Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again movement has been the driving force behind these changes, and has been characterized by a rejection of established medical wisdom. He has used his position to promote discredited ideas about vaccines, seed oils, fluoride, and Tylenol, often citing debunked research and conspiracy theories to support his claims.
For example, Kennedy has repeatedly used his authority to promote the false claim that vaccines are linked to autism, a claim that has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have both concluded that there is no evidence to support a link between vaccines and autism.
The consequences of Kennedy’s actions are already being felt. The department’s abandonment of evidence-based medicine has created confusion and uncertainty among the public, and has undermined trust in the medical establishment. As Dr. Eric Widera, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times, “When you have a government that’s not grounded in science, it’s a recipe for disaster”.
The Trump administration’s decision to put Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services has been a disaster for public health. By rejecting the medical establishment and promoting pseudoscience, Kennedy has undermined the department’s ability to respond to public health crises and has put the health and well-being of Americans at risk.
Blue Press Journal 