Blue Press Journal – In recent remarks, President Donald Trump, a draft doger, criticized Senator Mark Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy combat pilot and NASA astronaut, for stating in a video that military personnel are trained not to follow illegal orders. While public figures are subject to scrutiny, misrepresenting a fundamental principle of military ethics for political gain undermines both national values and public understanding of military duty.
Senator Kelly’s statement echoes long-standing U.S. military doctrine: service members take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not to blindly obey commands. This principle has been affirmed in military training, legal precedents, and historical events—from the Nuremberg Trials to modern-day operational guidelines. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) clearly establishes that obeying unlawful orders does not absolve individuals of responsibility for their actions.
By framing Kelly’s accurate and responsible comments as unpatriotic or subversive, the critique distorts a cornerstone of American civil-military relations. The U.S. Armed Forces instill not only discipline but also moral and legal accountability. Soldiers, sailors, and officers are expected to exercise judgment when confronted with directives that violate the law or the Constitution. This safeguard protects both service members and democratic governance.
Attacking a decorated veteran for reiterating accepted military protocol does a disservice to the brave men and women who serve. It risks eroding public trust in the professionalism and integrity of the armed forces. More importantly, it conflates lawful dissent and ethical duty with disloyalty—dangerous rhetoric in a democracy.
Military service demands courage, sacrifice, and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law. Mark Kelly’s career exemplifies these values. To suggest otherwise not only misrepresents the facts but also diminishes the standards to which all Americans should hold their leaders—civilian and military alike. In upholding the principle that no one is above the law, Senator Kelly speaks not just as a veteran, but as a steward of democratic integrity.
Donald J. Trump has leveraged his brand, his political apparatus, and even the vestiges of his former office to amass unprecedented personal wealth. But even as the public eye focuses on multi-million dollar deals involving crypto tokens and foreign entities, a deeper and perhaps more cynical mechanism of self-enrichment continues unabated: the direct funneling of Republican donor money into his own cash registers via the political committees he controls.
A recent analysis of Federal Election Commission (FEC) data reveals a stark pattern of political spending being used primarily to prop up the former president’s private businesses, confirming the suspicion that for Trump, the political process is a profoundly effective business model.
In the 10 months since he returned to the spotlight following his exit from office, Trump’s hotels and country clubs have collected approximately $1.1 million from Republican candidates and committees. Crucially, nearly four-fifths of that sum—a staggering $857,246—originated from entities that Trump himself dictates and manages.
Leading the charge is the Republican National Committee (RNC), which has poured at least $796,513 into Trump properties. Additionally, MAGA Inc., Trump’s primary Super PAC, added $60,733 to that tally. In effect, major GOP fundraising engines, fueled by grassroots donations meant to elect Republicans nationwide, are instead serving as the former president’s captive clients.
Grifting in Plain Sight
This highly formalized process of self-dealing, which converts political contributions into corporate revenue, has drawn sharp rebuke from ethics watchdogs.
Jordan Libowitz, head of communications for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), highlighted the significance of these continuous smaller drains on donor funds. “When Trump rakes in tens of millions of dollars from crypto deals, it’s easy to miss when he grifts hundreds of thousands of dollars from his political apparatus, but those numbers add up,” Libowitz stated. “Ask an average American if they think pocketing $800,000 is a big deal or chump change.”
The transparency of the transaction is perhaps the most audacious element. Campaign funds, gathered under the banner of political necessity, are being used to pay for overhead, events, and stays at resorts that perpetually carry the Trump name—a move that virtually guarantees the highest possible margin of profit for the owner. There is no competitive bidding process, only the implicit mandate that political activity supporting Trump must also financially benefit him.
Algorithms of Loyalty
This continuous revenue stream relies on the unshakeable loyalty of Trump’s base and the strategic effectiveness of his fundraising machine.
One anonymous GOP consultant familiar with the operation confirmed that the success is highly systematic, driven not by fresh political messaging, but by refined methods aimed at dedicated followers. “It is all algorithms that are paying off,” the consultant noted, suggesting that the committees are exploiting established formulas and scripts that reliably drain small-dollar donations, which are then routed to the Trump Organization.
A Pattern of Monetizing Power
This dedicated use of political committees as profit centers fits seamlessly into Trump’s broader, aggressive strategy of monetizing the influence derived from his public life.
The funneling of nearly $860,000 in committee funds is merely the tip of an ice-cold pattern of financial opportunism. Trump recently used the imprimatur of the White House—which he occupied years ago—to stage a dinner honoring the largest purchasers of his deeply controversial crypto “meme” coins.
Furthermore, his willingness to use taxpayer funds to promote his private interests is well-documented. Last year, he spent an estimated $10 million of taxpayer funds to speak at the grand opening of his golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland, an event the White House was inappropriately pressured to publicize.
Perhaps most troubling are the apparent quid pro quo arrangements involving foreign nations. Earlier this year, Trump reportedly solicited a $400 million luxury Boeing 747 from Qatar for temporary use as Air Force 1 before it is supposedly handed over to his presidential library. This request came only after Qatar was granted significant military concessions, including permission to use an Air Force Base in Idaho and a powerful, NATO-like security guarantee should the nation be attacked.
Make Tump Rich Again (MTRA)
These combined strategies—from using committees to pay exorbitant hotel fees to soliciting massive gifts from countries receiving favorable foreign policy treatment—paint a clear picture: Donald Trump views the political sphere less as a venue for public service and more as the ultimate vehicle for personal, unrestricted wealth accumulation. The political apparatus that donors assume is working to secure victory for the Republican cause is, in reality, ensuring the financial security of one man’s private empire.
BLUE PRESS JOURNAL – The Trump administration’s tenure has been marked by a relentless pursuit of retribution against perceived political opponents, a campaign promise that has become a defining characteristic of his governance. A thorough Reuters analysis has revealed that at least 470 individuals, organizations, and institutions have been targeted, averaging over one target per day, either by name or as part of broader purges. This systematic approach to punishment has raised concerns about the erosion of norms in US governance and the weaponization of executive power.
The administration’s actions have taken various forms, including punitive measures such as firings and suspensions, threats of investigations and penalties, and coercion to force organizations to roll back diversity initiatives. At least 36 orders have been issued, targeting over 100 individuals and entities with punitive actions. The firing of prosecutors who investigated Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election, penalizing media organizations and law firms tied to opponents, and sidelining civil servants who questioned his policies are stark examples of this retribution.
However, the Trump administration disputes the notion that it is driven by a desire for revenge, instead framing its actions as necessary to enforce the electoral mandate and hold individuals accountable for wrongdoing. This justification, however, is contested by experts who argue that the scale and systematic nature of Trump’s retribution efforts represent a significant departure from long-standing norms in US governance. The parallels drawn to former President Richard Nixon’s quest for vengeance are particularly striking, highlighting the alarming implications of Trump’s actions.
Many of Trump’s targets have challenged their punishments as illegal, filing administrative appeals or legal challenges claiming wrongful termination. While these actions have been cheered by Trump’s staunchest backers, who view them as a necessary response to perceived injustices against Trump, they raise serious concerns about the rule of law and the independence of institutions.
The Trump administration’s retribution efforts have significant implications for the US governance system. By wielding executive power to punish perceived foes, the administration is undermining the principles of accountability and transparency that underpin democratic governance. The systematic nature of these efforts suggests a calculated attempt to intimidate and silence opponents, rather than a legitimate effort to enforce the law.
The Trump administration’s pursuit of retribution against perceived political opponents is a troubling trend that threatens the foundations of US democracy. As the administration continues to wield executive power to punish its foes, it is imperative that the courts and other institutions remain vigilant in defending the rule of law and upholding the principles of accountability and transparency.
BLUE PRESS JOURNAL – The special election in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District, initially considered a safe Republican seat after Donald Trump won it by over 22% in 2024, has unexpectedly become intensely competitive. Both Republicans and Democrats are heavily investing funds, with Republicans fearing that Trump’s current unpopularity and the off-year timing could lead to an upset loss for their candidate, Matt Van Epps, against Democrat Aftyn Behn.
This tightening race aligns with a national trend where Democrats have consistently overperformed in special elections since Trump’s return to office. Recognizing the severe implications, Donald Trump has personally intervened, urging his supporters to vote for Van Epps.
The outcome of this election carries serious consequences for the Republican Party’s narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. A loss for Van Epps would reduce the GOP’s majority to a bare minimum of 218 seats. With the impending resignation of Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in January, the party could potentially lose its majority altogether before the 2026 midterms. Internally, there is growing discontent among House Republicans towards Speaker Mike Johnson for his unwavering defense of Trump, with some predicting more resignations and even Johnson losing his gavel due to low morale. Regardless of the final result, a close contest in a historically safe Republican district like Tennessee’s 7th is a grim indicator for the GOP’s prospects in the 2026 midterms, signaling potential widespread losses if they struggle to defend such seats.
BLUE PRESS JOURNAL – In a stinging legal defeat for Donald Trump, a federal appeals court on Monday upheld nearly $1 million in sanctions against the former president and his lawyer, Alina Habba, for filing a lawsuit that it deemed a frivolous and politically motivated abuse of the judicial system.
The original suit, which ballooned to 193 pages, alleged a vast conspiracy to undermine Trump’s 2016 campaign with false Russia collusion claims. It was dismissed last year by a district court judge as a “political manifesto” lacking any legal merit.
In its 36-page decision, the three-judge appellate panel found that the lawsuit was built on “tenuous links” and recycled debunked conspiracy theories. The court heavily criticized the lack of legal diligence, quoting the lower court’s finding that the complaint “advanced legal theories foreclosed by precedent ‘that the most basic legal research would have revealed.’”
The appeals court was particularly critical of the fact that Trump and Habba abandoned the majority of their own arguments when appealing the sanctions.
“Trump leaves all these frivolous claims behind, making a total of 11 of his 16 claims he does not appeal,” the court wrote. “Trump and Habba give us no reason to reverse the district court’s ruling that these claims were frivolous.”
The decision solidifies a significant financial penalty aimed at deterring the use of courts for political retribution. It marks a legal setback for Trump and highlights the unprofessional and meritless tactics of his team, condemned by two levels of the federal judiciary. The ruling serves as a warning to those who might weaponize the legal system for political grievances.
Blue Press Journal – In a nation built on the rule of law, the distinction between a lawful order and a personal command is not merely semantic—it is the bedrock of our democratic and military institutions. A recent political firestorm has brought this critical principle into sharp focus, sparking a vital conversation about duty, the Constitution, and the limits of power. When a group of lawmakers released a video reminding U.S. service members of their legal obligations, the ensuing backlash revealed a fundamental clash of ideologies—a clash that hinges on one unwavering legal truth: military members can be prosecuted for following orders that are unlawful.
The controversy ignited when the lawmakers, many of them veterans, published a direct message to those in uniform. Their statement was not a call for insubordination, but a reaffirmation of established military law. “Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear,” the lawmakers stated. “You can refuse illegal orders…you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution.”
The response from the executive branch was, according to one lawmaker, swift and chilling. She alleges that the President’s reaction was not a political rebuttal but an act of intimidation. “The President directing the FBI to target us is exactly why we made this video in the first place,” she stated. “He believes in weaponizing the federal government against his [perceived] enemies and does not believe laws apply to him or his Cabinet. He uses legal harassment as an intimidation tactic, to scare people out of speaking up.”
This alleged response frames the central issue perfectly. The lawmakers contend that their message, an educational reminder of legal duty, was met with an attempt to suppress their First Amendment rights through the very federal agencies sworn to uphold the law. As they put it, “President Trump is using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress.”
The Legal Bedrock: Duty Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
To understand the legitimacy of the lawmakers’ message, one must look directly at the law that governs the armed forces: the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ is not ambiguous on this point. While it demands obedience to lawful orders, it also implicitly and explicitly holds service members accountable for their actions, even when those actions are commanded by a superior.
The defense of “just following orders” is not a legal shield in the American military justice system. An order is considered unlawful if it violates the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, or the international laws of war. A service member who carries out an order that a person of ordinary sense and understanding would know to be illegal is subject to criminal prosecution.
The UCMJ, for example, strictly “prohibits the premeditated and unlawful killing of a human being.” An order to commit such an act would be patently illegal, and the subordinate who carried it out would share criminal liability with the commander who gave it. This principle extends to any order that directs personnel to violate constitutional rights, commit war crimes, or break established U.S. law. Therefore, when the lawmakers stated that service members “must refuse illegal orders,” they were not expressing a political opinion—they were citing a core tenet of American military jurisprudence.
The Echoes of Nuremberg: A Lesson Paid for in Blood
This legal standard is not a recent invention. Its modern roots are deeply embedded in the aftermath of World War II and the historic Nuremberg trials. At Nuremberg, Nazi officials were prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. A primary line of their defense was that they were merely cogs in a machine, following the orders of their superiors. The International Military Tribunal decisively rejected this argument, establishing the “Nuremberg principle”—that an individual’s duty to international law can transcend their obligation to obey a superior’s command.
This principle sent a clear message to the world: individual accountability cannot be abdicated. This a lesson the United States military has taken to heart. Over the decades, U.S. military courts have consistently pushed back against the “Nuremberg defense.” From court-martials related to the My Lai massacre in Vietnam to more recent cases, prosecutors have successfully argued that military members can be prosecuted for following orders that are unlawful. The expectation is that American service members are not automatons but moral agents, equipped with the training and judgment to recognize and refuse an illegal command.
The Oath to the Constitution, Not to a Commander
Faced with criticism, the lawmakers involved have stood their ground, framing their actions as a fulfillment of their solemn vow. “We swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it,” they asserted. “We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship.”
This highlights the most crucial element of a service member’s commitment. The military oath of enlistment is not to a president, a general, or a political party. It is an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” This places the Constitution as the ultimate authority. An order that contravenes the Constitution is, by definition, an illegal order that a service member is duty-bound to disobey.
In this context, the lawmakers’ video was an exercise of their First Amendment right to state a fact—a fact essential for the preservation of constitutional order. The attempt to paint this as an act of disloyalty fundamentally misinterprets where a service member’s ultimate loyalty must lie.
Conclusion: A Republic of Laws
The controversy surrounding this video is more than a political spat. It is a test of our nation’s commitment to the principles it professes to uphold. The core message—that obedience in the military is conditional on legality—is a vital safeguard against tyranny. It ensures that our armed forces serve the nation and its laws, not the unchecked will of a single individual.
The allegation that federal law enforcement would be used to intimidate elected officials for speaking a legal truth is profoundly disturbing. It suggests a belief that power should be absolute and dissent should be silenced. But the law is clear, and the historical precedent is undeniable. In the United States military, the duty to the Constitution is paramount. A service member’s most profound responsibility is not blind obedience, but reasoned, moral, and legal judgment. To refuse an unlawful order is not an act of defiance; it is the ultimate act of allegiance.
Blue Press Journal – The ongoing saga of the Republican Party’s antagonism towards veterans has taken another disturbing turn. The Pentagon’s decision to investigate Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) for a video in which he urged service members not to follow illegal orders has sparked outrage. This is not just another example of the GOP’s disdain for those who have served our country; it’s a blatant attempt to politicize the military and silence a war hero.
Sen. Kelly, a decorated veteran with a distinguished career in the United States Navy, including four trips to space, was simply telling troops the truth. As he said, “Follow lawful orders. Don’t follow illegal orders.” This is not a radical or subversive message; it’s basic civics. Every member of the military receives this same message repeatedly during their service. It’s a fundamental principle of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and a cornerstone of military ethics.
Yet, the Pentagon, under the Trump administration, is investigating Sen. Kelly for stating this obvious truth. Meanwhile, Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News personality, is leading the charge against the senator, exemplifying the Republican Party’s willingness to attack a war hero for simply doing the right thing. The situation took a dark turn when Donald Trump himself suggested that Sen. Kelly should be “lynched.” This kind of rhetoric is not only unacceptable but also revealing of the GOP’s deep-seated disdain for veterans who dare to speak truth to power.
As Sen. Kelly said, “If you’re given an order that’s illegal, you have a duty to disobey it.” This is not a partisan statement; it’s a reflection of the values that our military is supposed to uphold. The UCMJ is clear: service members are obligated to follow lawful orders, and they have a duty to disobey orders that are unlawful.
The Republican Party’s actions against Sen. Kelly are part of a larger pattern of behavior that is anti-veteran. From the mass firing of veterans from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to the proposed cuts to veterans’ benefits, the GOP has consistently shown a willingness to harm those who have served our country.
We must stand with Sen. Mark Kelly against this politicization of the military and the Republican Party’s war on veterans. As a nation, we owe it to our service members to protect their rights and ensure that they are not used as pawns in a partisan game. We must also hold accountable those who would seek to silence veterans like Sen. Kelly for speaking the truth.
As we reflect on the sacrifices made by our veterans, we must also acknowledge the hypocrisy of those who claim to be their champions. Donald Trump, who dodged the draft, is now leading the charge against a decorated war hero. This is a stark reminder that the GOP’s commitment to veterans is nothing more than a political facade.
The investigation into Sen. Mark Kelly exemplifies the Republican Party’s anti-veteran stance. We must oppose this politicization and support our veterans in their quest for justice. As Sen. Kelly shows, it’s time to reaffirm our commitment to the military values of honor, courage, and standing up for what is right in the face of adversity.
Blue Press Journal – In a significant victory for Democrats, Republicans have finally agreed to legislation that compels the Trump administration to release the full files on Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender. However, Democrats are not celebrating just yet, as they anticipate a long and arduous battle to ensure the Justice Department complies with the new law.
The next phase of the battle is already taking shape, with Democrats planning a series of tactical maneuvers designed to keep the spotlight on the issue and pressure the Justice Department to release the documents. “It will definitely be a fight every day for a long time until we get all the materials released,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
The stakes are high, and Democrats are wary of the Trump administration’s intentions. Despite the new legislation, Democrats have no faith that Trump’s newfound support for releasing the files is sincere. They are bracing for another long battle to force the administration to honor the law, much like they have with other issues.
The Justice Department has thus far only turned over a fraction of the information in its possession, according to a source familiar with the House Oversight Investigation. This has raised concerns among Democrats that the DOJ may try to delay or withhold the release of the documents.
Adding fuel to the fire, Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, has opened a new investigation into Democratic associates of Epstein, citing “new information“, which many view as a stall tactic by her. This development has sparked fears that the DOJ will invoke the ongoing probe to delay the mandatory release of the files indefinitely.
Bondi’s investigation has been seen as a potential pretext for the DOJ to slow-walk the release of the Epstein files. Democrats are not taking this lying down, and are preparing to use every tool at their disposal to keep the pressure on the Justice Department. Letters, lawsuits, additional subpoenas, and votes of contempt are all on the table as Democrats seek to ensure that the documents are released.
“We’re not going to let the Trump administration off the hook,” said Rep. Raskin. “We’re going to keep pushing until we get to the truth.”
The Epstein case has been a contentious issue for months, with Democrats demanding greater transparency and accountability from the Trump administration. The release of the Epstein files is seen as a critical step in uncovering the truth about the extent of Epstein’s crimes and the potential involvement of high-ranking officials, including Donald Trump.
As the battle to release the Epstein files intensifies, it’s clear that Democrats are committed. They are preparing for a prolonged fight to ensure the Justice Department follows the law and releases the documents, as the American people deserve.
Keep your eyes peeled for some exciting updates on this wild story, because the Blue Press Journal is digging into every jaw-dropping twist and turn!
Blue Press Journal – A group of lawmakers expressed their strong criticism of President Donald Trump’s approach to ending the Russia-Ukraine war, revealing that Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the proposed peace plan as a “wish list” of the Russians. The lawmakers’ comments came during a panel discussion at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada on Saturday.
However, lawmakers are now questioning the plan’s legitimacy, with Senator Angus King stating, “It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine.” King’s sentiments were echoed by other lawmakers, who argue that the plan would only embolden Moscow’s aggression and send a worrying message to other leaders who have threatened their neighbors.
Rubio’s characterization of the plan as a “wish list” of the Russians raises serious concerns about the Trump administration’s approach to the conflict. “The fact that the Secretary of State is describing it as a ‘wish list’ suggests that this is not a serious proposal,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen. “It’s a recipe for disaster and a betrayal of Ukraine’s trust.”
The lawmakers’ criticism arises as Trump urges Kyiv to accept a plan by late next week, which requires Ukraine to make major concessions to Russia. Lawmakers stand united against a plan they view as rewarding Russian aggression.
In the words of Senator King, “This is not a peace plan; it’s a surrender plan.” The international community is watching closely as the Trump administration’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to spark controversy and debate.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul on Friday unloaded on Republican Representative Elise Stefanik, calling her out for her Islamophobic attacks on New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. Stefanik, who is running for governor and challenging Hochul next year, has been accused of using divisive rhetoric against Mamdani, labeling him a “jihadist” in a clear attempt to smear his reputation.
Hochul’s scathing rebuke came during a live interview on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes”. When asked about Stefanik’s recent attacks on Mamdani, Hochul didn’t hold back. “She’s full of shit,” Hochul said, before quickly correcting herself. “I’m sorry. I mean she really is.” The governor’s comments were a clear indication of her disdain for Stefanik’s tactics.
Stefanik’s attacks on Mamdani gained notoriety after Donald Trump praised the mayor-elect during an Oval Office meeting. Trump dismissed Stefanik’s “jihadist” label, saying “I think this mayor is going to be doing some things that are really great.” Stefanik’s attempt to distance herself from Trump’s endorsement has been seen as a weak attempt to soften her image ahead of her gubernatorial run.
Hochul’s criticism of Stefanik underscores the intense politics around Mamdani’s mayoral win. After initially withholding her endorsement, Hochul supported Mamdani in September, seeking a mayor who wouldn’t “surrender” to Trump. Stefanik’s attacks on Mamdani exemplified the divisive politics Hochul aimed to distance herself from.
The exchange between Hochul and Stefanik highlights the heated tone of New York politics. As the gubernatorial election intensifies, Hochul won’t hesitate to challenge Stefanik’s tactics. With Stefanik’s Islamophobic attacks on Mamdani facing criticism, Hochul’s comments may resonate with voters seeking a leader who opposes divisive rhetoric.
Stefanik’s campaign for governor has been marked by her hardline stance on various issues, but her Islamophobic attacks on Mamdani have drawn widespread criticism. Hochul’s comments on Friday were a clear indication that she will not let Stefanik’s divisive rhetoric go unchecked.
The exchange between Hochul and Stefanik is likely to be just the beginning of a heated gubernatorial campaign. As the two women vie for the top spot in New York state, their differences on issues like tolerance and inclusivity are likely to take center stage.
Blue Press Journal 