Is Trump Trying to Engineer His Own Removal — and Why

Donald Trump’s recent conduct is no longer merely provocative. It is destabilizing, self-sabotaging, and increasingly incoherent for a sitting president who ostensibly wants to retain power. That reality has prompted a more unsettling question now circulating among lawmakers, analysts, and even some former allies: is Trump trying to force an end to his own presidency—and if so, why?

Presidents who want to stay in office do not normally behave this way.

Trump has spent recent weeks attacking members of his own party, ridiculing Rep. Thomas Massey over his remarriage after the death of his wife, publicly clashing with Marjorie Taylor Greene, and engaging in crude name-calling at a prayer breakfast—an event traditionally marked by restraint and symbolic unity. He has posted racially incendiary imagery depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as monkeys, a move guaranteed to provoke outrage, condemnation, and international scrutiny. He has also continued an almost obsessive campaign of self-memorialization, renaming institutions and floating new buildings bearing his name while the country faces genuine governance challenges.

This is not how a president consolidates power. It is how a presidency unravels.

Why Not Just Resign?

If Trump wants out, resignation would seem the obvious path. Yet resignation would strip him of the protections, leverage, and narrative control that come with office. It would also reopen immediate exposure to criminal and civil consequences that presidential power helps delay or complicate.

Resignation is an admission. Removal is a grievance.

Being forced out—especially under the 25th Amendment—would allow Trump to frame himself as a victim of a political coup, preserving loyalty among supporters while deflecting responsibility for policy failures, scandals, or legal jeopardy. It would convert exit into martyrdom.

That distinction matters.

Is Compromise a Factor?

There is no verified evidence that Trump is currently being blackmailed by Israel or any other foreign government. Claims of foreign leverage, kompromat, or coercion remain speculative and unproven. However, the question persists not because of evidence, but because of behavior.

Trump’s actions increasingly resemble those of someone under extreme pressure—internally or externally—rather than someone in control. Erratic escalation, reckless offense, and public norm-breaking are classic signs of a leader attempting to force a crisis rather than manage one.

If Trump were compromised in any way—legally, financially, politically, or personally—engineering removal through perceived incompetence could be viewed as a safer off-ramp than resignation or electoral defeat. Again, this is analysis, not accusation. But it is analysis driven by observable conduct.

The 25th Amendment as an Exit Strategy?

The 25th Amendment was designed for incapacity, not misconduct. But Trump’s behavior increasingly tests that boundary. By acting in ways that raise questions about judgment, impulse control, and fitness for office, he may be daring Congress and his Cabinet to act.

That would shift responsibility away from him and onto institutions he has long painted as enemies. It would also allow him to avoid the appearance of quitting while still escaping the burdens of governance.

In that sense, chaos becomes leverage.

The Larger Danger

The real danger is not whether Trump wants out. It is that the presidency itself is being used as a pressure-release valve for one man’s personal, legal, and psychological crises.

Democracies fail not only when leaders seize power, but when leaders intentionally degrade institutions to escape accountability. Whether Trump’s behavior stems from calculation, desperation, ego, or instability is almost beside the point. The effect is the same: erosion of norms, paralysis of governance, and normalization of conduct that would have ended any prior presidency.

Trump may or may not be seeking removal. He may or may not be under pressures the public cannot see.

But what is no longer in doubt is this: the presidency is being treated not as a responsibility to uphold, but as a weapon to wield—until it breaks.

And if that is the strategy, the cost will not be borne by Trump alone.

Republicans Turn on DHS Secretary Kristi Noem as Agency Dysfunction Deepens

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Kristi Noem is no longer facing isolated controversy — it is confronting a widening revolt from within President Donald Trump’s own party, as Republican lawmakers increasingly describe an agency paralyzed by mismanagement, centralized control, and leadership failures that now threaten national security, disaster response, and congressional oversight.

What began as outrage over an ICE operation in Minneapolis that left two U.S. citizens dead has metastasized into a far broader indictment of Noem’s tenure. From stalled hurricane recovery to turmoil at the nation’s cybersecurity agency, Republicans are openly questioning whether Noem is equipped — or willing — to competently run one of the federal government’s most complex departments.

“You’ve got to get adults in the room,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said flatly. “Get people in there who actually have the kind of experience you need to run large, complex organizations. And it’s just not her.”

Tillis has gone further than rhetoric, calling publicly for Noem’s resignation or removal. He is no longer an outlier.

A Secretary Who Bottlenecked Her Own Department

At the center of the backlash is what lawmakers describe as an unprecedented centralization of authority inside DHS — a system under which Noem personally must approve any expenditure over $100,000.

That decision has effectively frozen FEMA operations, delayed disaster aid, and forced state officials and lawmakers to plead directly with the secretary while communities waited for help.

“The data clearly shows that something is seriously wrong,” Tillis said on the Senate floor, citing failures in responses to Hurricanes Helene, Matthew, and Florence. Hurricane Helene alone killed roughly 250 people and caused nearly $80 billion in damage in North Carolina.

Republicans accuse Noem of responding not by accelerating relief, but by layering new bureaucracy onto an already strained system, turning FEMA into a chokepoint rather than a rapid-response agency.

The frustration was so severe that Tillis and Sen. Ted Budd placed a hold on a major DHS cybersecurity nomination — not over ideology, but to force attention on FEMA’s failures.

Cybersecurity Agency in Disarray

At the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the dysfunction appears just as severe.

CISA, tasked with defending America’s critical infrastructure, has been roiled by leadership turmoil under Noem’s handpicked appointee, Acting Director Madhu Gottumukkala. Allegations involving mishandling sensitive information and irregularities during security clearance procedures have generated a stream of damaging headlines — all while staff morale reportedly collapses.

Former officials describe an agency hollowed out and politicized.

“Morale is low. People are looking for glimmers of hope,” said a former senior CISA official who recently left the agency. “Everything is filtered through a political lens. You want to serve the country, and instead you’re fighting dysfunction.”

Behind closed doors, House appropriators have held emergency briefings over what they describe as the dismantling of offices responsible for countering weapons of mass destruction — another DHS mission now reportedly in limbo.

Congress Shut Out, Oversight Stonewalled

If operational failures were not enough, lawmakers from both parties accuse Noem of actively obstructing congressional oversight.

House Homeland Security Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) has criticized DHS for stonewalling testimony requests. Noem further inflamed tensions when she abruptly left a high-profile hearing — citing a FEMA meeting that was later canceled — prompting Democrats to issue a subpoena to compel her return.

One Republican close to committee leadership called the move “a sign of arrogance and disrespect.”

Even Republicans supportive of aggressive immigration enforcement have bristled at Noem’s unilateral decisions, including a plan to convert a warehouse in rural Mississippi into a massive ICE detention center — a move Sen. Roger Wicker warned would damage local economic development while delivering no clear community benefit.

Trump’s Loyalty vs. Congressional Reality

President Trump has publicly shielded Noem, reiterating his support and citing internal polling showing strong approval among his base. DHS officials have aggressively touted border enforcement metrics and claimed cost savings.

But on Capitol Hill, patience is evaporating.

House and Senate appropriators are now preparing to strip DHS of its flexibility to move funds between accounts, a rare and punitive measure driven by what lawmakers describe as secrecy, mismanagement, and an unwillingness to answer basic questions.

“I know the secretary doesn’t like that,” said Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who chairs the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. “Welcome to the club.”

A Secretary Running Out of Allies

Some Republicans are waiting for upcoming hearings before delivering final judgment. But the direction of travel is unmistakable.

This is no longer about immigration optics or a single tragic incident. It is about whether the Department of Homeland Security is being competently governed at all — and whether Kristi Noem’s leadership has become a liability rather than an asset.

For now, Trump stands by her. Congress is no longer so sure.

FBI Warns Parents of ‘764’ Network: A Predatory Online Ring Targeting Children

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Federal law-enforcement officials are sounding the alarm over a shadowy and violent online network known as “764,” describing it as one of the most disturbing child-exploitation threats currently operating in the digital space.

The warning gained national attention after FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino addressed the issue publicly, stating that the Bureau is currently investigating hundreds of active cases nationwide linked to the network. Bongino characterized the group not as a fringe internet phenomenon, but as a coordinated criminal operation that deliberately targets minors.

According to law-enforcement officials, the 764 network uses mainstream online platforms — including chat apps, gaming spaces, and social media services popular with children — to identify, groom, and psychologically dominate young victims. The goal is control. Once contact is established, perpetrators allegedly coerce minors into acts of self-harm, sexual exploitation, violence, or extreme humiliation, often demanding proof in the form of photos or videos.

Investigators say those materials are then used as leverage — a method known as sextortion — trapping victims in escalating cycles of abuse, fear, and compliance. In several cases tied to the network, authorities report children were pushed toward severe self-injury or suicide.

Law-enforcement sources stress that the danger is not hypothetical.

This is not online “edginess,” shock culture, or dark humor. Officials describe 764 as a deliberate system of psychological coercion, built to exploit vulnerability and isolate victims from parents, friends, and trusted adults.

The network is believed to have emerged in the early 2020s and operates across state and national borders. Its decentralized structure makes it difficult to dismantle, but federal authorities say arrests have already been made and more indictments are expected. In some jurisdictions, the conduct associated with 764 has been investigated under statutes related to child sexual abuse material, cyberstalking, and violent criminal conspiracy.

Bongino and other officials have emphasized that parental awareness is a critical line of defense, warning that many families remain unaware of how quickly and quietly grooming can occur online.

“This is a predator’s ecosystem,” one law-enforcement official said. “And it thrives on secrecy, silence, and confusion.”

---

What Parents Need to Know: Recognizing Grooming and Protecting Kids Online

Common Signs of Online Grooming

Parents should be alert to behavioral changes and digital red flags, including:

• Sudden secrecy around devices, passwords, or online activity

• New online “friends” who discourage real-world relationships

• Emotional withdrawal, anxiety, depression, or unexplained anger

• Being pressured to keep conversations or images “private”

• Fear or panic when access to devices is limited

• Unexplained requests for money, gift cards, or cryptocurrency

Groomers often start slow, presenting themselves as supportive, relatable, or “the only one who understands.” Control comes later.

---

How Groomers Manipulate Children

Online predators commonly use:

• Flattery and validation to build trust

• Shared secrets to create dependency

• Isolation tactics, turning children against parents or friends

• Escalation, gradually pushing boundaries over time

• Threats or blackmail once compromising material exists

The manipulation is psychological first — sexual or violent exploitation follows.

---

Steps Parents Can Take Right Now

• Talk openly with children about online dangers without shaming

• Normalize reporting uncomfortable interactions immediately

• Monitor apps, games, and messaging platforms regularly

• Use parental controls, but don’t rely on them alone

• Teach children that no online relationship should require secrecy

• Encourage kids to trust their instincts and speak up early

If you suspect grooming or coercion, document everything and contact local law enforcement or the FBI immediately.

---

The Bottom Line

The 764 network is not an abstract internet rumor. It represents a real, organized threat to children, operating in spaces many families still consider safe.

Silence is what predators rely on. Awareness is what stops them.

What Sharia Law Actually Is — And How Keith Self Weaponized Ignorance and Racism

Congressman Keith Self’s claim of a looming “Sharia takeover” of Texas is not just false — it is a textbook example of racialized fear-mongering dressed up as patriotism.

Self did not cite intelligence reports.
He did not cite court rulings.
He did not cite law enforcement findings, academic research, or even named witnesses.

Instead, he relied on a 16-year-old secondhand anecdote involving an unnamed Muslim shopkeeper, relayed through a pastor, with no documentation and no corroboration — and presented it to the public as evidence of a civilizational threat.

That is not leadership.
That is not vigilance.
That is xenophobia masquerading as concern.

What Sharia Law Actually Is

Sharia is a religious and ethical framework that guides how some Muslims practice their faith in personal matters such as:

• Prayer

• Charity

• Fasting

• Family obligations

It is not a shadow legal system secretly replacing American law.

Sharia functions in the same way:

• Biblical teachings guide Christians

• Halakha guides Jewish religious life

None of these religious frameworks have the power to override U.S. law.

The Constitutional Reality Self Ignores

In the United States:

• The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land

• Federal and state courts enforce secular law

• No religious system can override constitutional authority

• There is no legal or political mechanism for a “Sharia takeover”

None.
Zero.
Not theoretically, not practically, not secretly.

Any suggestion otherwise is either gross ignorance of civics or deliberate deception.

Why Keith Self’s Claim Is Racist in Effect — and Function

Self did not warn Texans about a policy proposal or legal loophole.
He warned them about Muslims as a group.

By framing Muslim immigration, Muslim communities, and Muslim religious life as an organized plot to “dominate Texas,” Self engaged in the same logic historically used to demonize:

• Catholics

• Jews

• Japanese Americans

• Black civil rights organizers

The pattern is always the same:

1. Strip a group of individuality

2. Cast them as foreign and threatening

3. Suggest secret coordination

4. Demand fear and suspicion

This is not concern for law.
It is collective suspicion based on religion and ethnicity.

The Evidence Is Not Just Weak — It’s Nonexistent

There is:

• No investigation confirming such a plan

• No intelligence assessment supporting the claim

• No criminal prosecutions

• No court cases

• No legislation advancing Sharia authority

• No verified migration data indicating coordinated religious conquest

Self’s accusation collapses under the slightest scrutiny.

Why This Is Dangerous

When a sitting member of Congress amplifies baseless conspiracy theories about a religious minority:

• Hate crimes increase

• Communities are stigmatized

• Democratic discourse degrades

• Trust in institutions erodes

This is not hypothetical. History is clear.

Bottom Line

Keith Self did not “raise concerns.”
He manufactured fear. 

He did not defend the Constitution.
He demonstrated he does not understand it.

He did not protect Texas.
He demeaned Texans — especially Muslim Texans — by treating them as suspects instead of citizens.

This was not a warning.
It was a smear.

Keith Self must be primaried and voted out if he makes it to the General Election.  There is no room for racism or xenophobia in leadership.

---

Trump Escalates Racist Attacks From the Presidency, Shares Video Depicting the Obamas as Apes

Washington — In a stunning display of racial provocation from the highest office in the United States, President Donald Trump ignited nationwide condemnation after posting a video that portrayed former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as apes — a dehumanizing trope long associated with racist propaganda.

The one-minute video, shared Thursday on Trump’s Truth Social account, does not merely traffic in offensive imagery. It also revives demonstrably false claims that Dominion Voting Systems rigged the 2020 presidential election — allegations that have been repeatedly debunked in courts, rejected by election officials from both parties, and contradicted by Trump’s own former administration.

Near the end of the video, the Obamas’ faces are digitally superimposed onto monkey bodies while the song The Lion Sleeps Tonight plays in the background. The imagery is unmistakable, intentional, and impossible to separate from a long history of racial caricature used to demean Black Americans.

This was not an isolated lapse in judgment. It was a calculated act by a sitting president who has repeatedly used manipulated media, conspiracy theories, and racial grievance as political weapons.

Condemnation From Lawmakers and Former Officials

Democratic leaders and former officials swiftly denounced the post, warning that Trump’s conduct represents a moral and institutional collapse of presidential norms.

California Governor Gavin Newsom called the video “disgusting behavior by the President,” urging Republicans to publicly denounce it rather than remain silent. “Every single Republican must denounce this. Now,” Newsom’s press office wrote.

Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security adviser to President Obama, framed the episode as one that will define Trump’s historical legacy. “Future Americans will embrace the Obamas as beloved figures,” Rhodes wrote, “while studying Trump as a stain on our history.”

A Pattern, Not a Mistake

Trump’s use of digitally altered media to target Black political figures is well documented. In recent years, he has shared AI-generated videos depicting Barack Obama being arrested in the Oval Office and shown behind bars in a prison jumpsuit. He also circulated a manipulated clip portraying House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries with a fake moustache and sombrero — another racially charged caricature.

These acts have not been accompanied by apologies or retractions. Instead, they reflect a sustained strategy of racialized ridicule and disinformation deployed for political gain.

Barack Obama remains the only African-American president in U.S. history. During the 2024 election cycle, he actively campaigned against Trump in support of Vice President Kamala Harris — a fact that underscores the retaliatory nature of Trump’s attacks.

Presidential Power Weaponized

By amplifying racist imagery and election falsehoods from the presidency itself, Trump has once again blurred the line between personal grievance and state authority. This is not free speech exercised by a private citizen; it is the deliberate misuse of presidential reach to demean political opponents, inflame racial animus, and undermine democratic legitimacy.

The backlash is not about hurt feelings or political correctness. It is about whether the office of the presidency will continue to be used as a megaphone for racism, lies, and historical revisionism — or whether there remains any line Trump is unwilling to cross.

For many critics, that answer is now clear.

California School District Under Federal Investigation After Muslim Student Driven Out by Threats, Harassment, and Administrative Neglect

A California public school district is now under federal civil rights investigation after a Muslim teenage girl says administrators stood by while she was harassed, threatened with death, and effectively forced out of school athletics for asserting her religious boundaries.

Hadeel Hazameh, a student at Jurupa Valley High School, did not demand special treatment. She did not call for anyone’s exclusion. She asked for one thing: not to be compelled to undress in a locker room with a transgender athlete, citing her Islamic faith and modesty requirements.

What followed, she says, was a campaign of intimidation that the school failed—or refused—to stop.

According to Hazameh, classmates openly mocked her, insulted her religion, and escalated their attacks to death threats. The abuse was not hidden. It was visible, repeated, and known. Yet school officials allegedly allowed the hostile environment to persist, offering no meaningful protection while the student who reported the threats paid the price.

The outcome was predictable and damning: Hazameh quit volleyball. She quit track and field. She rushed to graduate early—not because she wanted to, but because remaining on campus had become untenable.

A Student Removed, While the System Remained Untouched

Hazameh’s experience raises a blunt question: when a student reports threats and harassment rooted in religion and sex, who is actually protected by school policy?

Not the student who left.

With the assistance of Advocates for Faith & Freedom, Hazameh and another student filed suit against Jurupa Unified School District, alleging violations of Title IX and religious discrimination. Their claim is not abstract. It is grounded in consequences: the loss of educational opportunity, athletic participation, and basic safety.

Federal authorities have now stepped in. The U.S. Department of Education has opened a civil rights investigation into the district, examining whether its policies—and its inaction—violated federal law by discriminating against female athletes and failing to protect students from harassment.

This case is one of at least 18 active federal investigations nationwide into school districts and colleges over similar policies.

Ideology Over Duty of Care

The Jurupa district was already under scrutiny following high-profile victories by a transgender athlete in girls’ track-and-field events, a controversy that drew national attention, forfeited games, and political commentary from then-President Donald Trump.

But Hazameh’s case shifts the focus from competition to something more fundamental: whether schools are abandoning their duty of care to students who dissent from prevailing ideology.

Title IX does not permit schools to sacrifice one student’s safety to avoid controversy. Civil rights law does not allow administrators to ignore death threats because responding would be politically inconvenient.

Yet that is precisely what Hazameh alleges happened.

Federal Law, Not Optional Guidelines

In February 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing federal agencies to interpret Title IX as prohibiting transgender participation in female sports categories and authorizing the withholding of federal funds from noncompliant institutions.

Whether one agrees with that policy or not is beside the point. Schools are not permitted to selectively enforce civil rights protections—nor are they allowed to punish religious students by neglect.

If Hazameh’s allegations are substantiated, the district’s failure would represent more than poor judgment. It would constitute a civil rights violation carried out through indifference.

The Message Sent to Students

The message Hazameh says she received was unmistakable: speak up, and you will be isolated; assert your faith, and you will be removed; endure threats quietly, or leave.

She left.

As federal investigators now review the district’s actions, the case stands as a test of whether public schools still recognize religious freedom and female student protections as enforceable rights—or as obstacles to be managed away.

For Hazameh, the cost has already been paid. The question now is whether the system that failed her will be held accountable.

The Epstein Files: Power, Protection, and the Questions the Media Refuses to Prosecute

The latest Jeffrey Epstein document release should have detonated a political reckoning. Instead, it has been smothered—parsed, minimized, and quietly diverted away from the most uncomfortable questions it raises. Millions of pages. Decades of abuse. Presidents, prime ministers, intelligence-linked figures, financiers, and tech magnates. And yet, the most consequential lines of inquiry remain effectively off-limits.

This is not journalistic caution. It is selective blindness.

The Epstein files do not merely document a sex trafficking operation. They document access—systemic, protected, institutional access to power. Epstein did not operate on the margins. He operated at the center, sustained by a network that extended into politics, finance, intelligence-adjacent circles, and foreign state interests.

An Operation That Could Not Exist Without Protection

Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal enterprise lasted for decades, crossed borders, survived multiple law-enforcement encounters, and rebounded even after a prior conviction. That is not the profile of a lone predator. That is the profile of a protected asset—or at minimum, a man whose utility outweighed the cost of stopping him.

Former CIA officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou has described Epstein as fitting the textbook definition of an “access agent”: someone positioned to move among elites, gather leverage, and open doors intelligence agencies cannot openly enter. This is not speculation pulled from fringe corners—it is an intelligence concept openly acknowledged by former insiders.

And yet, mainstream media treats the possibility as radioactive.

Israel, Influence, and the Wall of Silence

Investigative reporting has documented Epstein’s close proximity to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, his financial and advisory involvement in surveillance and cyber ventures linked to Israeli interests, and his role in facilitating relationships between intelligence-connected figures and global capital.

No court has ruled that Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence. That fact is repeatedly emphasized—correctly. What is not emphasized is that no serious investigation has publicly disproven it either.

Instead, the subject is largely avoided altogether.

The contrast is instructive. During Donald Trump’s presidency, unproven allegations of Russian influence dominated U.S. media for years. Raw intelligence claims were treated as front-page certainties. Anonymous sources drove endless panels and primetime specials.

Now, with Epstein documents showing proximity to Trump, extensive political financing tied to pro-Israel billionaires, and the existence of an FBI confidential human source report alleging compromise by Israel—however unverified—the media response is muted to the point of negligence.

This is not skepticism. This is deference.

Trump, Epstein, and the Double Standard

Donald Trump’s name appears repeatedly throughout the Epstein materials. The documents do not establish criminal guilt. Trump denies wrongdoing. That is noted.

What is not honestly confronted is the broader context: sustained social contact with Epstein, political and financial alignment with powerful foreign interests, and the existence of internal FBI reporting—however preliminary—raising red flags serious enough to be documented.

During Russiagate, far thinner material was treated as presumptive proof. Here, documented relationships and intelligence claims are waved away as inconvenient noise.

Why?

Media as Gatekeeper, Not Watchdog

The Epstein files expose more than crimes. They expose the limits of permissible inquiry. They show how quickly media institutions retreat when allegations implicate powerful allies rather than designated adversaries.

This is not about antisemitism, conspiracy, or ideology. It is about power accountability. Intelligence agencies use kompromat. States seek leverage. Wealth buys silence. These are not fringe beliefs—they are established facts of history.

What remains unresolved is whether Epstein’s operation functioned as a node in that ecosystem. If it did, the implications would eclipse every modern political scandal. It would mean presidents were not merely negligent—but potentially constrained. It would mean policy decisions could be influenced not by voters, but by leverage quietly held in vaults and files.

What Cannot Be Ignored Anymore

Everyone connected to Epstein denies wrongdoing. According to this narrative, Epstein alone committed crimes while everyone around him remained innocent, unaware, and untouched. That claim strains credulity.

At minimum, the files demand:

• A full accounting of intelligence failures—or complicity

• Equal scrutiny of all foreign influence allegations

• Transparent investigation free from geopolitical favoritism

Instead, the public is offered silence dressed up as responsibility.

The Epstein scandal is no longer about what we know. It is about what institutions refuse to pursue. And that refusal—more than any unproven allegation—is the most damning evidence of all.