Because Trump is rightly tired of the U.S. paying for Ukraine’s defense, the world is turning on him. Ukrainian officials are criticizing America, Europe is calling Trump “Hitler,” and Ukrainian soldiers on Twitter are removing American flags from their uniforms—all because the American gravy train is about to dry up. With Trump demanding a better deal for the American people, the world will have to fend for itself. Europe is experiencing adolescent angst now, as it is forced to man-up, come of age, and move out from under the U.S. protective umbrella.

Fact: The U.S. WILL NO LONGER BE PAYING FOR IT!
It’s time for Europe to step up and defend itself. While it’s unfortunate that many Europeans may die unnecessarily, part of me anticipates the vindication of watching weak, woke European militaries—crippled by declining birthrates and a post-Christian, soy-boy-vegan culture—be decimated by Russian conscripts.

The consensus among many on Twitter and in liberal media that the U.S. has burned its bridges with Europe and that Europe will now move on without the U.S. as a trade and defense partner is absurd. The U.S. cannot be replaced as a market. With a population of 330 million and an average income exceeding $82,000 annually—more than double Europe’s average—there is no viable replacement. And if such a replacement exists, why wasn’t Europe trading with this mythical nation before?

For decades, the U.S., China, and Russia have invested heavily in defense, leaving Europe far behind. Europe would need to spend 10% of GDP each year to catch up over the next 20 years. However, in that same period, the U.S., Russia, and China would continue increasing their spending. Realistically, it would take about 30 years for Europe to reach any semblance of parity. And this assumes that Europe lifts its restrictions on nuclear weapons and other advanced weapons that the U.S., Russia, and China possess. And with Europe’s demographic decline, the pool of military-aged men and women will continue to shrink.

No, Europe isn’t “moving on” or “teaching the U.S. a lesson.” The U.S. is not obligated to defend Ukraine. Europe cannot defend it on its own. What’s most frustrating is that Trump offered Zelensky a deal, exchanging defense for minerals, which Zelensky rejected in favor of free money. Yet now, Twitter and liberal media portray the U.S. as the villain. Fine! Teach the U.S. a lesson. Stop taking our money, stop selling us goods, and stop using the U.S. dollar. Go ahead and adopt the Chinese yuan or the Ethiopian money unit and see how far that takes you.

Facts: Putin is bad. Russia invaded Ukraine. Zelensky was elected and has the right to defend his nation. However, the U.S. is not obligated to pay for it.

The U.S. will no longer fund Europe’s defense or tolerate major trade imbalances. Trump has expressed frustration at Europe and other allies profiting from advantageous trade with the U.S. while the U.S. shoulders their defense costs. U.S. tariffs on imports, even from allied countries, aim to reduce this trade imbalance and encourage American manufacturing independence—policies that the U.S. has the right to enact. Demanding that Europe step up and defend itself, or even defend Ukraine, is entirely within the U.S.’s rights.

There is no law requiring the U.S. to defend Ukraine or Europe. NATO’s terms do not specify that the U.S. must defend everyone, only that it, as a NATO member, participates in the defense of other NATO members if they are attacked. It does not state that the U.S. should bear the entire burden. Additionally, Ukraine is not a NATO member, and Europe unilaterally deciding to go to war with Russia would not qualify for U.S. defense participation under NATO.

Originally, Trump opened Ukraine peace dialogue with Russia, excluding both Ukraine and Europe from the discussions. However, he begrudgingly agreed to allow Europe a place at the table, but only as a junior partner or observer, reflecting his belief that the U.S., as the primary financier of Ukraine’s and Europe’s defense, should dominate the negotiations. This aligns with sentiments expressed in the Financial Times, which suggests that Europe is relegated to the “kids’ table” in these talks. Trump’s stance underscores his view that, as the principal financial backer, the U.S. should have the final say in shaping the outcome, while Europe remains on the sidelines.

The post Allies Bluff, They Cannot Make It Without the US in Ukraine appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Department of Education launched an investigation into Maine’s compliance with Title IX laws just hours after the governor sparred with President Donald Trump over men playing in women’s sports.

Democrat Maine Governor Janet Mills clashed with the president at a meeting of the National Governors Association (NGA) on Friday.

The fight was over Trump’s landmark executive order signed on February 5, which ensured that biological men could not compete in women’s sports. States that allow it will be subject to losing federal funding from the Department of Education.

Mills released a statement on Friday vowing not to follow the order and asserting, “The State of Maine will not be intimidated by the President’s threats.”

“If the president attempts to unilaterally deprive Maine school children of the benefit of federal funding, my administration and the attorney general will take all appropriate and necessary legal action to restore that funding and the academic opportunity it provides,” Mills added.

Trump called the governor out for her remarks during the meeting.

“Is the governor of Maine here?” Trump asked.

After confirming she was present, Trump asked Mills if she intended to defy his executive order.

“I am complying with state and federal laws,” Mills replied.

“Well, we are the federal law,” Trump replied. “You better do it. “You better do it because you’re not going to get any federal funding at all if you don’t.”

“By the way…your (state’s) population doesn’t want men playing in women’s sports. So you better comply because otherwise, you’re not getting any federal funding,” he added.

Mills, attempting to act tough, responded that she will see him in court.

“Good. That should be a real easy (case) one,” he stated. “And enjoy your life after governor because I don’t think you’ll be in elected politics.”

President Trump calls Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) out to her face over her refusal to comply with the executive order keeping men out of women’s sports:

“You better do it — because you’re not going to get any federal funding at all if you don’t.” pic.twitter.com/uMUZsy1j6t

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 21, 2025

Hours after the exchange, the DOE announced the investigation.

“Today the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent a letter to the Maine Department of Education Commissioner Pender Makin announcing that OCR is initiating a directed investigation of the Maine Department of Education (MDOE) amid allegations that it continues to allow male athletes to compete in girls’ interscholastic athletics and that it has denied female athletes female-only intimate facilities, thereby violating federal antidiscrimination law,” the DOE said in a press release.

“The letter also notifies MDOE that OCR is launching an investigation into Maine School Administrative District #51 (MSAD #51), after it was reported that Greely High School, a school under its jurisdiction, is continuing to allow at least one male student to compete in girls’ categories.”

Office for Civil Rights Launches Title IX Violation Investigations into Maine Department of Education and Maine School Districthttps://t.co/ZYidySsmU2 pic.twitter.com/cvhdAOh55P

— U.S. Department of Education (@usedgov) February 21, 2025

Acting assistant secretary for civil rights Craig Trainor added:

“Maine would have you believe that it has no choice in how it treats women and girls in athletics – that is, that it must follow its state laws and allow male athletes to compete against women and girls. Let me be clear: If Maine wants to continue to receive federal funds from the Education Department, it has to follow Title IX. If it wants to forgo federal funds and continue to trample the rights of its young female athletes, that, too, is its choice. OCR will do everything in its power to ensure taxpayers are not funding blatant civil rights violators.”

The post DOE Launches Investigation into Maine Just Hours After Governor Sparred with Trump Over Women’s Sports appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Yesterday, Santiago Abascal, leader of the Spanish party Vox, took the stage at the Conservative

The post Santiago Abascal Delivers a Message of Resistance and Hope for Trump and Washington at CPAC 2025 appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A new Supreme Court petition filed by political activist Warren Balogh sheds light on what he calls the ‘intentional dereliction of duty’ by Charlottesville officials during the infamous 2017 “Unite the Right” rally. The petition, appealing a lower court decision from the Fourth Circuit, raises serious constitutional questions about whether local governments can deliberately allow chaos and violence as a means of suppressing speech they dislike.

Balogh is a self-described ‘pro-white’ activist. Far-left groups use a variety of labels to describe him as a ‘white nationalist’ and other such defamatory terms. Balogh says he was at the Charlottesville rally for only one purpose: to oppose the destruction of a historical monument. The Lee monument was destroyed in 2023, despite promises by officials it would be relocated.

Balogh is appealing the Fourth Circuit’s dismissal of his claims, as part of Balogh v. Virginia, 120 F.4th 127. That appeal was decided by Chief Judge Albert Diaz, an Obama appointee. That court said that because the participants engaged in violence, they were not entitled to protection from the police, a ruling at odds with the evidence in the case.

You can read the request for Supreme Court review here.

Charlottesville’s supposed right-wing violence is the reason Joe Biden gave for running against Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

ALLEGATION: GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY SOUGHT VIOLENCE

The “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville became a flashpoint in American political history, but according to this Supreme Court filing, the event was doomed from the start—not by the protestors, but by the city’s leadership. The lawsuit argues that Charlottesville police officers were ordered to “stand down” while violent far-left Antifa counter-protesters clashed with demonstrators, ensuring the event spiraled into disorder.

Balogh’s legal team alleges that city officials knowingly refused to maintain public order, allowing Antifa-aligned groups to provoke violence. The filing contends that this deliberate inaction was a strategy—the violence created a pretext for shutting down the protest and blaming the right-wing demonstrators.

This point has been confirmed in prior Gateway Pundit reporting, where previously-unseen drone footage from the day of the event shows that the pro-Lee-statue protesters were being attacked and abused and were refusing to fight back. The far-left, on the other hand, was allowed to get away with anything they wanted, even when crimes were committed in front of police officers.

Far-left Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe even bragged about telling the police to ‘stand down’ in his book, on page 95, about the Charlottesville event. This was done by ‘screwing protocol’ in his words, and declaring a state emergency and demanding the park be cleared. “The critical thing here,” Balogh told the Gateway Pundit, “is that the police only attacked the right-wing protesters. They didn’t clear streets of the Antifa protesters waving Communist flags, they came only at the right-wing protesters. Governor McAuliffe was a top Clinton fundraiser, a corrupt member of left-wing elites, and they saw this as revenge against Donald Trump’s supporters. Hillary’s fundraiser’s agenda was to invent violence to shut down a peaceful rally. This was nothing but woke overreach.”

“They drove us into Market Street, they drove us into Antifa. I got attacked twice that day. The first time was in Lee Park when I got sprayed in the face with riot-grade pepper spray as the police pushed us out of the park, where we had a permit. Then when I was half-blinded by police, I got clubbed from behind by a masked member of Antifa. We were pushed out into the street to get us to fight with Antifa.”

LEGAL QUESTIONS BEFORE THE COURT

The Supreme Court petition asks the justices to weigh in on several major constitutional issues:

1. Does the First Amendment protect speech even when local governments deliberately allow violence to erupt as a justification for suppression?
2. Can police officers who intentionally refuse to maintain order—while knowing their inaction will lead to violence—hide behind qualified immunity, a legal theory that makes them immune from lawsuits?
3. Should municipalities be held accountable under Supreme Court precedent (Monell v. Department of Social Services) when their top officials orchestrate conditions that violate constitutional rights?

The case hinges on whether government officials can manipulate violent conditions to crack down on speech they oppose, a dangerous precedent if left unchecked according to Balogh.

ALLEGATION: GOVT. WANTED VIOLENCE TO JUSTIFY SHUTTING DOWN PROTEST

The petition argues that Charlottesville officials, led by Police Chief Al Thomas and Lieutenant Becky Crannis-Curl, took active steps to fuel tensions. Instead of enforcing the rule of law, the lawsuit alleges, they allowed left-wing extremists to run amok, ensuring that the right-wing protesters could be blamed for the resulting chaos.

Evidence cited in the filing suggests that the police:

• Stood down and refused to intervene as violence erupted.
• Blocked exit routes, preventing protestors from leaving safely.
• Waited until the situation was out of control before shutting down the rally entirely.

The consequences were tragic. In the aftermath, the media and political establishment used the day’s events to falsely frame the entire rally as right-wing violence, a narrative still echoed today.

COURTS KEEP DISMISSING CRITICAL FREE SPEECH CASE

Lower courts have largely dismissed Balogh’s claims, relying on the legal shield of qualified immunity—a doctrine that often protects government officials from lawsuits unless a clear precedent has already established their actions as unconstitutional.

“I went there to support the Robert E. Lee statue that day,” said Balogh. “I went there peacefully. I had no weapons, no body armor, we were a group of people who were proud of our history and didn’t want the woke mob to use ISIS-tactics to destroy the memory of people and events. That’s why we were there, and we were attacked by the government for expressing our free speech. We could have defended ourselves against Antifa, but we couldn’t also fight the police and the National Guard, and that’s what we were facing.“

The Supreme Court has in past cases ruled that police must make reasonable efforts to protect speech, even in contentious situations. The petition argues that the Fourth Circuit ignored key Supreme Court rulings, including Terminiello v. Chicago, where the Court upheld the principle that speech cannot be suppressed simply because it provokes hostility.

The City had previously tried to allow left-wing protesters who wanted to tear down the statue of Robert E. Lee, but to deny permits to protesters who wanted to protect the Lee statue. This was the basis of litigation prior to the “Unite the Right” rally where the city wanted to allow one viewpoint over another, and a federal judge, Glen E. Conrad, did not allow the government to allow one viewpoint or another.

What Balogh alleges is that, as a way to defy the judiciary, the court’s rulings, and the Constitution, the government conspired to create the violence necessary to justify shutting down the protest anyway.

Balogh’s legal team also points to conflicting rulings from other circuits, where courts have ruled that government actors cannot enable violent mobs as an excuse to silence unpopular opinions. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling runs contrary to these precedents, making it ripe for Supreme Court review.

LITIGANTS: GOVT. SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO CREATE VIOLENCE TO SILENCE SPEAKERS & SPEECH IT DISLIKES

The implications of this case extend far beyond Charlottesville. If local governments can intentionally refuse to enforce the law to suppress speech, then the First Amendment is effectively meaningless.

If the Supreme Court takes up the case and rules in favor of Balogh, it could establish a major precedent preventing state and local governments from using orchestrated chaos as a weapon against speech they oppose. It would also put law enforcement on notice that standing down in the face of political violence is not an acceptable strategy.

The Gateway Pundit was sued for defamation by one of the rally participants, Brennan Gilmore. In the course of the case, discovery revealed that the Department of Justice’s controversial “Civil Rights Division” was on-site several days prior to the “Unite the Right” rally. In addition, the City had hired multiple major press firms, one of which it didn’t end up using at all.

Even more explosively, discovery received by the Gateway Pundit in that litigation revealed that the Department of Justice’s agents on the ground in Charlottesville were coordinating on the morning of the rally with a Vice President of the World Bank. These phone logs suggest that an extensive, vast, deep state operation was underway to create violence at the Charlottesville rally, use the violence as a way to smear President Trump, and also as a major political operation underway to advance a far-left agenda.

That major deep state effort would also explain why the prosecutions of those arrested at Charlottesville were so extreme and politically charged. James Fields hit Heather Heyer with his vehicle while attempting to leave town. State and Federal prosecutors alleged it was domestic terrorism, even though it was clearly a case of vehicular manslaughter, where Heyer died of a heart attack having been trampled by the crowd after Fields crashed into a series of cars being swarmed by a left-wing mob. Fields was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus 419 years in prison on the state charges. Federal prosecutors then threatened to bring the death penalty against him, and coerced Fields into accepting a plea on federal charges which saw a concurrent life imprisonment sentence without the possibility of parole.

Balogh makes that point even blunter, “There was a plan to shut it all down from the beginning, and Heather Heyer would be alive today if the police did their jobs that day. The government set the stage for what happened, and their reckless plan caused everything that resulted. Fields should be freed.”

The Charlottesville riots were a turning point in modern American politics, used to justify an unprecedented crackdown on free speech and political dissent. Now, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to correct the record and send a clear message: government officials cannot use violent mobs as a tool to silence opposition.

Balogh’s fight is about the future of free speech in America. The Supreme Court takes up very few cases every year, typically 100-150 of the 10,000 application it receives. The Court is likely loathe to stand up for what it perceives as controversial speakers, but the case presents the chance to strike down the trend of the government abusing the law, and abusing law enforcement, to shut down speakers it dislikes.

Despite the odds, Balogh is encouraged by the simple fact of preserving a record of what happened at Charlottesville. “I don’t have any illusions about whether the Court will have the courage to take this case. But I’ve put the evidence on the record, and the filings speak for themselves,” he said. “I want to set the record straight about what happened at Charlottesville, and the injustice done to peaceful protesters who were attacked by the police and the government as we tried to demonstrate against the destruction of our history and monuments. The court may be cowards, the cops and politicians might be hopelessly corrupt, and the media may be liars, but these filings tell the truth.”

The post Supreme Ct. Filing Exposes How Charlottesville Officials Enabled 2017 Violence to Suppress Speech appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over $80.5 million in funding for migrant shelters being seized by the feds.

The funding was revoked last week.

“This morning, our office learned about the federal government clawing back more than $80 million in FEMA grants applied for and awarded under the last administration, but not disbursed until last week,” Adams said in a statement at the time.

“While we conduct an internal investigation into how this occurred, our office has already engaged with the White House about recouping these funds and we’ve requested an emergency meeting with FEMA to try and resolve the matter as quickly as possible.”

The money was part of a series of Federal Emergency Management Agency payments to local governments to help cover migrant costs.

“Without a doubt, our immigration system is broken, but the cost of managing an international humanitarian crisis should not overwhelmingly fall onto one city alone,” Adams said in a statement on Friday night after the lawsuit was filed.

“With very little help from the federal government, our administration has skillfully managed an unprecedented crisis, which has seen over 231,000 people enter our city asking for shelter. The $80 million that FEMA approved, paid, and then rescinded — after the city spent more than $7 billion in the last three years — is the bare minimum our taxpayers deserve,” Adams continued.

The controversial mayor added, “And that’s why we’re going to work to ensure our city’s residents get every dollar they are owed.”

According to a report from the New York Post, “Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent are among the defendants listed in the suit.”

Trump recently directed the Department of Justice to dismiss a federal corruption case against Adams.

The president has not yet publicly responded to the lawsuit.

The post NYC Mayor Adams Sues Trump Admin Over $80.5 Million in Migrant Shelter Funding Revoked by the Feds appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.