President Donald J. Trump has filed a motion in federal court to compel the expedited deposition of 94-year-old media mogul Rupert Murdoch, accusing the Wall Street Journal and its parent company, News Corp., of publishing a “fake” and defamatory article that falsely connected Trump to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The article at the center of the defamation suit, titled “Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One was from Donald Trump”, was published on July 18, 2025.

According to the hit piece published by The Wall Street Journal, President Trump wrote Jeffrey Epstein a “bawdy” letter for his 50th birthday depicting a naked woman.

President Trump denied writing the letter. Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly prepared a ‘special gift’ and collected letters from Trump and others.

“Maxwell collected letters from Trump and dozens of Epstein’s other associates for a 2003 birthday album, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

“Pages from the leather-bound album—assembled before Epstein was first arrested in 2006—are among the documents examined by Justice Department officials who investigated Epstein and Maxwell years ago, according to people who have reviewed the pages. It’s unclear if any of the pages are part of the Trump administration’s recent review,” WSJ reported.

“The letter bearing Trump’s name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

Trump claims the article is part of a malicious, coordinated smear campaign intended to undermine his character, integrity, and political resurgence heading into the 2026 midterms.

On July 18, Trump announced the lawsuit on his Truth Social.

“BREAKING NEWS: We have just filed a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone involved in publishing the false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS “article” in the useless “rag” that is, The Wall Street Journal.

This historic legal action is being brought against the so-called authors of this defamation, the now fully disgraced WSJ, as well as its corporate owners and affiliates, with Rupert Murdoch and Robert Thomson (whatever his role is!) at the top of the list.

We have proudly held to account ABC and George Slopadopoulos, CBS and 60 Minutes, The Fake Pulitzer Prizes, and many others who deal in, and push, disgusting LIES, and even FRAUD, to the American People.

This lawsuit is filed not only on behalf of your favorite President, ME, but also in order to continue standing up for ALL Americans who will no longer tolerate the abusive wrongdoings of the Fake News Media.

I hope Rupert and his “friends” are looking forward to the many hours of depositions and testimonies they will have to provide in this case. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

According to the filing, Trump personally called Murdoch after his team was tipped off by WSJ reporter Joseph Palazzolo. During that call, Murdoch allegedly told Trump he would “take care of it.” Instead, the article was published anyway.

In the 11-page legal filing, Trump’s attorneys argue that Murdoch—due to his age, history of serious medical issues, and distance from the Florida court—may not be available to testify at trial.

As such, they are demanding an emergency deposition de bene esse (a special pre-trial deposition used when a witness is unlikely to be able to testify later).

According to the motion, “Murdoch’s age and health warrant conducting his deposition on an expedited basis. Murdoch recently turned 94 years old and has suffered, but thankfully overcome, multiple health issues throughout his life. Moreover, upon information and belief, Murdoch resides in New York, New York, which is well over 100 miles from this District. Thus, it is presumable, both because of his age and health and/or his distance from this Court, that Murdoch will be unavailable for trial.”

The Southern District of Florida has not yet ruled on the motion, but if granted, the deposition of Rupert Murdoch could happen within 15 days.

The post President Trump Demands Expedited Deposition of Rupert Murdoch After Wall Street Journal Publishes “Fake” Epstein Letter Hit Piece appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took a blowtorch to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)—commonly known as the Vaccine Court— calling it a corrupt and broken system that has abandoned vaccine-injured children and now functions as a shield for Big Pharma’s profits and government malfeasance.

The U.S. government gave vaccine manufacturers blanket legal immunity—then created a kangaroo court, rigged against parents and children, to supposedly “compensate” the injured. But instead of justice, Kennedy says victims face stonewalling, legal abuse, and a government hellbent on defending its own wallet.

And the numbers back him up.

To date, the Vaccine Court has paid out $5.4 billion to just 12,000 petitioners. But Kennedy notes that thousands more have been dismissed, delayed, or bullied into silence while their children suffer life-altering disabilities.

Parents report cases dragging out for over a decade, while Special Masters—essentially government-appointed judges—slash attorney fees, deny access to crucial vaccine safety data, and retaliate against expert witnesses who dare testify for the injured.

Posting on X, RFK Jr. wrote:

The 1986 Vaccine Act gave vaccine makers immunity against lawsuits by children who suffer vaccine injuries.

The statute, and numerous subsequent court decisions, recognized that vaccines, like all medicines, are, in the words of the American Academy of Pediatrics case, “unavoidably unsafe,” and that a percentage of vaccinated children will suffer injuries or death.

Congress, therefore, simultaneously created the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which obliged HHS to compensate injured children.

In the words of then Labor and Public Welfare Committee Chairman Senator Edward Kennedy, “when … children are the victims of an appropriate and rational national policy, a compassionate [g]overnment will assist them in their hour of need.”

Under the VICP, vaccine victims can petition for compensation to the so-called “Vaccine Court,” which pays out awards from a trust fund endowed by a 75-cent surcharge on every vaccine.

Congress intended that injured children be compensated “quickly and fairly” for injuries, “either presumed or proven to be causally connected to vaccines,” with doubts about causation resolved in favor of the victim.

To date, the Vaccine Court has paid out $5.4 billion to 12,000 petitioners. But the VICP no longer functions to achieve its Congressional intent.

Instead, the VICP has devolved into a morass of inefficiency, favoritism, and outright corruption as government lawyers and the Special Masters who serve as Vaccine Court judges prioritize the solvency of the HHS Trust Fund, over their duty to compensate victims.

The structure itself hobbles claimants. The defendant is HHS, not the vaccine makers; and claimants are therefore facing the monumental power and bottomless pockets of the U.S. government represented by the Department of Justice.

Furthermore, most of the Special Masters come from government, legal, or political posts, and typically display an extreme bias that favors the government side. There is no discovery, and the rules of evidence do not apply.

The government lawyers do not allow children’s attorneys access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a taxpayer-funded CDC surveillance system that houses the best data on vaccine injuries.

Attorney compensation is in the hands of notoriously biased Special Masters and often hostile government attorneys, who can leverage this power to turn petitioner attorneys against their clients’ interests.

The VICP routinely dismisses meritorious cases outright or drags them out for years. Instead of “quickly and fairly” awarding compensation, Special Masters dismiss over half of the cases.

Most of those that proceed typically take 5+ years to resolve, with many languishing for more than 10 years as parents struggle to care for children suffering with often extreme disabilities.

Petitioners’ attorneys complain that the Special Masters make punitive downward adjustments to attorneys’ fees and medical expert fees to punish effective advocacy.

Expert witnesses for injured children complain that they suffer intimidation and even threats that they will lose professional status or NIH funding if they testify for injured children.

The government pays its own medical expert witnesses promptly while simultaneously slow-walking payments for petitioners’ experts—sometimes for years.

The VICP is broken, and I intend to fix it. I will not allow the VICP to continue to ignore its mandate and fail its mission of quickly and fairly compensating vaccine-injured individuals.

I am grateful to be working with @AGPamBondi and HHS staff to fix the VISP.

Together, we will steer the Vaccine Court back to its original Congressional intent.

The 1986 Vaccine Act gave vaccine makers immunity against lawsuits by children who suffer vaccine injuries. The statute, and numerous subsequent court decisions, recognized that vaccines, like all medicines, are, in the words of the American Academy of Pediatrics case,…

— Secretary Kennedy (@SecKennedy) July 28, 2025

The post RFK Jr. Blasts ‘Corrupt and Broken’ Vaccine Court System — Vows to Overhaul VICP and End HHS Cover-Ups for Big Pharma appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

On Wednesday, July 23, only one day before Congress entered its annual August recess, Senator Josh Hawley, referred to by Steve Bannon as America’s lone populist Senator, joined Bannon’s WarRoom to discuss liberating Americans from a possible imminent future as slaves to AI and big tech companies.

“We need to give every individual American and every American worker the right to protect their own personal information,” Senator Hawley told Bannon. “We are talking about your name, your image, and your likeness. If AI wants to train their models on you, they should get your permission, and compensate you for it.”

“Right now, the attitude is smash and grab. Right now, AI says, ‘I’m going to take everything you posted on Facebook. I’m going to take everything you put up on X.’”

“Let’s say you’re a creator—a songwriter, or a novelist—AI’s going to take all of that work. They are not going to  ask you, nor compensate you. That needs to change. My bottom line: Is AI going to work for people? Or are people going to work for AI?”

“I know all the big companies want us all to work for them, and to be their digital slaves. No, thanks. We need to put the American people, the American worker first—we need to adopt an America First approach,” Senator Hawley said.

Watch Senator Hawley stand up for individual liberty over big tech collectivism, here.

Bannon prompted Senator Hawley on the significance of codifying legislation that protects individual liberties from a soulless, alternative life in slavery to Artificial Intelligence.

“”We need to give every individual American the right to protect their data, and to protect their jobs. We need to give the American people enforceable rights,” Senator Hawley said.

“Right now, AI doesn’t care. Facebook doesn’t care. Google doesn’t care. They come and they scrape all information. They train their systems on it.”

“They take your pictures of your kids—you put pictures of your kids up on Facebook, and they train their models to whatever they want with them. You can’t protect yourself.”

“This is the time. If we don’t do this now—you look at what those tech companies tried to do with the Big, Beautiful Bill where they tried to slip in a ten-year moratorium on any kind of AI guardrails. We got that out of there, but it was a tooth and nail fight,” Senator Hawley said.

Americans can count their blessings that US Congress Republicans still favor individual liberties over artificial intelligence—with Senator Hawley serving as the ideal public spokesperson.

Senator Hawley is clearly guided by his populist vision in saving humanity from their greatest looming existential threat.

“We have got to put power into the hands of the people. We are populists. There is nothing more fundamental in America than individual rights,” Senator Hawley said.

“That is what the American people want. We should be preventing our technology from going to China. I think the ‘tech bros’ just want to make money—and they don’t care who wins,” Senator Hawley said.

The post Senator Hawley on Liberating the American People from AI and Big Tech’s Actual Agenda: ‘They Want Us All to Be Their Digital Slaves’ (War Room Video) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Trump has just secured a decisive victory in trade negotiations with the European Union, his second major win following the landmark NATO agreement. Together, these deals generate massive revenue, reduce the U.S. deficit, and reshape America’s global economic and security leadership.

The new trade agreement imposes a 15% tariff on most European imports, generating tens of billions of dollars annually for the U.S. It also eliminates all tariffs on American industrial goods exported to Europe and commits the EU to purchasing large quantities of U.S. military equipment, expanding opportunities for American manufacturers and helping close the long-standing trade imbalance. In return, the EU has agreed to purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy and invest another $600 billion into the U.S. economy by 2028.

This shift in energy trade also has geopolitical impact. Until now, Europe had demanded U.S. financial support for Ukraine while continuing to import Russian fossil fuels, sending over $23.7 billion to Moscow in 2024, more than the $20.2 billion it gave Ukraine in aid. Russian gas exports to the EU actually increased by 18% last year and are still rising in 2025.

With the new deal, Europe redirects its energy purchases toward the U.S., depriving Russia of revenue used to fund its war machine. The result: America gains income, Moscow loses leverage, and the West strengthens its position against Putin.

This success builds directly on Trump’s earlier NATO breakthrough. Since 2017, the number of NATO countries meeting the 2% GDP defense spending target has grown from just three to 29 out of 31 members. Under Trump’s new 5% threshold, the alliance is now poised to add over $1 trillion annually in defense spending. Of that, $700 billion is already translating into new military capabilities, with a strong push to procure from U.S. arms manufacturers, further boosting American industry.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte privately acknowledged Trump’s leverage, stating, “Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.” That leverage proved crucial in the trade negotiations, where European leaders ultimately agreed to avoid even harsher tariffs by accepting the terms of what Trump calls the “biggest deal ever made.”

France, unsurprisingly, has reacted with outrage to the deal, with several high-ranking officials voicing sharp disapproval. Prime Minister François Bayrou called it “a sombre day” for Europe, writing on X: “It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, brought together to affirm their common values and defend their common interests, resigns itself to submission.”

Deputy Minister for European Affairs Benjamin Haddad urged Europe to “fight to continue seeking trade balance with the United States” and called for activating the anti-coercion mechanism to tax U.S. service exports. Right-wing leader Marine Le Pen denounced the agreement as a “political, economic, and moral fiasco,” calling it “an outright surrender for French industry and for our energy and military sovereignty.”

The response across Europe has been mixed. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said Trump had “steamrolled” the EU in negotiations, comparing the US president to a heavyweight boxer against von der Leyen’s “featherweight”. However, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the deal helps avoid “a trade conflict, which would have hit the export-oriented German economy hard”.

The announcement boosted European markets, with Europe’s benchmark Stoxx Europe 600 index rising to its highest level in more than four months. Despite tough negotiations, both sides framed the deal as a positive step toward avoiding deeper economic conflict and bringing stability to transatlantic trade relations.

Of course, Democrats hate the deal, not because of its details, but because it was negotiated by Trump and because it benefits the American people. Publicly, their criticism focuses on claims that the agreement lacks binding commitments, raises costs for consumers, and reflects what they call a “chaotic” approach to trade that hurts American families.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer dismissed the deal as “fake,” saying, “Trump would have you believe it’s the biggest deal ever. Europe has admitted that this agreement isn’t legally binding, and they have no control over whether these investments even happen.”

Democratic opposition to Trump’s broader tariff agenda is longstanding. Nearly 200 Democratic lawmakers have backed a legal challenge to his use of emergency powers to impose tariffs. Senator Jeanne Shaheen called it an “unlawful abuse of emergency powers,” claiming the tariffs have “caused economic chaos and raised prices for families and businesses across the country.”

Schumer echoed that sentiment, calling Trump’s trade policies “absurd, crazy, [and] chaotic,” and vowing, “We’re going to fight these tariffs tooth and nail. Trump’s done a lot of bad things, this is way up there.”

Trump reaffirmed that higher tariffs on other nations will take effect August 1 unless further agreements are reached, with ongoing talks between the U.S. and China. The White House characterized this as “a generational modernization of the transatlantic alliance” that “will provide Americans with unprecedented levels of market access to the European Union”, representing a significant shift in global trade dynamics where major economies are accepting substantially higher tariff rates to maintain access to U.S. markets.

The post “The Biggest Deal Ever Made”: Trump’s Second Victory in Europe in Just Over a Month appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Trump’s former impeachment attorney David Schoen dropped a legal nuke on the legacy of Barack Obama — declaring that the 44th President of the United States can still be impeached, and if so, could lose his post-presidential immunity and face indictment for criminal conduct tied to the Russia Collusion hoax.

This explosive revelation came just days after President Trump remarked that Obama owed him “big” for the recent Supreme Court decision affirming presidential immunity for official acts committed while in office.

But Schoen isn’t letting Obama off the hook.

Let’s not forget — during their second failed impeachment attempt against Trump, Democrats moved the goalposts, claiming impeachment could apply even after a president leaves office.

They did this in a desperate bid to disqualify Trump from running again — a tactic that could now come back to haunt their golden boy, Barack Obama.

“President Trump is right when he said the immunity decision would help President Obama,” Schoen said on Newsmax. “But you know what it doesn’t help him with? Impeachment.”

Schoen pointed directly to Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution — the very clause that Democrats used during their second sham impeachment of President Trump to argue that a former president could still be tried and barred from holding office again. In doing so, they opened the door for the same standard to apply to Obama.

“According to the Democratic Party and the House managers in the second impeachment trial, a former President, once out of office, is still subject to impeachment,” Schoen explained.

“In other words, they’ve argued Lincoln could be impeached, George Washington impeached. Certainly, as I predicted at the time, this would come back — they would rue the day — because President Obama could be impeached if this evidence really says what it says. And that could also strip off the immunity, because under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution, the Democrats argued it bars one from holding further office. The language itself says you’re still subject to criminal prosecution or indictment. We’ll see how that plays out.”

WATCH:

NEW: Trump’s Former Impeachment Lawyer David Schoen says Obama could get *IMPEACHED* over Russiagate — stripping his immunity under SCOTUS ruling

“President Trump is right when he said the immunity decision would help President Obama. But you know what it doesn’t help him… pic.twitter.com/HRlM3kOzq0

— Jason Cohen (@JasonJournoDC) July 27, 2025

Constitutional watchdog and founder of the Article III Project Mike Davis recently told Benny Johnson in a separate interview that Obama has zero legal protection from prosecution for any criminal conduct after leaving office.

Mike Davis explained that presidential immunity only protects actions taken while someone is actively serving as President.

Once they’re no longer in office, they lose that protection. So, if a former president is involved in a criminal cover-up after leaving office, they can be held legally accountable—immunity no longer applies.

This comes on the heels of newly declassified documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, which allegedly show Barack Obama personally orchestrated the Russia Collusion Hoax.

The post Trump’s Former Impeachment Lawyer David Schoen Flips the Script: Uses Democrats’ Own Argument to Prove Obama Can Still Be Impeached, Stripped of Immunity, and Indicted for His Crimes appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.