Here we go.

The Federal Reserve’s internal watchdog said the central bank mismanaged the renovation but found no criminal wrongdoing in the $2.5 billion boondoggle.

Federal investigators in January opened a criminal investigation into Fed Chairman Jerome Powell.

Powell was under fire for the cost of renovating the Fed’s DC headquarters. The cost ballooned from $1.9 billion to $2.5 billion.

“Powell has asked the central bank’s inspector general to conduct an additional review of the ongoing renovation, CNN previously reported. Last month, some Senate lawmakers grilled Powell over what they depicted as lavish upgrades to its DC headquarters at Powell’s semiannual monetary policy hearing,’ CNN previously reported.

“The Fed’s renovation project was approved by its board in 2017 and originally cost $1.9 billion in 2019. Construction began in 2021, but the cost swelled to $2.5 billion because of “unforeseen conditions” requiring more spending to rectify, such as “more asbestos than anticipated, toxic contamination in soil, and a higher-than-expected water table,” according to the Fed’s website,” CNN reported.

The Fed watchdog determined no criminality in the central bank’s renovation.

NBC News reported:

The Federal Reserve’s independent watchdog said Wednesday it found no reasonable grounds to believe there was a violation of federal law in a multibillion-dollar renovation project that drew criticism from President Donald Trump and short-lived scrutiny from federal prosecutors.

But the central bank’s board “had not effectively executed” a contract and its cost-management provisions, according to a 120-page report from the Office of the Inspector General for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Even after four years of construction and over $2 billion in awarded construction costs, the Fed board had “not established a guaranteed maximum price” for the project, and had set up “insufficient” internal project governance to manage a project of such “magnitude and complexity,” the watchdog said.

Still, the report “did not identify administrative misconduct” nor any “reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of federal criminal law had occurred.”

Last July, Jerome Powell was criminally referred to the Justice Department for prosecution.

Earlier this year, Judge Boasberg, an Obama appointee, quashed the Justice Department’s subpoenas issued to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell.

Boasberg previously blasted Trump and US Attorney Pirro, saying the subpoenas were improperly issued after the president pressured Powell to lower interest rates.

In April, the Justice Department dropped its criminal investigation into Jerome Powell.

President Trump called for Jerome Powell to resign from the Board of Governors.

Trump also said he has asked Todd Blanche to study the Inspector General’s report:

The Inspector General’s Report just came out on Jerome “Too Late” Powell’s “renovation” of the Federal Reserve Headquarters in Washington, D.C. The IG’s Report states that there were “deficiencies in the management of the renovation project.” The Building is over budget, at a Record Setting rate and, at a minimum, “Too Late” Powell should be forced to resign from the Board. He can’t manage a Building, and he certainly shouldn’t be allowed to manage his High Interest Rate Policy (only on “TRUMP!”). I have asked Attorney General Todd Blanche to study the report, and make a determination as to what to do about a relatively small Building Complex that is Hundreds of Millions of Dollars over budget, and is now going to cost, according to the Report, at least 2.5 Billion Dollars, with no end in sight.

The Report states, “We were concerned to find that the Board did not obtain a project cost estimate from the [construction manager] until January 2026, which was 3.5 years after construction began and after the Board had awarded more than $2 billion in construction costs. As of July 2026, more than 4 years after construction began and $2 billion has been awarded for construction, the Board had yet to set a [guaranteed maximum price]” — An absolutely unheard of situation! — “The Board therefore still does not have cost certainty and has not transferred material risk to the [construction manager].” In actuality, I think that the 2.5 Billion Dollars will be 3.5 Billion Dollars, and maybe 4 Billion Dollars by the time they’re finished, and may never get properly built. Soundproofing, and all other elements of the Building, will be inferior to what was previously there.

In particular, the magnificent beauty, sculptured ceilings and walls, and so many other things which made the Federal Reserve Building stand apart, will never be captured again, and are only being replaced by flat, boring, less than midlevel finishes. I could have done a far better Renovation for 25 Million Dollars, completely maintaining the MAGNIFICENCE of the structure, and had money left over. They completely destroyed the Beauty and Glorious History of the Building. This is Jerome Powell’s fault, and he should be forced to resign, IMMEDIATELY! If he doesn’t resign, he should be sued, at the highest level, by the United States Government, for either corruption or incompetence, both of which are completely unacceptable…And no, I do not want this Building named after President Donald J. Trump, ME! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

The post Internal Watchdog Says Federal Reserve’s Renovation Was Mismanaged But Found No Criminal Wrongdoing in $2.5 Billion Boondoggle – Trump Responds, Targets Jerome Powell appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Trump is scheduled to announce plans for South Korea to invest over $50 billion in a new liquefied natural gas pipeline in Alaska this afternoon.

The announcement in the Oval Office with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick will futher Trump’s American energy agenda and “accelerate America’s nuclear energy renaissance,” according to White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers.

Per NBC:

Trump is expected to announce a plan this afternoon for South Korea to invest $54 billion to build a natural gas pipeline in Alaska, a White House official said.

It is part of a broader South Korean investment of $200 billion as part of the U.S.-Korea trade and investment agreement announced last year. The money will also go toward eight large-scale nuclear plants and a power facility in Texas, the official said. South Korea pledged a total of $350 billion in the trade and investment deal.

The Alaska gas pipeline would stretch more than 800 miles, connecting Alaska’s North Slope to natural gas export terminal in southern Alaska, the official said, adding that it would lower energy prices for Alaskans by providing a reliable supply of natural gas.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said the energy infrastructure investments “deliver on [Trump’s] day one promises to unleash American energy, unlock Alaska’s extraordinary resource potential, and accelerate America’s nuclear energy renaissance.”

This comes after Trump announced on Monday additional plans for  Minnesota-based Mesabi Metallics to build a $15 billion steel plant, the largest in US history, in Iowa.

WATCH LIVE: President Trump Makes an Announcement on Plans to Build Largest Steel Plant in US History – 2 PM ET

The event is scheduled to begin at 3:30 PM Eastern time.

Watch live below:

The post WATCH LIVE: President Trump Makes an Announcement – 3:30 PM ET appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

There are moments in the life of a republic when political debate moves beyond taxes, programs, and ideology and confronts a more fundamental question:

Who controls the territory?

For any functioning state, the answer must be clear: the government, acting under the Constitution and the law.

Colombia knows what happens when that principle breaks down. For decades, guerrillas, paramilitary organizations, drug traffickers, criminal gangs, and other armed groups have sought to occupy spaces that constitutionally belong to the state.

Under Gustavo Petro, the government placed “Total Peace”—including negotiations, ceasefires, and dialogue with armed organizations—at the center of its security strategy. Critics argued that the approach weakened deterrence and allowed criminal groups to expand their influence.

The government of Abelardo de la Espriella is taking a different approach.

Its message is straightforward: the Colombian state will reclaim and defend its authority throughout the national territory.

That is why the American expression “The New Sheriff in Town” fits the moment.

The metaphor comes from the American Old West: when law and order collapse, a sheriff arrives and makes clear that the law will once again be enforced.

That image comes to mind when watching President De La Espriella personally oversee Public Force operations in Santa Marta.

But the deeper question is constitutional:

Can a president use the full authority of the state against armed groups that challenge it?

Yes—provided that authority is exercised within the Constitution and the law.

AUTHORITY IS NOT AUTHORITARIANISM

Colombia’s 1991 Constitution did not establish a government powerless to defend itself.

Article 189 makes the President responsible for directing the Public Force and serving as its Supreme Commander. It also charges the President with maintaining public order throughout the national territory and restoring it when it has been disrupted.

The Constitutional Court has recognized broad presidential authority to determine the measures necessary to preserve public order, including coercive measures and the legitimate use of force, subject to constitutional safeguards.

That distinction matters.

State authority is not the opposite of freedom. It is one of the conditions that makes freedom possible.

A citizen is not truly free if criminals can extort him simply for going to work.

Property rights mean little if an armed group decides who may occupy a territory.

Freedom of movement disappears when criminals determine which roads citizens may use.

And the rule of law is hollow if a criminal organization can order an entire city to close its businesses—and the government cannot or will not stop it.

A free society requires a state capable of protecting it.

SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM

The Romans understood the principle more than two thousand years ago:

“Si vis pacem, para bellum.”

If you want peace, prepare for war.

The point is not to glorify war. It is to establish deterrence.

A country that cannot defend itself invites those who believe violence can defeat institutions.

Peace is more than the absence of gunfire.

It means that merchants can open their stores without paying extortion. Farmers can work without answering to an illegal commander. Families can travel without fear of criminal checkpoints. Citizens can live their lives without asking permission from armed groups.

That requires a state with greater legitimate power than those who seek to replace it.

A modern republic therefore needs:

• A capable military.
• An effective police force.
• Professional intelligence services.
• An independent justice system.
• Secure borders.
• Effective prisons.
• And political leadership willing to use these instruments lawfully when necessary.

Peace without the capacity to defend it is vulnerability.

SEPTEMBER: THE STATE PUSHES BACK

In September, the government’s security doctrine moved from rhetoric to operations.

According to government reports:

• Operation Azarías, targeting dissident armed groups in Guaviare, resulted in 24 deaths, six captures, the rescue of one minor, and the seizure of 35 weapons.
• Operation Amón in El Peñol, Nariño, reportedly resulted in seven members of criminal organizations killed and five captured.
• In La Guajira, authorities reported the death of alias “Bendito Menor,” identified as a member of the Conquering Self-Defense Forces of the Sierra Nevada.
• In Santa Marta, following an operation against alias “Cholo,” identified as the organization’s second-in-command, a criminal group attempted to respond with an armed strike.

The government responded by deploying the Public Force and strengthening security operations in the city.

The message was simple:

Criminal organizations do not decide when Colombian cities open or close. The state does.

Citizens do not need permission from criminals to work.

Business owners do not need permission to open their stores.

And the Colombian Republic does not need permission to exercise its authority on Colombian soil.

THE DOCTRINE OF AUTHORITY

This is not a new idea.

From Aristotle to the American and European constitutional traditions, political thought has recognized that a political community requires legitimate authority to survive.

There is nothing inherently controversial about saying that:

1. Order matters.
2. Security matters.
3. National defense matters.
4. Property rights matter.
5. Economic freedom, family life, and national sovereignty require security.

When the state abandons these responsibilities, the vacuum does not remain empty.

Someone else fills it.

Usually, that someone is the strongest armed actor.

That is why reclaiming territory is more than a security policy.

It is the restoration of constitutional government.

FROM NEGOTIATION TO ENFORCEMENT

This is the central difference between Petro’s “Total Peace” strategy and the approach now associated with De La Espriella.

Petro’s government emphasized negotiations, ceasefires, and dialogue with armed organizations.

The De La Espriella government has emphasized territorial recovery, Public Force operations, the capture of criminal leaders, disruption of criminal economies, drug interdiction, and extradition.

The strategic premise is different.

Negotiation seeks to persuade an armed adversary to abandon violence.

Deterrence seeks to ensure that the adversary understands the consequences of confronting the state.

That does not mean seeking war.

It means making clear that the state has the capacity to enforce its laws.

Deterrence is not the absence of peace. It can be one of the conditions that makes peace possible.

THE STATE MUST BE STRONGER THAN CRIME

According to the government’s September 13 report, during the first 36 days of the administration there were more than 17,000 arrests, 24 criminal leaders affected, 1,761 weapons seized, more than 75 tons of drugs seized, and nearly 100 extraditions signed.

Those figures are government-reported figures and should be understood in that context.

But the broader policy shift is clear: security has returned to the center of the government’s agenda.

The stated objectives are equally clear:

Reclaim territory. Pursue criminal leaders. Dismantle criminal economies. Fight drug trafficking. Protect civilians.

A constitutional government cannot permanently defer to armed organizations while negotiating the terms of its own authority.

The state must be capable of enforcing the law.

STRONG GOVERNMENT, LIMITED BY LAW

A strong state is not the same thing as an unlimited state.

In fact, the strength of a constitutional government lies precisely in its ability to exercise power while remaining bound by law.

The President may order operations.

The Public Force may confront armed organizations.

Courts must review legality.

Prosecutors must investigate.

And citizens retain their constitutional rights.

That balance is the essence of constitutional government.

The law limits government power; it does not require governmental paralysis.

The Constitution does not demand that the state remain passive in the face of organized crime.

It requires the state to act lawfully.

EXTRADITION AND SOVEREIGNTY

Organized crime does not respect national borders.

Neither should the fight against it.

Extradition and international cooperation are therefore essential tools of modern law enforcement.

For Colombia, cooperation with the United States and other democratic partners is particularly important in confronting drug trafficking, money laundering, weapons trafficking, and transnational criminal organizations.

International cooperation is not a surrender of sovereignty.

Used properly, it can strengthen sovereignty.

A secure republic does not fear cooperation.

A sovereign republic knows why it cooperates.

COLOMBIA HAS A NEW SHERIFF

The Colombian debate should reject a false choice between freedom and security.

Security protects freedom.

Nor must Colombia choose between peace and legitimate force.

A country needs the capacity to defend peace if peace is to endure.

And Colombia need not choose between democracy and authority.

Democracy requires legitimate institutions capable of exercising authority throughout the territory.

The peace that matters to a republic is not the peace of fear.

It is not peace imposed by a guerrilla’s rifle.

It is not peace purchased through extortion.

It is not the peace of a business owner forced to close because a criminal organization issued a threat.

It is the peace of a citizen protected by the state.

That is why the Roman principle remains relevant:

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

If you want peace, prepare to defend it.

Colombia does not exist to negotiate away its sovereignty.

The state exists to exercise legitimate authority, enforce the law, protect its citizens, and defend the constitutional order.

And one principle should remain non-negotiable in any republic:

No armed group can be more powerful than the state. No criminal can stand above the law. And no Colombian territory should be governed by anyone other than the Colombian Republic.

That is the meaning of “The New Sheriff in Town.”

THE RETURN OF AUTHORITY

By Jorge Alberto Valencia

Jorge Alberto Valencia Guevara, J.D., is an international attorney, corporate consultant, and geopolitical analyst with more than two decades of experience across the United States, Hispanic America, and Europe. He holds a Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law and specialized credentials in global diplomacy from the University of London.

He serves as Director of the Transactional Department at Alianza Law Firm, PLLC, and President of Valencia Consulting Group, LLC, in Miami. His practice focuses on cross-border transactions, international commercial law, foreign direct investment, and corporate expansion, complemented by executive leadership in the energy and telecommunications infrastructure sectors.

He is also a historian, author, and academic who serves on institutional boards, teaches medieval Spanish history and U.S. law, and regularly provides international geopolitical analysis for radio and television.

The post “The New Sheriff in Town” Abelardo de la Espriella and the Return of State Authority in the Fight Against Organized Crime appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) announced a lawsuit against Former Special Counsel Jack Smith over his accessing of phone records secretly obtained during his investigation of President Donald Trump.

The Senator is suing Smith in his personal capacity, arguing he was never lawfully empowered to wield the authority behind the Arctic Frost investigation.

A report released by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan confirms that Smith coordinated with the Biden DOJ to spy on their political opposition.

The Gateway Pundit reported that Republicans released documents that revealed investigators improperly subpoenaed phone records that belonged to 44 GOP lawmakers during Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation.

Smith’s team also secured gag orders to prevent the GOP lawmakers from learning that Biden’s DOJ obtained their phone records.

Fox News reports that the lawsuit, Senator Marsha Blackburn v. John L. Smith, “argues the prosecutor lacked lawful authority to serve as special counsel and violated the lawmaker’s rights by obtaining the records.”

The Senator is asking a federal court to provide several things: declare Smith’s appointment unconstitutional, order the records destroyed, and award nominal damages in the amount of $1.

Per Fox News:

The case therefore seeks to test not only Smith’s tactics, but the legitimacy of the authority he claims to have exercised as special counsel appointed by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland during the Biden administration.

“This lawsuit is solely about holding Mr. Smith accountable and ensuring that our nation’s justice system can never again be weaponized against the American people,” Blackburn, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital.

“Through his Arctic Frost witch-hunt that targeted conservatives across America and even the president of the United States, Jack Smith perpetrated one of the worst abuses of government power in our nation’s history,” she said.

On Tuesday,  Smith testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his federal criminal investigation into President Trump.

During the testimony, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) noted Smith’s actions represent “the most egregious abuse of power in the history of the Department of Justice.”

Read More:

New Report Confirms Jack Smith and Biden DOJ Coordinated to Spy on Their Political Opposition

The post Sen. Marsha Blackburn Personally Sues Jack Smith Over Improperly Subpoenaed Phone During ‘Arctic Frost’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

One of Jack Smith’s Special Assistants asked to “reset” his phone. Smith approved it.

The only reason you reset your phone is to delete everything on it.

When IT personnel told Smith that moving his team’s email and documents from one server to another could potentially erase “Metadata,” Smith said, ” Do it anyway.”

We wanted nearly every republican’s data while fine with destroying their own teams’ records. That, to me, is the height of arrogance.

Now comes the issue of an enemies list. That’s what Former Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s donor dragnet looks like to me. And the bombshell buried in his testimony should outrage every American. I will let you hear the one answer Jack Smith gave that proves he was nothing more than a political operative disguised as a federal prosecutor.

His team collected financial information on political donors. Chuck Grassley confronted him with thousands of checks, some for just five or ten dollars. Smith’s response? A generic defense of his investigation. Where was the explanation for grabbing ordinary Americans’ banking information?

Identify Trump’s supporters. Map their connections. Make Americans wonder whether supporting Republicans puts a federal target on their backs. It’s designed to be chilling, because it is.

Today on Stinchfield, we dig into Smith’s admissions and the answers he failed to deliver. What did your five-dollar donation have to do with prosecuting Donald Trump? Smith owes America an explanation.

The post Jack Smith Exposed for Destroying His Own Teams Data While Collecting Everyone Elses! (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.