Hope it was a good day for you. It wasn't for everyone. Some had a bad day and some of those, honestly, got the day they deserved -- like our Convicted Felon in Chief Donald Chump. Tom Boggioni (RAW STORY) reports:
Donald Trump's rally in tiny Rocky Mount, North Carolina drew a smaller than expected crowd to the economically distressed region, leaving merchandise vendors and supporters disheartened.
According to interviews conducted by the Washington Post, the presidential visit was marked by a sense of disappointment and disillusionment as Trump touted economic growth claims that contrasted sharply with the visible hardship surrounding the Rocky Mount Events Center.
One Trump merchandise vendor struggled to move inventory, marking
MAGA beanies down to $5 without success. When addressing the reduced
price, 18-year-old Thomas Schafer responded, "I don't have $5. We're
really broke. It's Christmas time, man."
Post reporter Natalie Allison noted that regions like Rocky Mount face
significant economic challenges ahead, as enhanced subsidies for
Affordable Care Act plans—available for the past five years—are expected
to expire in the coming year.
This economic anxiety likely
contributed to lower attendance than Trump typically draws. Guy Harper,
who has sold Trump merchandise at rallies nationwide for eight years,
was struck by the reduced turnout. He began packing his merchandise
hours before the rally commenced, observing, "Look at this. Usually,
Trump rallies are like a football tailgate. This is strange."
Ah, just like every other time in his life, Chump's petering out.
Can you imagine that, days before Christmas, Americans not wanting to rush to see the man who wrecked the economy? The man who tore down the White House to build a ballroom while telling people that kids will have to settle for one doll at Christmas or one pencil.
One pencil?
What kind of an idiot is Chump? One pencil?
Who gives a pencil as a Christmas gift in 2025. I did get a gift of pencils for Isaiah. They're art pencils and, no, they don't come in quantities of one.
Chump truly is an out of touch idiot. Maybe it's the dementia, maybe it's the orange foundation.
Chump's not our only vixen in make up. There's also Miss Sassy JD Vance and several others. In fact, Megan Burbank (SLATE) notes:
By now you’ve seen them: Karoline Leavitt’s lips flecked with injection punctures and slathered in gloss too thin for the job, in one of Christopher Anderson’s fascinatingly unflattering viral images captured for Vanity Fair’s story on Trump 2.0. While the consensus on TikTok seems to be that the White House press secretary’s injector hates her, the photograph is just the latest, most confronting example of MAGA world’s increasingly compulsory, almost uncanny cosmetic interventions for women, the more obvious the better. It’s what Occidental College political scientist Caroline Heldman characterizes as an aesthetics of capitulation, in which, for women like Leavitt, Kristi Noem, and Laura Loomer, “it becomes like a badge of honor.”
Showing the work is the point. Aesthetics for women in politics have always been fraught, but once upon a time, conservative women commentators could get away with a commitment to a brassy Fox & Friends blond dye job and a crucifix. These days, going full MAGA seems to mean getting a new face too. It means injections. It means work, in every sense of the word.
But first: What, exactly, is going on with 28-year-old Leavitt’s lips? It’s baffling even to experts like Kristy Hamilton, a board-certified plastic surgeon and social media chair of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. The puncture marks, she said, suggest that the photo was taken “almost immediately post-injection.”
But new filler usually causes more swelling, making the image “a little bit of a mystery,” said Hamilton, who noted that even the use of more-opaque lipstick would have helped conceal the punctures. Leavitt’s visible vertical lip lines, she added, also don’t align with the typical appearance of fresh filler. “That does not look like someone who had lip filler the day prior, other than that it appears to be injection marks,” she said. Hamilton floated a theory that perhaps Leavitt had had “a very, very conservative touch-up” immediately before the shoot, but she noted that this would have been “extremely ill advised.” (Two dermatologists and a plastic surgeon told a beauty writer at the Cut that they also thought the injections had likely been done very recently, possibly even the day before the photo shoot.)
Poor Propaganda Pig, she just wanted to look purdy. She looks like a pig. Not a cute one, but a pig. And this was VANITY FAIR -- a magazine people still buy and subscribe to and do so, in large part, for the photos. Propaganda Pig knew people would be looking and thought a little lip injection touch up would make the area underneath her pig snout *POP*! But all that happened was it drew attention to that ugly face and to the injection marks. Poor Propaganda Pig.
The release of the Epstein files is a joke. The administration is non-compliant and breaking the law with the trickle they provided yesterday. The release included a photo having nothing to do with Epstein -- but picturing Diana Ross, her son Evan and Michael Jackson with two of his children as they met with Bill Clinton. Katie Francis (THE DAILY BEAST) explains:
The White House has been accused of “having no shame” after a redacted image of Diana Ross and Michael Jackson released in the latest Epstein files wave was found to be a photo of the duo with their own children.
In the photo, which is publicly available unredacted, the iconic musicians and longtime friends stand on either side of Bill Clinton alongside their kids Evan Ross, Michael “Prince” Jackson Jr., and Paris Jackson.
The shot was taken in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 19, 2003, by photographer Jonathan Exley, who took multiple photos of Jackson throughout his career.
Alongside
multiple online users identifying the image, Ross’s son Evan clarified
that the redactions were not hiding potential victims. “That’s me, not
unidentified women,” he commented on an Instagram post.
White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson was also corrected by a community notice when she shared the redacted image on X on Friday.
“Per the Epstein Files Transparency Act, DOJ was specifically instructed only to redact the faces of victims and/or minors. Here is a picture of Bill Clinton with his arm around Michael Jackson, and redacted individuals,” she wrote alongside the photo.
Trickery and deceit, it's all Chump has left to offer. On the topic of photos, Alan Feuer, David Enrich and Dylan Freedman (NEW YORK TIMS) report:
More than a dozen photos — including one featuring President Trump — were removed without explanation from the large collection of files connected to the investigations of Jeffrey Epstein that the Justice Department released on Friday.
A total of 16 photos were taken down at some point on Saturday from the website that the department created to house files — among them, one of the few that contained Mr. Trump’s image. It was a photo of a credenza in Mr. Epstein’s Manhattan home, with an open drawer containing other photos, including at least one of Mr. Trump.
The Justice Department did not explain on the site why the images had been removed, and a department spokesman did not respond to a message seeking comment.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee immediately seized on the missing photo of Mr. Trump, reposting it on social media and asking Attorney General Pam Bondi if it was true that the image had been removed.
Here's the photo Bondi apparently decided to remove.
While rushing to protect Chump, they once again didn't give a damn about the survivors. David McAfee (RAW STORY) reports:
Donald Trump's administration committed a "grave and indefensible violation" with a mistake it made in the production of certain Epstein files, according to a survivor of the deceased financier's abuse.
Lawyer and journalist Aaron Parnas flagged the letter from the Epstein survivor on social media. Parnas wrote, "Jane Doe Epstein Survivor, who reported Epstein to the FBI in 2009, sent the following letter to the Department of Justice today after it failed to redact her name in the release of the files. I have confirmed her name is currently not redacted in multiple public files."
The letter itself says in part, "I am a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein. I write to place the Department of Justice on formal notice of a grave and indefensible violation arising from the December 19, 2025 release of records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act."
The White House reduces it all to a political stunt. But there are some things in the release that are news worthy. Edith Olmsted (THE NEW REPUBIC) reports:
Surprise, surprise: President Donald Trump was in Jeffrey Epstein’s contact list.
Buried in the massive trove of documents released by the Department of Justice Friday was Epstein’s 90-page contact book filled with names of high-profile celebrities—including Donald Trump and his family members.
Contact information for “Trump, Donald,” now redacted, was kept separately from the information on how to reach Trump’s daughter Ivanka, his ex-wife Ivana, his brother Robert, and Robert’s wife, Blaine.
A handwritten note indicated the contact book was from Palm Beach, dated 2004–2005.
There also appeared to be contact information for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, where Epstein reportedly scouted young women to abuse and traffic, and from where he was supposedly banned in October 2007.
The whole family was connected to him. That's not a casual acquaintance. Not at all. And this wasn't the release ordered. Ordered by an actual act of Congress. "That's going to take an act of Congress." You may have heard that before in your life. Well this had an actual act of Congress and still the administration refused to comply and they got Speaker of the Closet Mike Johnson to send the House home so that Chump could try to escape the outrage of Congress. Will it work? MOTHER JONES' Clint Hendler notes:
According to Rep. Thomas Massie, the Kentucky Republican who broke with his party to champion the Epstein Files Transparency Act, what the government has so far provided “grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law.”
Epstein’s victims have similar complaints. “They are proving everything we have been saying about corruption and delayed justice,” Jess Michaels told the New York Times. “What are they protecting? The coverup continues.”
The release is being overseen by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the president’s former personal defense attorney, who represented him in the criminal case related to Trump’s attempt to coverup his affair with Stormy Daniels, the adult film star. Blanche has said that the Justice Department remains at work preparing more files for disclosure in the “coming weeks,” in apparent violation of Friday’s deadline.
Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:
Washington, D.C. — Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee; Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP); and Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, sent a letter to Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calling on him to immediately reverse and explain the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) guidance prohibiting the use of nearly 200 words associated with “DEI” in Head Start funding applications—including words like “women,” “disability,” “Tribal,” and “mental health.” The Department has threatened that funding could be denied for Head Start centers if these words are used—despite the fact that the bipartisan statute authorizing the Head Start program specifically requires Head Start centers to work to meet goals associated with these words.
“We write to express our outrage at recent U.S. Health and Human Services actions to prohibit Head Start grantees from providing services that are clearly permitted under the law, like training teachers on how best to care for children with disabilities or enabling Tribes to serve their own members. As part of enforcing your illegal guidance banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), the Office of Head Start has now prohibited nearly 200 words and phrases,” write the Senators. “Your actions directly conflict with the statutory requirements established by Congress on a bipartisan basis under the Head Start Act to provide community-driven services and supportive classrooms for children with disabilities, and they force Head Start grantees to make an impossible and unacceptable choice between complying with the law or bending to the Administration’s unlawful DEI ban to keep their funding. The chaos you are creating is already jeopardizing services for nearly 700,000 young children across this country.”
The Senators note that a Trump administration policy banning “DEI” initiatives “was accompanied by a list of nearly 200 banned words and phrases, such as ‘disability,’ ‘women,’ ‘Tribal,’ and ‘mental health’—all words that are explicitly referenced in the Head Start Act and that are integral to fulfilling the program’s statutory purpose.”
HHS has claimed in court that there is no “credible threat of enforcement” in regard to their own policy banning DEI, but the American Civil Liberties Union has found evidence that the Trump Administration has been enforcing the “banned words”—actively rejecting or modifying grant applications based on the policy. The Senators further detail: “Court filings document instances in which programs were instructed to remove trainings on supporting children with autism, and in which Tribal programs were directed to remove preferences for Tribal members from their eligibility criteria. These directives directly contradict the Head Start Act, which explicitly permits American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start programs to prioritize Tribal membership or other criteria selected by the Tribe. Further news reporting show that OHS has been directing Head Start programs to remove phrases that the Administration interprets as similar to DEI, creating additional, arbitrary hurdles for grant applications.”
The Senators continue, explaining how banning specific words and phrases is fundamentally at odds with the clear requirements and permissible activities outlined in the Head Start Act. The Senators detail multiple examples of how the policy threatens to impact families served by the program: “Banning the usage of the words ‘disability,’ ‘inclusive,’ and ‘accessibility’ conflicts with Head Start programs’ requirements in meeting the needs of children with disabilities and ‘providing disability-related services for children’ as required in Sections 645 and 650 of the Head Start Act.”
“This ban is the latest in a long series of attacks from this administration on Head Start and early childhood education programs, which have created chaos and uncertainty for families nationwide,” the Senators continue—noting that the Trump administration illegally impounded funding for the programs earlier this year, which cause centers to temporarily close.
“Let’s be clear: banning these words and restricting the ability of Head Start programs to provide the services and support they are obligated to by law—all in an attempt to ban ‘DEI’—doesn’t only defy federal law and mandates that Congress created and funds on a bipartisan basis, it puts the vital support that kids and families across the country count on at serious risk. This is unacceptable. For more than 60 years, Head Start has provided high-quality early education and comprehensive services to more than 40 million children and working-class families. Your actions threaten that legacy and the families who rely on these services today,” the Senators conclude.
Full text of the letter is available HERE and below:
Dear Secretary Kennedy:
We write to express our outrage at recent U.S. Health and Human Services (Department) actions to prohibit Head Start grantees from providing services that are clearly permitted under the law, like training teachers on how best to care for children with disabilities or enabling Tribes to serve their own members. As part of enforcing your illegal guidance banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), the Office of Head Start has now prohibited nearly 200 words and phrases. Your actions directly conflict with the statutory requirements established by Congress on a bipartisan basis under the Head Start Act to provide community-driven services and supportive classrooms for children with disabilities, and they force Head Start grantees to make an impossible and unacceptable choice between complying with the law or bending to the Administration’s unlawful DEI ban to keep their funding. The chaos you are creating is already jeopardizing services for nearly 700,000 young children across this country.
On March 18, 2025, the Office of Head Start (OHS) notified all Head Start programs that “the use of federal funding for any training and technical assistance or other program expenditures that promote or take part in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives” will not be approved and that any questions should be directed to regional offices. The policy was accompanied by a list of nearly 200 banned words and phrases, such as “disability,” “women,” “Tribal,” and “mental health”—all words that are explicitly referenced in the Head Start Act and that are integral to fulfilling the program’s statutory purpose. The ambiguous policy was not accompanied by clarification on what the Administration considers “DEI,” and Head Start programs were left with no meaningful guidance on compliance. Meanwhile, the Administration eliminated staff in regional offices, leaving 800 Head Start programs across 22 states without dedicated support staff to assist with grant applications and local day-to-day operations.
While the Department has claimed in court that there is no “credible threat of enforcement,” the facts demonstrate otherwise. On December 5, 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union provided additional evidence that the Trump Administration has been enforcing the banned words policy and rejecting or modifying grant applications as a result. Court filings document instances in which programs were instructed to remove trainings on supporting children with autism, and in which Tribal programs were directed to remove preferences for Tribal members from their eligibility criteria. These directives directly contradict the Head Start Act, which explicitly permits American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start programs to prioritize Tribal membership or other criteria selected by the Tribe. Further news reporting show that OHS has been directing Head Start programs to remove phrases that the Administration interprets as similar to DEI, creating additional, arbitrary hurdles for grant applications.
The list of banned words is fundamentally at odds with the clear requirements and permissible activities outlined in the Head Start Act. For example:
- Banning the usage of the word “women” from Head Start grant applications conflicts with the statutory requirement for Early Head Start programs to serve pregnant women. Head Start agencies need to submit “…a description of how the needs of pregnant women, and of infants and toddlers, will be addressed…” in their application, as outlined under section 645 of the Head Start Act.
- Banning the usage of the words “disability,” “inclusive,” and “accessibility” conflicts with Head Start programs’ requirements in meeting the needs of children with disabilities and “providing disability-related services for children” as required in Sections 645 and 650 of the Head Start Act.
- Banning “culturally appropriate” conflicts with the Secretary’s role in establishing Head Start program performance standards with measures that are “…developmentally, linguistically, and culturally appropriate services for the population served…” as required under section 641A of the Head Start Act.
- Banning the use of “mental health” will undermine the statutory obligations of programs to provide mental health services and promote partnerships with substance abuse and mental health treatment agencies to strengthen family and community environments under section 642B of the Head Start Act.
- Banning the word “Tribal” is an egregious violation of Tribal sovereignty and contradicts many of the explicit requirements to consult Tribal governments, Indian Tribes, or Tribal organizations in administering the American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start programs, the Head Start Act, such as sections 641, 645, 649, 658D, and 658O.
This ban is the latest in a long series of attacks from this administration on Head Start and early childhood education programs, which have created chaos and uncertainty for families nationwide. On July 23, 2025, the Government Accountability Office found that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding over $825 million of Head Start funding between January and April. This administration’s decision to block funding for Head Start created chaos, forced programs to draw up plans to lay off staff, forced parents to stress about back up plans, and even caused some programs to temporarily close their doors. The constant chaos and uncertainty facing 1,600 Head Start grantees undermines the early education and care of tens of thousands of children and their families nationwide.
Let’s be clear: banning these words and restricting the ability of Head Start programs to provide the services and support they are obligated to by law—all in an attempt to ban “DEI”—doesn’t only defy federal law and mandates that Congress created and funds on a bipartisan basis, it puts the vital support that kids and families across the country count on at serious risk. This is unacceptable. For more than 60 years, Head Start has provided high-quality early education and comprehensive services to more than 40 million children and working-class families. Your actions threaten that legacy and the families who rely on these services today.
As Secretary, you are legally obligated to administer Head Start in accordance with the statute Congress enacted, not to condition funding on compliance with unlawful and undefined policy directives.
Head Start grantees, educators, young children, and families deserve answers. Please provide a written response to the questions no later than 10 days from receipt:
- Please provide all guidance, directives and communications related to banned words and phrases and other anti-DEI policies, pursuant to the January 20 executive order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” that have been communicated to Head Start grantees.
- How did the Administration decide on the banned words list and how
did it evaluate the list’s contradictions with the statutory
requirements of the Head Start Act?
- For each term, please provide the Administration’s analysis explaining how its inclusion does not conflict with the Head Start Act.
- How many Head Start grantees have been instructed to remove words or content from their grant applications as a result of this guidance?
- How many grantees have had to wait for funding beyond the first day of the annual funding cycle because of banned words?
- To what extent does the Administration rely on artificial intelligence to review grant applications and identify banned words?
- How many drawdown requests in the Payment Management System have required modification to comply with the banned words policy?
- Have any grantees been denied funding due to the Administration’s banned DEI list? If so, how many and under what circumstances?
- When did the Administration begin implementing the banned words list in its grant review process?
- Does HHS apply or plan to apply the banned words policy to other
HHS-administered grant programs, including the Child Care and
Development Block Grant?
- If not, please explain why Head Start has been singled out for this policy.
- If so, please identify each affected program and provide the corresponding guidance.
- How has HHS assessed the impact of the banned words policy on
American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start programs administered by
Tribes and Tribal organizations?
- Did HHS consult with Tribes prior to implementing this policy, as required under the Head Start Act and federal Tribal consultation obligations?
- If not, why not?
We expect the Department to immediately reverse course, comply with the bipartisan law Congress enacted, and ensure Head Start programs can continue providing comprehensive services to children and families without fear of arbitrary enforcement or funding retaliation.
Sincerely,
###
The following sites updated:
