1 Suspends Agents On Trump’s Detail During PA Assassination Attempt
Six Secret Service agents were suspended without pay or benefits following an attempted assassination of President Donald Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania in July 2024.
Matt Quinn, the agency’s deputy director, told CBS News on Wednesday that they “weren’t going to fire [their] way out of this,” but did say they are “laser focused on fixing the root cause of the problem.”
Quinn told the outlet that the agents received penalties ranging from 10 to 42 days of unpaid leave and were assigned to restricted roles with reduced responsibilities upon their return. He added that the disciplinary measures followed a federally mandated process.
The agency faced intense criticism after the security breach that enabled gunman Thomas Crooks to open fire toward the stage at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024.
Corey Comperatore, a 50-year-old firefighter, father, and husband attending the event, was killed. President Trump was grazed by a bullet, and two other men were wounded by the gunfire. Crooks was ultimately killed by a Secret Service sniper.
“Secret Service is totally accountable for Butler,” Quinn told CBS. “Butler was an operational failure and we are focused today on ensuring that it never happens again.” He also said the agency is focusing on the “root cause” of the operational failure and fixing “the deficiencies that put us in that situation.”Since the Butler rally, Quinn stated that the Secret Service has deployed a new fleet of military-grade drones and mobile command posts to enhance radio communications with local law enforcement, Fox News reported.
The agency faced renewed criticism weeks later following a second assassination attempt on Trump in West Palm Beach, Florida. Although the attempt was thwarted, then-Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned, and the agency became the focus of multiple investigations and congressional hearings.
In December, a bipartisan House task force released a 180-page report declaring the Butler incident “preventable,” pointing to “preexisting” leadership and training deficiencies that “created an environment” conducive to security failures.
The report also noted that Secret Service did not coordinate well with local law enforcement.
Trump made some comments last week regarding the government’s investigation into one of the assassination attempts against him last year.
In response to a reporter’s query on Friday, the president said he’s “very satisfied” with the FBI’s investigation into the assassination attempt against him in Pennsylvania.
Trump made his remarks to Daily Caller White House Correspondent Reagan Reese on Thursday, putting to rest months of speculation and doubt surrounding the case. Until now, Trump had stopped short of giving the FBI a full endorsement, The Daily Caller reported.
In an earlier interview with Fox News, he admitted some parts of the case didn’t sit right. “I’m relying on my people to tell me what it is … The Secret Service, they tell me, is fine. But it’s a little hard to believe,” he said.
Back in March, FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino told Fox News there was no evidence of some grand conspiracy against Trump. “In some of these cases, the ‘there’ you’re looking for is not there. And I know people — I get it, I understand. It’s not there. If it was there, we would have told you,” Bongino said.
That same month, Daily Caller’s Reese pressed White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt about whether Trump was satisfied with Bongino’s answer.
Leavitt responded, “Well, in the lead-up to your question, you answered your own question with the president’s own words, and I’ll leave it at that.”
In May, Bongino announced investigations into some well-known cases that involve “potential public corruption.”The cases, which appeared to be ignored during the administration of former President Joe Biden, that are getting a new look include the attempted pipe-bombing in Washington, D.C., cocaine that was found at the White House, and the leak of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that ended Roe v. Wade.
AI Model Makes Stunning Prediction of 2028 Presidential Winner
An artificial intelligence model has generated a speculative forecast about the 2028 U.S. presidential election, despite official candidates not yet being known, drawing attention on social media and YouTube.
The forecast was produced using Grok, an AI chatbot developed by the company associated with Elon Musk, after a YouTube channel asked the system to simulate a likely outcome based on a set of hypothetical candidates. The simulation included state-by-state projections, an electoral map, and projected vote totals for chosen figures from both major parties.
As the host explains, “In this video, I asked Grok AI to predict the 2028 presidential election and give us a map forecast.”
In the end, Vance was predicted to take 312 electoral votes to Harris’ 212, according to the simulation; 270 are needed to win the presidency.
On the Democratic side, Kamala Harris currently holds the lead in early primary polling with 32 percent of the support, putting her ahead of California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has 23.8 percent. Former Biden Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is in third place, just shy of 10 percent, while Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro follow close behind.
The host notes that Harris’s resurgence may surprise some, given that “many people did write Kamala Harris off following her 2024 election defeat.”
Recent polling indicates that she is regaining her advantage. Additionally, the betting markets reflect this positive trend, now suggesting there’s a 56 percent chance she will seek the Democratic nomination in 2028, a significant rise from just 11.2 percent a few months back.
“Today, it is more likely than not that she is going to run again,” the video states.
On the Republican side, Vice President JD Vance leads early polling with 49.2 percent support, significantly ahead of Donald Trump Jr., who is trailing by 29 points. Senator Marco Rubio has 12.5 percent, while Florida Governor Ron DeSantis stands at 9.2 percent.
According to the simulation, Vance is the clear favorite for the GOP nomination, with a 46 percent chance of becoming the party’s standard-bearer. Rubio follows with an 18 percent chance.
The host notes: “If nothing big changes, he will very likely become the party’s nominee in the next presidential race.”
Grok’s simulation begins by defining “solid” states as those with a margin of 15 points or more. Vance’s solid column includes the following states: Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, most of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Ohio.
The inclusion of Ohio marks a significant shift; once a key battleground, the state has trended sharply to the right, Newsner noted.
“It is not difficult to see that he will carry the Buckeye State by a solid 15-point margin,” particularly following Donald Trump’s double-digit win there in 2024, the host said in the video.
Harris’s group of solid states mirrors much of her 2024 coalition, showing some modest gains. She is projected to win the states of Washington, California, Hawaii, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Maine’s first congressional district by at least 15 points. Notably, the model predicts that Connecticut and Delaware will return to solid Democratic margins after experiencing narrower results in 2020.
After accounting for solid states, Vance leads with 139 electoral votes to 108. Additionally, the “likely” category, which contains margins between 5 and 15 points, further enhances his advantage.
He is projected to win in Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, Texas, Arizona, Alaska, and Maine’s second district. Florida and Texas are viewed as firmly Republican due to recent gains by the party, while Arizona, which was narrowly won by Trump in 2024, is expected to remain in Republican hands. With these solidly Republican and likely states counted, Vance would secure 246 electoral votes, leaving him just 24 votes short of the 270 needed to win.
JD Vance Faces Backlash as UK Veterans Speak Out
A few words can travel far—sometimes farther than expected. In March 2025, remarks by US Vice President JD Vance sparked a swift and emotional reaction that crossed the Atlantic.
During a Fox News interview, Vance discussed potential security guarantees for a post-conflict Ukraine. He argued that a US economic stake, such as access to critical minerals, would provide a stronger deterrent against future Russian aggression than “20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.” The comment was widely interpreted in the UK and France as a slight against their proposed peacekeeping contributions and, more pointedly, against the hard-earned combat record of their forces.
The backlash was immediate and crossed party lines. British veterans and politicians pushed back forcefully. Former Veterans Minister and Afghanistan veteran Johnny Mercer called Vance a “clown” and suggested his perspective might differ if he had more direct combat experience. SAS veteran and author Andy McNab, along with senior military figures like Lord West and former Chief of the General Staff General Sir Patrick Sanders, expressed similar dismay. Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge described the remarks as “deeply disrespectful” to shared service and sacrifice. Opposition voices and even some government figures echoed the sentiment.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer responded with measured dignity, opening Prime Minister’s Questions by paying tribute to the bravery of British troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside American forces. He emphasized that Britain would “never forget” their courage and sacrifice—hundreds of UK personnel lost their lives in those conflicts, fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with US troops.
Vance quickly clarified his position, calling interpretations that he targeted the UK or France “absurdly dishonest.” He noted that he had not named either country and affirmed that both had “fought bravely alongside the US over the last 20 years, and beyond.” His core argument, he said, concerned the battlefield experience and capabilities of various nations volunteering for peacekeeping roles.
May you like
This episode was never solely about one comment. It touched something deeper: the emotional weight of shared history, from World War II through the Cold War to two decades of counterterrorism operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. For veterans and their families, words that appear to diminish allied sacrifices land heavily.
Yet the reaction also revealed perspective. The US-UK “Special Relationship”—rooted in intelligence sharing, NATO interoperability, joint exercises, and mutual defense—remains fundamentally strong. Moments like this serve as reminders that even the closest alliances require care with language, respect for collective memory, and recognition that trust is built over decades but can feel strained in seconds.
