You can say a lot of things about President Donald Trump, but the one thing you cannot say is that he hates America (you can’t say the same for Democrats, though).

It has been 35 years since the United States first heard the now-familiar warning of a 12-year deadline to avert climate catastrophe—and then spent decades as one of the few industrialized nations to take it seriously. Now, as the third such 12-year countdown since the UN’s global-warming pact ticks away, Donald Trump has moved to withdraw from the agreement altogether, along with dozens of international organizations tethered to the UN’s climate bureaucracy.

This topic is more about international agreements in general rather than specifically about climate change, particularly those that tend to benefit China at the expense of American interests. And this is, at least, what drove many Trump supporters to cast their votes.

Naturally, this could ultimately lead to legal proceedings. Unlike other executive agreements, such as the JCPOA deal with Iran, the UNFCCC was actually ratified by the Senate. Do presidents have the power to revoke ratified treaties? The Constitution does not clarify this, and the rarity of the situation means that there are few, if any, precedents to guide the resolution. This could complicate fully severing the US’s ties to the treaty, but Trump’s executive order prepares for this with the phrase “to the extent permitted by law.”

What would fall under “permitted by law”? Any solid commitment outlined in the treaty itself would likely necessitate adherence. However, the UNFCCC serves more as a framework than as a regulatory document. The subsequent agreements that stemmed from the UNFCCC, like the Kyoto and Paris accords, mandated specific decreases in carbon emissions and other measures.

Since those agreements were never approved by the US Senate, they occupy a similar uncertain status as the JCPOA, functioning as an executive agreement rather than a treaty. We have effectively dismissed the subsequent protocols established under the UNFCCC, so we have primarily conformed to the tentative and non-binding “requirements” in the treaty’s text to take action to lower emissions of carbon dioxide, other “greenhouse gases,” and particulates… which we already address through policy at both the national and state levels.

Anyway, the most significant effect will be our exit from numerous multilateral organizations – reportedly 65 in total. This will certainly help us conserve funds just by handling those affiliations, in addition to enabling us to focus human resources on genuine priorities in trade and foreign affairs.

But of course, leave it to the left-wing media that rarely, if ever, considers “America first” to complain:

President Donald Trump is withdrawing the United States from the world’s overarching treaty on climate change in a move that escalates his attempts to reverse years of global negotiations toward addressing rising temperatures.

The announcement to sever ties with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change came as Trump quit dozens of international organizations that the White House said no longer serve U.S. interests by promoting what it called radical climate policies and other issues.

Trump has pressured other countries to abandon their carbon-cutting measures, and the move appears to be his latest attempt to destabilize global climate cooperation.

The 1992 UNFCCC serves as the international structure for efforts by 198 countries to slow the rate of rising climate pollution. It has universal participation. The U.S. was the first industrialized nation to join the treaty following its ratification under former President George H.W. Bush — and it will be the only nation ever to leave it.

“Destabilize global climate cooperation.” Seriously? After decades of false doom-and-gloom world is ending ‘predictions,’ this is the best the left has?

Well, Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended against the criticism from the Left regarding the termination of this and other international agreements that place U.S. policy under the influence of international organizations:

Rubio, the US secretary of state, said the organisations were driven by “progressive ideology” and were actively seeking to “constrain American sovereignty”.

“From DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) mandates to ‘gender equity’ campaigns to climate orthodoxy, many international organisations now serve a globalist project,” he said.

That is exactly what Trump promised—repeatedly, across all three of his campaigns. And there should be no confusion: this is precisely what his supporters voted for.

IT ALL CAME OUT' – GAVIN NEWSOM BLOWS UP AFTER BEING EXPOSED LIVE ON AIR

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — As the 2028 presidential election cycle rapidly approaches, life is getting increasingly complicated for California Governor Gavin Newsom.

The ambitious Democrat, widely expected to declare his candidacy for his party's highest nomination, is currently drowning in a massive, rapidly expanding ethics scandal centered on hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable corporate donations. As federal investigators continue to circle both the governor and his wife, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the sheer scale of his fundraising tactics is raising serious alarm bells across the political spectrum.

At the absolute center of this controversy is Newsom’s unprecedented and unapologetic use of "behested payments"—a controversial practice in California law that allows elected officials to personally solicit massive, unlimited donations from deep-pocketed corporations, wealthy individuals, and labor unions to fund specific charities or government initiatives.

While technically legal under the state's highly permissive rules, government watchdogs and ethics experts are fiercely arguing that these payments represent a glaring, dangerous loophole. It essentially allows special interests—many of whom have active, highly lucrative business before the state of California—to gain massive political influence and curry favor with the governor, entirely outside the strict boundaries of traditional campaign finance laws.

The $347 Million Man

According to official California disclosure records, the scale at which Newsom utilizes this loophole is utterly staggering. Since 2011, Newsom has reported soliciting more than $347 million in behested payments.

To put that massive figure into perspective, data from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) reveals that all elected officials statewide combined directed roughly $556 million in behested payments between 2011 and 2026. Newsom alone accounted for nearly two-thirds—a whopping 62%—of that total.

By stark contrast, his predecessor, former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, reportedly solicited a relatively modest $35 million in behested payments during his entire tenure.

"Behested payments are ripe for abuse," warned Sean McMorris of California Common Cause, pointing out the obvious ethical minefield created when powerful elected officials lean on organizations that have direct business before the government.

The Optics of Influence Peddling

The ethical concerns are not just hypothetical; they are rooted in a pattern of massive corporate donations followed by highly favorable state actions.

Public reports have raised serious questions about several major donors who opened their checkbooks at Newsom's behest and later benefited immensely from state contracts or policy decisions. For example, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the healthcare giant Blue Shield donated a staggering $20 million to initiatives heavily supported by Newsom. Shortly thereafter, the corporation was miraculously awarded a highly lucrative, no-bid state contract related to vaccine distribution.

Similarly, the Kaiser Foundation contributed nearly $10 million before securing a significantly expanded role in California’s massive Medi-Cal program. In another instance, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria donated millions to organizations associated with the governor and his wife’s initiatives. Later, they benefited significantly from favorable state decisions involving tribal gaming matters, including efforts to block a rival casino from opening nearby.

While proving an explicit, legal quid pro quo is notoriously difficult, critics argue that the actual transaction is irrelevant. The concern is that the system inherently encourages and rewards a "pay-to-play" culture. Assemblyman David Tangipa slammed the practice, describing behested payments as a blatant form of "political influence peddling," boldly arguing that just because the system is legal does not mean it isn't deeply corrupt.

The Family Business and Federal Heat

The issue has drawn even fiercer scrutiny because millions of these corporate dollars have been funneled directly into organizations tightly linked to the governor’s inner circle. Approximately $4.8 million in behested donations were routed to the California Partners Project, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Jennifer Siebel Newsom. For many critics, corporate money flowing into a charity run by the governor's wife creates, at the very least, a glaring appearance of a massive conflict of interest.

The intense debate over this influence-peddling loophole comes at a highly precarious time for the governor. Newsom recently acknowledged that both he and his wife are currently the subjects of multiple, ongoing federal investigations. While neither has been charged with any wrongdoing, and the Department of Justice has remained completely tight-lipped about the exact nature of the inquiries, the specter of a federal probe casts a dark cloud over his 2028 presidential ambitions.

A "Laughable Slap on the Wrist"

Adding insult to injury for government transparency advocates, Newsom recently agreed to pay a $31,500 ethics fine handed down by the state's campaign finance watchdog, the FPPC. The fine was levied after the commission found that Newsom flagrantly failed to legally report 36 separate behested payments—totaling more than $5.6 million—within the required 30-day timeframe.

The late disclosures involved massive corporate donations solicited during the 2024 and 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, pulling in vast sums from corporate titans like BlackRock, Amazon, Lockheed Martin, and Anthem Blue Cross. While Newsom's office brushed off the violation as a mere paperwork oversight during an emergency, critics blasted the $31,500 penalty as a "laughable slap on the wrist" for a wealthy politician manipulating a quarter-billion-dollar shadow fundraising system. This marks the second time Newsom has been fined for late reporting of these payments, having previously paid a $13,000 fine in 2024.

Supporters of the governor are quick to point out that these behested donations have funded critical public initiatives, including wildfire relief and charitable causes. However, the public benefit of those projects does absolutely nothing to eliminate the massive concerns surrounding transparency, corporate influence, and the ability of powerful special interests to funnel unlimited cash into causes promoted by the state's most powerful executive.

As Newsom attempts to position himself as the future of the Democratic Party, the growing scandal surrounding his $347 million loophole is forcing a national reckoning. The American people are left to wonder: if this is how Gavin Newsom runs California, how exactly would he run the country?

He just admitted what we ALL suspected... and honestly, it is stranger than anyone thought

Posted July 11, 2026

Barron Trump has long been one of the most private members of a family that has remained under intense public scrutiny for decades. As the youngest son of former U.S. President Donald Trump and former First Lady Melania Trump, he has spent much of his life in the background of political and media attention. Now, as he reaches adulthood at 20, public interest in his future and personal outlook has continued to grow.

Recently, Barron briefly acknowledged the attention surrounding him and the volume of speculation about his life. While some online headlines have framed his remarks as revealing or dramatic, accounts from those familiar with the situation suggest his comments were more restrained. He reportedly addressed the ongoing curiosity by noting that many assumptions about him are based on speculation rather than verified facts.

Throughout his childhood and teenage years, Barron largely avoided public political engagement and media commentary. Unlike some children of prominent political figures who later step into public-facing roles, he has maintained a consistently low-profile presence. This approach is widely understood to have been intentional, allowing him to experience a more private upbringing despite his family’s visibility.

Even so, public curiosity about him has remained steady. Social media discussions frequently speculate about his personality, interests, and possible future paths. Some commentary has suggested he could eventually move into politics, while others have floated possibilities ranging from business to technology or sports. However, there has been little publicly confirmed information about his long-term goals or ambitions.

In his brief acknowledgment of the attention, Barron reportedly suggested that people often project assumptions onto him based solely on his family background. He emphasized, according to accounts, that he is still a young adult in the process of figuring out his own direction—similar to many others his age.

Although the remarks were relatively modest, they drew significant attention precisely because he is rarely heard from in public settings. The limited nature of his public presence has often amplified interest whenever he does speak or appear, leading to widespread online interpretation and discussion.

Those familiar with the family have indicated that Barron has continued focusing on education and personal development. Over the years, there have been occasional reports suggesting interests in areas such as sports and technology, though none of these have been publicly confirmed by him in detail.

Media analysts note that the level of attention surrounding Barron reflects a broader pattern in modern media culture, where the children of high-profile figures often become subjects of public speculation regardless of their own level of engagement. In the social media era, even small or indirect comments can quickly be amplified into larger narratives.

For now, Barron appears to be maintaining a careful distance from public life. While reaching adulthood naturally increases interest in his future plans, it does not necessarily indicate a shift toward a public or political role.