Trump Trolls Obama, Biden With Harsh Labels On Presidential Photos
Trump Trolls Obama, Biden With Harsh Labels On Presidential Photos
The Trump White House has installed new plaques beneath the portraits in the “Presidential Walk of Fame,” a gallery highlighting former U.S. presidents. The plaques criticize previous presidents, echoing President Donald Trump’s rhetoric toward his Democratic predecessors.
One describes former President Joe Biden as the “worst president in American history,” while another labels former President Barack Obama “one of the most divisive political figures in American history.”
Trump has also replaced Biden’s portrait with an image of an autopen. He has repeatedly criticized the use of autopens — a tool used by multiple administrations — claiming Biden’s signature was applied to documents without his authorization. Trump has vowed to repeal actions from the Biden administration that were signed using an autopen, NewsNation noted in a report this week.
The first new plaque under Biden’s portrait refers to the former president as “Sleepy Joe Biden” and calls him “the worst President in American History,” adding that he won the office “as a result of the most corrupt Election ever seen in the United States.”
The plaque also criticizes the Biden administration’s handling of the economy, inflation, energy and immigration, and references the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the war in Ukraine and the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel.
A second plaque asserts that Biden was “dominated by his Radical Left handlers” and accuses his staff and the media of concealing concerns about his mental fitness and his use of an autopen. It also accuses Biden of targeting his political enemies and makes reference to the “Biden Crime Family.”
The new plaque beneath Obama’s portrait criticizes the Affordable Care Act and highlights the subsequent election of Republican majorities in the House and Senate. It also faults the Obama administration’s approach to the economy, the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate agreement.
The plaque references the rise of ISIS in the Middle East and Russia’s invasion of Crimea, and says Obama “crippled” small businesses through regulation.
It further accuses Obama of spying on Trump’s 2016 campaign and of orchestrating what it calls the “Russia hoax.” The plaque also says Obama selected former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as his successor and notes her loss in the general election, NewsNation noted.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed lawsuits against four jurisdictions — the District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, and Wisconsin — for “failure to produce their full voter registration lists upon request.”
“The law is clear: states need to give us this information, so we can do our duty to protect American citizens from vote dilution,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who leads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Today’s filings show that regardless of which party is in charge of a particular state, the Department of Justice will firmly stand on the side of election integrity and transparency.”
The lawsuits come on the heels of damning revelations about Georgia’s largest county. Election integrity researcher David Cross uncovered what he described as “systemic noncompliance” after paying nearly $16,000 for Fulton County’s 2020 election records. Cross told the Georgia State Election Board that 134 tabulator tapes—representing roughly 315,000 early votes—were missing required poll worker signatures.
“Because no tape was ever legally certified, Fulton County had no lawful authority to certify its advanced voting results to the Secretary of State. Yet it did,” Cross said. “And Secretary Raffensperger accepted and folded those uncertified numbers into Georgia’s official total.”
The irregularities did not end there. Cross’s review also revealed duplicate scanner serial numbers, mismatched memory cards, and precincts reporting operation hours as late as 2:09 a.m.
These findings corroborated a 2024 reprimand by Georgia’s State Election Board, which determined Fulton County had double-counted at least 3,075 ballots in the 2020 recount and could not verify how many duplicates were ultimately included in the final certified total.
Investigators admitted that they were missing chain-of-custody records for numerous ballot images and that “some underlying records were lost entirely.”
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?
