Stay or go? For some transgender San Diego sailors and Marines, Trump's ban leaves one option: ‘Come and find me'
For the 26-year-old, life in the U.S. military is all she has ever known. Now, the Trump administration's ban on transgender troops from the military is leaving her adrift - an apt analogy for the U.S. Navy air control officer.
"I grew up in a military family. I grew up all around it … and I had a desire to do that," Kolterman said. "If you were to sit down and ask me, 'When you get out of the service, what's your plan?' I have no idea. I don't have a dream."
Service members like Kolterman who call San Diego home are thinking about what life will look like after the military - an institution they have built their lives around, and that is now forcing them to leave.
Collectively, they have decades of experience, ascending to some of the highest ranks of the service, and they aren't leaving due to misconduct. But under President Donald Trump's executive order, "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness," they are no longer seen as fit to serve.
"The emotion is one of betrayal," said Veronica Zerrer, an Army veteran who serves on the California Veterans Board and co-chairs the San Diego LGBT Community Center's Veterans Wall of Honor. "They feel betrayed by their commands, by their country."
For months, uncertainty has swirled around the policy and how it would be fully implemented. And some service members wonder how San Diego's own military community will be impacted, especially if members end up leaving the region when they leave the service.
The policy was enacted by executive order in January, then temporarily blocked by a federal court in March. But in May the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the ban to take effect while legal challenges proceed.
The Trump administration told transgender troops that they could voluntarily leave the service with an honorable discharge and additional separation pay, or wait to be forced to leave, with unclear repercussions.
"Expressing a false 'gender identity' divergent from an individual's sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service," its order read.
It's unclear how many transgender people are actively serving. The U.S. Department of Defense estimates there are about 4,240 people with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria - around 0.2% of the 2 million service members.
Not all transgender people have experienced gender dysphoria, and not all people with such a diagnosis are transgender. But the diagnosis is the military's best way of tracking the numbers of transgender people serving.
Active duty troops had until June 6 to voluntarily separate, and National Guard and reserve members had until last Monday.
But after dedicating their lives to the U.S. military, service members feel disrespected and see the move as part of the Trump administration's broader efforts to erase transgender people and their identities from across the federal government and beyond.
"So much of the senior leadership doesn't want me there," said A., who works in the U.S. Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Program.
She is choosing to stay in the Navy. The San Diego Union-Tribune is identifying her by an initial because she fears being identified and expelled by the service.
"Even if an outright ban does not remain, there's still a lot of things that I think the political factions in the military leadership would try to change in order to make life more hostile towards trans people," she said.
San Diego has one of the largest military communities in the country, but the Department of Defense did not respond to the Union-Tribune's questions about how it might staff positions left vacant once service members are forced to leave.
Local resources for service members impacted by the policy are expanding, and the San Diego LGBT Community Center is working with the California Department of Veterans Affairs and San Diego Veterans Coalition to provide support to transgender service members exiting the service.
As Ron Stark, the board president of the San Diego Veterans Coalition, sees it, that support could be the lifeline troops need to succeed in the transition into civilian life, where they could face trouble finding work and adjusting to new environments.
"People who are connected fare better than those who are not," he said.
'No way out of this'
Kolterman's commitment to the armed forces has outlasted two Trump bans, and brought a defiant return.
She first enlisted in the Army - and was forced to leave - during the first Trump administration's ban on transgender troops in 2017.
She waited four years to return to the service. Now she's been in the Navy for nearly three years, stationed in San Diego for the past two.
She has chosen to stay in the Navy under Trump's ban, though she knows the military can easily identify transgender service members - senior leadership has access to all members' medical files to ensure they remain fit for service.
The Defense Department has said service members who have ever been diagnosed with gender dysphoria will be identified through individual medical readiness programs, which may vary per branch.
Kolterman is only working a couple days a week, on the far side of the base in a room by themselves. Her hours were reduced in case she had to go on administrative leave - a way for commanders to mitigate the impacts of the policy and buy time for affected service members.
Sam Rodriguez is on administrative leave from the Navy and not working at all - but unlike Kolterman, they decided to take a voluntary separation from the service.
The lieutenant junior grade and medical corps officer initially had good reason to stay: They had just been selected for a promotion from enlisted to officer last fall, and their commissioning was held in April.
"I was going to dig in my heels and stick this out as long as I could," Rodriguez said.
Rodriguez has a master's degree in social work, and the promotion would open the door to completing the hours needed to earn a clinical social work license.
But with the Supreme Court's ruling in May clearing the way for Trump's ban to take effect, the orders for Rodriguez to transfer were canceled.
"It really sent a very clear message to me that there's no way out of this," they said. "The end result is the same."
Rodriguez now feels their decision to leave gives them some control over the situation. They requested a separation date this fall, though the Navy hasn't yet issued official separation dates.
For others, such as A., choosing to stay is a point of practicality.
Before she's forced out, the 29-year-old wants to finish a training course for nuclear trained officers in August - a course she says will make her more competitive for a job in nuclear energy after the military.
Currently on sea command, stationed in part out at sea, she also wants to experience a shore command. She hopes to go to the Mariner Skills Training Center and learn to become an instructor for how to navigate ships safely.
"There's a certain amount of personal pride in being able to say that I completed all of the things that I set out to do," A. said.
'They can come and find me'
For Marine Corps Capt. Sye Savoie, staying is an act of resistance - especially since the ban is only the latest emotional blow as they reflect on their time in the service.
Ten years ago, when Savoie went through rigorous six-week training with other young officers, they felt connected to the group, its character and fraternity. They felt like they belonged.
But as the years went on, Savoie said they saw a darker side, describing a culture of White toxic masculinity. Women they knew experienced sexual assault and harassment, and they say they saw the number of women and people of color in the service around them dwindle.
And even as Savoie rose in the ranks, they were never fully on the inside.
"If I ever felt like I fit in in this organization, I really didn't," Savoie said. "That's been a hard pill to swallow, for something that's been wrapped in my identity for so long."
Trump's ban is a cruel and targeted policy, Savoie says. They're choosing to remain in the service - opting for involuntary separation, whatever that will come to look like.
"At this point, they can come and take it," they said. "They can come and find me, and they can tell me word for word why I'm not fit to do the job that I was selected so carefully from so few people to do."
But for Savoie, there are already ominous signs of the reality of the policy taking shape.
Their medical provider told them that their medical file has been marked, but it's unclear what that means. And a gender-affirming surgery they scheduled for the fall was canceled last month. Savoie is now desperately trying to contact their provider to see if there's a way to pay for it out of pocket.
They're also worried about how the Department of Defense will categorize the separation of service members leaving involuntarily.
Per Pentagon guidance, "officers will be processed for separation on the basis that their continued service is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security," using a code that could make it harder for them to get another job or security clearance for government work.
A. also worries about this - especially since she hopes to continue working in nuclear energy after she is forced to leave the service.
She expects the people who process security clearances would understand the nuances of how the code is being used. But she worries hiring managers might not, and might assume she couldn't hold a security clearance.
"That would be, I think, a bigger problem, where there would be more potentially inadvertent discrimination against service members that are separated under this policy," she said.
A plan forward
Originally from Atlanta, Savoie wants to stay in California. They bought a house in Oceanside in 2023, but it's daunting to think about how they'll pay the mortgage once they are booted from the service.
Kolterman expects to move back to Ohio, where her spouse lives, after she's separated from the Navy. There, she'll be glad to focus more on their relationship. Already, her service has been one of sacrifice for both of them.
Kolterman isn't sure how she'll earn a living next. She's thinking about what she could do in Ohio with her sociology degree, or even with a social media following on Twitch, the livestreaming video game platform.
And she's grown to love San Diego. She's involved in the cycling community and has volunteered with the Coronado Wine Festival and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, and she wonders how their local communities will change as other service members like them leave the city under Trump's ban.
"I like to think that there's a mixing between the military culture and the San Diego culture," Kolterman said. "It's gonna be sad to lose a lot of that trust - to have a lot of those people have to pack up and go home."
For their part, Rodriguez wants to continue doing advocacy work; they plan to move to Washington, D.C., in the fall with their wife and two young children.
And they're helping fellow transgender service members navigate similar challenges of their own as member director at SPARTA Pride, an advocacy nonprofit for trans people in the military.
"It's been really hurtful to see and to witness and to walk people through these situations," they said.
Among the questions they're asking about what's next: How will the military fill all their soon-to-be-vacant jobs?
Although numbers are rising, the U.S. military has struggled for years to reach its recruitment goals. And according to the U.S. Army Recruiting Command, more than 70% of American youths don't qualify for service due to health issues, drug use, misconduct or other problems.
Meanwhile, decades of experience and millions of dollars have been invested in training the transgender members who are now being separated, Rodriguez points out.
"The DoD cannot, one for one, replace us overnight," they said. "That's a lot of experience and education and value that they bring to the military that is now going to be lost."
_____
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
20 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A Senate vote this week will test the popularity of DOGE spending cuts
The House has already approved Trump's request on a mostly party line 214-212 vote. The Senate has little time to spare to beat the deadline for the president's signature. Another House vote will be needed if senators amend the legislation, adding more uncertainty to the outcome. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Here's a closer look at this week's debate. Advertisement Public media on the chopping block Trump has asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's due to receive during the next two budget years. The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense. The corporation distributes more than two-thirds of the money to more than 1,500 locally operated public television and radio stations, with much of the remainder assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System to support national programming. The potential fallout from the cuts for local pubic media stations has generated concerns on both sides of the political aisle. Advertisement Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he's worried about how the rescissions will hit radio stations that broadcast to Native Americans in his state. He said the vast majority of their funding comes from the federal government. 'They're not political in nature,' Rounds said of the stations. 'It's the only way of really communicating in the very rural areas of our state, and a lot of other states as well.' Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Ala., said that for the tribal radio stations in her state, 'almost to a number, they're saying that they will go under if public broadcasting funds are no longer available to them.' To justify the spending cuts, the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have cited certain activities they disagree with to portray a wide range of a program's funding as wasteful. In recent testimony, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought criticized programming aimed at fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion. He said NPR aired a 2022 program entitled 'What 'Queer Ducks' can teach teenagers about sexuality in the animal kingdom.' He also cited a special town hall that CNN held in 2020 with 'Sesame Street' about combatting racism. Targeting humanitarian aid As part of the package, Trump has asked lawmakers to rescind about $8.3 billion in foreign aid programs that aim to fight famine and disease and promote global stability. Among the targets: — $900 million to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases and strengthen detections systems to prevent wider epidemics. — $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country. — $4.15 billion for two programs designed to boost the economies and democratic institutions in developing and strategically important countries. Advertisement — $496 million to provide humanitarian assistance such as food, water and health care for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts. Some of the health cuts are aimed at a program known as PEPFAR, which President George W. Bush, a Republican, began to combat HIV/AIDS in developing countries. The program is credited with saving 26 million lives and has broad bipartisan support. On PEPFAR, Vought told senators 'these cuts are surgical and specifically preserve life-saving assistance.' But many lawmakers are wary, saying they've seen no details about where specifically the administration will cut. The administration also said some cuts, such as eliminating funding for UNICEF, would encourage international organizations to be more efficient and seek contributions from other nations, 'putting American taxpayers first.' U.S. leaders have often argued that aiding other nations through 'soft power' is not just the right thing to do but also the smart thing. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told Vought there is 'plenty of absolute nonsense masquerading as American aid that shouldn't receive another bit of taxpayer funding,' but he called the administration's attempt to root it out 'unnecessarily chaotic.' 'In critical corners of the globe, instead of creating efficiencies, you've created vacuums for adversaries like China to fill,' McConnell told Vought. Trump weighs in The president has issued a warning on his social media site directly aimed at individual Senate Republicans who may be considering voting against the cuts. He said it was important that all Republicans adhere to the bill and in particular defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 'Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement,' he said. Advertisement For individual Republicans seeking reelection, the prospect of Trump working to defeat them is reason for pause and could be a sign the package is teetering. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., opted to announce he would not seek reelection recently after the president called for a primary challenger to the senator when he voted not to advance Trump's massive tax and spending cut bill. Getting around a filibuster Spending bills before the 100-member Senate almost always need some bipartisan buy-in to pass. That's because the bills need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance. But this week's effort is different. Congress set up a process back when Republican Richard Nixon was president for speedily considering a request to claw back previously approved spending authority. Under those procedures, it takes only a simple Senate majority to advance the president's request to a final vote. It's a rarely employed maneuver. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush, a Republican, had some success with his rescissions request, though the final bill included some cuts requested by the president and many that were not. Trump proposed 38 rescissions in 2018, but the package stalled in the Senate. If senators vote to take up the bill, it sets up the potential for 10 hours of debate plus votes on scores of potentially thorny amendments in what is known as a vote-a-rama. Democrats see the president's request as an effort to erode the Senate filibuster. They warn it's absurd to expect them to work with GOP lawmakers on bipartisan spending measures if Republicans turn around a few months later and use their majority to cut the parts they don't like. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer offered a stern warning in a letter to colleagues: 'How Republicans answer this question on rescissions and other forthcoming issues will have grave implications for the Congress, the very role of the legislative branch, and, more importantly, our country,' Schumer said. Advertisement Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., took note of the warning. 'I was disappointed to see the Democrat leader in his recent Dear Colleague letter implicitly threaten to shut down the government,' Thune said. The Trump administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along.
Newsweek
24 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump is Undoing Climate Action. Can Clean Energy Investments Survive?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. You've probably heard of the old curse that goes, "May you live in interesting times." These are certainly interesting times for those in the clean tech and climate solutions sectors. With the passage of his "big beautiful" bill this month, President Donald Trump has eliminated many of the federal government incentives that had triggered hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in clean energy, batteries, EVs and other climate solutions over the past three years. The Trump administration has pulled the U.S. out of international climate agreements and scrapped regulations on emissions from autos and the power sector in an attempt to steer the energy economy back to reliance on fossil fuels. But the whiplash-inducing U-turn on energy policy in the U.S. is starkly at odds with signals from the broader energy market. In the U.S., renewable energy now accounts for about 90 percent of the new electricity capacity being added to the grid as wind, solar and batteries have become the cheapest and fastest sources of new power. In the series "Climate Investing in a Volatile Climate" we'll hear from leading climate tech investors about how they are navigating the rapid shifts in U.S. policy and the energy markets. In the series "Climate Investing in a Volatile Climate" we'll hear from leading climate tech investors about how they are navigating the rapid shifts in U.S. policy and the energy markets. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva Globally, the International Energy Agency reported that the capital flowing into low-carbon energy sources this year is roughly twice that going into fossil fuel development, raising the specter that the U.S. is turning its back on one of the world's fastest-growing new industries. Add to all that the impacts of tariffs and trade wars, and you have a period of unparalleled uncertainty for clean tech companies and the investors who back them. Interesting times indeed. Better Planet asked some leading clean tech and climate solutions investors how they are making sense of this shifting landscape and what they see ahead for a series we're calling "Climate Investing in a Volatile Climate." In this first installment, we'll hear from Johanna Wolfson, co-founder and general partner at Azolla Ventures, a climate-focused venture capital fund, and Peter Davidson, founder and CEO at Aligned Climate Capital, an asset management company focused on companies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Both Wolfson and Davidson told Newsweek that Trump's sudden policy shifts on energy will slow, but not stop investment, and both predicted that the strong economic arguments for clean tech will still attract capital. "We are seeing signs of a coming pull back from other venture capital firms in clean tech," Wolfson said. Climate investing won't dry up altogether, she said, but newer companies and emerging technologies with higher risk will likely find it harder to attract capital. Her advice to clean tech companies: "Hunker down, do the work, build the solutions, and be ready," she said. Davidson said that even before the Republican-led Congress voted to phase out clean energy tax credits, the atmosphere of uncertainty was already causing companies to cancel or scale back some announced projects. "You can get depressed about that or you can continue the fight," Davidson said. Despite political headwinds, he said, market forces are working in favor of clean energy. "It's gotten complicated because you have to avoid things that are reliant on federal tax policy," Davidson said. "But there are plenty of companies out there, many projects out there, that we think are still highly investable and can earn a very good return." 'It's a Big World' for Climate Investors Wolfson described Azolla Ventures as a "catalytic capital" firm that invests in early-stage climate technologies, using capital sourced mainly from tax-exempt foundations and donor-advised funds. This allows Azolla to prioritize positive climate impact when deciding what companies to back. "We're taking on outsized risk and maybe doing that at an earlier time or in a different way than even other climate-oriented venture funds might be willing," she said. "We're looking for giga-scale impact." One budding success story, she said, is the low-carbon cement company Sublime Systems. Azolla was an early backer, and Sublime recently signed a deal with Microsoft that is the largest procurement deal for clean cement to date. Azolla's approach also assumes a long lead time for nascent clean technologies to develop, she explained, a mindset that is less susceptible to shifting political winds. "When we're evaluating companies for investment, we're looking at market growth and emissions avoided out to 2050," Wolfson said. "That's a lot longer than a four-year administration." Wolfson said some clean energy sources are still well-positioned to benefit under Trump policy, such as new nuclear technology and geothermal energy, which she expects to grow rapidly as major tech companies race to procure steady power for AI data centers. However, she said that as U.S. leadership retreats from climate action, much of the rest of the world is moving ahead, and investment dollars are likely to follow. "It's a big world," Wolfson said. Some companies Azolla works with are now looking to pilot new projects outside of the U.S., and her firm is supporting them to integrate into other markets. "We should go to where the early adopters are, and if that continues to shift, then those companies should shift with it." Overall, Wolfson said, she is "deeply concerned" about the lack of global progress on climate goals. That makes Azolla more interested in early-stage support for "big swing" technologies that have potential for large-scale emissions cuts. "They're going to have to shoulder more of the emissions avoided since we're not keeping track with the desired reduction," she said. Azolla is also looking at more investment in adaptation and resilience solutions to help society better deal with climate change impacts that are happening now. "They're going to accelerate," she said of climate-driven extreme weather events. "We've essentially baked that in." An Energy Policy 'Reckoning is Coming' Before launching Aligned Climate Capital, Peter Davidson had worked on funding energy projects in the Department of Energy (DOE), where he directed the DOE's Loan Programs Office under President Barack Obama and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. That long history with the public and private sectors informs his view of what Trump 2.0 means for clean tech investment. "We've seen this movie before, because we were in this business during Trump One," Davidson said. "And during his entire first term, renewable deployment was never higher, EV deployment was never higher, corporate commitment to clean energy was never higher. So, we see the same things happening here." Aligned's most recent round of funding concluded in March with $85 million, double the previous round and higher than the company's target, Davidson said. The company's main focus is investing in proven technologies that can rapidly scale, and supporting construction of distributed power generation such as community and mid-sized solar projects—what Davidson called the "quiet workhorse" of the clean energy transition. Contractors install solar photovoltaic modules on top of a department store roof in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. Contractors install solar photovoltaic modules on top of a department store roof in Hamilton Township, New Jersey."They're big enough for meaningful impact, but you avoid the red tape of utility-scale development," he said. Recent data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) shows that even amid the Trump administration's assault on climate action, solar (often paired with battery storage) remains the favored way to add power as electricity demand rises. In the first four months of this year, FERC data showed, solar accounted for 78 percent of new capacity. Looking ahead, FERC expects about 90 gigawatts of new solar to come online in the coming three years, compared to only 19 gigawatts of new gas-fired power. Coal-fired power is expected to drop further with the retirements of several older facilities. "The energy transition is underway and it's unstoppable," Davidson said. Even with the reduced tax credits, he argued, solar generation is still cheaper to build than natural gas, and supply chain backlogs for gas turbines mean many gas projects will likely be delayed. "So, anything that's going to be built in the United States over the next five years is what we're doing, mid-size, or the large, utility scale, wind and solar," Davidson said. However, renewable energy will not grow as fast as it would have with continued tax credits and other government support. The existing fleet of natural gas power plants will be taking up a lot of the coming demand for electricity at the same time that the Trump administration is promoting more exports of liquified natural gas. That points to a nearly inevitable rise in energy prices, Davidson said. Most independent analyses of the "big beautiful" budget bill Trump signed on July 4 show sharp increases in energy costs. Analysts at Rhodium Group estimate the law will increase national average household energy bills by at least $78 and as much as $192 while forcing total industrial energy expenditures up by at least $7 billion. (Industrial energy costs also tend to get passed along to consumers via higher prices for goods and services.) Davidson predicted that rising energy prices will bring a political backlash. "Eventually there'll be a correction at the polls," he said. "We believe a reckoning is coming, and when that happens, it will bring a little more sense and sensibility into our energy policy." We'll have more conversations with climate investors in the weeks leading up to Climate Week NYC in September, when Newsweek will host events on energy and the green transition. Mark your calendars for our events "Pillars of the Green Transition" on Wednesday, September 24, and "Powering Ahead" on Thursday, September 25.
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump defends Pam Bondi — Bongino and Patel leaving?
Viewers are by now overly familiar with the phrase 'Dems in disarray,' owing to the unique amount of dysfunction that the leaderless, aimless, and often clueless Democratic Party has been manifesting in recent months. But if we're being honest with ourselves, the Republican Party is now dealing with its own drama: let's call it 'MAGA in the miasma.' I refer of course to the controversy over the Trump administration's failure to release more files pertaining to the late Jeffrey Epstein, a disgraced financial and sexual predator who died in lockup while awaiting charges. The latest news is that FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino is furious with Attorney General Pam Bondi for botching the release of the Epstein Files and causing many of the MAGA faithful to turn on the administration, and even to criticize President Trump. Bondi famously invited MAGA influencers to the White House to receive the Epstein Files Part One, which didn't actually contain any new information about associates who may have abused underage women at Epstein's invitation. And now Bondi has taken the position that there is no Epstein client list, no cover up, and no conspiracy — there's nothing to see here. The MAGA faithful know that such an outcome isn't good enough. Patel and Bongino in particular vowed to bring greater transparency to this issue if they ever got into power, and they correctly resent being made to look like fools by an attorney general who is now blatantly contradicting herself on whether there are files at all. Late last week, Bongino and Bondi apparently had it out, and according to reports, Bongino is seriously considering exiting the Trump administration altogether. He deeply resents the position that Bondi put him in. So does Kash Patel. Whether either figure ends up leaving the Trump administration, of course, remains to be seen. Trump himself seems to think the Epstein Files are no big deal at this point. He published a lengthy Truth Social post over the weekend in which he reiterated his own confidence in Pam Bondi. Trump wrote: 'What's going on with my 'boys' and, in some cases, 'gals?' They're all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! We're on one Team, MAGA, and I don't like what's happening. We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and 'selfish people' are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein. For years, it's Epstein, over and over again. Why are we giving publicity to Files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration, who conned the World with the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, 51 'Intelligence' Agents, 'THE LAPTOP FROM HELL,' and more? … LET PAM BONDI DO HER JOB — SHE'S GREAT! The 2020 Election was Rigged and Stolen, and they tried to do the same thing in 2024 — That's what she is looking into as AG, and much more. One year ago our Country was DEAD, now it's the 'HOTTEST' Country anywhere in the World. Let's keep it that way, and not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Well that's a mouthful. Trump is certainly titled to his opinion that there are more important things than Epstein, but it seems like the MAGA base doesn't necessarily agree. This post on Truth Social represents the first time ever that Trump was ratioed on his social media site, according to Newsweek. The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh posted on X, 'The Attorney General said she had the client list on her desk. The White House made a big show of giving binders marked 'Epstein Files: Phase 1' to a bunch of influencers. Now they tell us that there is no list and we should stop talking about it. Well then why did you say there was a list? Why did you pull that stunt with the influencers? Why did you call it Phase 1 (obviously implying that there were more phases to come)? If you claim that all of this seems normal, above board, and honest, you're being extremely obtuse. We're Americans. We don't accept obvious bullshit from our political leaders. And we don't move on from a topic just because we've been instructed to do so.' I think Matt Walsh is on to something. Robbie Soave is co-host of The Hill's commentary show 'Rising' and a senior editor for Reason Magazine. This column is an edited transcription of his on-air commentary.
