Rep. Anna Paulina Luna rips Daily Beast's 'nasty' headline taking reported exchange with Trump out of context
Alex Isenstadt, Axios reporter and author of "Revenge: The Inside Story of Trump's Return to Power," made headlines with quotes allegedly said by Trump in a sneak preview published by Axios on Sunday.
Among the quotes was one he allegedly said to Luna in 2023 offering her the bed on his jet when she was pregnant and feeling ill, though it included a joke about his wife Melania being jealous.
"If you need a bed to lay down in, there's one here on the plane. If you feel sick and you need to lay there, you can lay on it. Just don't tell Melania. She doesn't like other women on my bed," Trump said to Luna, according to Isenstadt, who noted in the Axios sneak preview that Trump was joking.
Trump's Lawsuit Against Pulitzer Prize Board Members Moves Forward After Judge Denies Temporary Stay Request
However, The Daily Beast ran the headline "'Don't Tell Melania': Trump Once Offered Rising MAGA Star His Bed," teasing to readers, "The alleged comments cast new light on the president's eyebrow-raising marriage to Melania Trump."
Read On The Fox News App
The report acknowledged Luna was "unwell" in the first paragraph but didn't mention the joking nature of Trump's comment until the fourth.
Trump Applauds Jeff Bezos' Changes At Washington Post In Rare Media Praise
The Daily Beast shared its story on X further implying an inappropriate relationship between Trump and Luna, writing, "The new revelations reveal how Trump reportedly offered a female congresswoman his bed, as long as she kept it a secret from his wife."
Luna did not take kindly to The Daily Beast's reporting.
"I seldom respond to nasty headlines because I don't like giving trash credibility, however, being that there is allegedly a book coming out with me named and attacking @POTUS, his marriage, our first lady, and frankly implying something distasteful about me, I am responding," Luna wrote on X.
Karoline Leavitt Says Ap Reporter 'Clearly' Failed To Grasp Trump's Tariff Plan After Heated Exchange
"I was very pregnant and at the time experiencing pre-eclampsia symptoms, but was not diagnosed," she explained. "As soon as @realDonaldTrump boarded the plane, being the gentleman and good person that he is, said if I did not feel well, I could use the back room. He did this in a respectful way and in front of my husband, of which we thanked him. He also assured me that they had a medical team on board in case anything happened and they were aware of how pregnant I was."
"This was the most compassionate thing that could've been done at the time. I find it disgusting that the author fails to recognize that," Luna continued. "A few weeks later, I was induced because I did have pre-eclampsia . The author of this book never reached out to me for comment. Which means that this book is likely going to be a s--- hit piece. If people in POTUS orbit are talking to this author, they need to be cut off immediately. This is gross."
The Daily Beast was later hit by Community Notes, which read "The woman in question was Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who has responded publicly to the allegation. She claims nothing inappropriate occurred, she was not asked for comment, and this situation is being presented out of context."
The Daily Beast did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
A spokesperson for Axios told Fox News Digital, "In our report, Axios correctly portrayed and contextualized comments made by President Trump during an interaction that he had with Rep. Luna, an interaction she confirmed in her statement did in fact happen."
In a statement to Fox News Digital, White House communications director Steven Cheung denounced Trump books including Isenstadt's as a "desperate attempt to make money off of President Trump's name because journalism is a dying industry with reporters peddling lies and selling their souls in order to make a quick buck," adding, "These works of fiction either belong in the bargain bin of the fantasy section in a discount bookstore or should be repurposed as tissue paper."Original article source: Rep. Anna Paulina Luna rips Daily Beast's 'nasty' headline taking reported exchange with Trump out of context
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
Here's What The Senate Budget And Tax Bill Means For Colleges
The "big, beautiful bill" is now back in the House, which will reconvene to take up the Senate-passed version Wednesday morning. Getty Images The Senate on Tuesday passed its version of President Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax and budget bill by a 51-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie. The 940-page bill, which now returns to the House for final approval, contains a number of provisions related to higher education that seem likely to weaken nonprofit colleges' finances, while making it more difficult for students to access financial aid and student loans. Although some House Republicans are complaining about Senate changes from the bill they passed back in May, the betting is that under pressure from Trump, they'll accept the Senate's version. 'With the goalpost of July 4th set by the President, it's likely the Senate's version will hold mostly intact,' says Michael Itzkowitz, founder of the higher education consultancy HEA Group and a former official in the Obama education department. 'There's just not too much time for the House to make any large changes at this point.' If House passage of the bill is delayed, it won't be education-related provisions that hold it up, says Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. The Senate bill's deeper cuts to Medicaid and bigger increase in deficit spending may worry House Republicans, he says. 'They may not be able to get this over the finish line tomorrow. And then if that doesn't happen, I think everything goes back on the table,' says Fansmith. 'But their goal is to try and move quickly.' The proposals in the bill that impact college budgets fall into three big categories: endowment taxes, changes to Pell grants and regulatory repeals. It also contains a litany of changes to federal student loans, which would phase out popular income-driven repayment plans, limit borrowing by graduate students and parents, and eliminate economic hardship and unemployment deferment options, among other things. Forbes contributor Adam Minsky explains all of these changes in detail here. Read on for a breakdown of what else the bill has in store for higher ed. One of the biggest changes between the Senate bill and the House-passed version is a change to the excise tax proposal on the investment income of college endowments. The initial House-passed bill increased the existing 1.4% tax to as high as 21% for the richest institutions. The Senate bill scales that back, and outlines an excise tax structure that would levy an 8% tax on endowments worth more than $2 million per student, a 4% tax on endowments worth between $750,000 and $2 million per student, and a 1.4% tax on endowments worth between $500,000 and $750,000 per student. Colleges would only be subject to the tax if they enroll at least 3,000 tuition-paying students (up from the current cut-off of 500 students), and if at least half of those students are located in the United States. Unlike the House bill, the Senate version doesn't punish schools for having a high number of foreign students by excluding them from the calculation of endowment per student. The Senate parliamentarian spiked the part of the proposal that would exempt religious institutions from the tax, which, Fansmith says, was part of an effort to exempt the very conservative Hillsdale College from the endowment tax. (Hillsdale would still be exempt from the tax because it enrolls less than 3,000 students). Fansmith's American Council on Education has always opposed an endowment tax. 'It's bad policy, it's a bad idea. It's taking money that was given to institutions for charitable purposes and giving it to the federal government, which basically means it's not being used for the purposes it was given, which is financial aid support, research, things that people really want schools to spend their money on.' The Senate bill would make some changes to students' eligibility for Pell grants, the federal government scholarships offered to low-income students. The bill proposes that foreign income be included in the adjusted gross income calculation that's used to determine students' financial need, and it also proposes that, regardless of any other factors, students who can afford to pay at least double the maximum Pell grant award will no longer be eligible for a Pell grant. Another change: If a student receives enough non-federal grant aid to cover the full cost of college attendance for the term, they would no longer be eligible for a Pell grant even if they met the income requirements. Notably, the final Senate version did not include changes to Pell eligibility requirements that would hurt low-income students and the institutions that enroll them, including a House-proposed change to the definition of a full-time credit load from 12 credits to 15 credits, and excluding less than half-time students from receiving any Pell dollars at all (which would have disqualified 700,000 students from the Pell program, a CBO analysis showed). A proposal to create a workforce Pell grant squeaked into the final bill after the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it violated the rules of budget reconciliation. The final, Senate-approved version of H.R. 1 includes the workforce Pell proposal with one notable change: unaccredited institutions would not be allowed to receive Pell grant money. The workforce Pell grant program would expand Pell grant access to students in short-term, eight to 15-week workforce training programs, even if they don't lead to a formal degree or credential. Eligibility for the workforce Pell would be the same as the regular Pell grant—students must demonstrate 'exceptional financial need,' which, for most recipients, is a household income of $60,000 or less each year. Students with any credentials beyond an undergraduate degree would not be eligible. According to the proposal, students would not be able to receive both a workforce Pell grant and a regular Pell grant, and the workforce Pell would contribute to a student's lifetime Pell grant maximum, which is typically about six years of coursework. The short-term programs students enroll in must be state-approved and meet some federal requirements, including a 70% completion rate and 70% job placement rate. A workforce Pell grant would be a boon to for-profit colleges, which dominate the trade school and workforce training space. (Those which aren't accredited would be excluded, however.) On Regulatory Changes In the section titled 'regulatory relief,' the Senate bill repeals or weakens several regulations for higher education institutions. The 90/10 rule, which requires that for-profit colleges receive at least 10% of their revenue from non-federal sources, would revert to an earlier, more lenient version of the rule. The bill would completely eliminate the gainful employment rule, an Obama-era regulation that puts guardrails on for-profit colleges to ensure their students are prepared for employment and able to pay back their student loans. It would also spike the borrower's defense to repayment regulations, instituted in 2022, which would make it more difficult for students to have their federal student loans canceled if they've been defrauded by their school. 'It's no surprise that many student protections are on the chopping block,' says Itzkowitz. 'First off, they were mainly put in place by Democratic administrations. Second of all, a more conservative Congress generally favors the idea of removing as many regulations as possible.' The bill also delays 2022 regulations related to closed school discharges. Essentially, until 2035, students with federal loans whose colleges close will have a harder time getting those loans canceled. New in the Senate version of the bill are strengthened accountability measures that require colleges to maintain good outcomes for students in order to be eligible for federal funding. According to the bill, 'low-earning outcome programs' are defined as programs whose graduates' median earnings are less than a comparable working adult, and such programs would not be eligible for federal funding. For bachelor's institutions, a comparable working adult is described as someone aged 25 to 34 who is not currently in college and has only a high school diploma. For graduate institutions, a comparable working adult is a 25-to-34 year old who has only a bachelor's degree. 'If a college program produces graduates who earn less than someone who never went to college, it would no longer receive federal funding. That's a win-win for students and taxpayers,' Itzkowitz says. 'However, it noticeably excludes certificate programs from any accountability. This is a huge policy omission, as certificates are often the riskiest credential for students, many of them being working adults, first-generation, or women of color.' More From Forbes Forbes Revised Bill Gutting Student Loan Programs Passes Senate — Here's What It Does By Adam S. Minsky Forbes The 36 Colleges Most At Risk From Pell Grant Cuts By Fiona Riley Forbes Senate Passes Trump's Megabill: Here's What's In And Out By Sara Dorn
Axios
38 minutes ago
- Axios
New law triggers adult site shutdowns in Georgia
Georgians faced new hurdles accessing adult content Tuesday after several major websites implemented age verification measures or went offline. Why it matters: Georgia joins roughly 20 states — primarily in the South and Mountain West — requiring users to submit identifying information to access adult content. Driving the news: On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Texas law mandating age verification on adult sites does not violate the First Amendment, clearing the way for Georgia's similar law to take effect Tuesday. How it works: Georgia's law compels adult websites to verify users' ages, typically through government-issued IDs, including digital driver's licenses. The other side: Industry groups and free speech advocates say the law jeopardizes adults' privacy and fails to protect children, Axios' Philip Wang reports. Critics argue the law's broad definition of sexually explicit material could affect streaming services and online bookstores while excluding social media platforms and search engines, where minors are more likely to encounter explicit content. Between the lines: Some adult sites now block access in Georgia rather than comply with verification laws, prompting users to seek workarounds such as virtual private networks (VPNs). Zoom in: People with a Georgia IP address visiting Pornhub or YouPorn are now met with statements explaining the companies' opposition to the law and announcing site shutdowns in the state. What they're saying: "While safety and compliance are at the forefront of our mission, giving your ID card every time you want to visit an adult platform is not the most effective solution for protecting our users, and in fact, will put children and your privacy at risk," a statement from the companies reads. "Until a real solution is offered, we have made the difficult decision to completely disable access to our website in Georgia." What's next: Alison Boden, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, said in a statement that her group is "working with our legal team to understand the current legal landscape and determine what recourse may exist." The intrigue: Shortly before the Supreme Court decision, U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg blocked enforcement of a provision requiring social media platforms to obtain parental approval before minors can create an account.
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge blocks Trump effort to dismantle African development agency
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump's appointment of a new head of the U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), indefinitely halting his directives to massively slash the agency's workforce and grant funding. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon found that Trump's installation of Peter Marocco as USADF's acting board chair was likely unconstitutional, ruling he needed to face Senate confirmation for it to be valid. 'While defendants argue that the President has inherent Article II power to appoint acting principal officers, there is little hope for defendants that this argument will win the day,' Leon wrote in his 16-page ruling. 'The Court therefore finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to the legality of Marocco's appointment,' continued Leon, an appointee of the younger former President Bush. The Trump administration has looked to dismantle the USADF and other aid agencies across the federal government, alleging widespread waste and abuse. Marocco's appointment came after Trump signed a February executive order calling for the elimination of USADF and several other development agencies. Marocco has played a key role in the administration, formerly overseeing the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Once Trump purported to appoint Marocco as USADF's acting board chair, Marocco named himself the group's president. He then began sweeping cuts that included nearly everything except keeping two employees and three active grants, court filings show. Last week, Marocco publicly posted a list of grants he said the USADF was terminating but didn't have updated contact information for the recipients. The judge's decision on Tuesday sides with Rural Development Innovations, a Zambia-based consulting firm that is dependent on USADF funding. The company sued alongside two former USADF employees, but the judge said the employees weren't entitled to an injunction because they hadn't shown irreparable harm. They were represented by the Democracy Forward Foundation, a left-leaning legal group that has brought a flurry of litigation against the second Trump administration. 'This is a victory for the rule of law and the communities that rely on USADF's vital work,' Joel McElvain, senior legal advisor at the group, said in a statement. 'No president can erase a federal agency, ignore Congress, and upend lives without legal authority. We will continue fighting against these power grabs to protect USADF's ability to fulfill the mission that Congress gave it to perform.' It is one of two lawsuits challenging the administration's takeover of USADF. Leon previously rejected a similar lawsuit filed by Ward Brehm, who served on USADF's board and claimed to be the group's president, finding he wasn't the right person to sue. The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.
