Connect with us

Politics

Decoding Trump: How he engaged, deflected or ducked my questions at Mar-a-Lago

Published

on

Decoding Trump: How he engaged, deflected or ducked my questions at Mar-a-Lago

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Having trouble? Click here.

I came armed with a fistful of blue cards, and still didn’t get to half the questions, but Donald Trump made a whole lot of news in our Mar-a-Lago interview.

What’s revealing is how he chose to answer the most sensitive questions, or to deflect them, and how various media outlets chose to frame them.

Advertisement

Some, like the New York Times, ABC and the Hill, played it straight. Other operations, many of them left-leaning, cherry-picked quotes to make Trump look as awful as possible, while ignoring the reasonable-sounding things he said.

A classic example was when I asked the former president about the murder of Alexei Navalny in a Siberian prison camp. I thought he might duck because of his friendly relationship with Vladimir Putin.

But I put it to him point-blank: Is the Russian dictator responsible for the death of the opposition leader?

TRUMP: IF YOU’RE GOING TO BAN TIKTOK, BAN FACEBOOK TOO

Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump takes the stage to introduce a new line of signature shoes at Sneaker Con at the Philadelphia Convention Center on Feb. 17 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Advertisement

“Perhaps,” Trump said. “I mean, possibly, I could say probably. I don’t know. He’s a young man, so statistically he’d be alive for a long time…Certainly that would look like something very bad happened.”

Keep in mind that Trump has never even mentioned Putin in the same paragraph as Navalny, and now he’s saying “probably” responsible. Of course, Trump can’t prove it, and neither can I.

Here are some of the headlines:

“Trump Couldn’t Bring Himself to Condemn Putin for Alexei Navalny’s Death.”

“Trump Delivers Head-Spinningly Awkward Answer to New Question About Putin.” 

Advertisement

“Trump: ‘I Don’t Know’ If Putin Was Responsible for Navalny’s Death.”

You get the idea.

Which brings us to Trump’s rhetoric. I asked why he uses words like “vermin” and “poisoning of the blood” to describe illegal migrants – especially since the press says such language was used by Hitler and Mussolini.

Trump says he didn’t know that and then repeated “our country is being poisoned” – prompting a wave of headlines that he had doubled down on such harmful language.

TRUMP: BIDEN IS ‘BAD FOR ISRAEL’

Advertisement

I guess you could say that – and I’m not letting him off the hook – but the more telling part of his answer came next.

I asked the 45th president whether he uses “over the top” and “inflammatory” language to drive the media debate, meaning a focus on his words gets news outlets spending days on his turf, on his preferred issue, in the arguments over whether he went too far. And Trump didn’t deny it, saying he wouldn’t limit himself to “politically correct” verbiage.

“It also gets people thinking about very important issues,” he said. “That if you don’t use certain rhetoric, if you don’t use certain words that maybe are not very nice words, nothing will happen.” My theory, based on decades of observing him, was correct.

Then he went off on migrants coming from insane asylums and how crime will double – neither of which has been shown to be true on a major scale. 

Migrants line up at a remote U.S. Border Patrol processing center after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border on Dec. 7, 2023, in Lukeville, Arizona. (John Moore/Getty Images)

Advertisement

The same was true with NATO, when Trump caused a global uproar by saying he’d encourage the Russians to “do whatever the hell they want” to NATO countries that don’t pay their fair share of defense costs.

That sounds like someone taking a pro-Putin stance, I said.

“It sounds like somebody that wants to get people to pay money,” Trump said. In other words, it was a negotiating tactic.

Half an hour before airtime, the media were awash in headlines about Trump saying there would be a “bloodbath” if he lost the election. So I watched that portion of his speech at an Ohio rally the night before.

There have been times when Trump used loaded words to signal the possibility of political violence. This wasn’t one of them.

Advertisement

TRUMP: I’LL DEBATE BIDEN ‘ANYTIME, ANYPLACE’

Trump was going on about Chinese cars and their impact on the American auto industry. Then he said if he wasn’t elected there would be a bloodbath – in terms of the impact on jobs. Then he went right back to talking about electric vehicles and industry competition.

Now some pundits said the mere use of the word bloodbath was like a bat signal, telling his supporters to get ready for violence. After all, he was so Machiavellian that he added, “That’s going to be the least of it.” But as I said, too many outlets were so in love with the bloodbath story that they wrenched it out of context.

Trump also said at the rally that some migrants were “animals” and “not people.” That’s unacceptable language, in my view, but remember what he said about inflammatory words driving the media debate. I wanted to decode his approach for viewers.   

Trump also made news on abortion. I asked him about a Times story that said he is discussing with advisers a national ban after 16 weeks of pregnancy – not knowing his campaign had dismissed it as fake news – and figured he’d dismiss the story.

Advertisement

Migrants who crossed the Rio Grande and entered the U.S. from Mexico are lined up for processing by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Sept. 23, 2023, in Eagle Pass, Texas. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

Nope. He essentially confirmed the 16-week story – saying he’d make a decision “pretty soon,” which would obviously be in that range – that had previously been attributed to unnamed sources. He said, despite my skepticism, that he wants to “make both sides happy.”

When Republicans grapple with abortion in the post-Roe world, Trump said, “you have to go with your heart. But beyond that, you also have to get elected.” He said that opposing the three exceptions – rape, incest, life of the mother – caused Pennsylvania Republican Doug Mastriano to lose the governor’s race in a landslide.

Then Trump went off on the Democrats and late-term abortions – which I said in one of several fact-checks are exceedingly rare.

He also made news on subjects ranging from Israel to TikTok.

Advertisement

The first time I met Donald Trump was in 1987, in New York, when he was promoting his first book “The Art of the Deal.”

And this, unprompted, is what he said to me:

“When I go up to New Hampshire – I’m not running for president, by the way – I got the best crowd, the best of everything in terms of reception. The politicians go up and get a moderate audience. I go up and they’re scalping tickets. You heard that? They’re scalping tickets. Why? Because people don’t want to be ripped off, and this country is being ripped off. I think if I ran, I’d win.”

Advertisement

I confess I did not then envision Trump, still a largely local real estate guy, in the White House, but now he’s going to head the Republican ticket for the third straight time.

Politics

ActBlue CEO faces June 10 grilling after fundraising powerhouse allegedly misled Congress on foreign donations

Published

on

ActBlue CEO faces June 10 grilling after fundraising powerhouse allegedly misled Congress on foreign donations

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FIRST ON FOX: The embattled head of a Democratic fundraising behemoth is headed for a congressional grilling next month over allegations of fraudulent donations on its platform.

ActBlue’s CEO Regina Wallace-Jones will testify in a public hearing before the House Administration Committee on June 10, a committee spokesman told Fox News Digital. 

Wallace-Jones’ agreement to testify comes as ActBlue faces mounting scrutiny over whether it misled Congress regarding foreign donations on its payment processing platform.

“Ms. Wallace-Jones allegedly misled our committee at the outset of our investigation into ActBlue’s fraud prevention standards,” House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., said in a statement. “It’s past time we set the record straight and got answers for the American people. I look forward to hearing her testify.”

Advertisement

House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., holds a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 10, 2025. (Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images)

DEM FUNDRAISING GIANT ACTBLUE ROCKED BY ALLEGATIONS IT MISLED CONGRESS ABOUT FOREIGN DONATIONS

The statement referenced an explosive report in The New York Times earlier this year that said ActBlue’s then-outside counsel warned Wallace-Jones in 2023 the group may have misrepresented facts to Steil’s committee about its vetting of potentially illegal foreign donations.

Under U.S. law, foreign nationals who are not lawful permanent residents are generally prohibited from donating to candidates seeking federal office or political action committees.

Steil previously requested that Wallace-Jones testify before his committee on May 19. The invitation was met with outrage from ActBlue’s lawyers, who dismissed the committee action as a “partisan attack.”

Advertisement

But Republicans have pointed to documents that ActBlue has allegedly withheld in response to subpoenas issued in 2025, which Steil has characterized as “deliberately incomplete.”

All five current or former ActBlue employees who appeared in depositions with the committee invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination a combined 146 times, according to an interim staff report released in April by House Republicans.

ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones, a delegate from California, wears a U.S.-flag themed outfit ahead of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago, Ill., on Aug. 19, 2024.

TEXAS AG PAXTON SUES DEM FUNDRAISING PLATFORM ACTBLUE, ALLEGING ‘FRAUDULENT AND FOREIGN DONATIONS’

The House Administration Committee has been probing ActBlue’s fraud prevention safeguards since 2023, when Steil’s panel investigated the group’s failure to require credit card verification value (CVV) when processing payments.

Advertisement

“Given ActBlue’s demonstrated history of misleading Congress, there is considerable reason to believe that ActBlue may have deliberately withheld this responsive material to impede our investigation,” Steil and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, wrote in a letter to Wallace-Jones in April.

In the letter, the senior Republicans also directed ActBlue to produce a trove of documents related to its vetting of political contributions from abroad.

Wallace-Jones has denied making false statements to Congress. The group’s lawyers have previously characterized the investigation as politically motivated and contended that ActBlue has been forthright with the committee.

Amid the GOP scrutiny, ActBlue has experienced a wave of resignations from senior legal and compliance staff.

An election countdown calendar hangs at the ActBlue fundraising office in Somerville, Mass. (Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The June hearing notice immediately follows the House Administration Committee advancing legislation to crack down on fraudulent political donations, including illegal contributions from foreigners. The campaign finance measure cleared Steil’s panel unanimously on Thursday. 

“It’s a positive sign that people are beginning to take this risk and this threat seriously,” the Wisconsin Republican told Spectrum News.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Steyer campaign pays influencers. Their posts don’t always make that clear

Published

on

The Steyer campaign pays influencers. Their posts don’t always make that clear

In recent weeks, several social media influencers have popped up in online feeds touting the California gubernatorial campaign of billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer.

Some complain about the price of gasoline. Others mention environmental concerns. One cites her newfound sobriety as evidence that people can change — a nod to Steyer’s self-proclaimed metamorphosis from hedge fund titan to scourge of big corporations.

“I did not expect the most progressive governor candidate to be a billionaire, but look at the policies you guys,” said one content creator on TikTok with the user name Jaz R. “Hear me out. I know Tom Steyer is a billionaire, but he also is for the people.”

The posts include direct-to-the-camera appeals, with personal details interwoven into messages of support for Steyer. An influencer goes for a stroll as onscreen text touts Steyer’s policies. Some seek to convey authenticity, if occasionally ham-fistedly; one influencer mispronounces Steyer’s last name.

Advertisement

What they do not include is a disclosure that their creators were paid by the Steyer campaign to produce the videos, according to a complaint filed this week with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission and a Times review of the posts.

The complaint alleges that the Steyer campaign failed to notify the influencers it hired of their obligation to inform their audience when their posts have been sponsored by the campaign.

California passed a law in 2023 requiring that influencers disclose if they have been paid to create promotional content for or against a candidate or ballot measure, one of the few jurisdictions in the country with such a requirement. There is no such requirement at the federal level.

“Every time there’s a new technology, you have to create legislation that requires them to disclose,” said state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange), who sponsored the bill.

Violating the law doesn’t carry criminal, civil or administrative penalties, but the FPPC can take influencers who break the law to court and ask a judge to force them to comply.

Advertisement

The complaint was filed by two California women — political influencers themselves — who said they noticed a number of new accounts that suddenly started posting similar-sounding videos promoting Steyer earlier this month.

“They had the exact same language, they had the same talking points,” said Beatrice Gomberg, who worked with Kaitlyn Hennessy in their digital sleuthing efforts.

The FPPC did not comment on the complaint.

Steyer’s campaign appears to have relied on paid influencers more than any candidate for governor, according to the most recent campaign finance filings.

That spending represents only a small fraction of the massive campaign war chest Steyer has seeded with nearly $180 million of his own money. But the complaint highlights the growing degree to which political candidates have come to seek out the authenticity that social media influencers seem to offer.

Advertisement

Steyer campaign spokesperson Kevin Liao said the campaign had properly followed the rules in hiring influencers and that the campaign is “confident” that Gomberg and Hennessy’s complaint is “baseless.”

“Creators make their living generating content. The campaign believes in compensating people for their time and work product and has paid creators to generate content,” Liao said in a statement. “Payments for creator content are disclosed in campaign finance reports, and we notify creators we directly work with of their disclosure requirements.”

While many of the new Steyer influencers have few followers, Steyer’s campaign disclosed in its most recent campaign finance report that it had paid thousands of dollars to numerous social media influencers with massive audiences, the Sacramento Bee reported.

Several of the videos produced by these popular social media personalities also failed to disclose that they had been paid by the campaign, according to the complaint and The Times’ review of the content.

But even accounts with few followers can still have a big impact if they are producing a steady stream of content supporting Steyer, said veteran California political strategist Mike Madrid.

Advertisement

“What they’re trying to do is trip the algorithm,” he said. “It looks like it has a bigger audience than it really does. It’s taking the concept of astroturfing into the digital age.”

Gomberg and Hennessy said they became friends after meeting at an April campaign event for Xavier Becerra, Steyer’s chief Democratic rival in the race, who holds a narrow advantage over Steyer in several recent political polls.

The pair have been prolific social media supporters of Becerra’s campaign ever since, though they insist they are not being paid for their efforts.

They said they discovered that many of the new pro-Steyer accounts seemed to be run by influencers — mostly women — who had previously created different social media accounts to hawk other products.

One of the pro-Steyer influencers had an online portfolio listing numerous clients, including the Steyer campaign and a gummy designed to boost arousal, according to the complaint and the Times review of the publicly accessible website.

Advertisement

The pair said they stumbled on an advertisement placed by a vendor for the campaign on a platform used by creators to find work. The advertisement indicated that creators would be paid $10 for each post, with bonuses for posts that amassed large viewership.

The vendor who posted the ad did not respond to a request for comment.

The advertisement has since been updated to say that it pays $1,000 per month and that creators will have to disclose that it is paid content.

As Gomberg and Hennessy dug deeper, they determined that some of the influencers promoting a candidate for governor weren’t even based in California.

A TikTok account using the handle jess.votes, for example, appears to be connected to a woman registered to vote in Florida. Other accounts were connected to women who indicated elsewhere that they were based in Pennsylvania, Missouri and Michigan.

Advertisement

Several influencers who created seemingly paid content promoting Steyer did not respond to multiple requests for comment from The Times.

The brouhaha over paid social media content is just the latest instance of the growing political impact of online creators.

Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor — and congressional career — came to an end after multiple women accused him of sexual assault. A pair of influencers had publicly raised concerns about Swalwell’s behavior and helped connect victims with journalists who produced highly detailed reports of the allegations.

The California law requires influencers to disclose in a political post’s audio or text that it was sponsored and who paid for it.

The onus is on the creators to make the disclosure, but campaigns are required to tell them that they must do so. Despite passage of the law, the issue has so far remained largely under the radar.

Advertisement

“I have dozens of candidates and campaigns and I have not heard this issue come up one time,” said a campaign finance lawyer who requested anonymity because they represent numerous candidates with active campaigns.

Gomberg and Hennessy said that they were driven to call attention to potential violations of the disclosure requirements because of their concern about the corrosive influence such paid content could have if left unchecked.

“You have people who have trust in these creators,” Hennessy said. “You have a responsibility to your audience.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

Published

on

Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

new video loaded: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

Some of America’s most powerful C.E.O.s accompanied President Trump to Beijing during his summit with President Xi Jinping of China. Our reporter Ana Swanson explains what they were hoping to gain from the trip.

By Ana Swanson, Nour Idriss, Nikolay Nikolov and James Surdam

May 15, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending