Navy’s Future Aircraft Carriers to be Named after George Bush and Bill Clinton

(Ken Silva, Headline USA) Outgoing President Joe Biden announced Monday that the Navy’s next two Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers will be named for two of his predecessors: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

“When I personally delivered the news to Bill and George, they were deeply humbled.  Each knows firsthand the weight of the responsibilities that come with being Commander-in-Chief,” Biden said in a White House press release. “And both know well our duty to support the families and loved ones who wait and worry for the safe return of their servicemember.”

According to the White House, construction on the USS William J. Clinton and the future USS George W. Bush will begin construction in the years ahead. The White House promised that the ships will be the most capable, flexible, and professional Navy that has ever put to sea.

“They will be crewed by sailors who hail from every corner of the United States, and who will sail these ships into harm’s way, defending our interests overseas and our safety here at home,” the White House added.

It’s not clear when the ships will be built. The Navy has been experiencing widespread cost overruns and construction delays for nearly all its ships.

Last year, for instance, the Navy announced that its future aircraft carrier USS Enterprise likely won’t be ready until around 2030—years later than its initial due date of 2028.

Delays in the USS Enterprise construction could further delay the USS Bush and USS Clinton carriers. The U.S. Naval Institute reported last May that the Navy was mulling the decision to delay the purchase of those future carriers, in part because of a one-year delay for the Enterprise.

It’s also not clear where the Navy expects to get its sailors to staff the Bush and Clinton crafts as the Navy’s recruiting continues to plummet.

The Navy fell 20% short of its recruitment goals for 2023, forcing officials to downsize the crews for the existing craft.

Forbes reported in December 2023 that the USS Gerald R. Ford has downsized its crew by 500 to 600 sailor in the last six months. The vessel was reportedly operating below its original objective of 2,391 crew members.

Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/jd_cashless.

SELLERS: What Could We Learn from a Jack Smith Prosecution?

(Ben Sellers, Headline USA) After Judge Aileen Cannon ruled Monday that there was nothing preventing the partial release of ex-special counsel Jack Smith’s report outlining his lawfare attack on President-elect Donald Trump, the Biden Justice Department made haste to do so, declaring that Trump would have been convicted if brought to trial. 

Undoubtedly, given the corruption of the D.C. Circuit Court system and what we bore witness to previously in the kangaroo court of New York Judge Juan Merchan, it was safe to say a politically motivated conviction was all but assured.

However, since it was the voters who acted as judge and jury in this unprecedented case, Trump instead was acquitted on all counts. That makes Smith’s report and call for Trump’s incarceration tantamount, in some ways, to a seditious conspiracy of his own.

At the very least, Smith and his team of activist DOJ lawyers deserve to be investigated for malicious prosecution given the specific circumstances of the investigation.

Consider the following:

  • In dismissing his “classified documents” trial, Judge Cannon concluded that Smith was never legitimately appointed as special counsel in the first place since he was not vetted or approved specifically by the U.S. Senate.
  • The case for Trump’s so-called election interference was built largely around the criminal referral from House Democrats’ partisan Jan. 6 committee, which was subsequently proven to have illegally tampered with witnesses and withheld vast amounts of exculpatory evidence as it focused on a televised show-trial ahead of the 2022 midterm election.
  • Smith used the secretive grand-jury process to obtain the initial indictment against Trump in Washington, D.C. for a case that was to be heard in Florida, an ominous sign of the sort of overreach and disregard for legal protocol that would characterize his dual witch hunts.
  • Smith sought to circumvent normal procedures when it became clear that he was racing the clock to bring his case to trial. He colluded with Judge Tanya Chutkan to re-file an amended complaint after the U.S. Supreme Court excoriated his first attempt with its presidential immunity ruling, although typically the defense would file a motion in response.
  • Smith and Chutkan maintained throughout that Trump was just like any other defendant, but they selectively invoked the special circumstances of the case when it suited them, such as imposing a highly unusual gag order that broadly prevented Trump from publicly criticizing key players in the trial.

The key takeaway from Smith’s 174-page volume 1 report appeared to be the assertion, based on witness accounts, that Trump knew he had “lost” the 2020 election.

Notwithstanding the probable inadmissability of the evidence in light of the presidential immunity decision, this, like many of Trump’s statements in public and private, appears to be a function of his trying to convey multiple ideas in a single thought using his highly distilled way of speaking.

Indeed, on one hand, Trump “lost” the election when the Electoral College determined in December 2020 that Joe Biden was the winner. However, up until the certification of that vote by the Joint Session of Congress on Jan. 6, it was still something that was eligible to be contested—the fact of which Democrats have reaffirmed in every Republican presidential victory for the past several decades.

Moreover, serious questions surrounding the legitimacy of the vote in blue states that manipulated election rules under the auspices of the pandemic have never been fully weighed since the courts instead opted to punt the issue for the sake of political stability.

Rather than hearing Trump’s valid election challenges, many used technicalities, including a lack of standing and laches (i.e. issues with the timing of the case) to summarily dismiss them with no determination on the merit of the cases.

As I wrote shortly thereafter, the greatest evidence of guilt was, in a way, the determination that the Left had to prevent the full set of facts from emerging. Smith’s prosecution of valid political challenges only underscores the democracy-chilling measures to which they resorted in order to install Joe Biden as president. In terms of the punitive lawfare waged against Trump and his allies, of course, that was but the tip of the iceberg.

However, another clear piece of evidence has since emerged that calls into question the validity of the 2020 vote: the vanishing voters in 2024. While Trump’s gain of roughly 2 million voters may be attributable to the shifting public mode after four years of Democrat failure and corruption—including a public rebuke of the two-tiered justice system—nothing can account for the remaining deficit of around 5 million voters who turned out for Biden in 2020 but opted to sit out the 2024 race. This sudden burst of apathy toward a candidate who, Democrats claimed, posed an existential threat to Democracy, evidently allowed Trump once again to clinch all of the swing states needed for an Electoral College blowout.

In short, Smith’s case arguing that Trump knew he “lost” the election would require definitive proof that Trump did, indeed, lose the 2020 election.

The only way Smith and company can argue their case for a criminal conviction would be for them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump had no cause to challenge the outcome of the election.

In light of the failure to offer convincing proof of the legitimacy of the 2020 race, it is vital to democracy that those who waged the attack on it by manipulating legal avenues to effect political outcomes be held fully accountable.

While Trump may wish to put it all behind him and focus on his role as a bipartisan dealbroker, it is his obligation to the American people to prevent such an egregious abuse from happening again.

Smith should, accordingly, be prosecuted in Florida, where many of the government’s crimes transpired, including the outrageous raid of Mar-a-Lago in which Attorney General Merrick Garland’s authorization to use deadly force.

At least two times thereafter, unhinged vigilantes took cues from the Biden administration’s extremist rhetoric in their own attempts to use deadly force against a top political rival.

It is appropriate for AG-in-waiting Pam Bondi and pending FBI Director Kash Patel to present a full picture of the extent to which Smith conspired with the Justice Department and the Biden White House, as well as the full scope of communication from his sealed witness depositions.

Since he has opted to selectively release his version of the story, we must now have a complete understanding of the steps he took to thwart the democratic process—and how close he came to succeeding but for the will of the voters.

Ben Sellers is the editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/realbensellers.

House GOP Proposes Bill to Buy Greenland

(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) President-elect Donald Trump’s Republican allies in the U.S. House recently proposed a bill to authorize Trump to buy Greenland.

Fox News reported that Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., is leading the bill titled “Make Greenland Great Again Act.”

“Joe Biden took a blowtorch to our reputation these past four years, and before even taking office, President Trump is telling the world that America First is back. American economic and security interests will no longer take a backseat, and House Republicans are ready to help President Trump deliver for the American people,” Ogles told Fox News.

The news source added that the bill would allow Trump to enter into talks with Denmark after noon on Jan. 20, the first day of Trump’s second presidential term.

“Not later than five calendar days after reaching an agreement with the Kingdom of Denmark relating to the acquisition of Greenland by the United States, the President shall transmit the agreement to the appropriate congressional committees, including all related materials and annexes,” the legislation stated.

The recent news came after Trump stated that he wanted to purchase Greenland for the security and freedom of the U.S. and the world.

“For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity. Ken will do a wonderful job in representing the interests of the United States,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Greenland Prime Minister Múte Egede responded that Greenland doesn’t plan to become a part of the U.S. but instead become independent.

“The Greenlandic people’s opportunity for independence has been adopted through the provisions of the Self-Government Act, thereby creating a legal basis for how independence can be achieved,” he said. “A draft constitution for our country has also been prepared… Work has already begun with regard to creating the framework for Greenland as an independent state within the possibilities and provisions of the Self-Government Act.”

As Newsweek reported, Donald Trump Jr. and Turning Point Action founder Charlie Kirk flew to Greenland soon after Egede made these comments. They said they did not fly to the country to talk to local government officials.

Nevertheless, on Jan. 10, Egede said he was ready to discuss the future of Greenland with Trump.

Biden’s Retirement: WH Mum on Whether He’ll Fade into Seclusion

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Will Joe Biden fade out of public view after his tumultuous one term or is he planning to remain active in the years to come? White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre won’t say. 

On Monday, Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy pressed Jean-Pierre about Biden’s recent claim that he would “not be out of sight, out of mind” after President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in on Jan. 20. 

“President Biden says he’s not gonna be ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ But isn’t that what voters basically said that they wanted- him gone?” Doocy asked, referencing the results of the 2024 election. 

Jean-Pierre retorted with a long tribute to Biden’s career, ignoring the question entirely while claiming the 81-year-old president deserved respect, as captured in a video shared by the Media Research Center and the Daily Caller.

“This is a president that has served more than 50 years, who has given all of himself, if you will, as a public servant, whether as a senator, as a local elected official, as vice president and now as president,” Jean-Pierre claimed. 

She continued, “I think anybody who has served that long and does it from their heart and soul because they believe this country deserves so much more, they believe that the American people deserve more and has worked day in and day out, certainly as president the last four years, I think deserves some respect.”

Jean-Pierre concluded her remarks by reiterating that Biden “deserves some respect.” However, the Democratic Party itself did not appear to have received the memo.  

A coalition of Democratic politicians reportedly led what Republicans have called a “coup d’état” to force Biden out of the 2024 race. 

According to the Daily Caller, at least 40 Democrats mounted a pressure campaign urging him to step aside in favor of a younger candidate. 

Former President Barack Obama, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spearheaded the effort, culminating in Biden’s July announcement that he would not seek re-election.  

Biden subsequently endorsed Kamala Harris, his unpopular vice president, as his successor. She went on to lose the 2024 election to Trump. 

Columbia Univ. Professor Fired for Discriminating Against Jewish Students

(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) A tenured Columbia University law professor was recently fired for discriminating against ethnically Jewish and Israeli students.

The university investigated Katherine Franke after she claimed during an interview that Israeli students were harassing students on campus, which resulted in Franke announcing on Jan. 10 that she wouldn’t be teaching at Columbia anymore.

“Effective today, I have reached an agreement with Columbia University that relieves me of my obligations to teach or participate in faculty governance after serving on the Columbia law faculty for 25 years,” she wrote in her announcement.

Franke added that she had been “targeted” for her “support of pro-Palestinian protesters – by the president of Columbia University, by several colleagues, by university trustees, and by outside actors.”

The recent news came after Franke stated that Israeli students were harassing other students on campus, especially the ones who came from the Palestinian territories, and falsely claimed that the Israeli students were spraying anti-Israel protesters with skunk spray.

“So many of those Israeli students, who then come to the Columbia campus, are coming right out of their military service,” she said. “They’ve been known to harass Palestinian and other students on our campus.”

The Times of Israel also reported that, after the interview was released, other professors at Columbia Law School filed a complaint against Franke, saying that she “harassed members of the Columbia community based on their national origin.” As reported by the Daily Wire, Franke revealed the professor’s name, who reported her to a journalist. She also targeted the professors who filed the complaint against her.

Columbia became one of the most infamous universities in the country when it came to the blatant hatred of Jews, with their students blaming the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in Israel on Jews, participating in the anti-Israel protests, protesting the commencement ceremonies, arguing that Jews “capitalized” on Holocaust and releasing anti-Semitic newspapers.

Maduro Threatens Puerto Rico Invasion, Sparks Scathing Response from Gov.

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro declared Saturday that his government has an “agenda” to “liberate” Puerto Rico from the United States. His comments were quickly interpreted as a threat to U.S. sovereignty. 

Maduro made the declaration during a campaign rally after being sworn in as Venezuela’s head of state following the highly contested 2024 presidential election.  

He invoked liberation leader Simón Bolívar—who led the independence of several Spanish colonies in the 19th century—to claim the independence movement should now extend to Puerto Rico. 

“Just as in the north they have an agenda of colonization, we have an agenda of liberation,” Maduro declared. “And the agenda was written for us by Simón Bolivar, the freedom of Puerto Rico is pending and we will achieve it, with the troops of Brazil.” 

Maduro emphasized his intentions by repeating his pledge in Portuguese: “E Abreu de Lima irá à frente. Batalhão Abreu de Lima para libertar Porto Rico. What do you think, eh?” 

Bolivar, considered the George Washington of South America, is celebrated for spearheading the independence movement in Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Panama and Bolivia, all of which were Spanish colonies. 

Spain controlled Puerto Rico until the Spanish-American War when the U.S. seized the territory. The U.S. granted birthright citizenship to Puerto Ricans in 1917. 

Puerto Rico Gov. Jenniffer González-Colón issued a scathing rebuke of Maduro’s remarks, calling on President-elect Donald Trump to swiftly address the threat after the Jan. 20 inauguration. 

“I trust your incoming administration will swiftly respond and make clear to the Maduro regime that, under your leadership, the United States will protect American lives and sovereignty and will not bow down to the threats of petty, murderous dictators,” Colón wrote in a letter on Monday. 

Colón, a Trump ally, previously served as Puerto Rico’s resident commissioner in the U.S. House of Representatives.

WaPo’s Traffic Tanks From 22.5M to 3M in 2024

(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) The Washington Post continues losing its subscribers after the newspaper editors and owner Jeff Bezos decided not to endorse former Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

Semafor reported that traffic to the Post’s website had tanked over the last four years. According to internal data discovered by the news source recently, the newspaper’s regular 2024 daily traffic sunk to less than a quarter of its peak in January 2021, when the Post reached approximately 22.5 million people using the website daily. However, by the middle of 2024, only about 2.5-3 million people were using the website daily.

In April 2024, Washington City Paper wrote that the newspaper stopped publicly disclosing its traffic numbers in press releases after discovering a 60% decline in monthly traffic.

The Wall Street Journal also recently reported that the Post’s revenue fell from $190 million in 2023 to $174 million in 2024.

Headline USA also pointed out that after almost losing $77 million in 2024, the newspaper started firing people, resulting in 4% of the Post’s employees losing their jobs.

“The Washington Post is continuing its transformation to meet the needs of the industry, build a more sustainable future and reach audiences where they are,” the newspaper’s leadership wrote in its statement. “Changes across our business functions are all in service of our greater goal to best position the Post for the future.”

The Post also fired one of its senior editors at the end of last year. Among those who left the newspaper willfully were an anti-Trump cartoonist, a representative of the controlled opposition and a conservative columnist.

The Post’s leadership allegedly decided not to endorse Harris before the 2024 election because of the recent financial troubles.

“We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” the newspaper’s publisher and chief executive officer, William Lewis, wrote. “Our job at the Washington Post is to provide … nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds.”

Bezos also defended the decision not to endorse Harris, adding that the newspaper should hire more conservatives.

Don Lemon Blasts Obama for ‘Yukking It Up’ w/ Trump at Jimmy Carter’s Funeral

(Headline USA) Ousted CNN host Don Lemon blasted former President Barack Obama for acting “buddy-buddy” with President-elect Donald Trump at former President Jimmy Carter’s funeral last week.

In a video posted on his YouTube channel, Lemon accused Obama of “yukking it up” with Trump and “chatting and giggling” with him “like kids on the playground” even though the two political figures have been rivals for years.


Lemon accused Trump of spreading conspiracy theories about Obama’s heritage, including an allegation that Obama was not actually born in the U.S.

“How could Barack Obama, the man who faced vicious, racist conspiracies for years because of Trump, act so buddy-buddy with him? Does he not remember birtherism?” Lemon complained.

The former TV anchor also blasted Obama for seemingly abandoning his own party’s narrative about Trump.

“Does he not remember how his entire political party has been calling the man a fascist, an autocrat, a threat to democracy for months, if not years?” Lemon said. “People could not believe what they were seeing. Had the Democratic Party lied to them? Had Kamala Harris and Joe Biden lied to them? Is this all just a game?”

This past election cycle, Obama himself repeatedly claimed Trump was a “threat” and even compared him to Adolf Hitler. 

Even if Obama thought he was “just doing his duty” by being cordial to Trump, the images of Obama conversing and laughing with the president-elect were “risky” and “cringey,” Lemon claimed.

“Optics like this are things that Democrats have to consider going forward,” he said.

Trump was asked about his viral exchange with Obama over the weekend and admitted even he was surprised after watching clips of it.

“I said, ‘Boy, they look like two people that like each other.’ And we probably do,” he said. “We have a little different philosophies, right? But we probably do. I don’t know. We just got along.”

The Village People Set to Perform at Trump’s Inaugural-Eve Ball

(Maire Clayton, Headline USA) The Village People are set to perform at President-elect Donald Trump’s Inaugural-Eve Ball Sunday in Washington, D.C.

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk shared the news in a social media post Monday.

The band’s hit “Y.M.C.A.” was a fixture while Trump was campaigning, as he was often seen dancing to the tune.

The band’s frontman Victor Willis later commented on the performance in a Facebook post.

“We know this wont make some of you happy to hear however we believe that music is to be performed without regard to politics,” Willis said.

He added while he did not vote for Trump, he hoped the song would bring people together.

“Our song Y.M.C.A. is a global anthem that hopefully helps bring the country together after a tumultuous and divided campaign where our preferred candidate lost,” he added.

Previously Willis did not want Trump to use the song but changed his mind over the years.

“I decided to allow the president-elect’s continued use of ‘Y.M.C.A.’ because he seems to genuinely, genuinely like the song and so many other artists were stopping him from using their music,” he said in an interview after the election.

Social media users praised how the group was able to put their political differences aside.

“I appreciate that even though they aren’t Republicans they can look past their differences,” one user wrote. “We don’t get to see that much anymore.”

It was also revealed Monday that country music star Carrie Underwood will perform at Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20.

She is slated to perform “America the Beautiful” and expressed her excitement for the honor.

“I love our country and am honored to have been asked to sing at the inauguration and to be a small part of this historic event,” she said. “I am humbled to answer the call at a time when we must all come together in the spirit of unity and looking to the future.”

N.C. Dems Lash Out over Lawsuit Challenging Suspected Illegitimate Ballots

() Calling it “egregious assaults on voting rights” and “sinister and shameful,” Democrats alongside North Carolina’s unsettled election battle lashed out at Republicans and Judge Jefferson Griffin on Monday afternoon.

Allison Riggs, the Democrat appointed to the state Supreme Court by Gov. Roy Cooper, was not part of the virtual press conference with Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison, Cooper and North Carolina Democratic Party Chairwoman Anderson Clayton.

The race for seat 6 on the bench is the lone race without a certificate from the State Board of Elections.

Griffin, who led by roughly 10,000 votes on election night, saw his advantage gradually erode during the canvassing, as mail-in ballots were tallied. However, he argued that many of those appeared to be illegitimate based on state laws.

Griffin said the state election board wrongly rejected his protests and has pursued litigation. The decisions of the election board, 3-2 majority Democrats, have trended on party lines.

Among the concerns flagged were ballots counted by voters who were dead on Election Day, and those who had never lived in the state.

Other protests the state board denied included registration records of voters, such as lack of providing either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. State law for that has been in place two decades, dating back to 2004; registrations prior were grandfathered in, Clayton explained.

Other ballots protested and denied by the state board included voters overseas who have never lived in the United States, and for lack of photo identification provided with military and overseas voters.

Calling Griffin’s protests of about 60,000 votes “baseless,” Harrison said, “They can’t stand the fact that they were rejected by North Carolina voters fair and square. They want to throw out votes by eligible North Carolina residents.”

Cooper, his eight years as governor having ended Dec. 31, called the court action against a state panel with majority tied to his appointment power “an egregious attack on the right to vote. They will do anything in order to win.”

All three panelists called the challege to illegitimate ballots an attack on democracy. And they warned “the eyes of the nation were watching,” saying “the playbook” would be used across the country if successful.

Cooper was among those leading the fight after 55.49% of nearly 3.7 million voters at the ballot box in 2018 favored photo identification when voting.

He and others, including a far-left lawfare group, the Southern Coalition for Social Justice—with Riggs as chief counsel part of the time—fought the constitutional amendment for more than half a decade.

Less than one-tenth of 1% of 1.8 million had any trouble with the new law on Super Tuesday last year with the litigation challenges six years later finally overcome.

Harrison, Cooper and Clayton on Monday all lauded how well Democrats did in November, a rebuke of previous arguments from the former governor and others that the party would be hurt by photo ID.

Cooper appointed Riggs to the state Court of Appeals in December 2022, then to the Supreme Court nine months later. She’s never won an election.

Clayton, in answer to one of seven questions allowed, claimed the courts and other areas were being politicized by the Republican majority Legislature.

She called the state a 50–50 makeup, though Saturday’s update continues to show unaffiliated registrations are the largest voting bloc, comprising over one-third of the state’s more than 7.8 million.

While Republicans still maintain a strong foothold, it has been shrinking over the past few decades. Democrats owned 47.6% of the voting bloc 21 years ago, and unaffiliated was less than 18%. Republicans have dropped from 34% to just under 30%.

State and federal court rulings in the case were imminenent in this third month since Election Day, with filings and responses due on five of the next 11 days starting Tuesday.

Griffin, a state appellate court judge seeking his sixth consecutive election win, has had all of his protests rejected by the state board leaving Riggs in a 734-vote victory awaiting the election certificate of the state board.

On Election Night, with 2,658 precincts reporting, Griffin led Riggs by 9,851 votes of more than 5.5 million cast. Provisional and absentee ballots that qualified were added to the totals since, swinging the race by 10,585 votes.

“The protests highlight specific irregularities and discrepancies in the handling and counting of ballots, raising concerns about adherence to established election laws,” the state Republican Party said in a statement Wednesday. “It is imperative that blatant violations of state law are decided by our state’s highest court.”

Republican Party Chairman Jason Simmons added that he hoped for a swift resolution from the state Supreme Court, where only one other justice, besides Riggs, is a Democrat.

“The people of North Carolina are ready to finally see this process brought to a conclusion and the laws our state faithfully followed,” he said. “Judge Griffin is fighting to ensure election integrity and resolution of these issues in a fair manner.”