On December 26, 2025, the White House published the statement America 250: Anniversary of the Battle of Trenton honoring the bravery of General George Washington and his troops as they mustered on Christmas night during a winter storm, crossing the Delaware River, to fight to victory in the Battle of Trenton. Hessian troops were in Trenton, New Jersey fighting for the British. It took Washington's troops 11 hours to cross the ice-choked waters of the Delaware River. After landing, the marched, many of them in stocking feet, to Trenton. By dawn, Washington's troops attacked the Hessians. It took 2 hours for the Hessians to surrender. This victorious battle was yet another turning point in the history of our country. President Trump writes:
In the harsh winter of 1776, our ancestors demonstrated that, when the future of our Nation is threatened, Americans endure and prevail. Their endurance in the face of cold, hunger, and uncertainty laid the foundation for the country we now uphold. Today, we salute the valiant men whose victory at Trenton secured our proud inheritance of liberty. As we approach 250 glorious years of American independence and continue the work of saving our country, we look to their unwavering grit, valor, and patriotism—and in their honor, we vow to never stop fighting for the sacred causes that sustain our Republic, our way of life, and our birthright of freedom.
In keeping with this "tradition" President Trump ordered strikes against ISIS:
As descendants of these great warriors, we, too, need to stand up for our country. We need to take back the reins from those who would destroy our history, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our very way of life. If we don't, we will find ourselves in the same predicament as the UK, the EU, and other countries.
The First Lady and I send our warmest wishes to all Americans as we share in the joy of Christmas Day and celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
The story of the Christmas miracle begins more than 2,000 years ago in Bethlehem, when angels appeared to humble shepherds to share the good news of a child born to bring hope to the world, declaring, “Glory to God in the highest.” Guided by a magnificent star, the shepherds traveled a great distance to gather around a crowded manger where, in the dark of night alongside Mary and Joseph, they knelt before the Light of the World, the source of eternal salvation, and the living Son of God.
The birth of Jesus revealed the perfect expression of God’s boundless love and His desire to be close to His people. More than two centuries later, we continue to rejoice in the gift of God’s only begotten Son as the graces of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection continue to pour out upon all who believe.
This Christmas, we also give thanks for the many blessings that God has bestowed upon our great Nation. For nearly 250 years, the principles of faith, family, and freedom have remained at the center of our way of life. As President, I will never waver in defending the fundamental values that make America the greatest country in the history of the world—and we will always remain one Nation under God.
Today, especially, we also remember the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who are unable to be with their families. While their solemn mission keeps them far from home this Christmas, their service and sacrifice protect our freedom and allow Americans all across our country to celebrate in safety and peace. We are grateful for their devotion, and we keep them and their loved ones close in our hearts.
During the Christmas season, we pray for an outpouring of God’s abiding love, divine mercy, and everlasting peace upon our country and the entire world. To every American, and to those celebrating around the globe, we wish you a very Merry Christmas!
On December 23, 2025, the White House released the research Year-Over-Year Inflation Across Conservative and Liberal States documenting inflation, aggregation, and political categorization of who states are doing compared to each other. The report found that conservative states had lower inflation rates (2.5%) than liberal states (3.0%) in all categories. In the metro areas conservative cities had 1.9% inflation whereas liberal cities had 3.0% inflation. Check out the report here to see if your state/city is listed.
President Trump is ushering in a golden age of prosperity which means more jobs, more money, more domestic manufacturing, and more opportunity for all Americans.
In today’s incredible economic report, U.S. exports GREW by 8.8% ⬆️ while imports were DOWN ⬇️. President Trump is… https://t.co/0VJTn5jsrY
To federalize the National Guard, the President first must determine that he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” 10 USC §12406(3). In my view, the statutory term “regular forces” likely refers to the U. S. military, not to federal civilian law enforcement officers. On the current record, however, it does not appear that the President has yet made the statutorily required determination that he is “unable” with the U. S. military, as distinct from federal civilian law enforcement officers, to ensure the execution of federal law in Illinois.
This particular concurrence brings a smile to my face as I read it to say "send in the US Military" before sending in the NG.
the Court fails to explain why the President’s inherent constitutional authority to protect federal officers and property is not sufficient to justify the use of National Guard members in the relevant area for precisely that purpose.
This case touches on sensitive and gravely consequential questions concerning what roles the National Guard and U. S. military may play in domestic law enforcement. To be sure, as the parties observe, Congress has supplied us with some relevant statutory guidance in 10 U. S. C. §12406(3). But, as my colleagues’ writings attest, that statute raises as many questions as it answers.
Take just some examples. Before calling up the National Guard under §12406(3), must the President be unable to execute the laws merely with federal civilian law enforcement personnel—or must he be unable to do so even withmilitary troops? Is a Presidential declaration that he is unable with the regular forces to execute the law judicially reviewable—and, if so, to what extent and under what standard? Does §12406(3) provide standalone authority permitting the President to deploy the Guard, and how does it interact with other statutes in the field, such as the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U. S. C. §1385, and the Insurrection Act, 10 U. S. C. §§251–255? What, if any, inherent Article IIpower does the President have to deploy the Guard to protect federal personnel or property, and how might that inform the interpretation of §12406(3)? And if, as all parties seem to assume, today’s Guard is the successor to the militia of the founding era, how far can this inherent Presidential authority extend before it intrudes on Congress’s prerogative to decide when the militia may be used to execute the laws? See Art. I, §8, cl. 15. If all those questions were not fraught enough, an even graver one lurks here too: When, if ever, may the federal government deploy the professional military for domestic law enforcement purposes consistent with the Constitution? See, e.g., Art. IV, §4; Amdt. 14, §5.
In the present posture of this case, I am not comfortable venturing an answer to any of those questions. This Court has never decided a case about the meaning of §12406(3), let alone explored its interaction with other statutes in the field or the Constitution. Nor do we have much help on many of these matters from the parties’ briefs before us, understandably given that this case comes to us in an interlocutory posture on a highly compressed schedule.
Under these circumstances, caution seems to me key, and I would decide this application narrowly, based only on those few arguments the parties preserved and the evidentiary record as it stands. See United States v. SinenengSmith, 590 U. S. 371, 375 (2020). In their initial briefing before this Court, the parties proceeded on the premise that §12406(3) statutorily permits the President to call up and deploy the National Guard when he is unable to execute federal law with civilian federal law enforcement officials. Proceeding on that same premise, I believe the declarations federal law enforcement officials submitted below support the grant of a stay for substantially the reasons given in Parts I–A, B–1, C, and D of JUSTICE ALITO’s opinion. Seeante, at 2–11. But I would hazard no opinion beyond that,leaving instead all the weighty questions outlined above foranother case where they are properly preserved and can receive the full airing they so clearly deserve.
So, President Trump now has SCOTUS permission to send in the US Military BEFORE he sends in the NG (how does that make sense?). Anyway, Commander-In-Chief Trump can now order Secretary of War Hegseth the order to send in the US Military to establish law and order. And, luckily, every state has at least 1 military installation within the state that can readily, easily, and quickly respond.
Those are some of the exact words used by Google’s censors, aka 'Orwellian content police,' in describing many of our controversial stories. Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.
