BREN COOK

@WhiteHouse maybe they had low expectations because you only averaged +49k jobs/month in 2025. lets wait for for -100% revisions that you made 3 times in 2025. have you beat Biden's 2024 numbers in any month since you took office? No you havent' and your revision rate is astronomical.

Private sector jobs grew nearly THREE TIMES economists' expectations! 📈

@WhiteHouse its cute how you are quoting stats for the entire year when you only have 2 months of data, max

The Trump Admin believes in REWARDING hard work, not punishing it - and this tax season proves it. 💰

@WhiteHouse Let me know when you start outperforming Biden's economy

SMASHING ECONOMISTS' EXPECTATIONS!

@WallStreetApes quit pretending this is about anything other than Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon's white christian nationalist agenda. if you want to change the constitution, let the people decide. have a constitutional convention. quit trying to rewrite our constitution via Executive Order

American law firm expertly explains why The Supreme Court will likely strike down Birthright Citizenship “The Supreme Court is going to decide one of the most important cases in history, the case of birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment states that all persons born here subject to the jurisdiction thereof become citizens. Paraphrasing. The key term there is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If you take out that sentence, the clause of the 14th Amendment still works. That sentence is there for a reason. The 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War, and it was meant to make black slaves become citizens, but you still had to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning you still had to be in the United States legally. Your allegiance still had to be to one country, to one flag. The whole controversy is that you have people literally crossing the border or overstaying their visas. They're here illegally. They're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof because the United States terminated your jurisdiction. You don't have any access here, but you're having a child here, and now that child becomes a lifelong citizen. Then that child is able to bring his entire family from the country that he's in, and all of them can become citizens as well. I think that's insane. I don't think that's been working. I don't think the people of America want that. They didn't vote for that, and I think that it's not the original intent of the 14th Amendment. There's a good chance that if the justices stick to the original intent of the statute, that this is going to get struck down in its current form”

@BasedMikeLee if you feel so strongly about it then convene a constitutional convention and litigate it to the American public. quit trying to rewrite the constitution by executive order. its really not that hard, and you might even win your argument. quit being lazy and lawless

America is a serious country Serious countries don’t reward illegal immigration Automatic birthright citizenship for the children of illegal migrants rewards illegal immigration

@PressSec How was February's? Revised down again to NEGATIVE 133K. If we lost 133K in February and gained 178K in March... That's 45K jobs created in 2 months, or 22.5K per month and you're celebrating? We created 275k/303K jobs in Feb/March 2024 under Biden. You guys are pathetic

The March jobs report smashed expectations!

@MW4Liberty if only the they had used the word allegiance instead of jurisdiction... changing the meaning of words is the ultimate gaslight

Ron Paul, the 🐐, on Birthright Citizenship. The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868, as part of Reconstruction after the Civil War. Its original intent was to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved African Americans and protect them from discriminatory state laws through due process and equal protection. It should not grant automatic birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant full political allegiance to the U.S., which illegal entrants and their children lack. The framers never intended to reward unlawful presence or create incentives for illegal immigration. This was essentially the argument made by the solicitor general yesterday in front of the SCOTUS. I call balls and strikes. Trump’s team is right on this one.

$70 for one tank of gas and its only going to get worse 🤬

@Term2Tracker @RapidResponse47 @cherylcasone Agreed plus net out Feb and March combined and it’s pathetic

Yeah, that headline number sounds fire—but let’s not get carried away like it’s some flawless boom just yet. Cheryl Casone hyping the 186K private jobs vs 70K estimate is fair—that’s a beat, no doubt. But one strong print doesn’t cancel out everything else building under the surface. You still got rising diesel, food prices ticking up, and global tensions messing with supply chains. That stuff hits businesses’ costs fast… and hiring usually follows with a lag. So celebrating like it’s all clear skies? lil premature fr. And with Donald Trump pushing risky oil/geopolitics plays at the same time, you’re basically cheering job growth while setting up conditions that can choke it off. That contradiction ain’t small. Good report? Yeah. “Everything is amazing now”? nah… not so fast. #JobsReport #NFP #Economy #Macro #Forex #Inflation

"This is one heck of a report, folks! Wow is right!" @cherylcasone reacts to the March jobs report SMASHING expectations. "Private sector jobs — get this, folks — 186,000. The estimate was for 70,000." 🔥

@RapidResponse47 @WhiteHouse @cherylcasone 178k added minus 133k lost = 45k jobs added in 2 months. Not really a flex

@justicenow_alan 100% Why do you think Trump blew up that deal? Why were many of the ultra secret documents Trump kept after he left office about Iran? Was his plan all along was to destroy Iran? Trump wouldn’t have had an excuse for his and bibi’s war if he hadn’t torn up that deal.

Under the JCPOA, Iran’s enriched‑uranium stockpile was capped at 300 kg of low‑enriched material, and the IAEA repeatedly confirmed Iran stayed within those limits. There is no evidence Iran was secretly building a bomb during the JCPOA period; the IAEA said it found no undeclared weapons program. The money released under Obama was Iran’s own frozen assets, not U.S. taxpayer funds, and the IAEA verified that Iran dismantled two‑thirds of its centrifuges and shipped out 97 percent of its enriched uranium under the deal. After the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, Iran restarted higher‑level enrichment and rebuilt its stockpile. Sanctions hurt Iran’s economy, but sanctions do not eliminate nuclear material already produced, and they do not prevent a country from enriching uranium if it chooses to absorb the economic cost. That is why Iran was able to accumulate 60 percent-enriched uranium after the deal collapsed. The verified record is straightforward: Iran’s stockpile was small and tightly monitored under the JCPOA. It expanded only after the deal ended. The IAEA — the only authoritative source — stands by these numbers.

@FlockCwood @LeadingReport war to distract from Epstein, firing Bondi to distract from War, ... to be continued. they truly are masterful at flooding the zone

@LeadingReport Trump hitting the “distract people from the epstein files” button

BREAKING: Possibility President Trump fires FBI Director Kash Patel soon, per former FBI agent Kyle Seraphin.

@SenRonJohnson isn't this the same thing you guys said last time and then it not shockingly never happened

Republicans will look like complete schmucks when Democrats nuke the filibuster and turn America into a one-party nation. We must face reality and act now — end it first to save America by securing our elections and ending birthright tourism if the Supreme Court does not.

@FreedomHasWon we pay $1B a year directly to Nato. all the other costs are incurred by stationing troops and equipment which allows us not only to defend Europe, but a quick response time to the Middle East and Asia. Without those bases are response times increase exponentially

Rubio is on fire! Why do we pay 62% of NATO’s budget but can’t use what we pay for? NATO is now a spineless organization.

@marklevinshow it says what it says. there are legal ways of addressing your concerns, executive order isn't one of them

THE SUPREME COURT'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP HEARING I've been working on a few exciting projects (for the future), but here's my quick take: This is actually a very simple case but made messy for the justices.  90% of the time the justices spent asking questions/making statements that had absolutely no relevance to the 14th amendment but were result-oriented attempts at justifying birthright citizenship.  There were comments about administration, policy, English common law, etc.  But anyone who can read and comprehend the civil rights act in 1866 that preceded the amendment, the debates surrounding the act, and the subsequent draft and debate around the 14th amendment would know full well that the amendment never -- in any way -- contemplated granting birthright citizenship to foreigners, let alone illegal aliens.  It would have been unimaginable.  In fact, it was not intended to be an immigration amendment.  It was passed by Congress and ratified by the states to enshrine in the Constitution and across all states the treatment of newly freed slaves and their children as citizens after the Civil War, and because certain states refused to acknowledge their citizenship.  Indeed, President Andrew Johnson had vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, his veto was overridden, but that was the impetus for the constitutional amendment.   The language -- "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- had a specific meaning and intent.  As explained years ago by me and others, this refers to the political allegiance to the United States and is derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which extended citizenship to the freed slaves and their children. Again, to underscore, it had nothing to do with immigration at all.  Therefore, foreigners who come into the United States illegally cannot confer upon themselves "jurisdiction" for the purposes of granting citizenship to their babies because they were born in our country.

@DX_Alphafg maybe have him read the constitution and take an 8th grade civics class so he can stop trampling on the constitution. Also, unnecessary war is not in service to the people. it bankrupts the people both monetarily and morally.

Melania Trump has spoken out publicly in defense of her husband, delivering an emotional statement that has quickly drawn attention across the political landscape. “What is happening to my husband goes far beyond ordinary criticism. It has become deeply personal and, in many ways, profoundly unfair to a man who has devoted decades of his life to public service. I often ask myself how people can be so relentless. They are attacking a leader who carries immense responsibility every day — someone who works under constant pressure, scrutiny, and expectations that very few people could truly understand. Donald has never asked for sympathy, and he has never blamed others. Instead, he continues to work and lets his actions speak for themselves.” “To me, Donald is more than just a president. He is a determined, disciplined, and resilient man. Rather than magnifying every mistake or adding more pressure through endless headlines and debates, people should recognize the sacrifices and strength it takes to stand at the center of such intense public attention. He does not fight simply for power — he fights because he genuinely believes in the future of this nation.”

@DX_Alphafg he's literally been in public service for 5 years, not decades. I expected better from you

@bhweingarten the legal way would be constitutional convention

Here's a question that it would be nice for the Supreme Court to address in its Trump v. Barbara ruling: What would be required to prohibit birthright citizenship? Would anything short of a Constitutional amendment modifying/clarifying the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language suffice? Or do foreigners have an inalienable right to make their kids American citizens by dint merely of giving birth to them on U.S. soil?

@glennbeck @RepChipRoy Less insane that trying to rewrite the constitution by way of Executive Order.

.@RepChipRoy says it would be "absolutely INSANE" for the Supreme Court to uphold the current interpretation of birthright citizenship: “[To say] that 20 million Chinese communist mothers can come to America tomorrow, deliver 20 million babies, and you have 20 million citizens is ridiculous. The 14th Amendment does not stand for that.”

Refused to follow illegal orders? foxnews.com/politics/army-…