WND

Authorities said Thursday they caught a teenager who identifies as transgender allegedly discussing plans for a school shooting on the same social media platform used by extremists in similar cases.

Police arrested 18-year-old Trinity Shockley and charged her with plotting to attack Mooresville High School in Indiana after a tip from the FBI, court records show. A police report details how others allegedly encouraged her plans on the online chat service Discord in a familiar tale of online radicalization.

Shockley’s arrest comes after a fatal shooting at Antioch High School in Tennessee in January, weeks apart from another at Wisconsin’s Abundant Life Christian School in December. Both were carried out by teenagers who expressed violent thoughts in Discord communities ahead of their attacks, including neo-Nazi sentiments. The shooters each took their own lives just after killing and injuring several others at the schools.

ProPublica reported that the two shooters even interacted with each other in other social media communities dedicated to glorifying violence.

The charges against Shockley also reflect a tragedy from January 2024, when a student opened fire at Perry High School in Iowa after joining a Discord chat discussing “school massacres” and telling other users about his intentions. He killed a sixth-grade boy and injured five others before killing himself.

Discord reported the chat to the FBI weeks prior to Perry High School shooting. “Discord has a zero-tolerance policy against content that glorifies violence and violent extremism, which is reflected in our Community Guidelines,” the company told NBC News. Social media accounts showed the Iowa student identified with “he/they” pronouns and was active in a transgender-related Reddit community, Post Millennial reported.

Discord’s press team did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Shockley is charged with conspiracy to commit murder and making terrorism threats and is in jail without bond, according to local media. Her court-appointed attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Police said Shockley had told a school counselor about her obsession with Parkland, Florida, school shooter Nicolas Cruz and showed her a locket with his face on it, claiming to be in love with him.

She allegedly planned to carry out the massacre on Valentine’s Day, the seven-year anniversary of the Parkland shooting. The police report said she also expressed admiration for other mass shooters: Andrew Blaze, Elliot Rodger, Ethan Crumbley and white supremacist Dylan Roof.

“I’ll be honest. I’m close to shooting [my school] up,” Shockley, who went by “Jamie,” told an unidentified user, according to a detective who obtained chat records. “I have an AR-15.” “That’s so cool!!” the user replied. “But wait, do you have a solid plan??” The user allegedly said “your secret is safe with me bro” and “Kids are awful And if you do carry it out good luck.” Another user Shockley allegedly shared her plan with said “youre gonna look great” in response to Shockley sending a picture of a bulletproof vest.

The FBI was first alerted of the alleged Discord posts from Shockley through an anonymous tip with records of the chats. The agency reached out to Discord requesting information on Shockley and later passed along its findings to the Mooresville Metropolitan Police Department. The police report discussed no specific motive for Shockley’s potential attack beyond general hatred of people at the school and romanticization of mass murder.

“I currently live with my father, my mother passed away,” Shockley allegedly wrote in one of three journals police found when searching her home. “I am [also] a transgender male. I have a lot of homicidal thoughts.” The police department said, “Each notebook depicted swastikas, the words ‘kill’, ‘bang’, ‘I hate you all DIE DIE DIE’ among other obscenities.”

Shockley previously sought mental health resources at her school and “expressed suicidal ideation in the past,” the report said. She wrote in a notebook that she was a victim of bullying at school and most people there “are all a [waste] of life.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

(THE NATIONAL PULSE) – While President Donald J. Trump is proposing the United States take temporary control of the Gaza Strip to clear it of unexploded ordnance, remove ruble, and redevelop the land—and possibly displace the territory’s Palestinian residents—it isn’t clear who exactly the U.S. would be taking the land from. A nebulous series of treaties—some dating to the Ottoman Empire—conflicting land claims, and a breakdown in civil society and governance has left the Gaza Strip a patchwork of private and public landholdings with no apparent governing authority.

Ostensibly, the Gaza Strip—which hugs the Mediterranian coast between Israel and Egypt—is controlled by the Islamist Hamas terrorist group, which seized control of the territory in 2007. Previously, the Gaza Strip—in accordance with the Oslo Accords—was governed by the Palestinian Authority, which also administers the West Bank territory between Israel and Jordan. The Palestinian Authority still maintains that it is rightfully the governing authority in the territory, though it currently has no effective presence there.

Meanwhile, the United Nations (UN) considers the Gaza Strip to be occupied by Israel—a position the international body has held since 1967. A United States move to extend authority over the Gaza Strip would likely have to include agreements with at least three parties who are all hostile towards each other: Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and Israel.

(SLAY NEWS) – Alarming data from the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that Covid mRNA “vaccines” have triggered a global surge in serious kidney injuries.

The data reveals that Covid mRNA injections caused massive spikes in reported cases of acute kidney injury (AKI), glomerulonephritis (GN), and tubulointerstitial nephritis (TIN).

The WHO’s data was analyzed by a group of leading researchers in South Korea. The researchers, led by Dr. Hyeon Seok Hwang from Kyung Hee University Medical Center in South Korea, analyzed over 120 million pharmacovigilance reports from the WHO’s VigiBase. VigiBase covers adverse drug reactions reported globally from 1967 to 2022.

As President Trump and border czar Tom Homan set about getting control of our southern border, they have an opportunity not only to clamp down on the horrors of human trafficking and drug smuggling. They can also deal a blow to the Chinese companies that make $3.5 billion a year selling contraband e-cigarettes and vapes in the U.S. and the Mexican cartels that smuggle them.

It is estimated that 98 percent of the electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) sold in the nation are illegal products, and most of them are made in China. They are cheaper, more potent and manufactured with far less health and safety regulation than American products. Often, the products are flavored, packaged and branded to appeal to children and adolescents.

Last summer, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finally got serious about the flood of untested and possibly hazardous products that find their way from China to U.S. convenience stores. The agency launched a taskforce with the Department of Justice to crack down on vape smuggling. In October, it announced that it had seized $76 million worth of contraband vapes. In December, authorities interdicted $81.5 million worth of e-cigarettes and vapes just in Chicago.

While fighting smuggling and holding retailers accountable for selling illicit products are productive steps, the FDA has it in its power to impact demand for contraband vapes. The FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) has had jurisdiction over e-cigarettes since 2016. To sell new tobacco products in the United States, companies must file a “premarket tobacco application” (PMTA) and receive a “marketing granted order” (MGO) from the CTP. Companies pay “user fees” to the FDA to cover the cost of the research and testing on the products.

E-cigarettes and other vapes have been marketed as a healthier alternative to smoking – delivering nicotine without tar and some other byproducts of tobacco. They have helped many smokers quit and are therefore considered a harm-reduction tool. But the CTP has approved just 34 new products out of 26.6 million applications since 2019. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does the ENDS market. Users want selection and low prices. Retailers want product for their shelves. Illegal Chinese vapes fill the void.

On the surface, CTP seems like low-hanging fruit for Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. But efficiency isn’t the real problem. Ideology is. On nicotine, the FDA shares a prohibitionist mindset with the anti-smoking activist groups it works closely with. In fact, it shares a revolving door with those special interests. The FDA has taken it upon itself to limit the availability of harm-reducing ENDS.

The CTP allegedly does a lot of goalpost moving. In December, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by two domestic vape manufacturers who maintain the agency pulled what the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals characterized as a “regulatory switcheroo.” The companies say the agency changed standards and imposed new requirements for approval after the companies submitted their PMTAs. Asked by Justice Brett Kavanaugh why the companies were suing the FDA instead of simply resubmitting amended applications, their lawyer cited the agency’s glacial approval pace. The companies simply “can’t afford to wait that out.”

For their part, retailers have long complained that the FDA is unclear and even evasive about what products are legal for sale. The agency moved to address the issue by launching a Searchable Tobacco Products Database. But inexplicably, the database didn’t include two of the most popular products on the market, Zyn and Juul. They’re legal products. The FDA notes that the database “is not an exhaustive list of all tobacco products that can be legally marketed.” Then why bother with a database at all?

The problem of illegal, potentially dangerous Chinese vapes lining the shelves of gas stations and smoke shops can’t be fought on just one front. President Trump has promised (indirectly) to staunch the flow of products from across the Mexican border. The CTP needs to do the job Congress gave it and process applications. If it won’t, it and the FDA more broadly need a serious housecleaning.

Roderick Law is the Communications Director for the Functional Government Initiative. He is a graduate of the George Washington University, with a BS in international affairs and a MA in security policy studies. 

On Tuesday, Feb. 4, barely two weeks into his second term, President Donald Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On the occasion of his first official meeting in Washington with a foreign leader since returning to the White House, the president took several decisive actions that should have surprised nobody: He withdrew the United States from the UN Human Rights Council; he ended funding for UNRWA; and he reinstated the maximum pressure campaign of Iranian sanctions that, in his first term, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo led.

Then, at a press conference with Netanyahu, Trump delivered prepared remarks that astonished onlookers around the world, including American supporters and senior administration officials. The president stated that Gaza, much of which lies in ruins, should be rebuilt, but not by or with the assistance of the approximately 2 million Palestinians living there. Without naming names, the president said that humanitarian considerations will compel other countries to provide accommodations for Gazans and “neighboring countries of great wealth” would pay for their relocation. “The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip,” Trump said. And not for a short while. “I do see a long-term ownership position, and I see it bringing great stability to that part of the Middle East, and maybe the entire Middle East.” The United States will remove the wreckage, “create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area,” and turn Gaza into “the Riviera of the Middle East.”

Perhaps the president’s far-fetched scheme will serve as an opening bid to address the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza while ensuring Israel’s security. The best case is that it creates room for diplomatic maneuvering, causing out-of-the box ideas to come into focus as reasonable and obtainable.

Trump presented a preliminary version of his implausible proposal in a Jan. 25 call to King Abdullah II of Jordan, suggesting that Jordan and Egypt take in approximately 2 million Gazans.

A mordant old Israeli joke captures the deep-seated Egyptian – and not only Egyptian – antipathy to Gaza that contributes to rendering the president’s idea unworkable.

The joke stems from the period following the 1979 U.S.-brokered Israel-Egypt peace agreement – in exchange for full diplomatic relations with Egypt, Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula, which it captured in the 1967 Six Day War. The joke goes like this: Not long after the deal was signed, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin telephones Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. “Anwar,” says Begin in an upbeat tone, “Israel has decided also to return the Gaza Strip to Egypt.” After a long pause, Sadat replies coolly, “Thank you, Menachem. But what will Israel give Egypt in return?”

More than four decades later, Egypt’s aversion to assuming responsibility for Gaza’s Palestinian population remains firm. In response to President Trump’s Jan. 25 call, the Egyptian foreign ministry stated that Cairo “rejects any relocation or transfer of Palestinians to Egypt, whether temporary or permanent” because “it risks stability and threatens to further spread the conflict in the region.”

The risks and threats begin with the allegiance to Iran-backed Hamas among many Gazans. Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna. The Brotherhood aims to impose Sharia supremacy not only in Egypt but throughout the Muslim Arab world. Following the military takeover in 2013 led by then-Minister of Defense and Commander-in-Chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Egypt declared the Brotherhood a terrorist organization and banned them. President of Egypt since 2014, Sisi can hardly be expected to welcome to Egypt hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who, he has good reason to fear, harbor Islamist sympathies, hate his government, and seek its overthrow.

Sisi knows, moreover, that Palestinians destabilized Jordan in the 1960s and early 1970s, Lebanon in the 1970s and early 1980s, and Kuwait in the early 1990s. He also appreciates that the Palestinian cause still grips the popular imagination in his country of almost 120 million people. While he would be delighted for Israel to accomplish its goal in Gaza of destroying Hamas’ ability to wage war and govern, Sisi will not want to be seen by Egyptians as encouraging Palestinians to betray their cause by leaving Gaza, and certainly not by coming to Egypt.

Jordan uncompromisingly opposes Trump’s plan, too. The day after Trump’s call with the Hashemite king, Jordanian foreign minister Ayman Safadi stated, “Our rejection of the displacement of Palestinians is firm and unwavering and is necessary to achieve the stability and peace that we all want.” Of approximately 11 million persons living in Jordan, Palestinians represent about 3 million. Coupled with the country’s own Muslim Brotherhood organization, Jordan’s large Palestinian population presents a persistent threat to Abdullah II’s throne. In 1951, Palestinians assassinated his grandfather King Abdullah, and in 1970 they tried to overthrow his father, King Hussein. After that failed coup, Jordan expelled Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organization. Even as King Abdullah II considers Israel a crucial partner in the struggle against Iran and would be happy for Israel to crush Hamas in Gaza, he, like Egypt’s Sisi, does not want to be viewed by fellow Arabs as weakening Palestinian claims to territory in which they dwell.

On Feb. 1, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, meeting in Cairo, issued a joint statement. All key players, the five Arab nations “rejected any efforts to encourage the transfer or uprooting of Palestinians from their land, under any circumstances or justifications.”

On Feb. 5, hours after the Trump-Netanyahu press conference, Saudi Arabia dismissed – without directly referring to – the president’s plan. Riyadh stressed its “firm and unwavering” commitment to a Palestinian state and its “unequivocal rejection … of attempts to displace the Palestinian people from their land.”

One can lament Arab hard-heartedness toward fellow Arabs. One can note invidiously that Europe has absorbed some 6 million Ukrainian refugees while the greater Arab world, stretching from Morocco to Iraq, has taken in approximately 100,000 Gazans. One can dream of masterclass dealmaking and of transforming hearts and minds. But the odds are exceedingly low that Jordan and Egypt will welcome massive flows of Gazan refugees or that Saudi Arabia will encourage them to do so.

Still, something must be done. Hamas’ horrific assault on southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, brought down catastrophe on Gaza. As a result of Israel’s exercise of its right to self-defense against a jihadist enemy that embedded its forces within and under Gaza’s civilian population, “[a]t least 1.9 million people across the Gaza Strip have been internally displaced,” reports the Wall Street Journal based on UN assessments. The UN also estimates that the war has “left 63% of Gaza’s structures either destroyed or damaged,” and “has produced more than 45,000 tons of concrete and metal debris, an amount that would take as long as 15 years to remove.”

The Sinai option may have once seemed fanciful, but its time may have come. It’s more ambitious than conventional approaches but substantially less so than Trump’s plan. It would ameliorate Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe without compromising Israeli security.

The United States along with Saudi Arabia and the UAE should persuade Egypt by means of generous financial inducements to open the sparsely populated 10-15 miles of Sinai adjacent to Gaza to Palestinians seeking a fresh start and better life. Egypt would not absorb Gazans and make them citizens but rather move Gaza’s border 10-15 miles westward into Sinai. Fences would be erected along the new border. Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would maintain border security on the Gaza-extension side, Egyptian forces on the other. Egypt might lease the land to the Palestinians for 75 years.

The Sinai option does not involve forced transfer of civilian populations, which the international laws of war bar. As the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other partners build temporary dwellings and then apartment buildings and towns, they would provide bus service to the Gaza-extension. Palestinian families that choose to make the short trip would receive a key to a new residence and, say, $10,000.

The Sinai option is flawed. Cairo will decry it as infringing Egyptian sovereignty. Palestinians will denounce fellow Palestinians who opt to rebuild their lives in the Sinai extension. The process poses risks to Israeli soldiers, who will retain overall responsibility for Gaza security. And while it will reduce congestion and squalor in Gaza’s encampments and offer opportunity to those who move to the Gaza extension as well as to those who stay, the Sinai option will not end the Gaza crisis.

Then again, all conventional options for rehabilitating and governing Gaza are terrible. An international coalition would be toothless and irresolute. The corrupt and sclerotic Palestinian Authority, which rules Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, would have been overthrown by Hamas long ago but for the IDF. And many Israelis recoil at the prospect of administering Gaza.

Meanwhile, Trump’s extravagant proposal, while meant to please everybody, has united America’s moderate Arab friends in opposition.

Falling between the conventional and the extravagant and working with rather than surrendering to or glossing over the region’s harsh realities, the Sinai option can diminish the Gaza crisis while advancing America’s interests in regional security and stability as well as those of Israel and America’s moderate Arab friends.

President Trump’s National Security Team will hopefully soon be assembled and one of its first tasks is to create a National Security Strategy (NSS,) reflective of how the new administration views the nation’s security challenges. While that new strategy is likely to have content dealing with border security, and the value of the Panama Canal and Greenland, it’s also an opportunity to return a maritime component to the document missing since the Cold War. The 1987 Reagan administration NSS, the first document as required by the Goldwater Nichols legislation, contained significant maritime strategic theory and actions not seen in subsequent NSS following the end of the Soviet Union. The 1987 NSS validated the growth in naval forces over the 1980’s decade, noted improvements in global military through expanded sealift, but also warned that the declining U.S. Merchant Marine could impact future maritime mobility. The end of the Cold War and any contested movement of U.S. forces spelled the end of a maritime national security strategy, but the rise of China and return of a revanchist Russia demand a renewed, detailed maritime focus in the next NSS.

Origins of the NSS, and other Post-Cold War National Security Documents

The 1986 Goldwater Nichols legislation required that the President produce an annual National Security Strategy that would detail, “The worldwide interests, goals, and objectives of the United States that are vital United States. to the national security of the United States.” This document is supposed to be sent to Congress in 150 days after the new president takes office and is supposed to give the legislative branch an idea of where the new administration will focus its security priorities. While the first of these, from the Reagan administration in 1987 had a heavy maritime focus, subsequent versions lost specifics and became at best the executive summary of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR,) a document authorized in 1996, after the post-Cold War 1993 Bottom Up Review (BUR) from the Clinton administration suggested a regular review of defense priorities was needed. QDR’s were conducted every four years from 1996 through 2016, when it was replaced in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by the much slimmer and less comprehensive National Defense Strategy (NDS.) While the length of these documents has varied over time, they have become vaguer in recent years, offering presidents perhaps more freedom of action to change policies, but containing less specific military information.

 The Reagan Focus on Maritime Capabilities

The 1987 Reagan administration NSS provides a good starting template with its focus on three core areas of maritime capability. The 1987 NSS validated the work over the decade in building the Navy of 600 ships and 15 carrier battle groups as vital to, “ensure our essential maritime superiority for the remainder of this century.” The Reagan NSS also noted the absolute requirement of sealift in creating the maritime mobility necessary for global U.S. military operations. It stated,

“The mobile nature of maritime forces allows them directly to influence land campaigns through the application of sea-based tactical airpower; and by the use of amphibious forces to seize strategically important territory, reinforce allies accessible from the sea, or threaten the seaward flanks of enemy ground forces.”

U.S. Maritime forces in the form of sealift and prepositioning assets were vital to this effort. The Reagan NSS stated, “sealift will inevitably carry the bulk of our reinforcement and resupply material, as it has in past crises. To reduce response times, the United States combines prepositioning with airlift and sealift in an integrated fashion.”

Finally the Reagan NSS noted with alarm the decline of the U.S. Merchant Marine as a key component of sealift, warning, “the continuing decline of the U.S. Merchant Marine and U.S.-flag commercial shipping assets is a matter of concern,” and, “This problem is compounded by the decline of the U.S.-flag fleet which results in a reduction of the seagoing workforce to man all our U.S.-flag vessels-as well as ships of the Ready Reserve Force, the National Defense Reserve Fleet and any effective U.S. controlled ships which might need recrewing.” It concludes by saying these negative trends could, “impede our ability adequately to project and sustain forces by strategic sealift.”

Sadly, all of these predictions have come to pass. The Navy has decreased from 594 ships in 1987 to less than 296 Navy and Military Sealift Command ships in the present. The U.S. privately-owned vessel fleet has shrunk from 444 to 178 ships over the same period. Clearly the nation’s maritime forces and shipbuilding industry need to immediately reverse all of these negative trends.

A Renewed Maritime Imperative in the Next NSS

The incoming second Trump administration can perhaps reverse some of the recent trends in less detailed documents and issue a National Security Strategy that emphasizes the U.S. requirement for maritime superiority in order to accomplish its national security objectives. The Kelly/Waltz SHIPS act is a strong start in that direction by setting aside funds to construct and maintain a larger merchant fleet. The Next Trump administration National Security Strategy can also strengthen the nation’s maritime forces in general by emphasizing the absolute requirement for maritime superiority. It can again state the size and composition of the Navy and other maritime forces to best support U.S. national security requirements. It can again validate the requirement for robust sealift and maritime prepositioning forces as necessary for global U.S. military operations. Finally, it can highlight the massive decline of the U.S. Merchant Marine and the need to rebuild that force as an essential pillar of U.S. maritime superiority.

The U.S. simply can no longer afford to watch the vast growth of Chinese naval and maritime power as a disinterested bystander. It must focus much more national wealth on rebuilding its own maritime forces and the next Trump administration National Security Strategy can directly help further that effort.

Dr. Steven Wills currently serves as a Navalist for the Center for Maritime Strategy at the Navy League of the United States. He is an expert in U.S. Navy strategy and policy and U.S. Navy surface warfare programs and platforms.

The Wall Street Journal misrepresented the words of Vice President J.D. Vance in a Friday headline that suggested he made threats to use military and economic force to get Russia to agree to a deal that would end the ongoing war in Ukraine.

The WSJ interviewed Vance for its Friday piece about ongoing efforts to wind down the Russia-Ukraine war, headlined “Vance Wields Threat of Sanctions, Military Action to Push Putin Into Ukraine Deal.” However, the vice president did not explicitly threaten Russia with military actions or sanctions, instead stating generally that all options are on the table for President Donald Trump as he seeks to negotiate an end to the war, according to portions of the interview transcript released by Vance’s staff and the publication.

“Vice President JD Vance said Thursday that the U.S. would hit Moscow with sanctions and potentially military action if Russian President Vladimir Putin won’t agree to a peace deal with Ukraine that guarantees Kyiv’s long-term independence,” reads the opening paragraph to the WSJ’s story. A tweet from the outlet’s official account promoting the story stated that “Vance pledged to hit Russia with sanctions and potentially military action if Putin won’t agree to a peace deal that guarantees Ukraine’s independence.”

William Martin, Vance’s communications director, accused the WSJ of running “pure fake news” and provided images of relevant parts of the interview transcript in a Friday post to X.

“The Vice President didn’t make any threats. He simply stated the fact that no one is going to take options away from President Trump as these negotiations begin,” Martin wrote.

The sections of transcript shared by Martin indicate that Vance did not make statements nearly as strong as the WSJ made them out to be. Vance himself called out the WSJ for its “absurd, but not surprising” portrayal of his words, criticizing the paper as a supporter of deploying American soldiers in foreign wars.

“Is there a sense as to what the stick is for Putin? I mean, obviously any kind of deal would have to entail an implicit threat that you have to stick to this or else you have to even sign on the dotted line. Is there any pressure that you’re thinking of?” the WSJ asked Vance, per the transcript shared by Martin.

“I think certainly look there, there are instruments of pressure, absolutely and again, if you look to President Trump’s approach to this, the range of options is extremely broad, and there are economic tools of leverage. There, of course, military tools of leverage. There’s a whole host of things that we could do. But fundamentally, I think the president wants to have a productive negotiation, both with Putin and with Zelensky,” Vance said in response.

The WSJ also asked Vance to clarify what options may be under consideration, specifically inquiring if Ukraine joining NATO and U.S. troops deploying to Ukraine have been ruled out.

“I think the president has been very clear that he doesn’t like the idea of moving Ukraine into NATO. he’s been very clear about that. I also think the president is very clear that whenever he walks in a negotiation, everything is on the table,” Vance said.

On Friday afternoon, the WSJ published the full transcript of the Vance interview, confirming that the outlet’s portrayal of Vance’s comments about resolving the Russia-Ukraine war was misleading.

Representatives for the WSJ did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Friday that it cut 405 employees from various components.

The Trump administration has focused on cutting government waste through groups like the Department of Government Efficiency and offered payouts to government employees. The majority of the cuts came from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which saw more than 200 employees let go.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency followed with more than 130 departures, while the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had fewer than 50 cuts. Science & Technology let go of 10 employees.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, we are making sweeping cuts and reform across the federal government to eliminate egregious waste and incompetence that has been happening for decades at the expense of the American taxpayer,” a DHS spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

According to the DHS, the cuts are expected to result in an estimated $50 million in savings for American taxpayers, adding an “incalculable valuable toward accountability and cutting red tape.”

“DHS component leads identified non-mission critical personnel in probationary status. We are actively identifying other wasteful positions and offices that do not do not fulfill DHS’ mission,” the DHS spokesperson added.

The cuts from DHS come after U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. dissolved his temporary freeze on the Trump administration’s plan to offer federal employees deferred compensation through Sept. 30, provided they submit their resignation notices by Feb. 6. Additionally, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) offered payouts to its entire workforce, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“Director Ratcliffe is moving swiftly to ensure the CIA workforce is responsive to the Administration’s national security priorities. These moves are part of a holistic strategy to infuse the Agency with renewed energy, provide opportunities for rising leaders to emerge, and better position the CIA to deliver on its mission,” a CIA spokesperson told the DCNF.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

WATCH:

Hungary’s Viktor Orban is by far the longest serving head of state in Europe, and by this point has been vindicated on pretty much everything. So when he says that going forward it’s Ukraine, not Russia, that may be the biggest threat to the west, it’s worth paying attention.… pic.twitter.com/QeZmaMFJhy

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 14, 2025