In Funniest Twist, Trump Now Wants to Nationalize Lockheed Martin

As the Trump administration contemplates further incursions into the private sector following its Intel deal, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the defense industry could be in the administration’s sights.

When the administration acquired a 10 percent stake in the tech company Intel last week—a move that began with the president attempting to get its CEO fired, alleging problematic China ties—Donald Trump vowed to do more “deals like that.” This week, a top Trump economic adviser said businesses beyond just the tech sector can expect such interventions going forward.

On CNBC Tuesday, Howard Lutnick defended the move, saying it’s “fair” for the U.S. government to take stake in a business if it’s “adding fundamental value” to it.

Host Andrew Ross Sorkin chimed in with a follow-up: “What about defense companies though, secretary?” he asked. “Why shouldn’t the U.S. government say, ‘You know what, we use Palantir services. We would like a piece of Palantir. We use Boeing services. We would like a piece of Boeing.’”

“There are a lot of businesses that do business with the U.S. government that benefit by doing business with the U.S. government,” Sorkin added. “Again, I guess the question is: Where’s the line?”

Lutnick replied that there is a “monstrous discussion” to be had about potentially taking stakes in defense companies. “Lockheed Martin makes 97 percent of their revenue from the U.S. government. They are basically an arm of the U.S. government,” he added.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg, he continued, are “thinking about” taking stakes in military contractors.

A high profile conservative lawyer is calling Donald Trump’s political strategy what it is: “authoritarianism.”

George Conway, the ex-husband of Trump’s first term adviser Kellyanne Conway, warned that Americans need to “wake up” to the Trump administration’s dangerous maneuverings, citing recent targets of Trump’s retribution campaign as evidence that the country’s typical backstops were caving to the president.

“You know, people don’t want to reach this conclusion: This is authoritarianism,” Conway told CNN Tuesday. “We have never seen anything like this in America.”

The well known attorney pointed to the FBI’s laser focus on John Bolton as an example. Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser turned vocal Trump critic, had his Maryland home raided last week by the federal bureau in what was described as a “national security investigation in search of classified records.”

Conway compared the raid to actions taken by authoritarian regimes throughout history, including the reign of Adolf Hitler in Germany and former Spanish dictator Francisco Franco.

“This is how it’s done,” Conway said. “And it may seem alarmist to Americans who enjoy … our lives here, a beautiful country, with so many things to do and so many ways to entertain ourselves.”

“It’s time for Americans to wake up,” he continued. “This is serious. Donald Trump … people may laugh at him because … he appears to be such a clown, but he’s profoundly dangerous because he has the power of prosecution. And every time he says something like this, Americans should take note.”

Bolton has repeatedly pissed off the MAGA leader since their time working together abruptly came to a close.

Over the last several years, the former national security adviser released a book about the inner machinations of Trump’s first term, claimed that Trump had become Russian President Vladimir Putin’s puppet, described the right-wing figurehead as a “fascist,” and claimed in March 2024 that Trump “hasn’t got the brains” to be a dictator.

Vanity Fair is gambling on its own staff in its bid to put First Lady Melania Trump on the cover of an upcoming issue.

Staffers at the legacy magazine are flipping out after Semafor first reported that the publication’s new global editorial director, Mark Guiducci, was working to woo the first lady into a photoshoot.

“I will walk out the motherfucking door, and half my staff will follow me,” a mid-level Vanity Fair editor told the Daily Mail on Monday. “We are not going to normalize this despot and his wife; we’re just not going to do it. We’re going to stand for what’s right.”

The editor added that they would rather work any other job than remain at Vanity Fair if it chooses to feature Mrs. Trump on its cover page.

“If I have to work bagging groceries at Trader Joe’s, I’ll do it,” the editor said. “If [Guiducci] puts Melania on the cover, half of the editorial staff will walk out, I guarantee it.”

But her treatment does stand in stark contrast to the publishing giant’s recent history of documenting the country’s first ladies. Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, and Jill Biden all appeared in Vogue while their husbands were president, sometimes more than once. President Barack Obama also graced the magazine’s cover three times, while President Joe Biden was pictured on the front twice.

Guiducci’s plan, however, did make the magazine some new fans over at Fox & Friends, where host Ainsley Earnhardt claimed that she would buy the issue multiple times “just to prove a point.”

Co-host Brian Kilmeade also advised that the unnamed editor that spoke with the Daily Mail should be rooted out and “fired,” instructing Vanity Fair staffers to be on the lookout for the disgruntled employee. “If you’re at Vanity Fair right now,” he said, “look for a mid-level editor who looks angry, and toss them out and send them to Trader Joe’s!”

President Donald Trump was just upstaged by Taylor Swift on his own propaganda network.

Fox News reportedly cut away from Trump’s Cabinet meeting Tuesday to report on something much more important: Swift’s engagement to Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce.

The conservative news network deemed it worthy to briefly pause its coverage of the president’s sycophantic secretaries singing his praises to deliver the news about the pop star, BBC News supervisor Courtney Subramanian posted on X.

“Your English teacher and your gym teacher are getting married,” Swift wrote in a post on Instagram Tuesday, quickly racking up millions of likes and hundreds of thousands of shares.

Online, Fox News placed Swift’s “sweet Instagram post” ahead of the live stream link to the president’s meeting.

Fox News wasn’t alone in covering Swift; several other outlets leapt to report on the story, even sending out breaking news alerts. But as a network which has thoroughly devoted itself to delivering the president’s narratives, the cut-in would likely frustrate Trump.

The president has previously held a grudge against the singer, who has proven to be a lightning rod for misogynist sports fans. Trump was so sore after Swift endorsed Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, that he pathetically declared, “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!” and later suggested that she was “no longer hot.”

During the same Cabinet meeting, a reporter alerted Trump to the “biggest pop culture news of the year,” and asked for him to comment.

“Well, I wish them a lot of luck,” Trump said. “No, I think he’s a great player, and he’s a great guy, and I think that she’s a terrific person. So I wish them a lot of luck.”

After being much maligned by MAGA for leading criminal cases against Donald Trump (until he returned to the presidency), Jack Smith is finally striking back.

Earlier this month, the Office of Special Counsel heeded Republican Senator Tom Cotton’s call to launch a Hatch Act investigation into the former special counsel, on the allegation that Smith’s efforts to prosecute Trump for mishandling classified documents and conspiring to overturn the 2020 election constituted “unprecedented interference in the 2024 election.”

Smith’s lawyers responded with a withering three-page letter to the OSC, published Tuesday by The New York Times, in which they defended Smith’s integrity and skewered Cotton’s allegations.

“The predicate for this investigation is imaginary and unfounded,” the lawyers wrote, as many of Cotton’s purported findings of wrongdoing amounted to “routine,” court-approved actions—such as requesting to exceed the 45-page limit for opening motions, proposing a trial date roughly five months after a grand jury indictment, and seeking expedited review by an appeals court.

Such “unremarkable examples,” the lawyers wrote, were in keeping with the typical duties of a prosecutor.

And while Cotton accused Smith of circumventing standard legal processes in his unsuccessful attempt to bypass a lower court and get the Supreme Court to rule on presidential immunity, Smith’s lawyers pointed out that this decision was backed by precedent in “the most analogous prior case,” i.e., the United States v. Nixon case related to Watergate.

Thus, the lawyers wrote, the OSC investigation is “premised on a partisan complaint that suggests the ordinary operation of the criminal justice system should be disrupted by the whims of a political contest. But the notion that justice should yield to politics is antithetical to the rule of law.”