ARE YOU READY FOR SOME TRUTH …about Social Security

by Ralph Bristol, Facebook, June 16, 2026 -  “I’ve worked my whole life and paid into Social Security every year. That money had better be there when I retire. I earned it.”

That statement includes multiple misunderstandings of the way Social Security works.  And, it’s just one of the many popular myths about the program FDR created in the 1930s, and whose basic structure has never been allowed to change, despite the changes in the population it was created to serve.

1. The fact that you have worked your whole life and paid into Social Security is only marginally responsible for your entitlement.  You need only work for 10 years, earning no more than $7,650 a year to be as entitled to a retirement benefit as someone who worked and paid payroll taxes their entire life. 

2. Let’s talk about all that money you paid into the system.  The more you paid in, the less you are entitled to get back.  Here’s how the formula works.

• Social Security splits your lifetime average earnings (the top 35 years) into three chunks and pays back a different share of each chunk.

• The first chunk (a few hundred to about $1,300/month) gets paid back at 90 cents on the dollar. The middle chunk (up to about $7,750/month) only gets 32 cents on the dollar. Anything above that gets just 15 cents on the dollar.

• If you were a low earner, basically all your average earnings fall into that first generous 90% chunk, and you get back a big share of what you made. 

• If you were a high earner, most of your earnings spill into the 32% and 15% chunks, so you get back a much smaller share — even though your dollar benefit is bigger in absolute terms.

3. Finally, let’s discuss your account. There is none. NONE, nada, zip, of the money you paid in payroll taxes ever did or will belong to you once you paid it. It’s long gone, as intended from the beginning. It is used to pay “current obligations.” 

The ONLY relation between your payroll taxes and your entitlement is that you did pay, for a minimum of 10 years, on a salary of at least $7,650. 

If you have ever said or thought something similar to the quote with which I started this post, you have been disserved, misled, misinformed, probably by multiple demagoues.  

Or -- and this is a possibility -- you simply don’t want to face the truth, because the truth will one day possibly require you to do with less, and you don’t like that.  

I don’t like it either, but the truth is, no-one has stolen from Social Security, illegal aliens are not to blame (they pay in, but they can’t take out) and the only reason you are entitled to Social Security is because Congress has said so.  And Congress has the right and the obligation to alter that promise whenever necessary.

In the year 2032, just six years from now, the funding mechanism, which has been changed multiple times, to increase payroll taxes and reduce benefits, by increasing the retirement age and taxing some benefits, will have to be changed again – for the first time in nearly 50 years. 

Sure, there has been some fraud.  All massive government programs suffer fraud.  A lot of it is caught and prosecuted, but when the bank is holding trillions, there will be robbers.  Fraud is not the source of Social Security’s imminent insolvency. 

The source is just as the trustees say.  It is a system that was designed nearly a century ago, for a population with a ratio of workers to retirees much different from today. 

By 1945, once the program matured, the ratio was about 42 to 1.

From there the ratio fell sharply as more retirees became eligible: 

• 16.5 in 1950

• 8.6 in 1955

• 5.1 in 1960

• 3.2–3.4 through the 1970s–2000s 

• 2.8 by 2013

• 2.7 today

• Trustees Report projects it'll settle around 2.3 by 2040.

So, that’s the good news, if you can call it that.  The ratio is about as low as it will get – unless AI changes that, which it might. 

That means, the next “fix” might be the last that’s necessary, at least for a few generations. 

IN 1997, I gave a guest lecture to an economics class at Clemson University, laying out the problems with Social Security’s solvency and concluding that the proper thing to do would be to convert it into a defined contribution system, like 401(k)s, rather than a defined benefit system, like pensions. 

My lecture was not well received, even by an economics class of young people, and the instructor was apologetic when I left. He had invited me because he heard me making the same case on talk radio in Greenville, SC, and he want his class to hear my case. He thought it would be better received.  

George W. Bush briefly flirted with trying to convert Social Security to a hybrid defined benefit/defined contribution system, much like many states have done since, but his efforts were interrupted by 9/11. 

Because the structure of Social Security has always been a simple pipeline from today’s workers to today’s retirees, the only thing that can keep up with the falling ratio is either higher taxes or lower benefits, on some or all taxpayers and/or beneficiaries. The more we choose “some” instead of “all,” through means-testing, the more we turn Social Security into another welfare program. 

The next “fix” will almost certainly include more of the same, since the opportunity to convert it to a defined contribution program has long passed.  

When I first proposed the conversion in 1997, with a 20-year phase-in, it was when our annual deficit will still small enough to absorb the temporary impact. Any conversion to a defined contribution program would require that the treasury be allowed to temporarily pay some of the defined benefits during the transition period. 

Treasury, which is now repaying both interest and principal on Social Security’s special bonds, and, though not directly related, also paying $1 trillion a year just on the interest on money it has borrowed in the past, can no longer afford to fund the transition period. 

When Congress can no longer avoid that third rail of politics, they will fix Social Security again, by increasing payroll taxes on some or all, by reducing benefits on some or all, or by borrowing even more money, or some combination of some of the above. 

My best guess is that they will apply means-tested tax increases and benefit cuts, but they will also, for the first time, allow and instruct Treasury to borrow even more money to fund Social Security. 

That will make the fewest people angry, which is always Congress’s #1 goal.

Ralph Bristol is the former long-time morning talk radio host broadcasting on Supertalk 99.7 WTN. He was one of the less provocative and bombastic of conservative radio personalities, more thoughtful and grounded in conservative ideas. He left talk radio in 2018 and retired. He lives in Nashville. 

Top Stories

CM Rollin Horton Takes Money From PACs Connected to DC Blox Attorney While Pushing Data Center Regs

Councilmember Rollin Horton

by Megan Podsiedlik, The Pamphleteer, June 15, 2026 - Last week, Councilmember Rollin Horton—who is the lead sponsor on the bills that would establish data center regulations in Nashville—raised concerns about some of the language in Councilmember Courtney Johnston’s moratorium that would place a temporary freeze on new data center permits. Horton’s sticking point was the bill’s lack of distinction between large hyperscale data centers and smaller-scale projects.

“Unfortunately, this moratorium makes no such distinction and lumps in the massive hyperscale data centers with high school computer labs and bans all of them,” said Horton.

Though he ultimately voted in support of the bill during its first reading, Horton’s pushback was surprising. The legislation is a temporary freeze on the permitting process, not a permanent ban. In fact, it could give his legislation a bit more breathing room by halting data center applications as the council hammers out the regulations Horton claims to be championing.

Things got even more confusing during last week’s Planning Commission meeting, where Horton appeared to be uncertain about what his own legislation does. He asked whether his proposed setback distances are sufficient, how EPA standards should be incorporated into the ordinance, and whether developers could evade stricter rules by building multiple small data centers.

Horton clearly needs a bit more time to refine his legislation, so why the lack of enthusiasm for a moratorium to halt data centers while the council does its due diligence?

The plot thickens. Digging into Councilmember Horton’s donor list only deepens the mystery and raises serious suspicions about who he really represents. Recent disclosures reveal that Horton has received three contributions from two separate PACs linked to Doug Sloan. The same Doug Sloan who is representing DC Blox as its attorney in the data center proposal next to the zoo.

Between November and December 2025, the Thompson Burton PAC—a corporate PAC linked to the law firm where Sloan is currently a partner representing DC Blox—contributed $1,000 directly to Horton. The Holland & Knight Tennessee PAC, where Sloan was formerly a partner, contributed $500.

Though DC Blox has submitted permit applications to Metro, the data center firm has yet to actually close on the sale of the property. Under the guidance of Nashville Zoo land-use attorney and former Metro Codes Director Bill Herbert, the zoo filed an appeal to the permit. Councilmember Courtney Johnston plans to file a similar challenge as well, though the current BZA map is only reflecting the zoo’s submission.

If either appeal is honored, it could gum up DC Blox’s data center application. Though, it’s unclear whether it would restart the permit process or subject the company to any new regulations if the council moves forward with data center guardrails.

That said, if the legislation to temporarily freeze permitting could potentially help bring the proposed data center near the zoo—or any new data center—under the purview of Horton’s new regulations, why be a stick-in-the-mud?

***Shortly before we published, Mayor Freddie O'Connell issued Executive Order 59 in support of a moratorium on new data center development.

Top Stories

Bill Kristol on the UFC Cage Fight on the White House Lawn

 

Top Stories

YEAH, $1 TRILLION IS A LOT OF MONEY

Ralph Bristol

by Ralph Bristol, Facebook, 6/13/2026 - If I had a job earning $1 per second, I would earn more than $31 million a year, and it would take me more than 31,000 years to earn $1 trillion. 

Those are the kinds of numbers that fascinate journalists who reported with awe Friday about Elon Musk becoming the nation’s first trillionaire. True, that is an amazing concentration of wealth in one man. 

At roughly $1 trillion+, his wealth now exceeds:

• The next 5 richest people combined (Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison)

Or…

• The bottom 693 billionaires combined (those worth $1B–$1.4B)

It’s also the kind of wealth that feeds the toxic combination of wealth envy and wealth opportunism, the latter showing up in proposals by politicians to confiscate some of that wealth to help reduce the imbalance between government spending and revenue. 

The problem is one of 5th grade math.  If the government could somehow confiscate all of the wealth of Elon Musk and the next five richest men in the world, it would cover one year’s federal deficit. 

In the process, it would destroy the biggest wealth-producing machines in the world, which employ millions of people and produce hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue for the government every year. 

When Elon Musk, because of the wealth-producing value of the many companies he has built, becomes a trillionaire, that is huge news that dominates the financial airways and is reported on every national and local newscast in the country. 

But the federal government now has to borrow twice that amount every year to cover its spending.  That figure is no longer even considered unusual, and to many, like John Tamny, no big deal. As long as the bond market is willing to keep lending, there’s no sign of trouble.

Just the interest on our national debt cost $1 trillion last year. 

So yeah - $1 trillion is a shocking amount – worthy of attention by every reporter in the nation – but not because one man has amassed that much wealth for himself – setting him apart from all others – but because we now have to borrow that much every year, just to service the debt we have borrowed before.

I yearn for the day that $1 trillion landmark makes the same news splash as the one Elon Musk made Friday with his IPO of Space X. 

Ralph Bristol is the former long-time morning talk radio host broadcasting on Supertalk 99.7 WTN. He was one of the less provocative and bombastic of conservative radio personalities, more thoughtful and grounded in conservative ideas. He left talk radio in 2018 and retired. He lives in Nashville. 

Top Stories

Trump's Pardons for Money

Click to view

by Rod Williams, June 12, 2026- Recently, I shared a Facebook post of the short video you see to the right. I got the responses from Trump supporters that one would expect. The response one gets when posting anything exposing or critical of Trump's illegalities, cruelties, corruption, or irrational policies is "fake news," or "TDS." 

Fake news does not mean the facts are in dispute, but that it is news the Trump supporter doesn't like. "Fake news" is facts that contradict the Trump narrative. Facts the Trump supporter finds inconvenient are considered "Fake News." Unfortunately, millions of Americans think like this. Rather than consider data that may challenge their loyalty to the dear leader, they mindlessly dismiss facts as "fake news." We really live in a post-truth era. Facts are irrelevant to the Trump true believer. 

The other response one gets is "TDS." "TDS," as the reader probably knows, stands for Trump derangement syndrome. I think the real ones with TDS are the Trump supporters, where TDS can stand for "Trump Devotion Syndrome" or "Trump Denial Syndrome," but when someone says you have TDS, they mean you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Any criticism of Trump's cruelties, irrational policies, illegal actions, or corruptions gets one labeled as having TDS.

So, just how do Trump's pardons compare to those of other presidents? If you go all the way back to the founding, Trump is not the president who has pardoned the most people, but he comes in second place. Andrew Johnson’s massive post-Civil War pardons place him in first place. Among modern presidents, Trump has issued the most pardons or commutations. Other presidents with a large number of pardons, commutations, or clemencies include Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama. Most often, pardons in the past have relied heavily on the formal petition process. Trump's pardons have been of loyalists and the process has been different. 

In Trump's first term, he used the pardon power much the way previous presidents have. Almost all of his controversial pardons have occurred in his second term, which is not even at the halfway point yet. Most people are aware of his pardon of those who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021. As bad as that is, there is a whole other category of pardons, which is just plain old corruption. 

This other category of pardons is reminiscent of Tennessee Democratic Governor Ray Blanton's "cash for clemency" scandal. It is an interesting chapter in Tennessee's history. Ray Blanton went to prison for his crimes. We lived in a different era when corruption was condemned. 

Due to Trump's daily flooding the zone with one outrage after another, his pardons, other than the J-6 pardons, have not gotten a lot of attention. He has pardoned many people whose guilt was not in doubt, including people who were drug dealers and especially people who committed financial fraud. 

Often when one is convicted of financial fraud, the sentence requires the convicted to make restitution. When Trump pardons someone who embezzled money from venerable marks, the restitution sentence goes away too, and the criminal gets to keep the stolen money. 

I am posting below the Wikipedia entry, "List of people granted executive clemency in the second Trump presidency." Those looking for any reason to excuse Trump's worst behavior will say Wikipedia is not a trusted source. The Wikipedia story is well documented, and this same information is widely available elsewhere. I am highlighting some information I find of particular interest.

I know that most Trump loyalists are not interested in the truth and do not mind the corruption. I keep hoping some Trump supporters still have a sense of decency and would think that when one embezzles money from venerable elderly people, the perpetrator should be punished and required to make restitution. I am beginning to lose that hope. If you are a Trump loyalist whose loyalty is unshakeable and you are unbothered by the corruption, go ahead and reply "fake news," or "TDS."

List of people granted executive clemency in the second Trump presidency

In his role as the 47th president of the United States (January 20, 2025 – present), Donald Trump granted executive clemency to more than 1,700 individuals as of June 11, 2026, all of whom were charged or convicted of federal criminal offenses.^[1][2] This included a blanket pardon of some some 1,500 individuals associated with the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Many of Trump's pardons have gone to people who committed fraud against the government or investors.^[3] In many cases, Trump also removed the requirement that these individuals pay restitution and fines, costing their victims an estimated $1.3 billion.^[4][5] At least three individuals who had been convicted in white-collar fraud cases and who were granted executive clemency also had their pending United States Securities and Exchange Commission civil enforcement actions dropped as a result.^[6]

A June 2026 Reuters review of clemency decisions by the second Trump administration found that 96% of clemency grants failed to meet longstanding Department of Justice guidelines for such requests; a large number of pardons were granted to people who used Trump allies to lobby for their cause; and there was evidence of donations to Trump or payments to Trump allies to help achieve the clemency.^[1] The nature of the clemency process under the second Trump administration has been controversial among legal experts, ethics experts, and the victims of the pardoned offenders.^[1]

Background

See also: Powers of the president of the United States

The U.S. president's power of clemency arises from Article II of the United States Constitution. Clemency "may take several forms, including pardon, commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, and reprieve",^[7] with the two most commonly used forms being a pardon or commutation. A pardon is an official forgiveness for an acknowledged crime. Once a pardon is issued, all further punishment for the crime is waived.^[8] The president can only grant pardons for federal offenses.^[9] When the president commutes a sentence, it reduces the severity of a sentence without voiding the conviction itself; for example, a commutation may reduce or eliminate a prison term, while leaving other punishments intact.^[7] The power of clemency is "one of the most unlimited powers bestowed on the president by the Constitution."^[10]

Trump's second-term use of executive clemency

Role of the Office of the Pardon Attorney

Trump frequently bypassed the Office of the Pardon Attorney, and on March 7, 2025, fired its leader, Department of Justice career attorney Liz Oyer, and installed political loyalist Ed Martin in the role.^[11][12] Ed Martin described the rationale for granting pardons as "No MAGA left behind".^[13] In April 2025, Oyer testified to the Senate and accused the Justice Department of "ongoing corruption" and that "the leadership of the Department of Justice appears to value political loyalty above the fair and responsible administration of justice".^[14]. On February 2, 2026, it was reported that Martin was considering leaving the Justice Department following conflicts with Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General.^[15]

Creation of 'Pardon Czar' position

On February 20, 2025, Trump announced the creation of a new position to recommend executive clemency candidates, and named Alice Marie Johnson to the role. Johnson, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for nonviolent drug offenses, received a sentence commutation and later a full pardon in Trump's first term, after Kim Kardashian intervened on her behalf.^[16]

Role of lobbyists

In addition to pursuing pardons through the Office of Pardon Attorney, the Pardon Czar, and the White House Counsel's Office, some wealthy pardon-seekers have hired politically-connected lobbyists to present their cases directly to Trump, with many echoing claims of political prosecution to win Trump's support.^[17][18][19] Reflecting concerns about the optics of the pardon process, there have been sporadic attempts by White House staffers to limit access to Trump by advocates for pardon-seekers.^[20]

Lobbyists have told the Wall Street Journal and other news outlets that fees of $1M are standard. Some would-be pardon recipients have offered success fees of $6M for a successful application.^[21][22][23] NBC News reported that former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman and Washington attorney Adam Katz have played key roles in securing clemency for their clients.^[22] Similarly, lobbyist Ches McDowell and Checkpoint Government Systems received $1.3M for obtaining clemency for Changpeng Zhao.^[24] Lobbyists Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl accepted $300,000 to lobby for a pardon for fugitive crypto figure Andean Medjedovic^[25] and $960,000 to lobby for a federal pardon on behalf of Joseph Schwartz, convicted for nursing home fraud in April 2025. It was later reported that Schwartz was unhappy with their efforts and hired politically-connected attorney and lobbyist Josh Nass to pursue clemency^[26]. Schwartz was granted clemency on November 14, 2025.^[27][28] Nass was later charged with extortion in an apparent connection to the Schwartz pardon; federal prosecutors alleged that Nass hired a convicted racketeer to assault or kidnap Schwartz's son in order to get $500,000 Nass said Schwartz owed him for his pardon work.^[29][30]

Legal boundaries of the pardons

The scope of the Trump pardons became a contentious legal issue. Several people who were under investigation in the January 6 Capitol assault were charged in separate cases that came about as a result of those investigations. These separate cases included gun charges, possession of child pornography, and threatening FBI agents.^[31]

With the mass pardon of the January 6 Capitol assault participants, lawyers for some of those defendants argued that the mass pardons applied to those charges as well^[32], and in several of the cases the Department of Justice attorneys concurred^[33]. Some courts accepted this reasoning, but many were skeptical.^[34] On November 14, 2025, Department of Justice Pardon Attorney Ed Martin announced additional pardons for two of the people charged in the separate cases.

After the 2025 arrest of Brian Cole Jr. in the pipe bomb attacks on the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee the night before January 6, former DOJ prosecutor Ankush Khardori argued that the broad pardon language may apply to Cole, potentially upending prosecution of Cole.^[35] In March 2026, Cole's lawyers made a motion making that exact argument in court.^[36]

Fake electors plot pardons

On November 10, 2025, Department of Justice Pardon Attorney Ed Martin announced on social media that 77 people alleged to have been involved in the 2020 Trump fake electors plot had been pardoned via proclamation. None of the listed people were facing federal charges at the time, and the proclamation, known as Proclamation 10989, does not affect state charges.^[37][38][39]

Building on the scope questions related to the January 6 Capitol assault mass pardon, Proclamation 10989 explicitly states that the clemency action applies to "all United States citizens for conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of Presidential electors, whether or not recognized by any State or State official, in connection with the 2020 Presidential Election, as well for any conduct relating to their efforts to expose voting fraud and vulnerabilities in the 2020 Presidential Election" and that it is not limited to the 77 people listed by Martin^[39]. The proclamation explicitly disallows Trump as a pardon beneficiary, but otherwise delegates questions about to whom it applies to and what activities it covers to the Department of Justice.^[40]

Attorneys for a man accused of voter fraud in the 2020 election have argued that the pardon applies to him, even though he is not on the proclamation list.^[41] Prosecutors have argued against this interpretation, saying that it is up to the Department of Justice to determine who is eligible for inclusion in the pardon.^[42]

Former NFL player pardons

Shortly after the 2026 Super Bowl, 'Pardon Czar' Alice Marie Johnson announced pardons for five former professional football athletes: Joe Klecko, Nate Newton, Jamal Lewis, Travis Henry and the late Billy Cannon.^[43] All had served time and been released after having been convicted on charges ranging from drug dealing to fraud to counterfeiting more than a decade ago.

Major beneficiaries

Trump's pardons and grants of clemency favored political allies and loyalists.^[44][45] On January 20, 2025, Trump issued mass pardons and commutations to people who were prosecuted in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. On November 9, 2025, U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin announced that Trump had signed a proclamation granting pardons preempting future federal prosecutions for 77 people associated with the Trump fake electors plot to overturn the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.^[38]. This list included Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and former chief of staff Mark Meadows.

NBC News analyzed Trump's pardons for 88 individuals granted through January 20, 2026, and found that more than half of them went to wealthy criminals convicted for white-collar crimes such as money laundering and fraud.^[46]

In April 2026, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had recently said he would "pardon everyone who has come within 200 feet of the Oval Office".^[47]

Public reactions to clemency actions

In May 2026, CBS News reported that Democrats in both the House and Seante were investigating the pardons and the involvement of "pay-to-play dynamics".^[48]

Reactions to the January 6 United States Capitol attack clemency actions

See also: Democratic backsliding in the United States

Trump's pardons and commutations of participants in the January 6 United States Capitol attack were widely condemned by involved officers and police unions. Capitol Police sergeant Aquilino A. Gonell, who was hurt in the attack and retired due to those injuries told the New York Times, "It's a miscarriage of justice, a betrayal, a mockery, and a desecration of the men and women that risked their lives defending our democracy."^[49] The International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Fraternal Order of Police issued a joint statement condemning clemency for criminals who assault law enforcement officers, but did not explicitly call out the January 6 actions. Notably, the latter group endorsed Donald Trump in the 2024 US presidential election. The National Association of Police Organizations explicitly condemned the clemency actions for individuals who assaulted law enforcement officers on January 6.^[50][51]

Federal judges who oversaw or were overseeing January 6-related cases also condemned the actions. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in her dismissal of the charges against January 6 defendant John Banuelo's case that no pardon could change the “tragic truth” of what happened that day: "It cannot whitewash the blood, feces, and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America's sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”^[52]

Some Senate Republicans also condemned the pardons and commutations. James Lankford told CNN, “I think if you attack a police officer that's a very serious issue and they should pay a price for that.” But when Senate Majority leader John Thune was asked about Trump's clemency actions for the January 6 rioters said, “We're looking at the future, not the past.'^[53]

Reactions to other clemency actions

More broadly, The Marshall Project looked at how Trump's second presidency pardon decisions have deviated from the Department of Justice's clemency process as described in the Justice Manual, especially with respect to input from victims, prosecutors, and judges; remorse; and restitution paid.^[5] Other analysts and commentators have noted the many white-collar criminals that have benefited from Trump's pardons and commutations. Trump disproportionately pardoned "the powerful, famous, well-connected and wealthy" accused of white-collar crime, which The New York Times described as part of an effort "relegating white-collar offenses to a rank of secondary importance behind violent and property crimes".^[45] Some legal observers have specifcally called out how Trump's pardon decisions, together with the gutting of relevant federal prosecution units, have undermined public corruption crime-fighting efforts.^[54]

In March 2026, Trump announced an anti-fraud task force, led by "fraud czar" JD Vance, and called out recent cases in Minnesota. In ongoing investigations into fraud involving government money in that state, the vast majority of people prosecuted so far are of Somali descent, and Trump has cited that as justification for his violent crackdown on immigrants in general. But critics have noted that in the first year of his second presidency, Trump has granted pardons and commutations to nearly three dozen people prosecuted for fraud.^[55] "The war on fraud seems like a war on specific fraud committed by a specific kind of people," former U.S. Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer told the New York Times.^[56]

Others have noted that multiple high-level drug kingpins have received pardons, which stands in stark contrast to Trump's tough-on-drugs justifications for military strikes on and sinking of alleged drug boats.^[57][58]

Trump received criticism for pardoning crypto billionaire Changpeng Zhao, whose company Binance entered into a business deal with the Trump family's crypto startup World Liberty Financial.^[59][60] In response to criticism of his pardon, Trump stated "I don't know who he is".^[61] On November 16, 2025, CBS News aired an interview Scott Pelley conducted with former Justice Department Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer, in which she said that the pardon process now favored the wealthy, and criticizing the pardon of Zhao in particular.^[62]

The post continues with a list of all of those whom President Trump pardoned. The January 6th criminals are described in different categories. The plain old white-collar criminals who committed financial fraud are named individually, and their crimes are detailed. For that list follow this link.   

Top Stories

Why Will President Donald Trump Not Endorse Either Marsha Blackburn or John Rose in the Tennessee Republican primary for Governor

by Rod Williams, June 11, 2026 - It would be hard to find a higher-profile, more vocal sycophant for Donald Trump than Marsha Blackburn. Andy Ogles comes close, but he doesn't get near the Fox News attention that Marsha does. 

Now Marsha Blackburn is running for governor, and she has not won Trump's endorsement. Of course, it does appear Trump is more likely to punish disloyalty than reward loyalty. In the race for Tennessee's governor, both Republican candidates are Trump loyalists. So, so far Trump has chosen not to endorse in this race. Given Trump’s known unpredictability, there is some room for late endorsements, but currently, no official endorsement is in place. 

Both Blackburn and Rose have cultivated strong ties to Trump and alignment with his agenda. Blackburn leads in statewide polling and has accumulated campaign endorsements and funds, making her the primary favorite. 

Rose highlights his loyalty to Trump-era positions, including his votes against certifying the 2020 election. Despite that loyalty, I expected Trump to endorse Blackburn simply because she has gone out of her way to be a vocal cheerleader for Trump and because she is likely to win anyway, and I suspected Trump would endorse her and then claim it as a victory when she won. So why has he not endorsed her?

I have a close friend who is well-informed about Tennessee politics, and he offers this explanation. First, Trump got tired of Blackburn's constant begging for an endorsement. Apparently, she brought it up every time they talked. She became annoying.

Secondly, she seems to have committed to appoint Knoxville's Representative Tim Burchett to fill the vacancy that would be created by her leaving the Senate to become governor. The Trump administration opposes that. Despite Burchett being a Trump loyalist on most things, it seems he is a debt hawk.  Being an advocate of fiscal responsibility and advocating reducing the national debt used to be a standard Republican position, but not so much anymore. The Trump administration does not want another deficit hawk in the Senate. 

And thirdly, he is also an advocate of releasing the Epstein files, and we know Trump does not want another person in the Senate for whom that is an important issue. 

Tennessee’s Republican primary for governor is scheduled for August 6, 2026, with the general election set for November 3, 2026. Incumbent Governor Bill Lee is term-limited and cannot seek re-election. Whoever wins the Republican primary is almost certain to be the next governor.  

Top Stories