logo
Savannah Chrisley says she 'lost some deals' over Trump support, conservative beliefs

Savannah Chrisley says she 'lost some deals' over Trump support, conservative beliefs

Fox News23-02-2025
Savannah Chrisley opened up about how speaking out about her conservative political views impacted her career.
In July 2024, the 27-year-old TV personality gave a speech at the Republican National Convention where she endorsed now-President Donald Trump ahead of the 2024 election, saying that her family being branded the "Trumps of the South" was a "badge of honor."
Chrisley has also frequently voiced her support for Trump and his Make America Great Again movement on her social media. The former "Chrisley Knows Best" star recently revealed that she plans to seek a presidential pardon from Trump for her parents, Todd and Julie Chrisley, who remain incarcerated after being convicted of federal bank fraud and tax evasion.
During a recent interview with People magazine, Chrisley admitted that publicly sharing her conservative beliefs came with a price.
"I lost some deals when I came out politically on why I stood for what I stood for," she said.
Chrisley told People her podcast "Unlocked" has helped her support her family financially and has enabled her to have a "louder voice" when expressing her political views.
"It's giving me a job to provide for my family, and that's the number one thing that I'm so grateful for," said Chrisley, who became the legal guardian of her sister Chloe, 12, and brother Grayson, 18, when her parents went to prison.
However, she explained that her outspokenness has limited her income since she has been told that advertisers 'don't want to touch conservative.'"
"That was a tough thing for me because once again, I was being forced in a hole of — do I stand for what I believe in, or do I feed my family. Which one? We should never live in a world where your job is in jeopardy, because of [a] difference of beliefs," Chrisley told People.
"It should never be that way and unfortunately, it was," she continued. "You can have differences of opinions and beliefs, and still voice your stance on something."
Regardless of losing out on lucrative contracts, Chrisley said, "It was all worth it."
Chrisley also told People that it was also important for her to set an example for Grayson and Chloe as she didn't want them to grow up believing that they had to hide their views or give into pressure from others.
"It was all worth it."
Chrisley is also working with the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). She serves as the organization's senior fellow for criminal justice reform and hosted a CPAC event at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate last November.
Looking back, Chrisley said that she was galvanized to speak out after her parents were sentenced to prison.
The former reality stars are currently serving out their combined 19-year prison sentence at separate facilities in Kentucky and Florida. Each reported to prison in January 2023 after being convicted in November 2022.
"Probably a year after my parents left, I just became very outspoken, because I knew nothing about our criminal justice system," Chrisley recalled. "I honestly thought bad people go to prison. That's what I thought. And that is so far from the truth."
"I grew up in the South, where you live, breathe, and die for our country. You respect our flag, you respect our nation. You respect our police force. You believe everything that they say it is. And now, I don't. I believe nothing," she continued. "My eyes have been opened to what actually happens in our criminal justice system, how broken it is."
"When I started realizing these things, I just knew I can't stay silent about it any longer. I have to come out about it."CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Cambodia to nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize for role in ending country's conflict with Thailand
Cambodia to nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize for role in ending country's conflict with Thailand

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Cambodia to nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize for role in ending country's conflict with Thailand

Cambodia will nominate President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize after he helped the country reach a ceasefire agreement to end its border conflict with Thailand. Sun Chanthol, Cambodia's deputy prime minister, thanked Trump for bringing peace to the region while speaking to reporters earlier Friday in the country's capital of Phnom Penh. Chanthol said the American president deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, the highest-profile international award given to a person or organization for doing the most to "advance fellowship between nations." "We acknowledge his great efforts for peace," Chanthol said. THAILAND, CAMBODIA REACH CEASEFIRE DEAL TO END CONFLICT THAT DISPLACED 260k, TRUMP SAYS Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last month he had nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize and Pakistani officials said in June they would recommend him for the award for his role in helping to end its conflict with India. Read On The Fox News App Trump urged a ceasefire last week when he spoke to the leaders of Cambodia and Thailand and threatened that the U.S. would not get back to the "trading table" with the Southeast Asian countries until the fighting stops. A ceasefire was negotiated in Malaysia on Monday, ending the heaviest conflict between the two countries in over a decade. "Numerous people were killed and I was dealing with two countries that we get along with very well, very different countries from certain standpoints. They've been fighting for 500 years intermittently. And, we solved that war ... we solved it through trade," Trump told reporters during his recent trip to Scotland. Trump Calls For Immediate Ceasefire Between Cambodia And Thailand Amid Escalating Violence Following news of the ceasefire, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X that Trump's direct involvement led to the truce. "President Trump made this happen. Give him the Nobel Peace Prize!," she said. The fighting began last week after a land mine explosion along the border wounded five Thai soldiers. Each side blamed the other for starting the clashes, which lasted five days. At least 43 people were killed and more than 300,000 people were displaced on both sides of the border. "I said, 'I don't want to trade with anybody that's killing each other,'" Trump continued while in Scotland. "So we just got that one solved. And I'm going to call the two prime ministers who I got along with very, very well and speak to them right after this meeting and congratulate them. But it was an honor to be involved in that. That was going to be a very nasty war. Those wars have been very, very nasty." Chanthol, who also serves as Cambodia's top trade negotiator, said his country was also grateful to Trump for a reduced tariff rate of 19%. The Trump administration had initially threatened a tariff of 49% before later reducing it to 36%, a level that would have decimated Cambodia's vital garment and footwear sector, Chanthol told Reuters. Reuters contributed to this article source: Cambodia to nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize for role in ending country's conflict with Thailand Solve the daily Crossword

After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo

time39 minutes ago

After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo

NEW YORK -- It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'

Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps

time39 minutes ago

Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps

LOS ANGELES -- A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store