Fox News' Brian Kilmeade gripes that Laura Loomer shouldn't have ‘credibility to pick' who serves in Trump admin
Fox & Friends co-anchor Brian Kilmeade appeared uneasy with the prospect that far-right extremist Laura Loomer has the ear of Donald Trump these days, explicitly saying on Friday that he doesn't feel that Loomer should have 'the credibility to pick who is on' the president's staff.
Kilmeade's concern with the level of influence Loomer holds over the White House comes as the 'proud Islamophobe' appears to be taking credit for the president pulling the nomination of Dr. Janette Nesheiwat as surgeon general, which she described as another 'scalp' she had claimed.
Nesheiwat, a former Fox News pundit, had recently seen her nomination as surgeon general come under scrutiny over reports that she embellished her medical credentials. At the same time, though, Nesheiwat had also been targeted by Loomer – a virulent anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist – for promoting the Covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic.
Just a day before Nesheiwat was scheduled to appear before a Senate confirmation hearing, Trump announced that he was withdrawing her nomination and replacing her with 'wellness influencer' Casey Means, a close ally of HHS chief Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom Trump boasted has 'impeccable 'MAHA' credentials.' Means, who claims she now practices 'functional medicine,' currently doesn't have an active medical license.
During Friday's broadcast of the president's favorite morning talk show, Kilmeade appeared to be sending Trump a message that he shouldn't be relying on Loomer to make decisions on who should or shouldn't be serving in the administration.
Discussing Fox News anchor Bret Baier's interview with Kennedy and other HHS officials, which featured the HHS secretary dodging a question on his former running mate's claims that someone is 'controlling his decisions,' Kilmeade then brought up Trump switching up his pick for the nation's top doctor.
'I guess the surgeon general is not there yet,' he declared. 'Casey Means, she's gonna get the job, she's gonna fit right in. Dr. Nesheiwat is gonna be joining that team, and I think she is, I don't know, for some reason she was pulled from surgeon general.'
Adding that he's glad his former Fox News colleague is still 'gonna be involved,' Kilmeade then said he hoped Nesheiwat's nomination 'wasn't pulled because of Laura Loomer' as she 'seems to be taking a bow of getting a scalp and pushing somebody away from the Trump administration.'
In the end, the Trump-boosting Fox host wanted it known that he didn't believe that Loomer should be someone the administration, or the president himself, takes seriously.
'I just don't think she should be having the credibility to pick who's on staff,' he concluded.
Besides Nesheiwat, whom Loomer had targeted for urging people to get vaccinated during the coronavirus pandemic, the self-described 'investigative journalist' had also recently pushed the White House to clear house at the National Security Council following the Signalgate scandal. Shortly after she visited the Oval Office, in which she presented her research showing several staffers were 'disloyal' to Trump, a 'bloodbath' took place on the council and multiple members were fired.
While national security adviser Mike Waltz and his deputy Alex Wong were initially spared, Loomer took credit for their 'scalps' after the president removed both from their roles earlier this month. Waltz, who created the infamous Signal chat that mistakenly added The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and included sensitive war plans being shared, has since been nominated to be the United States ambassador to the United Nations.
Though Loomer crowed about Nesheiwat being withdrawn as the surgeon general nominee, she has also loudly complained about Means being named in her place.
'How is the top doctor in the U.S. supposed to give medical guidance and advice to the nation when she doesn't even have an active medical license in the state where she allegedly practiced medicine?' Loomer griped on X. 'Does Casey Means even have an active medical license in any state?? This is so embarrassing for the Trump administration.'
She added: 'It is worth noting that Casey Means doesn't have a surgical residency, and isn't a surgeon. The term Surgeon General is interesting given the fact that there is no requirement to be a Surgeon to be Surgeon General. Turns out you can be a social media influencer and become Surgeon General.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
24 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Approval Rating Surges Among Millennials
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's approval rating among millennials has surged, according to a new poll. The latest YouGov/Yahoo poll, conducted May 22-27 among 1,560 adults, shows that Trump's job approval among 30- to 44-year-olds is at 41 percent, up from 33 percent in April. Disapproval is down to 51 percent from 59 percent in April. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. Why It Matters Millennials, typically defined as born between 1981 and 1996, represent the largest bloc of the U.S. electorate. Trump reduced the Democrats' lead among voters aged 30 to 44 by 9 points between 2020 and 2024, from 12 points to 3. However, since the beginning of his second term, polls have shown signs of waning support for Trump among millennials. But the new poll shows his approval rating among this demographic may be creeping up again. For Trump, a rebound in support from voters age 29 to 44 could help stabilize his approval ratings at a time when he has faced discontent over issues such as immigration and the economy. While millennials have historically leaned Democratic, even a modest uptick in support during his second term could strengthen his political leverage and influence the landscape for the 2026 midterms and beyond. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House on May 28, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House on May 28, 2025, in Washington. Evan Vucci/AP What To Know The boost for Trump comes as more millennials now say the country is headed in the right direction. According to the poll, 32 percent are optimistic about the direction of the country, up from 26 percent. Trump's approval ratings have generally been ticking up in recent weeks after a period of decline following the introduction of his "Liberation Day" tariffs in April. The policy move rattled markets, prompting a sharp sell-off before an eventual recovery and a pause on the tariffs by the Trump administration. Since then, economic anxiety has died down. Consumer confidence saw a surprising increase in May. The Conference Board reported a rise to 98.0, much higher than both the expected 87.1 and April's 86.0 reading. It was the biggest one-month jump in more than a year. At the same time, Trump's general approval ratings are on the rebound. Newsweek's tracker currently shows that 46 percent approve of Trump's job performance, while 51 percent disapprove. Earlier this month, his approval rating stood at 44 percent, while his disapproval rate was firmly in the 50s. Other polls have shown the same trend. The latest Insider Advantage poll, conducted May 17-19 among 1,000 likely voters, gave Trump a net approval rating of +11 points, with 55 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving. That was up from a net approval rating of +2 points in early May, when 46 percent approved and 44 percent disapproved. Poll Date Approve Disapprove Rasmussen May 29 52 47 YouGov/Economist May 23-26 44 52 Morning Consult May 23-25 48 50 YouGov/Yahoo May 22-27 41 54 Quantus May 18-20 48 48 Civiqs May 17-20 47 52 American Research Group May 17-20 41 55 Insider Advantage May 17-19 55 44 Reuters/Ipsos May 16-18 42 52 Navigator Research May 15-18 44 54 However, the overarching trend in the polls is one of stability, with some showing that his ratings have not substantially changed beyond a 1- or 2-point dip—within the margin of error—or have not changed at all. That includes the most recent Navigator Research poll, conducted May 15-18 among 1,376 registered voters which showed Trump's approval rating at 44 percent, while 54 percent disapprove. That is unchanged from April. Similarly, in Quantus' latest poll, conducted May 18-20, Trump's approval rating stood at 48 percent, while 48 percent disapproved. That is unchanged from a poll conducted earlier in May, and an April poll also showed his approval rating stood at 48 percent, while his disapproval rating at 50 percent. Marquette's most recent poll also showed his approval rating unchanged from March, while an American Research Group poll, conducted March 17-20 among 1,100 adults, put Trump's approval rating at 41 percent, down just 2 points from April. His disapproval grew from 53 percent to 55 percent. And the latest Civiqs poll, conducted May 17-20 among 1,018 registered voters, put Trump's approval up by 1 point, and his disapproval down by 1 point. The same trend occurred in the latest YouGov/Economist poll, conducted May 23-26 among 1,660 adults, which put his approval at 44 percent and disapproval at 52 percent. The latest YouGov/Yahoo poll put Trump's approval down 1 point to 41 percent and his disapproval up 1 point to 54 percent. In Morning Consult's latest survey, conducted May 23-25 among 2,237 registered voters, Trump's approval rating was unchanged at 48 percent while his disapproval was up 1 point to 51 percent. What Happens Next Trump's approval rating among millennials could fluctuate in the coming weeks, depending on the outcome of key events, including critical negotiations in the Russia-Ukraine war, the evolving tariff situation and concerns about a recession.
Chicago Tribune
25 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Supreme Court lets President Donald Trump end humanitarian parole for 500,000 people from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million. The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The court has also allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case. Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people, and in office has sought to dismantle Biden administration polices that created ways for migrants to live legally in the U.S. Trump amplified false rumors that Haitian immigrants in Ohio with legal status under the humanitarian parole program were abducting and eating pets during his only debate with President Joe Biden, according to court documents. His administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration's push to end the program. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent that the effect of the court's order is 'to have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent. Jackson echoed what U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in ruling that ending the legal protections early would leave people with a stark choice: flee the country or risk losing everything. Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, found that revocations of parole can be done, but on a case-by-case basis. Her ruling came in mid-April, shortly before permits were due to be canceled. An appeals court refused to lift her order. The Supreme Court's order is not a final ruling, but it means the protections will not be in place while the case proceeds. It now returns to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The Justice Department argues that the protections were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference. The administration says Biden granted the parole en masse, and the law doesn't require ending it on an individual basis. Taking on each case individually would be a 'gargantuan task,' and slow the government's efforts to press for their removal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued. Biden used humanitarian parole more than any other president, employing a special presidential authority in effect since 1952. Beneficiaries included the 532,000 people who have come to the United States with financial sponsors since late 2022, leaving home countries fraught with 'instability, dangers and deprivations,' as attorneys for the migrants said. They had to fly to the U.S. at their own expense and have a financial sponsor to qualify for the designation, which lasts for two years. The Trump administration's decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said. They called the Trump administration's moves 'the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.' The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration. The court has sided against Trump in other cases, including slowing his efforts to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke 'parole' status for migrants
By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday let President Donald Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States, bolstering the Republican president's drive to step up deportations. The court put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while the case plays out in lower courts. As with many of the court's orders issued in an emergency fashion, the decision was unsigned and gave no reasoning. Two of the court's three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, publicly dissented. The court botched its assessment of whether the administration was entitled to freeze Talwani's decision pending the litigation, Jackson wrote in an accompanying opinion. The outcome, Jackson wrote, "undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," allowing recipients to live and work in the United States. Biden, a Democrat, used parole as part of his administration's approach by to deter illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexican border. Trump called for ending humanitarian parole programs in an executive order signed on January 20, his first day back in office. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently moved to terminate them in March, cutting short the two-year parole grants. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called "expedited removal." The case is one of many that Trump's administration has brought in an emergency fashion to the nation's highest judicial body seeking to undo decisions by judges impeding his sweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants. The Supreme Court on May 19 also let Trump end a deportation protection called temporary protected status that had been granted under Biden to about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, while that legal dispute plays out. In a bid to reduce illegal border crossings, Biden starting in 2022 allowed Venezuelans who entered the United States by air to request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a U.S. financial sponsor. Biden expanded that process to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023 as his administration grappled with high levels of illegal immigration from those nationalities. The plaintiffs, a group of migrants granted parole and Americans who serve as their sponsors, sued administration officials claiming the administration violated federal law governing the actions of government agencies. Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the program's blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put the judge's decision on hold. In its filing, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court that Talwani's order had upended "critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry," effectively "undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election" that returned Trump to the presidency. The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court they would face grave harm if their parole is cut short given that the administration has indefinitely suspended processing their pending applications for asylum and other immigration relief. They said they would be separated from their families and immediately subject to expedited deportation "to the same despotic and unstable countries from which they fled, where many will face serious risks of danger, persecution and even death."
