Trump White House rolls out social media account to hold 'fake news accountable'
"Welcome to the official Rapid Response account of the Trump 47 White House. We will be supporting President Donald J. Trump's America First agenda and holding the Fake News accountable for their lies. Let's Make America Great Again!" the newly-formed X account, Rapid Response 47, posted in its first message.
President Donald Trump's first administration included labeling certain news outlets as "fake news" for reporting what the president claimed was biased content intended to undermine his leadership. Trump continued his fiery relationship with media outlets across his 2024 campaign.
A senior GOP strategist celebrated that the new account "is bad news for the fake news media."
"President Trump won the 2024 election in part due to the irreverent and swift nature of their pushback against fake narratives and amplification of the facts," the strategist said. "A Trump Rapid Response account is bad news for the fake news media and good news for the American people."
Trump frequently has sparred with reporters over promoting what he says is "fake news," including earlier in January when the 47th president slammed the Washington Post for claiming his tariff policy would be "pared down." He hit back on his Truth Social platform that the outlet was pushing "fake news."
Trump's first administration also had a Rapid Response X account, but the account focused on breaking news and updates rather than spotlighting what the administration views as "lies" promoted by the media.
The new social media account comes just one week after Trump was sworn in as the nation's 47th president.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid. Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money. In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid. After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year. The appeal court's majority partially vacated Ali's order. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress' spending powers. 'The parties also dispute the scope of the district court's remedy but we need not resolve it ... because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,' Henderson wrote. Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held 'in no uncertain terms' that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons. 'Yet that is what the majority enables today,' Pan wrote. 'The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.' The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals. Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says search for Powell replacement 'down to 3 or 4' after reportedly widening to 11
Just hours after a report said the Trump administration was considering a pool of up to 11 candidates to replace Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, President Trump said the number of people under consideration for the role is actually much smaller. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Trump said he's "down to three or four names" regarding a possible Powell replacement. Trump also said Wednesday that he may name Powell's replacement "a little bit early." Powell's term is set to expire in May 2026. These comments are in-line with what the president said last week in an interview. Earlier this week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who is leading the search and interview process for the next Fed chair, said the administration is casting a "very wide net" for candidates. "The president has a very open mind," Bessent told the Fox Business Network on Tuesday. A report from CNBC on Wednesday morning citing two administration officials said Trump is now weighing up to 11 candidates to replace Powell, including Jefferies chief market strategist David Zervos and BlackRock chief investment officer for global fixed income Rick Rieder. BlackRock had no comment on the report. Read more: How the Fed rate decision affects your bank accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments Following CNBC's report earlier on Wednesday, White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Yahoo Finance, "Unless it comes from President Trump himself, however, any discussion about personnel decisions should be regarded as pure speculation." Last week, President Trump suggested that both former Fed governor Kevin Warsh and National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett were at the top of the list. When asked about Fed governor Chris Waller, Trump didn't deny that Waller was among the four possible replacements for Powell. Former St. Louis Fed president Jim Bullard, Fed governor Michelle Bowman, Fed vice chair Philip Jefferson, Dallas Fed president Lorie Logan, and former Bush administration official Marc Summerlin, and former Fed governor Larry Lindsey were all also considered to be in the running. Meanwhile, the president nominated Stephen Miran, current chair of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors last week to replace Fed governor Adriana Kugler, who stepped down on Aug. 8. If confirmed by the Senate, Miran's term will run until Jan. 31, 2026. Bessent told Fox Business that Miran's appointment will "change the composition of the Fed" and suggested Miran could be renominated to a full term on the Fed board. He also said that the administration will have two seats on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to fill, assuming that when Powell's term as Fed chair expires next May, he will also step down from his position on the Board of Governors, which does not end until January 2028. Powell has not said what he plans to do. These changes at the central bank come as markets now expect the Fed to cut interest rates at its September meeting after electing to keep rates unchanged last month. Fed governors Waller and Bowman both voted in favor of a rate cut and later expanded on their views in statements issued in early August. San Francisco Fed president Mary Daly and Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari, neither of whom are voting members of the FOMC in 2025, have also said since the Fed's July 31 announcement that the case for rate cuts has strengthened. Powell's next major public appearance is expected on Aug. 22 at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
