Trump Claimed $1.98 Gas—But the Receipts Don’t Add Up
When former President Donald Trump stepped up to the podium and said gas had hit $1.98 in a couple of states, the internet exploded. Supporters cheered.
Critics questioned. Most of all, Americans wanted to know if this was actually true.
Let’s follow the facts and find out.
He Said It Loud and Clear: “Gas Hit $1.98”
During a press conference at the White House, Trump responded to a question about rising costs with a bold statement:
“You have gasoline that hit $1.98 yesterday in a couple of states.”
From – politico.com
That quote didn’t just make headlines—it triggered fact-checkers, economists, and millions of drivers to check their local pumps. Could gas really be that low?
National and State Averages Tell a Different Story
Even the cheapest states—Mississippi and Tennessee—reported averages near $2.70. Nowhere in the U.S. came close to $1.98, even in the most rural or competitive markets.
So, where did that number come from?
GasBuddy’s Data Confirms the Truth
To make sure nothing slipped through the cracks, researchers turned to GasBuddy, a service that tracks real-time prices at thousands of stations.
From – pditechnologies.com
Their results? Zero stations nationwide offered gas under $2.00 per gallon that day.
In short, Trump’s $1.98 figure wasn’t supported by any public data or consumer reports.
Gas Did Hit $1.98—But That Was Years Ago
Gas has dropped to $1.98 before—but not recently. Here’s when:
And tariffs—paid by importers, not foreign countries—don’t generate the daily numbers he suggested.
The Bottom Line: Prices Are Down, But Not That Far Down
It’s true—gas prices are lower than they were in mid-2022, when inflation peaked. But they’re not that low. And certainly not at $1.98.
As election season heats up, Americans deserve honest answers about their wallets. So before you believe the pump fantasy, check the facts—and maybe your local gas station, too.
Kiwi Boutique looks nice at first, it shows big discounts, clean design, and eye-catching deals like “Buy 1 Get 1 Free.” But with so many fake stores online, it’s smart to stop and ask: Is Kiwi Boutique safe?
We checked out the website, the deals, and what people are saying to help you decide if it’s worth your money.
What is Kiwi Boutique?
Kiwi Boutique is an online store that sells women’s shoes. It focuses mostly on orthopedic sandals and boots, claiming to offer both comfort and style.
The store shows big discounts—some even up to 80% off. It sells items like cowboy boots, comfy wedges, breathable sandals, and dressy heels. The website says it’s a luxury brand and tells people to shop quickly because it’s “closing soon.”
From – kiwiboutique.nz
It also says the shoes are made with great care and long-lasting quality.
Is Kiwi Boutique Legit?
At first glance, Kiwi Boutique looks like a real and stylish store. But when we looked closer, we found some problems.
The store says it’s based in Wanaka, New Zealand, but there’s no proof of a real store there. It also doesn’t link to any social media pages. That’s strange because most real brands post updates and connect with customers online.
From – kiwiboutique.nz
The store only offers email for customer service, with no phone number or chat. That can be a problem if your order is late or you want to return something.
Also, we couldn’t find real customer reviews on popular websites like Trustpilot or Sitejabber. This makes it hard to know what people really think.
The product photos look super polished and might be stock images, which you often see on cheap dropshipping websites. This means the shoes you get may not look like the ones on the site.
Even the refund and shipping info are unclear. The store doesn’t say when or how you can return items, and it doesn’t show any sizing guides or real customer photos.
These missing details make the website feel more like a fancy setup than a trusted business.
It keeps running a “closing sale,” which makes us wonder if that sale is even real. Stores that always say they’re closing—while still pushing big deals and free gifts—often use this trick to make people buy fast.
From – kiwiboutique.nz
Our Review
After looking at Kiwi Boutique, we think it has more warning signs than good ones. The site uses tricks we often see with sketchy online stores—huge discounts, “final sale” pressure, and offers that sound too good to be true.
Even though it talks about comfort and style, it doesn’t show real customer reviews, offer clear return info, or prove it’s a real company.
If you want to buy shoes online, be careful with this store. Until we see honest reviews and better proof that Kiwi Boutique is real, it’s better to shop somewhere else.
Try websites that have good reviews and strong customer support, especially if you’re looking for shoes that are both comfy and built to last.
Trump Imposes Sweeping Tariffs to Boost US Manufacturing, Sparking Inflation Fears and Trade Wars
President Donald Trump just dropped a bombshell on global trade. His administration has announced sweeping tariffs that will reshape how goods move across borders—and how much you pay at the store.
With a 34% tax on Chinese imports, 20% on European goods, and a 10% baseline tax on all imports, the move aims to boost U.S. manufacturing. But at what cost? Consumers, businesses, and international leaders are bracing for impact.
Walk into your favorite store in a few months, and you may notice something shocking: everything costs more.
The price of cars, electronics, clothing, and even household essentials will climb as importers pass these new costs onto consumers.
If you’re in the market for a new phone or a washing machine, now might be the time to buy before prices surge.
Trump argues that foreign countries have been taking advantage of America for decades, selling more goods here than they buy from us.
His administration believes these tariffs will bring factory jobs back and generate billions in revenue.
“It’s time we put America first,” Trump declared at a recent rally. But while some manufacturing sectors could benefit, economists warn that tariffs often backfire, triggering inflation and economic slowdowns.
From apnews.com
If you live in the U.S., expect immediate changes:
Rising prices on everything from groceries to electronics.
Potential job losses in businesses that rely on foreign parts and materials.
Stock market turbulence, as investors react to trade uncertainties.
Trump’s tariff announcement didn’t go unnoticed. Global leaders are already planning countermeasures:
China called the tariffs “economic warfare” and may hit back with its own restrictions.
The European Union is preparing tariffs on American whiskey, motorcycles, and jeans.
Canada is expected to impose tariffs on U.S. goods, further straining relations with a key ally.
Corporate America isn’t thrilled either, with major CEOs warning that production costs will rise and consumer spending will drop.
The tariffs take effect on April 9, and experts predict escalating retaliation. The U.S. economy, which has been thriving in recent years, could face headwinds as businesses struggle with higher costs and shifting supply chains.
Some lawmakers—including Republicans—have voiced concerns, fearing a backlash from both Wall Street and Main Street.
Love him or hate him, Trump’s tariffs will leave a lasting mark. Whether they strengthen the U.S. economy or trigger a costly trade war remains to be seen.
What’s certain is that your next trip to the store or online checkout might come with a bigger price tag. Stay informed, and brace for changes in the months ahead.
J.D. Vance Becomes the Most Disliked New Vice President in History
J.D. Vance is fighting an uphill battle in public opinion. His approval ratings are slipping, and the numbers paint a troubling picture.
Compared to past vice presidents, Vance is starting on shaky ground—raising doubts about his future in Republican politics. With the 2028 election on the horizon, can he turn things around?
Vice presidents usually begin with at least moderate goodwill, but Vance’s numbers tell a different story:
March 2025 Favorability: 42.4% favorable vs. 48.0% unfavorable.
Trailing Kamala Harris: Despite criticisms, Harris maintained higher approval ratings at this stage.
Echoing Dan Quayle’s Struggles: Quayle’s low ratings kept him from securing his party’s nomination.
Falling Behind Mike Pence: Even amid controversy, Pence never hit such early-term lows.
Vance’s numbers are troubling. If history is any guide, vice presidents with weak public approval rarely succeed in securing the presidency.
Donald Trump still dominates the Republican Party, but his stance on Vance remains unclear.
Trump sidestepped questions about supporting Vance in 2028. His comments suggested a preference for a Trump family member instead.
Without Trump’s backing, Vance must carve out his own political identity.
Trump’s lukewarm response leaves Vance vulnerable. Without a solid base of support, his chances in 2028 could dwindle fast.
Several key factors contribute to his declining popularity:
Overly Aggressive Rhetoric: While mirroring Trump’s combativeness, Vance lacks the outsider appeal that made Trump successful.
No Defining Achievements: Unlike Trump, who had a business empire, Vance lacks a strong private-sector reputation.
Voter Fatigue with Negativity: Polls suggest growing frustration with divisive politics.
Vance’s challenge is clear: He needs a new approach, or he risks alienating voters further.
If Vance hopes to be a serious contender in 2028, he must act now. His survival depends on:
A more unifying tone could help expand his appeal. If Trump remains noncommittal, Vance must rally his own supporters. Legislative and policy wins could shift public perception in his favor.
Vance’s early struggles signal a steep climb ahead. Without a boost in public opinion or Trump’s full support, his 2028 prospects remain bleak.
The next few years will decide whether he reshapes his image or follows the path of past vice presidents who never reached the White House.
Trump’s Push to Dismantle the Department of Education: What It Means for America’s Schools
Donald Trump has reignited a decades-old political battle by signing an executive order to begin dismantling the U.S. Department of Education.
This move aligns with conservative calls for smaller federal government control, but it also raises concerns about the future of public education, funding, and equal access to resources.
Trump’s Executive Order Sparks a Major Education Shake-Up
On March 20, 2025, Trump signed an order directing officials to begin scaling back the Department of Education.
At the White House ceremony, he declared that education decisions should belong to states and local communities, not Washington bureaucrats.
From – newsnationnow.com
As cameras rolled, young students sat at desks, playfully signing their own “executive orders,” turning a political decision into a photo-op.
Trump blamed the federal agency for failing American students.
He pointed to declining test scores in math and reading as evidence that government oversight had done more harm than good. “We’ve spent billions, and what do we have to show for it?” he asked the crowd.
Can Trump Actually Shut Down the Department of Education?
Trump’s executive order begins the process, but shutting down an entire federal agency requires congressional approval.
However, he can weaken its influence by cutting funding, eliminating positions, and shifting responsibilities to state governments.
Even if Congress blocks him, Trump can still shrink the department’s role through executive actions. That means fewer federal grants, fewer regulations, and less oversight in education policies nationwide.
What’s at Risk? Federal Programs That Could Disappear
If Trump succeeds, several key federal education programs could see major changes—or disappear entirely:
Special Education Funding – Schools rely on federal grants to support students with disabilities. Without this funding, states would have to fill the gap.
Civil Rights Protections – The department investigates cases of discrimination in schools, ensuring students are treated fairly. Without federal oversight, enforcement may vary from state to state.
Support for Struggling Public Schools – Federal funding helps schools in low-income areas improve resources and teacher quality. If those funds disappear, some schools could suffer drastic budget cuts.
Why Critics Say This Move Could Harm Students
Education advocates warn that dismantling the Department of Education could widen educational inequality.
Without federal oversight, wealthier states could invest more in their schools, while poorer states might struggle to maintain basic resources.
Democratic lawmakers argue that Trump is playing politics with students’ futures.
She warned that without federal protections, vulnerable students could lose access to essential services.
Teachers’ unions and civil rights groups have also spoken out, saying that state-run education systems without federal guidelines could lead to major disparities in the quality of schooling.
What’s Next? The Battle Over Federal Education Control Continues
Trump says he won’t stop until the Department of Education is completely dismantled.
However, even if Congress blocks him, his administration can still roll back funding and programs through executive actions.
This move reignites a long-standing debate: Should education be left entirely to the states, or does the federal government play a crucial role in ensuring equal access to quality education?
Judge Blocks Musk’s DOGE Team from Accessing Social Security Data
A federal judge has slammed the brakes on Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team, blocking them from accessing sensitive personal data from the Social Security Administration (SSA).
The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander, called DOGE’s sweeping data requests an unjustified “fishing expedition.”
The court ruled against DOGE’s access, citing the lack of a valid reason for retrieving vast amounts of personally identifiable information (PII).
Judge Hollander’s order specifically barred SSA officials—including Acting Commissioner Leland Dudek and Chief Information Officer Michael Russo—from handing over any data to DOGE.
The type of PII at stake includes:
Social Security numbers
Medical records
Employer and employee payment details
Addresses and tax records
In a strong move to protect privacy, the judge also ordered DOGE to delete any non-anonymized data collected since January 20.
A coalition of unions and retiree groups challenged DOGE’s actions in court, including:
The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
The Alliance for Retired Americans
The American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, praised the ruling, stating, “Seniors must be able to trust the Social Security Administration to protect their personal information.”
The White House, however, saw it differently. Principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields dismissed the ruling, branding Judge Hollander a “radical leftist” and accusing her of working to “sabotage” President Trump’s agenda.
Judge Hollander criticized DOGE’s secrecy and lack of transparency. Even DOGE’s own affiliates remained anonymous, supposedly for protection against harassment.
Yet, the judge pointed out the hypocrisy: “The defense does not appear to share a privacy concern for the millions of Americans whose SSA records were made available.”
She also referenced previous incidents where breaches of Social Security data led to severe privacy violations.
One such case involved the unredacted release of records connected to former congressional staffers and individuals tied to JFK assassination documents.
While the ruling limits DOGE’s access, it does not completely shut down its operations. The team can still retrieve redacted data—if its members pass background checks and complete privacy training.
However, Judge Hollander made it clear that security concerns must outweigh fraud detection efforts.
“Rooting out fraud is important,” she wrote, “but the government cannot flout the law to do so.”
The Trump administration insists that DOGE is on a mission to eliminate waste in government programs, including Social Security, which Musk has labeled a “Ponzi scheme.”
The Justice Department argues that DOGE’s access is in line with standard SSA practices. However, critics say the agency’s demands far exceed normal oversight.
This is just one of nearly two dozen lawsuits challenging DOGE’s expanding government reach. A separate ruling recently found DOGE’s restructuring of the U.S. Agency for International Development likely unconstitutional.
For now, Judge Hollander’s decision has halted DOGE’s push for Social Security data—at least until the next courtroom showdown.
But Trump doesn’t need Congress to weaken the department.
By slashing its budget, limiting its operations, and cutting staff, his administration can effectively render it powerless, similar to how his first term saw major reductions in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
What’s at Risk If the Department Closes?
The Department of Education plays a crucial role in funding schools, supporting students with disabilities, and protecting civil rights in education.
If Trump succeeds in shutting it down, several key programs could be impacted:
K-12 school funding—especially for low-income students.
Special education programs that help students with disabilities.
Federal student loan protections, which prevent borrowers from falling into unmanageable debt.
Civil rights enforcement to ensure schools comply with anti-discrimination laws.
Critics warn that eliminating the department could lead to larger class sizes, reduced school funding, and weakened protections for students.
A Nation Divided: Reactions to Trump’s Plan
Trump’s executive order has sparked fierce debate across the political spectrum.
Democratic lawmakers and state attorneys general have already filed lawsuits challenging Trump’s authority to close the department.
Conservative supporters praise the decision, saying it will eliminate federal overreach and allow states to craft education policies tailored to their needs.
What Happens Next?
Trump’s order is just the opening move in what promises to be a long political and legal battle.
The fate of the Department of Education now hinges on Congress, the courts, and the American public.
This unprecedented decision is part of a larger push to enforce new federal standards on gender participation in athletics.
UPenn now faces a significant financial setback as the funding freeze directly impacts crucial research and academic programs.
The funds, sourced from the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services, account for nearly 20% of UPenn’s total federal support from last year.
This move isn’t just about money—it’s a direct response to policies that have fueled a national debate.
The administration’s stance echoes growing concerns over fairness in women’s sports, a topic that has ignited passionate arguments from both sides of the aisle.
At the heart of this decision is Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer who transitioned from competing in men’s swimming to women’s.
In 2022, Thomas won a national title, igniting a firestorm of controversy over the fairness of transgender athletes competing against cisgender women.
While the NCAA has since revised its guidelines, requiring transgender athletes to meet specific hormone levels and eligibility criteria, UPenn has continued to support transgender inclusion.
This has placed the university in direct conflict with new federal directives aimed at redefining gender eligibility in competitive sports.
From newsweek.com
The funding freeze isn’t just an isolated case—it’s a warning shot.
The Department of Education has launched an investigation into whether UPenn is violating Title IX policies.
Universities with similar policies could soon face similar financial penalties.
LGBTQ+ advocacy groups are preparing legal challenges, arguing that these actions infringe on transgender rights and equal access to education.
UPenn has wasted no time in responding to the funding freeze. A spokesperson for the university stated:
Penn has always adhered to NCAA and Ivy League regulations regarding athlete participation. We remain in full compliance with all applicable policies and will continue to advocate for inclusivity in sports.
Despite this defense, the pressure is mounting, and UPenn now faces not just a financial crisis but a pivotal moment in the national conversation about gender and athletics.
This funding freeze could be just the beginning of a broader crackdown on universities that allow transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports.
Supporters argue it protects fairness in female athletics, while opponents see it as a direct attack on transgender rights.
As lawsuits and political battles unfold, this issue is far from settled. With the 2024 election on the horizon, the future of transgender participation in sports remains one of the most polarizing debates in America today.
Trump Freezes $175M in UPenn Funding Over Transgender Athlete Policy
The Trump administration has cut off $175 million in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), citing its transgender athlete policy as the reason.
This order bars biological males from competing in female sports categories, even if they identify as transgender.
Trump’s administration argues that allowing trans women (biological males) in women’s sports undermines fair competition and violates Title IX, a federal law designed to ensure equal opportunities for female athletes.
From – bbc.com
UPenn has been at the center of this debate since Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer, dominated women’s NCAA competitions.
Her victories ignited a nationwide debate on whether transgender athletes have an unfair biological advantage.
Where Did the $175 Million Come From?
The funding freeze targets two major sources of UPenn’s federal funding:
Department of Defense (DOD) Grants: UPenn receives millions in defense contracts for research in cybersecurity, medicine, and engineering.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Funding: This money supports medical research, scholarships, and public health programs at UPenn.
UPenn relies heavily on federal funds, receiving around $1 billion annually from government sources. Losing $175 million could have serious consequences:
Academic Research Disruptions: Defense and medical research programs may lose crucial funding.
Scholarship Cuts: Students receiving federal grants could face uncertainty.
Potential Legal Battles: UPenn may challenge the funding freeze in court, arguing that transgender athletes have legal protections under anti-discrimination laws.
Could Other Universities Be Next?
Trump has made it clear that UPenn won’t be the only target. The Department of Education has launched investigations into other institutions, including:
San Jose State University
Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association
Both schools allow transgender women to compete in women’s sports, and they could face similar funding cuts under Trump’s new policy.
The Divided Opinions on Transgender Athletes
This decision has deepened the divide in the ongoing debate:
Supporters say Trump’s action protects fair competition for female athletes. Critics argue it’s an attack on transgender rights and could violate federal anti-discrimination laws.
From – nytimes.com
As lawsuits mount and universities push back, the legal and political battle over transgender athlete policies is far from over.
What Happens Next?
UPenn has yet to announce its next steps, but legal experts predict court battles over Title IX and federal funding regulations.
Trump’s administration, however, shows no signs of backing down. With more universities under scrutiny, this funding freeze could be the start of a nationwide crackdown on transgender athlete policies.
It started with a fiery post on Trump’s social media platform. He called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who had ruled against his administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members.
Trump labeled Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic” and insisted that judges who opposed his policies should be removed. His demand was not just about one ruling—it was a broader attack on judicial oversight, a move that alarmed many in the legal community.
Roberts, typically reserved in public political discourse, did not let Trump’s remarks go unanswered. In a short but powerful statement, he reinforced the fundamental principle of judicial independence:
For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.
These words carried an unmistakable message: Judges do not serve at the pleasure of any president. Their role is to interpret the law, not to cater to political whims.
Roberts’ rebuke is more than just a defense of one judge—it’s a stand for the integrity of the entire judicial system.
The U.S. Constitution grants judges lifetime appointments precisely to shield them from political influence. Impeachment is reserved for misconduct, not for decisions that displease those in power.
This is not the first time Trump has attacked the judiciary. Throughout his political career, he has repeatedly lashed out at judges who ruled against him.
His latest demand for impeachment continues this trend, raising concerns about his willingness to undermine judicial independence.
Trump, never one to back down, dismissed Roberts’ remarks during a Fox News interview. He doubled down, claiming that “many people” supported his call to remove Boasberg.
He suggested that the ruling was politically motivated, despite its firm grounding in legal precedent.
When asked whether he would defy a court order, Trump responded:
No, you can’t do that. However, we have bad judges. We have very bad judges, and these are judges that shouldn’t be allowed.
His comments further fueled the controversy, with legal experts warning that such rhetoric erodes public trust in the judiciary.
The battle between Trump and the courts is far from over. The Supreme Court may eventually weigh in on his administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act and other legal challenges tied to his immigration policies.
As the 2024 election looms, Trump’s attacks on the judiciary are likely to intensify, testing the resilience of America’s legal system.
For now, Roberts’ rare public statement stands as a critical reminder: The judiciary is meant to function independently, even under the weight of political pressure.
Whether Trump or his supporters accept that reality is another question entirely.
