Catégorie oBox : BuzzNews

Donald Trump returned to controversy just hours after deleting a widely criticized Truth Social post, choosing instead to double down with a new message featuring religious imagery. The former president had initially removed an AI-generated image depicting himself as a Jesus-like figure healing a sick man after facing intense backlash online. However, he quickly re-engaged with the theme, reposting another image showing himself embraced by Jesus. In the accompanying message, Trump signaled awareness of the reaction, writing: «The Radical Left Lunatics might not like this», before continuing with a tone that suggested defiance in the face of criticism.

The reposted image was paired with a longer caption that amplified the religious framing and political messaging. The text read: «I was never a very religious man… but doesn’t it seem, with all these satanic, demonic, child sacrificing monsters being exposed… that God might be playing his Trump card!» Trump followed the message with a direct comment of his own, writing: «The Radical Left Lunatics might not like this, but I think it is quite nice!!! President DJT». The post immediately reignited debate across social media platforms, drawing reactions from both critics and supporters.

«It’s supposed to be me as a doctor making people better. And I do make people better. I make people a lot better.»

-U.S. President, Donald Trump

The renewed controversy comes after the first image triggered a broad and unusually unified backlash over the weekend. The original AI-generated post depicted Trump as a Christ-like figure performing a healing miracle, with dramatic religious symbolism that many found inappropriate or offensive. Critics from across the political spectrum questioned the use of such imagery, while some commentators argued that the post blurred the line between political messaging and religious iconography. The reaction was particularly notable for extending into Trump’s own political base, where discomfort with the imagery became visible.

Among those publicly criticizing Trump was Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who reacted strongly to the initial post. Writing on X, she said: «On Orthodox Easter, President Trump attacked the Pope because the Pope is rightly against Trump’s war in Iran and then he posted this picture of himself as if he is replacing Jesus. This comes after last week’s post of his evil tirade on Easter and then threatening to kill an entire civilization. I completely denounce this and I’m praying against it!!!» Her comments reflected a rare and direct break from Trump by a figure closely associated with his political movement.

The backlash also included reactions from conservative commentators and religious observers, some of whom described the imagery as inappropriate given its timing and symbolism. Reports indicated that even some supporters expressed concern, with criticism focusing on the perceived irreverence of portraying a political leader in a religious role. The intensity of the response led to the removal of the initial post, though Trump’s decision to quickly share a second image suggested a willingness to maintain his messaging despite the controversy.

«The Radical Left Lunatics might not like this, but I think it is quite nice!!! President DJT.»

-U.S. President, Donald Trump on Truth Social

Trump has not issued a formal apology for either post, and his latest message indicates that he views the backlash as politically motivated. When questioned by reporters about the initial image, he rejected the interpretation that it depicted him as a religious figure, stating: «It’s supposed to be me as a doctor making people better. And I do make people better. I make people a lot better.» The explanation was widely mocked online, with users sharing altered images portraying doctors in similar religious-style scenes, echoing the original AI-generated visual. By framing critics as part of the «Radical Left», Trump has positioned the controversy within a broader narrative of opposition and cultural conflict, as reactions continue to spread across social media.

Just days after Melania Trump made a rare and forceful public statement denying any connection to Jeffrey Epstein, newly resurfaced FBI documents are drawing renewed attention to the origins of her relationship with Donald Trump. In her recent remarks, the First Lady insisted she had no ties to the disgraced financier, who had once been socially close to her husband. However, an FBI interview summary report from 2019 now circulating in media coverage appears to introduce a conflicting account, raising questions about how the couple first met and whether Epstein played any role in that introduction.

The document in question is part of a broader FBI summary written by a special agent. It details a lengthy interview with a woman from Poland, whose name was redacted, who claimed to have worked for Epstein in the mid-2000s. According to the report, the woman had traveled to the United States as a model in the early 2000s and later became part of Epstein’s orbit. The testimony includes numerous references to Epstein’s network and activities, involving figures such as Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein assistant Leslie Groff, as well as well-known individuals including David Copperfield, Alan Dershowitz and Larry Summers.

«I [have] never been friends with Epstein, I am not Epstein’s victim. Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump.»

-U.S. First Lady, Melania Trump

Within that extensive testimony, a specific claim has drawn particular attention in light of Melania Trump’s recent public comments. The FBI summary notes that the woman «left modeling when she took a job offered by JEFFREY EPSTEIN.» It further states that she «started working for EPSTEIN in approximately 2005 and left in early 2006. traveled on trips with EPSTEIN to help as his assistant.» The document outlines how Epstein’s network allegedly interacted with modeling agencies, including references to efforts involving Paolo Zampolli and Elite Models, suggesting overlapping connections between modeling, business and Epstein’s broader social circle.

The witness also described how some individuals were connected through modeling channels linked to Epstein’s associates. According to the FBI summary, she stated that some girls had been «Put in contact with an agent named PAOLO ZEMPOLI who worked with « ID Models ». It was organized for to go to New York to model. ZEMPOLI was trying to buy Elite Models with EPSTEIN.» The statement reflects the extent to which Epstein’s network intersected with the modeling industry during that period, an environment in which Melania Trump had also been active before meeting Donald Trump.

It is within this broader narrative that the most widely cited line appears. The document states: «EPSTEIN introduced MELANIA TRUMP to DONALD TRUMP.» The claim, attributed to the witness in the FBI interview, stands in contrast to the version of events that has long been publicly presented. Importantly, the statement is not presented as a confirmed fact by investigators but rather as part of a witness account recorded in an FBI summary, highlighting the need for careful interpretation of the document’s contents and context.

«EPSTEIN introduced MELANIA TRUMP to DONALD TRUMP.»

-FBI report based on a statement from a redacted female witness

Melania Trump has firmly rejected any suggestion that Epstein played a role in her personal life or her relationship with Donald Trump. In her recent public statement, she said: «The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today.» She also emphasized: «Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time, since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach.» She added: «I [have] never been friends with Epstein, I am not Epstein’s victim. Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump.» Her remarks directly contradict the claim contained in the FBI document, underscoring the ongoing dispute over the narrative surrounding her past connections.

Comments made by Vice President JD Vance during a recent interview on Fox News with Bret Baier have quickly drawn attention, as they came at a particularly sensitive moment in the escalating conflict with Iran. Speaking after weeks of rising tensions and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz following U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets, Vance accused Tehran of engaging in «economic terrorism».

His remarks, however, triggered strong reactions due to their timing, as the United States had just announced its own plans to impose a blockade on Iranian shipping, raising questions about the parallel between Washington’s actions and those it condemns.

During the interview, Vance directly addressed Iran’s strategy in the region, framing it as a deliberate attempt to weaponize global trade routes.

He stated: «As the president of the United States showed, two can play at that game.»

He continued by warning that the United States would respond in kind if Iran persisted, saying:

«And if the Iranians are going to try to engage in economic terrorism, we’re going to abide by a simple principle that no Iranian ships are getting out either.» The remarks made clear that Washington is prepared to escalate maritime pressure, using similar tactics to counter Iranian actions in the Strait of Hormuz.

Vance further acknowledged the strategic importance of the move for Tehran, emphasizing the economic stakes involved. He added:

«We know that’s a big deal to them.» The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, through which a significant portion of global oil supply passes. Any disruption to traffic in the region has immediate implications for international markets, energy prices and economic stability. By signaling that the United States is willing to restrict Iranian maritime access, Vance underscored the administration’s readiness to apply economic pressure through control of key shipping lanes.

«As the president of the United States showed, two can play at that game.»

-U.S. Vice president, JD Vance

The comments have sparked debate among analysts and policymakers, particularly over the apparent contradiction between condemning Iran’s actions while implementing similar measures. Critics argue that labeling Iran’s strategy as «economic terrorism» while pursuing a blockade risks undermining the credibility of the U.S. position. Supporters of the administration, however, maintain that the response is justified as a deterrent measure designed to prevent further escalation and protect international trade routes. The exchange highlights the increasingly blurred line between defensive and offensive economic strategies in modern geopolitical conflicts.

«And if the Iranians are going to try to engage in economic terrorism, we’re going to abide by a simple principle that no Iranian ships are getting out either.»

-U.S. Vice president, JD Vance

The escalation comes amid growing concerns about the broader economic impact of the conflict, with international institutions warning of potential global consequences if tensions continue. Reports have indicated that prolonged disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, combined with rising energy prices, could slow global growth and fuel inflation. Economists warn that sustained instability in the region could push the world closer to a recession, particularly if supply chains and financial markets continue to absorb repeated shocks linked to the conflict.

The situation intensified further after Donald Trump confirmed the U.S. blockade in a Truth Social post, writing: «The United States to Blockade Ships Entering or Exiting Iranian Ports on April 13 at 10:00 A.M. ET. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DJT». The announcement formalized Washington’s shift toward direct maritime pressure, reinforcing Vance’s earlier comments. As tensions continue to rise and both sides adopt increasingly assertive positions, the risk of further escalation remains high, with global economic stability hanging in the balance.