A Firing Squad and a Livestream

Karoline Leavitt, formerly President Donald Trump’s press secretary, is joining Fox News as an on-air contributor starting November 1. Her new role will involve providing commentary across the Fox News lineup and its media platforms. Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott stated that Leavitt's "firsthand experience in the White House and on the presidential campaign trail gives her a distinct understanding of today's political landscape." Leavitt, 29, expressed her eagerness to bring her "unique perspective, energy, and candor" to the network's viewers.

Following her departure from the administration, Leavitt rejoined the Trump-affiliated super PAC MAGA Inc. and spoke at the Republican Midterm Convention in early September. This move to Fox News marks her first direct professional engagement with a major news organization. Fox News has agreed to build a studio in Leavitt's New Hampshire home for her new role.

The appointment follows President Trump’s selection of Katie Zacharia as his new White House Press Secretary on Friday, replacing Leavitt. Zacharia, a conservative commentator and lawyer, previously served as a senior communications adviser for Trump Media & Technology Group. The news of Zacharia's appointment has drawn attention due to suspicious betting activity on prediction market Kalshi, where traders placed bets on her selection shortly before it was announced. Zacharia was widely considered to have a low chance of securing the position.

While Leavitt's transition to a media role is a common path for former political appointees, some reporting has highlighted a perceived inconsistency. This perspective suggests a potential hypocrisy in her new work-from-home setup.

Leavitt's supporters, including President Trump, view her as a trusted aide and an influential voice within the Republican Party. Her new role at Fox News will allow her to continue engaging with political discourse. Given the established practice of former administration officials joining media outlets, Leavitt's move is not unexpected. Her ability to articulate her perspective will be tested by the network's audience and the broader political commentary landscape.

President Donald Trump’s suggestion at a Nebraska rally that Iran could “take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego” and that this was “a very small price to pay” has drawn predictable outrage from California leaders. Governor Gavin Newsom called the remarks “deranged and dangerous,” while Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass stated they were threats and an attempt to encourage attacks. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria declared the city “not collateral damage.” These reactions are understandable; no American city should be treated as expendable.

The White House, however, has defended Trump’s comments, with Communications Director Steven Cheung stating on X that the media’s reaction was “not rooted in reality.” Cheung clarified that Trump was “clearly stating US cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn't been stopped.” This interpretation suggests Trump was illustrating a hypothetical consequence of a nuclear Iran, not advocating for such an attack. CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale also provided a fuller transcript, suggesting Trump was taken out of context and was saying the opposite of what critics claimed. Trump himself later attempted to clarify at a rally in San Antonio, Texas, reiterating that Iran could hit the cities on the way but assuring the crowd such an attack would not occur.

While the immediate shock value of Trump’s phrasing is undeniable, the White House’s defense, supported by a closer look at the transcript, points to a misinterpretation. Trump was discussing the economic costs of war, including higher prices, and framed the potential threat to American cities as a “small price to pay” for global and national safety, implying that preventing a nuclear Iran was the paramount concern. The audience’s cheers after his comments, noted in some reports, suggest a segment of the crowd understood his remarks within this context of deterrence.

Mayor Bass indicated she might call on Congress to investigate Trump's comments. Given the potential for such statements to be misconstrued or weaponized, a more formal review of the full context and intent behind Trump's remarks could be beneficial.

This agreement, brokered between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, comes with a temporary waiver of U.S. sanctions on Russia's energy sector. President Trump stated the deal's aim is to lower diesel prices for American consumers, farmers, ranchers, and truckers, particularly ahead of the midterm elections.

However, the market signals here are mixed, and the unintended consequences could be substantial. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sharply criticized the deal, calling it a "birthday gift" to Putin that would finance Russia's war. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas and Germany indicated they would continue to push for sanctions. A U.S. official suggested the deal was a response to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy ignoring U.S. requests to stop strikes on Russian oil refineries, which had reportedly caused a crisis for Putin.

While President Trump frames the agreement as a pragmatic move to address domestic energy costs, the market’s reaction and the geopolitical implications warrant scrutiny. The Straits Times notes an analysis suggesting the deal is "unlikely to cut prices" due to small volumes and global market pricing. This raises questions about the actual economic benefit for American consumers versus the potential for emboldening Russia.

The timing is also critical. This raises concerns about whether the deal inadvertently provides Russia with the resources to continue its military actions.

This stance, coupled with the diesel deal, has drawn objections from some Republican lawmakers.

The core economic incentive for President Trump appears to be lowering domestic fuel costs. Yet, the market signal sent to Russia, and the potential for that nation to leverage any perceived easing of pressure, is a counterpoint. The decision to waive sanctions, even temporarily, risks undermining broader efforts to isolate Russia economically.

Moving forward, the actual impact on diesel prices will be the ultimate market test. If prices do not fall substantially, the justification for the sanctions waiver weakens considerably, and the geopolitical risks become more pronounced. The administration should closely monitor global diesel markets and the flow of funds to Russia, prepared to reinstate sanctions if the economic benefits to the U.S. do not materialize or if Russia escalates its aggression.