Three Interviews of Alleged Trump Assault of 13-Year-Old Missing

Alleged Trump Assault of 13-Year-Old Missing — OGM News | The FBI interviewed the woman four times in 2019 as part of its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. When the Justice Department initially published millions of pages of Epstein-related material, only one of those interview summaries appeared in the public database; three others were missing. Reviews of the underlying records indicated that dozens of pages connected to the interviews were absent, prompting questions from lawmakers, journalists and others about why the material had not been released. The Guardian

And then came the plot twist worthy of a Washington political comedy: on March 5, 2026, the Justice Department published the three previously missing FBI interview reports. The department said the documents had been incorrectly treated as duplicative, rather than deliberately concealed for political reasons. Congressional testimony later reflected that explanation, while also making clear that questions remained about how the documents came to be classified that way. KPBS Public Media

The Allegation Is Serious; So Is the Demand for Transparency

Alleged Trump Assault of 13-Year-Old Missing — OGM News | The newly released reports contain the woman’s allegations that Epstein introduced her to Trump in the 1980s and that Trump sexually assaulted her when she was a teenager. The accounts are allegations recorded in FBI interview summaries—not findings that the alleged assault occurred. Reporting on the documents has stressed that the claims have not been independently corroborated, and the FBI did not bring charges against Trump over them. The Guardian

That distinction matters, because responsible journalism cannot turn an allegation into a conviction simply because the internet has already warmed up the electric chair. At the same time, transparency cannot be treated like an optional accessory that disappears whenever a politically inconvenient document walks into the room. The original omission understandably triggered accusations of a cover-up, but the available evidence does not establish that the missing records were intentionally suppressed as part of a criminal conspiracy. What it does establish is that three relevant FBI interview summaries were initially absent and were later released after questions about their omission intensified. The Washington Post

Alleged Trump Assault of 13-Year-Old Missing — OGM News | The bigger issue for OGM News is therefore not merely whether somebody misplaced three FBI reports, but why the public had to discover that they were missing before the explanation arrived. With the documents now public, attention should turn to how the Justice Department handled the records, whether additional Epstein-related material remains unavailable, and whether officials can provide a convincing accounting of the process. OGM News will continue watching this developing story, because when government paperwork starts playing hide-and-seek, somebody eventually has to find the rulebook.

When American Cities Become Part of the Price Tag

In a remark that quickly turned heads across California and beyond, Trump said Iran could “take out” a city, specifically naming Los Angeles and San Diego. The comment was delivered while he argued that the economic pain caused by the war should be tolerated, effectively turning two major American cities into the punchline of an unusually grim political calculation.

The statement immediately created a political firestorm. California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump’s remarks as dangerous, while Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said a president’s responsibility should be protecting American lives rather than encouraging or appearing to tolerate attacks on them. The reaction has added another layer of controversy to an already tense debate over Trump’s Iran policy.

Trump Says the War Is Almost Over—But the Price List Keeps Growing

Trump also insisted that the Iran conflict would end very soon, even as the United States continues dealing with the military and economic consequences of the confrontation. The war has placed additional pressure on energy markets, with disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz contributing to higher fuel costs.

OGM News understands the political irony: Americans are being asked to accept higher prices as the cost of security, while the president’s latest language appears to suggest that even entire cities could somehow join the national receipt. In the strange accounting of political satire, gasoline has become expensive, war has become complicated, and apparently Los Angeles and San Diego have been added to the “acceptable expenses” column.

For now, Trump maintains that the conflict will end “very soon,” while the controversy surrounding his comments is unlikely to disappear nearly as quickly. With California officials demanding accountability and the Iran war continuing to dominate the American political debate, the question is no longer simply how much the war will cost—but who gets to decide what price is acceptable. OGM News will continue watching this extraordinary story for further developments.

The prediction comes at a politically sensitive moment for the administration. The November midterm elections are approaching, and affordability has become a central concern for voters. Recent reporting indicates that high fuel and other living costs are putting pressure on the administration as it tries to defend its economic record.

Trump Bets on Falling Energy Costs

Trump has repeatedly linked lower energy prices to an eventual decline in broader consumer prices. In September, he said oil prices would eventually tumble and predicted gasoline could fall below $2 per gallon, although he acknowledged that the decline might take longer than the midterm elections.

The latest promise comes against a much more difficult energy backdrop. Reuters reported Monday that gasoline prices have surged during the Iran conflict, while the administration has also been dealing with pressure from record diesel prices. The conflict has disrupted global energy flows, while attacks on Russian refineries and other refining constraints have added pressure to fuel markets.

The administration has responded with several measures intended to ease fuel costs. Trump signed an order expanding access to tax-exempt red-dyed diesel, while the United States has also offered oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as part of an international effort to stabilize supplies.

The Inflation Reality Behind the Promise

Trump is making his latest prediction while inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s 2% long-term target. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the Consumer Price Index increased 3.4% over the 12 months ending in August. Gasoline prices rose 3.9% in August and were up 27.4% from a year earlier, while the overall energy index increased 16.3% over the year. The September CPI report is scheduled for October 14.

That means Trump’s “prices are gonna come down very sharply” statement is a prediction about the future, rather than a description of the current inflation picture. Recent economic data also show that energy remains a significant source of price pressure. The August CPI report said gasoline accounted for more than one-third of that month’s overall increase in consumer prices.

The question now is whether the conditions Trump is counting on—particularly an end to the Iran conflict, improved oil flows and easing fuel-market disruptions—will materialize quickly enough to produce the broad price reductions he is promising. For consumers, the distinction between slower inflation and actual price declines will remain important: inflation falling means prices rise more slowly, while a genuine decline means the price level itself falls.

For now, Trump’s latest message is clear: he expects the current energy shock to reverse and believes the resulting relief will spread through the wider economy. Whether Americans eventually find themselves celebrating sharply lower prices—or still waiting for them—will depend on how the energy market and broader inflation data develop in the months ahead.

Trump’s comments come against the backdrop of an exceptionally tense U.S.-Iran relationship, with the president repeatedly emphasizing American military and economic pressure on Tehran. His suggestion that the confrontation is “ending very soon” is significant because any reduction in hostilities involving Iran could have major consequences for energy markets, Israel’s security and the wider Middle East. For now, however, the exact meaning of “ending” remains open to interpretation.

President Trump Says the Clock Is Running Out on the Iran Fight

President Trump framed the situation as a victory for the United States, telling his audience that America is effectively defeating Iran and that the confrontation will end “one way or the other.” The president also connected the foreign-policy message to the domestic economy, asserting that prices have been “tumbling down” as his administration works to protect American interests. The combination of military triumph and economic reassurance is a familiar Trump formula: win abroad, save money at home, and preferably announce both in the same sentence.

But international conflicts rarely come with a convenient “game over” button. Iran has long used a mixture of diplomacy, regional alliances, military capabilities and asymmetric pressure to pursue its interests, meaning any genuine de-escalation would likely depend on more than presidential declarations. The consequences of U.S. pressure can also extend well beyond Washington and Tehran, particularly through energy supplies, shipping routes and the security calculations of Israel and other regional governments.

President Trump: “We Are Saving This Country and Israel”

President Trump also portrayed the confrontation as a matter of protecting both Americans and Israel. His comments reflect the close strategic relationship between Washington and Jerusalem and his administration’s broader argument that confronting Iran serves U.S. national-security interests. Israel’s security has remained a major element of American Middle East policy, particularly whenever tensions involving Iran and its regional network intensify.

The economic portion of Trump’s message is equally important. Oil and other commodity prices can react sharply to expectations of conflict or de-escalation in the Middle East, while consumers ultimately feel the effects through gasoline, transportation and other costs. That makes Trump’s claim that prices are falling an important part of the political argument—but whether Americans experience meaningful relief depends on a much broader collection of economic indicators than the president’s statement alone. For now, Trump is presenting the situation as a victory lap; the markets and events on the ground will provide the harder test.

For OGM News, the key question is whether President Trump’s declaration that the confrontation with Iran is “ending very soon” becomes a genuine diplomatic or military turning point—or simply another dramatic chapter in an unpredictable confrontation. His claims about falling prices, American security and Israel’s protection will also face scrutiny as events develop. OGM News will continue following the Iran situation, watching closely for what happens after the presidential rhetoric fades and the next moves from Washington, Tehran and Jerusalem become clear.

Trump Points the Finger Abroad — and Across the Political Aisle

Trump’s argument comes as energy prices remain under considerable pressure. Ukraine’s attacks on Russian energy infrastructure have disrupted fuel supplies, while the wider Middle East conflict has also affected global energy markets. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a substantial share of the world’s oil normally passes, has been a major source of uncertainty.

But the political arithmetic is proving considerably less straightforward than the price displayed on a gas station sign. Trump has blamed Ukraine and Democrats, while his political opponents have argued that the administration’s handling of the Iran conflict is a major factor behind rising costs. With Americans paying more at the pump, the president’s explanation has quickly become part of a much larger political fight over who should carry responsibility for the economic pain.

Trump Faces a Pump-Price Political Test

The timing could hardly be more politically convenient — or inconvenient — for Trump. Rising fuel prices are arriving as the United States approaches the November midterm elections, giving voters another highly visible measure of economic conditions. A Reuters/Ipsos poll earlier this year found that 77% of registered voters blamed Trump for rising gasoline prices, suggesting that the issue could become a significant political liability.

Trump, however, has continued to argue that international events and problems within Democratic-led states are responsible for at least part of the increase. Ukraine’s refinery strikes have indeed affected energy markets, particularly diesel, meaning the president’s argument is not entirely detached from events in the oil market. But analysts and political opponents point to the broader combination of geopolitical conflict, disrupted supply and global market conditions rather than a single culprit.

The result is a familiar Washington spectacle: the gasoline pump has become a political witness, everyone has a different suspect, and American motorists are apparently being asked to pay while the politicians debate the invoice. Trump wants voters to look toward Ukraine and Democrats; his critics want them looking toward the administration’s own policies and the Iran conflict. Meanwhile, the price at the pump has shown little interest in joining either political party.

For Donald, the question may ultimately be less about who wins the blame game and more about who voters believe should pay the political price. With fuel costs remaining a major economic concern and the midterms approaching, OGM News will continue watching the pump, the polls and the presidential explanations for whatever comes next.

White’s comments carry an interesting twist because his latest film examines the consequences surrounding the technology industry. While Hollywood actors often have to promote their latest projects with carefully prepared talking points, White’s concerns appear to extend beyond the movie itself. As a father, he says he worries about what children encounter online and the enormous pressure that can come from being exposed to the wider world too early.

The Fatherhood Lesson: Keeping Childhood Small

White explained that one of the lessons he has realized as a father is the importance of allowing children to keep their worlds as small as possible for as long as possible. His concern is not simply about children owning phones or having access to technology, but about the scale of the world they can suddenly encounter through online platforms.

According to White, children already have enough opportunities to compare themselves with classmates, friends and people within their immediate communities. Social media can take that comparison to an entirely different level by exposing young people to countless strangers, influencers and carefully presented versions of other people’s lives. For a parent watching that process unfold, the internet can sometimes look less like a playground and more like an enormous room where everyone is shouting at once.

The actor’s position is particularly personal because his daughters are still young. Rather than claiming to have discovered a perfect formula for modern parenting, White’s comments highlight the difficult balancing act facing parents who want their children to benefit from technology without allowing digital culture to dominate their childhood.

Social Media and the Growing Child-Safety Debate

The concerns raised by White are part of a much wider conversation among parents, psychologists, educators and policymakers. The U.S. Surgeon General has warned that there is still insufficient evidence to conclude that social media is adequately safe for children and adolescents, while also acknowledging that online platforms can provide benefits. Research has associated heavy social-media use among young people with increased risks involving mental health, although experts caution that the relationship is complex and does not mean every child will experience the same effects.

The American Psychological Association has likewise emphasized that children’s online experiences should be appropriate for their age and developmental stage. Its guidance encourages parents to monitor young adolescents’ online activity while gradually allowing appropriate levels of privacy and independence. Experts also stress the importance of ensuring that online activity does not interfere with sleep, physical activity, school responsibilities or healthy relationships.

The debate goes beyond mental health. Children’s privacy and personal information have also become major concerns as technology companies collect and process enormous amounts of user data. Regulators in the United States have continued strengthening protections around children’s information, while authorities have taken action against companies accused of failing to properly protect young users.

For White, however, the issue ultimately appears to come down to something much more basic: giving children enough time to grow before exposing them to the full weight of the digital world. His comments do not amount to a blanket argument that technology should disappear from children’s lives. Instead, they raise questions about timing, boundaries and parental responsibility at a moment when smartphones and social platforms are becoming increasingly difficult to separate from everyday life.

Social media may now be woven into modern childhood, but White’s warning highlights a question that many parents are still struggling to answer: how much of the wider world should children have access to before they are old enough to understand its influence? With The Social Reckoning bringing the technology debate back into the spotlight, White’s experience as both an actor and a father could keep the conversation going long after the movie’s premiere.

Barkley made the comments during an appearance on The Chris Cuomo Project, where he described himself as an independent who has voted Democratic most of the time. He said he was unwilling to defend every position associated with the Democratic Party simply because he had generally supported Democratic candidates.

Charles Barkley Questions Calls to Abolish ICE and Defund Police

Charles Barkley specifically objected to political messaging centred on “no ICE,” “no prison” and defunding the police. He questioned what society would do without police officers or prisons and said he did not agree with those positions.

His comments come as some progressive Democratic politicians and activists have advocated significant changes to immigration enforcement and policing. However, such positions are not representative of every Democrat, and the Democratic Party includes politicians with a wide range of views on immigration, criminal justice and the role of government.

Barkley Says ICE Needs Reform but Immigration Still Matters

Although Barkley criticized calls to abolish ICE, he also argued that the agency needs to improve its performance. He said the United States cannot simply allow people to cross the border without enforcement, while emphasizing that immigrants are important to the country and describing many as hardworking.

Barkley said his concern was particularly focused on immigrants who commit crimes rather than immigrants generally. He argued that immigration enforcement should distinguish between people who pose security or criminal concerns and law-abiding immigrants.

Barkley Calls for Different Democratic Leadership

Barkley also criticized what he sees as excessive partisan loyalty in American politics. He argued that political figures should be willing to challenge members of their own party rather than automatically defend every position associated with it.

During the interview, Barkley called for what he described as “grown folks” in the Democratic Party and urged politicians to concentrate on what he considers practical policy ideas rather than slogans that could alienate voters. His comments came as both parties intensify their political messaging ahead of the November midterm elections. Charles Barkley’s comments have added a prominent sports figure’s voice to an ongoing debate within the Democratic Party over immigration enforcement, policing, criminal justice and economic ideology.

While Barkley criticized several positions associated with the party’s progressive wing, he also rejected a blanket approach to immigration and said hardworking immigrants should be protected. For OGM News, Barkley’s intervention highlights the continuing political debate over whether parties can maintain broad coalitions while addressing disagreements over policing, immigration, socialism and the role of government.

Ahead of the release of Jamie Foxx: Take Care of Yourself, Foxx opened up about the challenges comedians face in an era when a joke can quickly become a social-media controversy. The comedian specifically referenced the experience of watching the Kevin Hart roast and said it influenced how much material he was willing to keep in his own show.

Jamie Foxx Says He Had to Cut His Jokes

Foxx explained that he became more cautious about the material in his new special because he did not want to find himself at the center of a cancellation controversy.

“After that Kevin Hart Roast, I had to cut everything,” Foxx said, describing how the reaction to certain jokes made him reconsider what belonged in his own performance.

For Foxx, the decision appears to be less about abandoning edgy comedy and more about understanding how quickly jokes can be interpreted differently once they leave the comedy club and enter the wider internet conversation.

His New Special Takes a More Personal Direction

Jamie Foxx: Take Care of Yourself is scheduled to premiere on Hulu on October 7. The special is being presented as a personal and evolved chapter for Foxx, with the comedian discussing subjects including getting older and everyday life while mixing comedy with stories and music.

The project follows Foxx’s 2024 Netflix special What Had Happened Was…, which marked his return to stand-up after his 2023 medical emergency. The new special shows Foxx continuing to use comedy to reflect on his life while navigating the increasingly complicated line between being fearless onstage and avoiding a viral controversy.

As Foxx prepares for the Hulu debut, audiences will get to see which jokes survived his editing process—and which ones were left on the cutting-room floor.

More updates on Jamie Foxx, comedy and the latest entertainment stories will continue to come your way from Buzz Legit.

Paxton Says the Campaign Is Coming From Washington

According to reports on the leaked recording, Paxton complained that he does not control the campaign’s messaging or direction, saying decisions were coming from Washington, D.C. The remarks are particularly awkward because Paxton built much of his political identity around attacking Washington insiders during his Republican primary battle. His adviser Nick Maddux has argued that Paxton was referring to the influence of super PACs rather than directly blaming Trump’s campaign team.

For a candidate whose political rise has been closely associated with President Donald Trump, the recording creates an unusual spectacle: the campaign appears to be simultaneously carrying Trump’s political brand and complaining about the machinery surrounding it. In another leaked recording, Paxton reportedly said Trump’s Texas midterm convention had “dropped our numbers,” a claim his campaign dismissed as manipulated nonsense. President Trump, meanwhile, defended the convention as successful when questioned about the recording.

Texas Suddenly Looks Less Comfortable for Republicans

The political mathematics explains why the leaks matter. Texas has long been a Republican stronghold, but the 2026 Senate race has become considerably more competitive, with the University of Texas Texas Politics Project’s polling tracker showing Talarico ahead by six points in the latest New York Times/Siena poll and by two points in the latest Fox News poll listed in its tracker.

Paxton nevertheless retains important advantages, including substantial financial support and a major advertising operation. His campaign has also rejected the narrative that the race is slipping away. But with Republicans fighting to protect their Senate majority, every leaked complaint, unfavorable poll and internal disagreement can become political ammunition. The satire practically writes itself: Texas Republicans once worried about Democrats taking the Senate seat; now the microphone appears to be campaigning too.

The Paxton controversy therefore goes beyond one embarrassing recording. It raises questions about campaign control, Trump’s influence, Republican unity and whether Texas can still be treated as an automatic Republican victory in November. With polling tightening, competing explanations emerging from the campaign and more recordings already circulating, OGM News will continue to watch whether this political hot-mic drama becomes a temporary embarrassment—or a much bigger Texas problem

Mortgage Rates Above: When the Mortgage Rate Is 7.28%, But the Answer Is “Look at the Economy”

Mortgage Rates Above 7% — OGM News| Hassett’s argument was essentially that Americans should judge the economy by the broader numbers rather than mortgage rates alone. During the CNN interview, he pointed to income growth, housing activity and consumer spending, arguing that a strong economy can support people buying homes even when borrowing costs remain elevated. He also said mortgage rates should eventually decline as inflation falls toward 1% to 2%. CNN Transcripts

The problem for would-be homeowners is that the mortgage market does not appear particularly interested in political optimism. Freddie Mac reported that the average 30-year fixed rate jumped from 7.03% to 7.28% in one week, while the comparable 15-year rate reached 6.60%. Mortgage rates are influenced heavily by longer-term Treasury yields and broader financial-market expectations, meaning a president cannot simply order them down from the Oval Office. Freddie Mac

The “Booming Economy” Meets the Homebuyer’s Calculator As Mortgage Rates Above

Mortgage Rates Above 7% — OGM News| There is, however, another side to Hassett’s defense. Recent economic data have provided the administration with some genuinely positive numbers, including solid growth and strong investment activity. Hassett has repeatedly argued that the headline economic picture is stronger than some of the public sentiment suggests, pointing to income growth, investment and demand as evidence that the economy remains resilient. CNN Transcripts

That does not necessarily make the housing frustration imaginary. Higher mortgage rates translate directly into larger monthly payments, while elevated home prices continue to make purchasing difficult for many households. Freddie Mac’s latest figures show the 30-year rate is also substantially above the 6.34% recorded at the same time last year. So, somewhere between the White House’s economic scoreboard and a prospective buyer’s mortgage calculator sits the uncomfortable political question: if the economy is booming, why does buying a home still feel so painfully expensive? Freddie Mac

Mortgage Rates Above 7% — OGM News| For OGM News, the dispute is less about whether positive economic indicators exist and more about which economic reality Americans actually experience. Hassett says the hard data tell a story of a booming economy, while mortgage borrowers are staring at rates above 7% and wondering when the promised relief will arrive. As the administration continues defending its economic record and President Trump continues pushing for lower borrowing costs, OGM News will be watching the numbers — and, perhaps more importantly, watching whether those numbers eventually translate into cheaper mortgages for ordinary Americans.