Stop The Donald Trump

He's a fascist, authoritarian, racist, sexist, and the former Republican President of the United States of America.

This site is a database of over 4,000 articles of every controversial statement made by Donald Trump and to help you when debating family, friends, and strangers on why this man is the most dangerous candidate and president this country has ever seen.

You can search for articles, or find a set of articles from a categorized list.

Under "Rebuttals" you can also find in-depth articles reviewing the policies of Donald Trump and how they can help or (most likely) harm you.

Trump Announces Ban on Key Media from White House

President Donald Trump has announced a ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House, intensifying his ongoing war against media outlets he labels as “fake news.” Despite Trump’s declaration on Truth Social, the specifics of how this ban would be implemented remain unclear. Legal precedents suggest such actions are likely to fail in the courts, as past attempts to remove press credentials, such as the case involving CNN’s Jim Acosta, were overturned legally.

Trump’s attack on these news organizations follows a history of legal disputes with media outlets, demanding multimillion-dollar settlements and challenging broadcast licenses of networks airing negative stories about his administration. His administration’s actions have sparked criticism from press freedom advocates, who view these moves as a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.

Responding to questions at a press briefing, Trump expressed willingness to continue legal battles over restricting press access, disregarding the constitutional right to free speech. Nonetheless, CNN and MS NOW are reportedly continuing their coverage from the White House grounds, as the ban has yet to be enforced.

Press freedom groups, including the Freedom of the Press Foundation, have strongly condemned Trump’s threats, emphasizing the public’s right to independent news coverage. Fox News White House correspondent and president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, Jacqui Heinrich, criticized Trump’s actions as detrimental to the fundamental principles of an independent press.

The moves by Trump’s administration to intimidate and retaliate against news organizations he deems unfavorable reflect an ongoing pattern of authoritarian tactics and decrying critical media as obstacles to his preferred narratives.



(Source: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2026-09-18/trump-bans-cnn-msnow-politico-from-white-house)

Trump’s Unhinged Attack on Journalist Rachel Scott

Donald Trump, unwavering in his authoritarian tendencies, has once again displayed his contempt for the press by berating ABC reporter Rachel Scott over questions about his extravagant proposal to give every adult American $5,000 if Republicans win the midterm elections. This reckless promise is estimated to burden the U.S. economy with an additional $1.35 trillion debt, further demonstrating Trump’s disregard for fiscal responsibility.

At a sparsely attended Republican convention in Texas, Trump faced scrutiny for his so-called “Trump dividends,” an apparent bribe disguised as a reward for Americans enduring alleged hardships under the Biden administration. When Scott, a female journalist, attempted to question the feasibility and intent behind the staggering proposal, Trump lashed out, refusing to engage and instead opting to intimidate and belittle her.

This episode is consistent with Trump’s troubling history of hostility towards female journalists. His verbal attacks have previously targeted several women in the media, suggesting a pattern of misogynistic behavior. His aggressive reaction to Scott’s reasonable scrutiny exemplifies Trump’s deep-seated disdain for accountability and transparency.

Adding to this disturbing trend, Trump’s reactions to female journalists have included derogatory comments and insults, aimed at undermining their credibility and instilling fear. Scott’s encounter with Trump echoes past incidents where he labeled reporters as “rude” and “obnoxious,” perpetuating a culture of intimidation.

Rachel Scott’s confrontation with Trump reveals not only his volatile temperament but also highlights the broader implications of his authoritarian ambition. By attempting to silence critical voices, Trump threatens the principles of free press and democracy, signaling his relentless pursuit of power without accountability.



(Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/unhinged-trump-lunges-female-reporter-092443686.html)

Trump Pushes Controversial F-35 Sale to Saudi Arabia

The Trump administration’s decision to sell nearly 50 F-35 jets to Saudi Arabia has sparked controversy, reflecting ongoing debates over foreign policy and national security. This move comes as a significant shift for the U.S., raising concerns in Congress about the implications of such a deal. Specifically, lawmakers like Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi worry that the sale could potentially place sensitive military technology within the reach of China, given Saudi Arabia’s ties with the country.

Despite these concerns, the State Department defends the transaction by asserting that it aligns with U.S. foreign policy and national security goals and will not disturb the military balance in the region. However, key concerns revolve around Saudi Arabia’s potential sharing of the technology with China, exacerbating tensions within the U.S. government regarding the implications for regional stability and global security.

The current arrangement is reminiscent of the relationship between Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Their previous dealings, including a $142 billion arms agreement, underline a continued U.S. commitment to backing Saudi Arabia despite its controversial human rights record. This connection has been characterized by critics as prioritizing military contracts over ethical considerations.

This deal comes at a time when Saudi Arabia is actively engaged in conflict with Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, ultimately involving regional dynamics that the U.S. supports through arms sales. This backdrop illustrates the intricate web of geopolitical strategies and conflicts influencing U.S. arms dealings in the Middle East.

In light of prior arms deals and the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Congress has previously questioned weapon sales to Saudi Arabia. The Trump administration’s current decision reflects ongoing partnerships and strategic priorities which have alarmed certain U.S. lawmakers concerned about regional stability and human rights.



(Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/why-us-plan-sell-f-004217035.html?link_source=ta_first_comment&taid=6aad9139566c320001c789e6&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwcGRvZgVmZGlkFlDq21aMFtdw9uu2ihJuAMnZeMCSX-JleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeUQLWtYWz1fGd9jCjz24ywe10xIkd7–N90T7teGQBzAVDJIW6C5YGl183P0_aem__4kxpS7FDsK-gyEFJG4A4g)

Trump Unilateral Greenland Security Claim Raises Doubts

President Donald Trump announced a controversial agreement granting the U.S. permanent control over Greenland's security. Trump, using his preferred platform, claimed the deal ensures American oversight of military and strategic activities on the Arctic island, emphasizing a need to block Russian and Chinese influence in the region despite existing security cooperation under NATO.

Describing the agreement as a historic achievement, Trump boasted that no previous president had managed to secure Greenland for U.S. interests. The self-congratulatory tone downplays significant pushback from major European allies, who stress that any agreements involving Greenland must respect Danish sovereignty and international law, further complicating Trump's unilateral declarations.

Although details of the supposed agreement remain vague, Trump insists it prevents U.S. adversaries from establishing bases or making sensitive investments in Greenland without American approval. His claims of foreign vessels swarming Greenland's waters are part of a familiar narrative framing the territory as essential for national security, echoing his earlier failed attempts to negotiate acquiring Greenland.

European leaders have responded with a collective statement affirming that issues concerning Greenland should be resolved by Denmark and the Greenlandic people, reflecting broader concerns over Trump's approach and implications for NATO's collaborative security structure. The insistence on collective cooperation highlights ongoing international skepticism regarding Trump's tendency to pursue aggressive, unilateral policies.

The president's fixation on Greenland has raised eyebrows among allies, with the optics of the move competing against established agreements under NATO, sparking questions about the consistency and motivations behind America's Arctic strategy under Trump's leadership.

Why is this bullshit?

In the 1951 Agreement between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark, the U.S. secured substantial military control over Greenland, allowing for the establishment and operation of defense areas. This agreement, part of NATO obligations, granted the U.S. the right to improve, construct, and operate facilities without compensating Denmark, essentially a carte blanche for American military operations in Greenland.

Mutual responsibilities were outlined, where Denmark would host American forces who could build infrastructure, manage defense operations, and position troops. Both nations were empowered to enhance Greenland for military use, yet American forces gained unprecedented access, diminishing Danish sovereignty over these areas.

The agreement detailed responsibilities on operations, ensuring American military dominance but with Danish oversight in certain scenarios. This collaborational facade obscures how the U.S. effectively managed these sites, undermining true Danish control with U.S. forces holding exclusive jurisdiction over their defense areas.

Additionally, U.S. personnel and their families, as well as equipment required for operations, were exempt from Danish taxes and customs, further emphasizing the unequal nature of this arrangement. The treaty allowed for nearly unrestricted American military presence, challenging Danish authority.

This strategic initiative was nominally to protect the North Atlantic Treaty area, yet it primarily served U.S. strategic interests. This so-called partnership highlights the stark imbalance in power and influence, facilitating American military dominance under the guise of cooperative defense.

(Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-us-greenland-denmark-deal-b3052755.html)

Trump’s EPA Scraps Power Plant Emissions Rule, Ignoring Climate Crisis

The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken another step to dismantle environmental regulations by eliminating a rule that limits emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases from power plants. This regressive move undoes the previous protections aimed at curbing harmful emissions, signaling a blatant disregard for environmental science and the escalating climate crisis.

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler argued that the previous rule was too restrictive and hindered economic growth, echoing Trump’s broader agenda of prioritizing corporate interests over environmental health. This decision aligns with Trump’s authoritarian approach that dismisses the urgent and scientifically-backed need for emissions control to mitigate climate change impacts.

Critics, including environmental groups and scientists, have decried the rule’s elimination as a dangerous step backward in the fight against global warming. They warn that increased emissions from power plants will exacerbate climate change, further endangering public health and the planet’s future.

This act of environmental sabotage fits Trump’s established pattern of ignoring or undermining scientific expertise and prioritizing short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability. His administration has consistently placed fossil fuel industry interests above environmental protection, reflecting a reckless disregard for planetary well-being.

As the global community continues to confront the realities of climate change, the Trump administration’s actions stand in stark contrast to international efforts to curb emissions and protect the environment. This decision not only undermines progress but also highlights the urgent need for leadership that respects science and prioritizes sustainable policies.



(Source: https://apnews.com/article/epa-power-plants-trump-coal-gas-climate-cac1c2c75f8656d8eaf5f0a240edae15?utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwdGRjcAUVVrpwZG9mBWZkaWQWUOZ9nXXGhNLXlHwKPj8ipzXP7OafgmV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkCjY2Mjg1NjgzNzkAAR7WTYTrh3K_esxfN1sqau0ZhTTQpWmZjlff-zW8nWq9GBhl4o1kcBr8Yjk1kA_aem_AZJcYfMJ5GNWaovRvGRaxw)

Smithsonian Head Quits After Pressure From Fascist Trump Conflicts

Lonnie Bunch, the renowned head of the Smithsonian Institution, has announced his retirement after nearly five decades, following intense clashes with the Trump administration. The administration pressured the Smithsonian over its exhibitions, demanding changes to align with Trump's vision of "American exceptionalism" and the removal of what he deemed "divisive or partisan narratives." Bunch, who has served at the Smithsonian for close to 50 years, will leave at the end of the year. His decision to step down comes amid President Trump's aggressive push for a "comprehensive internal review" of all exhibitions within the Smithsonian's eight museums, signaling his continuous attempt to politicize cultural institutions and suppress narratives that do not conform to his authoritarian ideologies.

Trump launched a vociferous critique of the Smithsonian on social media, labeling it "OUT OF CONTROL" and a bastion of "woke" culture for discussing the nation's troubling history, including slavery. This rhetoric illustrates Trump's deep-seated authoritarian tendencies and his incessant attacks on American institutions that do not serve his self-aggrandizing narrative, wasting zero time with re-defining the culture at the museum.

Trump’s effort to reshape American culture has extended far beyond a dispute over any single Smithsonian exhibit: since returning to office, his administration has sought greater control over the institutions, symbols, architecture, monuments, and historical narratives through which the United States represents itself. Trump installed himself as chairman of the Kennedy Center after replacing board members and its leadership; ordered the Smithsonian to remove what his administration calls “improper,” “divisive,” or “anti-American” ideology; directed federal officials to use funding and appointments to influence how museums present American history; pushed the restoration of monuments and Confederate commemorations removed or reinterpreted in recent years; revived the National Garden of American Heroes; promoted classical architecture for major federal buildings; and now wants enormous George Washington statues and a long-term “American Heroes” presence at the Smithsonian. The administration describes these measures as restoring patriotism and correcting ideological bias, while critics view them as an attempt to replace pluralistic accounts of American history with a state-preferred narrative centered on greatness, heroism, and national pride. Historically, that broader project—not any individual statue or architectural style—is what makes the comparison with authoritarian and fascist cultural politics relevant: such movements have often treated control of museums, art, monuments, architecture, and collective memory as an important part of political power.

Fascist movements have historically treated culture as a field of political power. They do not merely seek control of laws and government agencies; they try to define what the nation means: who its heroes are, what parts of its past deserve celebration, what art is legitimate, what architecture embodies the nation, and which interpretations of history are portrayed as decadent, subversive, or disloyal. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum describes the Nazi project explicitly this way: after taking power in 1933, the Nazis sought to “change the cultural landscape,” purge supposedly foreign or degenerate influences, and align cultural institutions with their worldview. Museums, art, literature, architecture, theater, radio and film became part of that project.

Italian Fascism did something comparable but with a particularly revealing emphasis on national mythology and monumental history. Mussolini deliberately linked the Fascist present to the grandeur of ancient Rome, reshaped public spaces, commissioned monumental art and architecture, and presented Augustus and the Roman Empire as historical predecessors to the new regime. Scholarship on the Fascist-era Augustan Exhibition describes this as literally using historical representation and space to “re-map memory” and connect Augustus, Mussolini and contemporary Italy into a single political story.

That context makes what Trump has been doing more significant than any one Washington statue.

The chronology looks like this:

  • January 29, 2025: Trump reinstated his plan for a National Garden of American Heroes, directing that it ultimately contain 250 statues and be completed “as expeditiously as possible.”
  • February 2025: Trump replaced members of the Kennedy Center board, became its chairman, and the newly constituted board removed president Deborah Rutter. Trump had publicly criticized the institution's programming as ideologically “woke.”
  • March 27, 2025: he issued the extraordinarily explicit executive order “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” It says federal historical institutions should become “solemn and uplifting public monuments,” tells officials to remove what the administration considers “improper ideology” from the Smithsonian, directs officials to consider Smithsonian funding, and orders federal monuments and historical materials to emphasize American “greatness,” “achievements” and “progress.”
  • August 2025: the White House began reviewing Smithsonian exhibition text, educational material, websites and other content for its “tone,” “historical framing” and “alignment with American ideals.” At roughly the same time, Trump made classical and traditional architecture the preferred style for major federal buildings, particularly in Washington.
  • July 24, 2026: a second executive order declared that Smithsonian leadership could not be trusted to tell American history with sufficient “honesty and gratitude” and ordered the government to use available authorities, including funding and contracts, to encourage changes. It even ordered federal signage outside the National Museum of American History criticizing the museum's own exhibits.
  • September 2026: Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch announced that he will retire at year's end after this sustained conflict. Importantly, Bunch says his retirement is about age and family rather than being forced out by Trump, although he acknowledged that the confrontation had been stressful.
  • Now, September 12: Trump is demanding a dedicated Washington exhibition through February 22, 2032, Washington's 300th birthday; an 11-foot Washington statue inside the museum; a roughly 30-foot Washington statue outside in place of the existing Infinity sculpture; and a “Center for American Heroes.”

The most important similarity isn't classical architecture by itself. The United States was using neoclassical architecture two centuries before Mussolini was born, and George Washington statues obviously aren't inherently fascist.

It is the combination that political historians would pay attention to:

First, delegitimize the existing cultural establishment. The regime says historians, artists, universities, museums or journalists have corrupted the national culture. Nazi terminology included “degenerate art” and “cultural Bolshevism.” Trump's language is different—“woke,” “radical,” “divisive,” “anti-American”—but structurally it performs a similar political function: existing cultural authorities are represented not merely as people with whom the government disagrees, but as institutions that have betrayed the authentic nation. The White House's own July report is titled Saving America's Story: How Ideological Capture at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History Erases Our Heritage.

Second, replace pluralistic history with a morally prescriptive national narrative. Museums normally present contradictory evidence: extraordinary achievements alongside slavery, dispossession, exclusion, war, resistance and political conflict. Trump's executive order instead explicitly instructs federal historical sites to emphasize greatness and progress and prohibits presentations that it considers to “inappropriately disparage” Americans from the past. That is a significant departure from simply arguing about historical interpretation because the executive branch is prescribing the emotional and ideological conclusion toward which history should point.

Third, turn monuments and public space into political pedagogy. This is where the Washington statues, Garden of American Heroes and architectural directives fit together. Fascist Italy made exceptionally heavy use of monumental architecture, statues and selectively recovered Roman history because physical space can make a particular interpretation of the nation appear permanent, natural and inevitable. Mussolini's reshaping of the area surrounding Augustus's mausoleum is almost a textbook example: the built environment itself connected contemporary political authority to a heroic ancient past.

Fourth, redefine national membership around an approved conception of patriotism. The rhetoric shifts from “here is one interpretation of American history” toward “this is the authentic American story, and competing interpretations are attacks on America.” That distinction matters. Democratic societies constantly fight over monuments and history. Authoritarian movements tend to go further by claiming privileged ownership over the nation itself.

And there is a striking phrase in Trump's March 2025 order that makes this less inferential than it might otherwise sound. It doesn't merely ask museums to add patriotic material. It orders officials to “restore the Smithsonian Institution” so that it will be a symbol of “American greatness” and says Vice President Vance should work through the Smithsonian Board of Regents to remove “improper ideology.”

That's state-directed cultural policy.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/new-smithsonian-head-resigns-amid-battle-with-trump-administration/)

Ross Ulbricht Praises Trump at GOP Convention for Pardon

In a shocking display of Republican support for questionable figures, Ross Ulbricht, the notorious founder of the Silk Road dark web marketplace, recently addressed the GOP midterm convention in Dallas. Ulbricht’s speech showered praise on former President Donald Trump, whom he credited for his release through a pardon. Ulbricht claimed that Trump’s actions to free him from a life sentence symbolized a broader commitment to liberty, a message Ulbricht eagerly delivered to his audience of Republican supporters.

Ulbricht attempted to draw a parallel between his own legal battles and Trump’s presidency, suggesting both men were victims of a “weaponized government.” His narrative framed Trump as a benevolent figure who recognized the injustices within federal investigations. He argued that Trump’s pardon was a humanitarian gesture, motivated by compassion and recognition of a flawed justice system.

This event exemplifies the current Republican Party’s alarming detachment from reality. Celebrating a figure like Ulbricht, who facilitated a massive illicit drug market, highlights a disturbing willingness to overlook criminal behavior for political gains. This rhetorical alignment with Trump’s alleged anti-establishment image represents an unsettling embrace of figures who flouted the law.

Despite the controversy surrounding the pardon, Ulbricht insisted on Trump’s commitment to liberty, reinforcing his loyalty to the agenda Trump set out for America. He continued to link his narrative to a broader political mission by urging the audience to vote Republican, claiming that protecting individual freedoms depended on Trump’s ideological victories.

The presence of figures like Ulbricht at Republican events raises significant questions about the future direction of the party. Rather than distancing themselves from criminality, their embrace suggests a troubling endorsement of lawlessness under the guise of defending freedom. This alignment with Ulbricht is a stark reflection of the party’s abandonment of conventional norms and ethical boundaries in favor of expanding their base.



(Source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/live-blog-posts/silk-road-founder-ross-ulbricht-praises-trump-for-pardon/)

Trump’s $5K Checks Blasted as Impossible Bribe

Donald Trump recently expressed strong criticism towards Democrats for allegedly opposing his plan to distribute $5,000 checks to Americans if Republicans maintain control of Congress after the upcoming midterms. Trump has dubbed these checks as the “Trump Dividend,” claiming they are a reward for America’s success and economic growth, and blamed “Dumocrats” for hoping the initiative doesn’t materialize.

In a statement on Truth Social, Trump boasted about his previous achievements, using them as proof that he delivers on his promises. He emphasized a previous financial gift to the military as an example of his ability to fulfill commitments similarly. Trump urged voters to support the Republican party to ensure such policies are enacted.

The promise of these $5,000 checks has been met with skepticism and criticism, with some labeling it akin to a cash-for-votes scheme. Critics argue that such a payout would require Congressional approval, a point Trump dismisses by implying autonomy in the decision-making process, despite ongoing national debt concerns.

Trump’s confrontation with ABC News’ Rachel Scott further highlighted his aggressive stance. When Scott questioned the feasibility of the $5,000 dividend amid a $40 trillion national debt, Trump lashed out, deeming her and her network as “the worst.” This exchange underscores Trump’s contentious relationship with the press and his intolerance for criticism.

This latest proposal fits Trump’s pattern of making grand promises while dismissing procedural and fiscal constraints. His insistence on distributing the dividend without Congressional approval raises questions about the practicality and legality of such initiatives within the framework of U.S. governance.



(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-slams-dumocrats-for-hoping-his-promised-5k-midterm-dividend-never-happens/)

Trump’s $5K Checks Defy Congress and Reality

Donald Trump has claimed that his proposal to distribute $5,000 checks to every American does not require Congressional approval. During a speech at the GOP midterm convention in Dallas, Trump unveiled this plan, which he conditioned on Republicans maintaining control of Congress. The plan, is criticized across the political spectrum, with some Democrats calling it “socialism for the rich” and fiscal conservatives worrying about its $1.3 trillion cost.

Trump, in an interview with CBS News, insisted that the U.S. had generated trillions from tariffs and investments, suggesting such efforts funded his proposal without Congress. However, Trump’s statements faced scrutiny as fact-checkers, like CNN’s Daniel Dale, revealed inaccuracies, noting tariffs generated far less revenue. Additionally, Trump’s claim of over $20 trillion in new investments is unsubstantiated, with federal data indicating much lower figures.

A review found that the purported $11.2 trillion in investments touted by the White House was exaggerated. The administration counted vague pledges rather than actual investments, lessening the reliability of these numbers. Fact-checkers assert Trump frequently makes these exaggerated claims, despite lacking evidence from government sources.

Overall, Trump’s proposal to unilaterally issue $5,000 checks underlines his authoritarian tendencies aiming to bypass institutional checks like Congress. His unchecked assertions fuel skepticism regarding the feasibility and legality of such financial distributions without legislative backing.

This proposal aligns with Trump’s history of making untenable financial promises, reflecting a pattern of disinformation that misguides the public on economic realities, raising serious concerns about governance under his leadership.



(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump/just-in-trump-claims-his-5k-check-proposal-wont-need-congressional-approval/)

Jimmy Kimmel Moves Political Interview Online Amid FCC Threats

ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live” decided to move an interview with Texas State Rep. James Talarico, a Democratic Senate candidate, from television to YouTube. This decision came after frequent threats from a politically charged FCC under Chairman Brendan Carr, who has aggressively targeted critics of Donald Trump’s administration. ABC is wary of potential repercussions for its local stations, especially in Texas, stemming from these FCC threats.

Previously, similar tactics were employed against “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” where legal concerns prevented the airing of a Talarico interview. This incident ultimately led to significant fundraising and viewership on YouTube for Talarico’s campaign. Kimmel has expressed concern over these developments as traditional editorial decisions are hindered by political pressures, differing from past presidents’ more open stance towards media appearances.

The FCC’s actions are viewed as an extraordinary assault on free speech rights by ABC, which has filed a lawsuit against the commission. This move underscores the growing tension and alleged misuse of regulatory powers to control media narratives that challenge or criticize the Trump administration.

Kimmel’s candid remarks highlight the discrepancy between past and present media relations under Trump. He notes how Trump previously participated in such interviews himself without issue, indicating a shift towards more authoritarian measures as president. These developments emphasize the importance of engaging with alternative media platforms like YouTube in the face of increased governmental interference.

In this polarized political climate, Kimmel emphasizes the importance of staying informed and encourages viewers to register and vote, recognizing these as critical steps to upholding democracy amidst an era marked by Trump’s authoritarian-style governance.



(Source: https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/jimmy-kimmel-live-james-talarico-youtube-fcc-1236856911/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAUP_0BwZG9mBWZkaWQWUOJAaWZZa-ssDhFzBXIVEHv2IERvsGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkCjY2Mjg1NjgzNzkAAR7j6SjTJok0sUVYM5u57GVnL52Z2PUJObe7DaTg5h3gdeKma1_6lZsarVQUNw_aem_H3iPmKflc1gb_T6ZdtGzDw&utm_id=97758_v0_s00_e0_tv4_a1demo0htc1t2h)

1 2 3 549