Trump shares video that includes racist depiction of the Obamas, sparking backlash
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a bill signing in the Oval Office of the White House on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. Alex Wong/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump shared on his social media platform overnight a video that includes a racist animation of former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama depicted with the bodies of apes, sparking condemnation from some lawmakers and demands that the post be taken down.
Trump reposted the roughly minutelong video, which focused on debunked claims about the 2020 election, to his social media platform.
At the end of the video, the Obamas’ faces appear abruptly and without explanation for seconds with the song “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” playing over it. The video then ends back on similar imagery of the conspiracy video footage.
The Obamas had no comment when ABC News reached out to their representatives for a response.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, when asked for comment, said, “This is from an internet meme video depicting President Trump as the King of the Jungle and Democrats as characters from the Lion King. Please stop the fake outrage and report on something today that actually matters to the American public.”
The video reposted by Trump overnight includes only imagery of the Obamas.
The meme video referenced by Leavitt was shared in October by the Hardin County Republican Party of Kentucky on Facebook, which led the chairman to issue an apology and deleted the post after swift backlash noting the long history of racist tropes depicting Black people as apes or monkeys — a tool of slave traders and segregationists to dehumanize them.
Trump’s overnight repost was condemned by some lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the first Black leader of a party in Congress, wrote on X: “President Obama and Michelle Obama are brilliant, compassionate and patriotic Americans. They represent the best of this country. Donald Trump is a vile, unhinged and malignant bottom feeder.”
“Every single Republican must immediately denounce Donald Trump’s disgusting bigotry,” Jeffries wrote.
Republican Sen. Tim Scott, the only Black Republican in the Senate and also the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, posted on X: “Praying it was fake because it’s the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House. The President should remove it.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, wrote in a post: “Racist. Vile. Abhorrent. This is dangerous and degrades our country — where are Senate Republicans? The President must immediately delete the post and apologize to Barack and Michelle Obama, two great Americans who make Donald Trump look like a small, envious man.”
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat from Michigan, said on Wednesday that she is under federal investigation for a video that she and other Democratic lawmakers posted on social media last year that told military service members that they could refuse illegal orders.
“Last week, U.S. Attorney from the District of Columbia, former Fox host Jeannine Pirro, reached out asking to interview me because of a 90-second video that I filmed in November,” Slotkin said in a video posted to X this morning. “This is on top of an FBI inquiry that came in from the counter terrorism division late last year.”
Slotkin, a former CIA officer, first learned that she was being investigated when she was contacted by federal prosecutors — a detail first reported by The New York Times, and confirmed to ABC News by her office.
A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office says they neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation. It’s not clear what the basis of the investigation may be.
In the November video under investigation, Slotkin appeared alongside other Democrats who previously served in the military or in the intelligence community telling U.S. service members that they have a right to refuse unlawful orders.
In November, a CIA spokeswoman attacked Slotkin for her participation in the video, saying in a social media post that the senator joins “the ranks of disgraced former intelligence officers” who have abused their “credentials to advance a malicious and disingenuous political agenda.”
The video has been a subject of focus because of separate actions taken by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth against Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, who was also featured in the original post on social media. Hegseth last week moved to censure Kelly, which led Kelly to file a lawsuit against Hegseth arguing the censure violated his constitutional rights.
The censure will result in a reduction in rank and Kelly’s retirement pay, a process Hegseth said would take 45 days.
Democrats involved in the video have defended their message as being in line with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Constitution.
Much like Kelly, Slotkin vowed that she won’t be silenced by the investigation.
“This president does not represent the views of the majority of Americans. Even if you voted for him, I do not believe that his vision of America is shared by a majority of Americans because this country is worth fighting for,” Slotkin said in her post on Wednesday. “Our freedom of speech is worth fighting for. Our values, our core values are worth fighting for and right now speaking out against the abuse of power is the most patriotic thing we can do.”
President Donald Trump has criticized the Democrats featured in the video, saying in social media posts in November that they are “traitors” whose actions are “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Asked in November if Trump wants to execute members of Congress, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president did not — adding that the Democrats in the video are “encouraging [service members] to defy the president’s lawful orders.”
Hegseth said in his censure letter that the video “Undermines the Chain of Command; Creates Confusion About Duty; Brings Discredit Upon the Armed Forces; and Is Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.”
In her video on Wednesday, Slotkin said that following Trump’s posts, threats against her and her family have gone “through the roof.”
“I went on 24/7 security from Capitol Police, I had a bomb threat at my house. My parents were swatted in the middle of the night and my siblings had cop cars placed in their driveways,” Slotkin said.
She said this investigatory move comes from “the president’s playbook.”
“Truth doesn’t matter, facts don’t matter, and anyone who disagrees with him becomes an enemy, and he then weaponizes the federal government against them. It is legal intimidation and physical intimidation meant to get you to shut up.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid by California Republicans to block a newly redrawn congressional map backed by Democrats and endorsed by voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The move allows the state to move forward with a map enacted by Proposition 50, approved in November, that could potentially allow Democrats to flip five seats currently held by Republicans.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Rebecca Slaughter, commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), during a House Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, DC, July 13, 2023. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINTON) — For more than 100 years, independent government agencies have regulated American monetary policy and stock trades, transportation systems and election campaigns, consumer product safety and broadcast licenses all free from direct political interference and supervision by the White House.
A major case before the Supreme Court on Monday could upend that tradition and dramatically transform the federal government, eliminating a spirit of bipartisanship and policy continuity that Congress had intended to instill in key areas of American life when it created the agencies.
At issue is President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, as a member of the Federal Trade Commission on grounds that her service is “inconsistent with the administration’s priorities.” She was appointed to a seven-year term in 2023.
Lower courts have held that Slaughter’s termination was illegal since federal law stipulates a president may only remove a commissioner for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The for-cause removal protection was intended to insulate the FTC from politics.
Trump argues the arrangement is unconstitutional and that a president must have full control over the leadership of government bodies that set policies and enforce regulations.
If he prevails, presidents could win unfettered power to terminate members of independent agencies at-will, which in turn could mark the end of their independence.
“Congress designed these agencies, like the FTC, like the [Federal Reserve], like [Securities and Exchange Commission], the whole panoply of independent agencies to have bipartisan voices so that there could be accountability and transparency,” Slaughter said in an interview with ABC News earlier this year.
Some two dozen organizations, including the Federal Election Commission, Federal Communications Commission and National Transportation Safety Board, are also made up of members appointed by presidents for a fixed term and protected by law from removal for purely political or policy reasons.
Trump has also tried to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and Federal Reserve — all of whom have challenged their removals in court.
The Constitution “vests all ‘the executive Power’ in the president and requires him to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'” Trump’s attorneys argue in their brief to the high court, quoting from Article II. They insist the language inherently includes power to remove “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed.”
In a unanimous 1935 decision, however, the Supreme Court upheld the design of independent agencies, concluding their role as quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial bodies makes them distinct from executive branch departments and not subjected to a president’s whims.
Several members of the current Supreme Court have publicly indicated they believe the ruling should be overturned or at least not applied to this case.
“I think we all expect the Court to give the president a lot more control over these so-called independent administrative agencies and bring back some political accountability within the executive branch,” said Sarah Isgur, SCOTUSblog editor and an ABC News legal contributor.
“We also have to hope that will force Congress to stop delegating vast and vague powers to the executive branch and these agencies once they’re under his direction,” she added.
The implications for the public could be significant, some legal experts say.
“It may influence how agencies conduct investigations, enforce regulations and oversee markets, while introducing uncertainty into regulatory oversight that affects investment and long-term planning,” said Varu Chilakamarri, a former Justice Department attorney and appellate litigator with the law firm K&L Gates.
In other words, giving a president full control of independent agency leadership will allow him to align agency actions with the administration’s agenda — bolstering power of the executive branch while opening the door to significant policy changes following each presidential election.
The FTC currently has no Democratic members on the five-member panel after Trump dismissed Slaughter and fellow Democratic commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, in March.
In September, the Supreme Court rejected Slaughter’s bid to remain on the commission while the litigation is pending. The 6-3 decision, with all three liberal justices dissenting, signals that the likely outcome of her case will be in Trump’s favor, analysts said.
The Supreme Court’s decision will also determine the fate of Cathy Harris, a Trump-fired member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and Gwynne Wilcox, a Trump-fired member of the National Labor Relations Board, both of whom are also contesting the president’s actions on grounds identical to Slaughter’s.
One independent agency not directly implicated in the case: the Federal Reserve. While removal protections for members of the central bank’s board of governors are similar to those at the FTC and other agencies, the justices have made clear in their view that the bank is different.
“The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,” the Supreme Court wrote in an unsigned opinion in May.
Trump’s unprecedented attempt to remove a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors, Lisa Cook, will be reviewed by the Supreme Court in a separate case next month.
A decision in both cases is expected before the end of the court’s term in June 2026.
