Far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez broke House ethics rules by accepting more than $3,700 in gifts for her appearance at the 2021 Met Gala — including the now-infamous “Tax The Rich” dress — but paid less than $1,000 for the items.
The House Ethics Committee found that the New York Democrat failed to follow House rules on gifts and improperly gave her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, a free ticket to the exclusive $35,000-per-head event, The New York Post reported.
But the panel stopped short of issuing any formal sanctions.
According to the committee, the fair-market value of the rented Brother Vellies dress, shoes, jewelry, handbag, and hairpiece totaled $3,724.04.
Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign delayed payments for months and eventually paid just $990.76 — most of it from her own pocket.
Her staff also disputed some of the invoices and tried to reduce costs by comparing the couture gown to cheaper rentals online.
“Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s attempt to apply a retail rental cost to a handmade couture gown was unrealistic,” the committee’s report said.
The report noted that most vendors weren’t paid until after they made repeated attempts to collect — some even threatened legal action.
That led to subpoenas from the committee and a more than three-year investigation.
While the panel said it found no evidence Ocasio-Cortez “intentionally” underpaid for the goods, it did place blame on her former staffers, including ex-campaign manager Rebecca Rodriguez.
Rodriguez was caught trying to negotiate down the cost of the dress — from $1,300 to $300 — and left a $477 hairstylist bill unpaid for nearly six months.
The hairstylist eventually threatened to report the congresswoman’s campaign to the New York Department of Labor.
The Ethics Committee said no punishment would be necessary — as long as Ocasio-Cortez donates $250 to cover her boyfriend’s dinner at the event and pays an additional $2,733.28 to the designer.
AOC’s chief of staff, Mike Casca, said in a statement, “The Congresswoman appreciates the Committee finding that she made efforts to ensure her compliance with House Rules and sought to act consistently with her ethical requirements as a Member of the House.”
“She accepts the ruling and will remedy the remaining amounts, as she’s done at each step in this process,” he added.
Under House rules, members of Congress are barred from accepting gifts — with a few exceptions, including tickets to charity events if invited by the organization hosting it.
In this case, Vogue editor Anna Wintour invited Ocasio-Cortez and her boyfriend personally, as guests of Vogue — not the museum that officially hosts the gala.
Wintour also instructed the Brother Vellies designer to custom-make the dress — something the designer called “insane,” since she normally only makes shoes and handbags.
Despite being told to keep expenses low, AOC’s team was met several times with responses like, “Met Gala attendees don’t normally pay for this,” according to her lawyer.
The rented shoes had a retail value of $635 but were rented for $160. The Brother Vellies handbag was worth $995 and rented for $157. Jewelry was rented for $78, and a paper hibiscus flower for her hair cost $35.
A year later, in May 2022, AOC’s team received another $5,579 bill for car service, hotel rooms, and accessories like Roberts’ bowtie and cummerbund.
The report noted that the committee never got a clear answer about why the designer didn’t ask for payment up front.
“No one appeared to be thinking about the cost of anything, despite the fact that they were told to keep the costs down by the Congresswoman’s staff because the Congresswoman had and has limited financial means,” her lawyer said.
The committee concluded that Ocasio-Cortez’s conduct violated House rules, laws, and standards of conduct — both in accepting the gifts and in delaying repayment.
Once she repays the remaining value, the committee says the matter will be considered closed.
President Donald Trump confirmed on Friday that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro offered significant concessions to the United States in a bid to maintain his grip on power.
During a press engagement at the White House, Trump was asked about reports that Maduro had reached out to his administration with proposals involving Venezuela’s natural resources.
“He has offered everything,” Trump told reporters. “He’s offered everything; you’re right.”
The president followed that up with a direct remark that immediately drew global attention: “You know why? Because he doesn’t want to fuck around with the United States.”
Trump’s statement came during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was in Washington to discuss diplomatic solutions aimed at ending the long-running Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine.
The question about Venezuela appeared unrelated to the topic of Ukraine but reflected broader concerns about authoritarian governments aligned with Russia.
Maduro has long been a vocal ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin and has consistently supported Moscow’s foreign policy, including its actions in Ukraine.
In past remarks, Maduro mocked Zelensky as a “clown” and likened him to Venezuelan opposition figure Juan Guaidó, who once attempted to challenge Maduro’s rule in 2019.
U.S. foreign policy toward Venezuela under Trump’s leadership has focused heavily on countering corruption, narcotics trafficking, and authoritarian influence in Latin America.
As part of that effort, Trump’s administration placed a $50 million bounty on Maduro for information leading to his capture.
According to the U.S. State Department, Maduro was implicated in leading the “Cartel of the Suns,” a high-level Venezuelan drug-trafficking organization involving senior officials.
The State Department described Maduro’s role as one of coordination and leadership, connecting him to narco-terrorism operations with Colombia’s FARC, a designated terrorist organization.
“Maduro negotiated multi-ton shipments of FARC-produced cocaine; directed the Cartel of the Suns to provide military-grade weapons to the FARC; coordinated with narcotics traffickers in Honduras and other countries to facilitate large-scale drug trafficking,” the statement said.
Reports in U.S. media have indicated that members of Maduro’s circle sought dialogue with Washington to mitigate sanctions and halt international pressure.
According to the New York Times and Miami Herald
, senior Venezuelan officials allegedly offered the U.S. access to key oil and mineral assets in exchange for leniency toward the regime.
The proposal was reportedly delivered by Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodríguez and her brother Jorge Rodríguez, president of the National Assembly, through Qatari intermediaries.
Sources cited by multiple outlets suggested the Rodríguez siblings presented themselves as possible successors to Maduro if such an arrangement could preserve their power and wealth.
The Associated Press corroborated similar details, indicating that the offer was known and approved by Maduro.
Reports further noted internal divisions within the U.S. administration, with officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly rejecting any deal that did not include full regime change.
Rubio had previously told
“There is no loyalty to Maduro,” Rubio said at the time. “There is basically loyalty to a system that is making them rich and has allowed their families to enjoy life and stay out of jail.”
The Rodríguez siblings consolidated power in 2024 following the arrest of former oil minister Tareck El Aissami, who was charged with treason, money laundering, and corruption.
BREAKING: Anna Paulina Luna Claims The Biden DOJ DESTROYED…
Representative Anna Paulina Luna has leveled explosive information against the Biden Department of Justice, claiming that critical materials related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation have been deliberately destroyed.
This assertion, if proven true, would represent one of the most damning instances of governmental obstruction and cover-up in recent history.
Luna, who chairs a congressional task force focused on federal transparency, has stated unequivocally that she possesses evidence implicating high-ranking officials in the DOJ.
According to her, these officials not only failed to disclose materials related to Epstein but actively destroyed them to conceal the extent of powerful individuals’ involvement in Epstein’s criminal network.
She introduced legislation titled the SHRED Act, aimed at imposing severe penalties on government agents who destroy or conceal federal records. The proposed bill calls for 20 years to life in prison for anyone caught eliminating evidence in cases of national significance.
“Even if they are conducting a criminal investigation, you should probably pick up the phone and call us,” Luna told Fox News. “We have been more than patient.”
These developments come amid growing conservative suspicion that the Biden administration has no interest in unmasking Epstein’s full network. The notion that key records could be gone forever only intensifies fears that justice is being buried under a bureaucratic rug.
Luna’s office has reportedly sent multiple requests to the Department of Justice demanding clarity on the handling of Epstein-related materials. So far, those inquiries have been met with either vague responses or complete silence.
The congresswoman did not mince words in her public statements, suggesting that the DOJ’s behavior constitutes a deliberate act of obstruction. If true, such actions could violate federal law and trigger an entirely new legal battle.
“The Biden DOJ has obstructed Congress, ignored subpoenas, and now appears to have destroyed critical evidence,” Luna said. “This is corruption at the highest level.”
Critics argue that this is yet another example of double standards in Washington. “Had this been a Republican-led DOJ accused of destroying documents in a child sex trafficking case, the media would be apoplectic,” one conservative commentator noted.
For years, the Epstein case has symbolized the deep rot within America’s elite circles. The financier’s suspicious death in prison and the subsequent lack of high-profile indictments have fueled accusations of a widespread cover-up.
Now, Luna’s allegations breathe new life into those concerns. If records were indeed destroyed, the implications are profound. It would mean that the DOJ, under Biden, actively shielded criminals from justice.
What’s more troubling is that these destroyed materials could have named prominent individuals—politicians, celebrities, and global financiers—who participated in or enabled Epstein’s crimes.
In this context, Luna’s SHRED Act isn’t just legislative symbolism. It is a clarion call for accountability in an era marked by elite impunity. Her bill seeks to ensure that future officials think twice before erasing truth from the historical record.
Despite Luna’s repeated calls for transparency, there has been no formal response from Attorney General Merrick Garland. The silence speaks volumes to many who believe the DOJ is stonewalling on purpose.
Meanwhile, conservative lawmakers have rallied behind Luna. A growing number of Republicans in the House and Senate are voicing support for investigations into the DOJ’s handling of Epstein evidence.
Some have even floated the idea of appointing a special counsel to probe the matter independently. Given the stakes, such a move may be the only path forward to restore public confidence.
This latest scandal further erodes the credibility of an already battered Department of Justice. From the Hunter Biden laptop fiasco to the political targeting of conservatives, the agency has been repeatedly accused of partisanship.
Now, with Epstein documents allegedly destroyed, the DOJ’s credibility is in tatters. Public trust, once broken, is hard to rebuild.
The American people deserve the truth. And if Luna’s allegations are accurate, they deserve justice, no matter how high the guilty parties sit.
Detecting the early symptoms of a health crisis is essential to prevent serious complications. Often, the body sends signals that we shouldn’t ignore, and being aware of them can make the difference between receiving timely care or facing more serious problems.
1. Sudden or Severe Pain
Sharp pain in the chest, head, back, or abdomen can indicate heart, digestive, or neurological problems. Their sudden onset requires immediate attention.
2. Dizziness or Fainting
Feelings of vertigo, loss of balance, or fainting can be signs of circulatory problems, dehydration, or low blood pressure.
3. Difficulty Breathing
Shortness of breath, rapid breathing, or a feeling of suffocation can signal respiratory crises, heart attacks, or serious allergic reactions.
4. Changes in Vision or Speech
Blurred vision, temporary loss of vision, or difficulty speaking can be symptoms of neurological problems, including strokes.
5. Palpitations or Irregular Heartbeat
A racing, irregular heartbeat, or prolonged pauses may indicate arrhythmias or other cardiovascular problems.
A family history of heart, neurological, or respiratory diseases.
Chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, or respiratory problems.
Advanced age or unhealthy lifestyle habits, such as a sedentary lifestyle and poor diet.
Don’t ignore the signs: any unusual change in your body deserves attention.
Seek immediate medical help, especially if you experience severe pain, difficulty breathing, or neurological changes.
Record symptoms: Noting when and how they appeared facilitates a professional diagnosis.
Avoid self-medicating: some medications can worsen the situation if not prescribed by a specialist.
Early warning symptoms are the body’s way of telling us that something is wrong. Recognizing them and responding quickly can prevent serious complications and save lives.
In short, being alert to severe pain, dizziness, breathing difficulties, changes in vision, or palpitations and seeking immediate medical attention is key to protecting your health.
When my 20-year-old son Eric asked if he could bring his girlfriend Jessica on our family vacation, I agreed, though part of me was surprised. He’d only been dating her for three months, and unlike past girlfriends, he had barely spoken about her. Still, he sounded eager, and I wanted to be supportive. When Jessica arrived, she looked like she had stepped straight out of a magazine—perfect hair, flawless makeup, and a suitcase that probably cost more than my entire wardrobe. My husband was instantly charmed by her politeness and poised manners. She complimented the house we rented, laughed at his stories, and seemed to know exactly what to say. But as a mother, I notice the small details—the spaces between words, the glances, the silences. And something about Jessica didn’t sit right.
She didn’t laugh at Eric’s goofy jokes, the ones that usually win people over. When I mentioned his basketball league, she stared at me blankly, as if hearing about it for the first time. When I asked how they met, her story sounded rehearsed, almost scripted. And when Eric invited her on a short hike, she declined with a dismissive, “I don’t want to sweat in public.” By the third day, I felt less like I was watching a budding relationship and more like I was watching a performance. Then I stumbled across something that made my unease multiply. I was digging through Eric’s beach bag, looking for sunscreen, when I found a small velvet jewelry box tucked beneath his towel. Inside was a diamond necklace—sparkling, elegant, and clearly very expensive. My stomach tightened. Eric was a college junior with a part-time tutoring job. There was no way he could afford something like that. He had never mentioned saving up for a gift, let alone one so extravagant. I put it back, careful not to disturb anything. My mind spun with questions. Was he planning to propose? Was he borrowing money he couldn’t afford to pay back? Or worse—was Jessica somehow behind this? I kept quiet, waiting for more clarity. On the final day of the trip, the truth began to unravel. Eric and Jessica were at the pool when his phone, left on the kitchen counter, buzzed. I would have ignored it… but the preview on the lock screen stopped me cold. It was a text. “+$500 to our deal. He’s still clueless. You’re good.” My hands shook as I read it. A deal? Clueless? My son? The pieces started falling into place in a way that made my chest ache. Jessica wasn’t acting like someone in love with Eric—because she wasn’t. She didn’t know his hobbies, his studies, his sense of humor, because none of that mattered to her. She was here for something else entirely. I felt sick. Was she using him for money? For some scheme involving that necklace? And who was on the other side of that text—the person praising her for fooling my son? I didn’t want to believe it, but the evidence was right there in front of me. I had no idea what Jessica was truly after… but one thing was clear: my son was being played, and if I didn’t step in soon, he might lose more than just money.