CNN criticada por "apelido" dado à secretária de imprensa da Casa Branca, Karoline Leavitt, enquanto fãs lhe dão um rótulo diferente por "levar almas" na TV | The US Sun

  In her first network television appearance since taking office, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt completely threw Michael Strahan of Good Morning America off balance, revealing shocking plans for federal spending and workforce reductions that have sparked intense public debate.

From the very start, Leavitt didn’t hold back: only 6% of federal employees in Washington, D.C. actually show up to the office, and to “save tens of billions of dollars for taxpayers,” the administration is offering eight months’ pay for anyone willing to resign. Strahan fretted over losing talent, but Leavitt bluntly replied, “If they don’t like it, they can leave. This is an opportunity to make government more efficient—and the American people deserve that.”

Tensions rose as Strahan pressed about pausing federal assistance programs, fearing Americans might go hungry. Leavitt quickly dismantled the panic, explaining this is a temporary pause to review spending, and that individual assistance such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and welfare will continue uninterrupted. She emphasized that meaningless spending on DEI programs and the Green New Deal has been cut to protect taxpayers’ money.

Leavitt also addressed border and immigration concerns, stating, “Individuals in the U.S. illegally will be deported, while those here legally will be protected. This is law enforcement, not political theater.”

When Strahan questioned Mark Milley’s loss of security and clearance, Leavitt clarified that the President does not believe in providing lifetime security for former officials, and anyone needing protection can hire private security. The interview ended with a humorous slip as Strahan mistakenly called her “Karoline Milley,” but the overall impression was clear: Leavitt completely controlled the conversation.

🔥 Hot Question: Are these hardline policies truly about “saving taxpayers’ money”, or are they a psychological shock to federal employees and immigrants, igniting an unprecedented ethical and political debate in America?