For decades, 60 Minutes was the crown jewel of investigative journalism—an institution that shaped public trust and defined Sunday night television. But the show that many Americans once revered is now a shadow of its former self.
Behind the crumbling façade lies a string of scandals, ideological bias, and recent events that signal the end of any claim to journalistic integrity. With the resignation of longtime executive producer Bill Owens and a looming legal showdown with Donald Trump, 60 Minutes finds itself exactly where it’s been heading for years: rock bottom.
The Fall of a Media Giant
What happened to 60 Minutes didn’t happen overnight. The erosion of its credibility has been a slow, painful process. The once-respected news program long ago abandoned its commitment to unbiased reporting, trading journalistic skepticism for partisan narratives.
One of the most glaring examples came during a 2020 interview between Donald Trump and correspondent Lesley Stahl. In what was supposed to be a serious pre-election discussion, Stahl dismissed Trump’s mention of the Hunter Biden laptop story—claiming there was no way to verify its authenticity and calling it “unverified” and “disinformation.” Today, we know she was dead wrong. Not only has the laptop been verified by multiple outlets, but even mainstream sources now admit its contents were legitimate. Stahl, however, has yet to issue a retraction or apology. That’s not journalism; that’s gaslighting.
And that pattern of deception hasn’t just hurt their audience—it’s now hurting them legally. Donald Trump has filed a $475 million defamation lawsuit against CBS and Lesley Stahl, arguing that their reporting constituted deliberate misinformation with political intent. At the heart of the case: the network’s failure to correct the falsehoods Stahl spread on national television. Trump’s legal team claims this goes beyond error—it’s weaponized disinformation under the guise of journalism.
A “News” Show That Protects Kamala Harris?
The situation only worsened during the 2024 campaign. When 60 Minutes aired what was billed as a hard-hitting interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, critics quickly noticed something strange: two versions of the same exchange. In one, Harris appeared poised, offering a succinct response. In the other, uncut footage revealed a meandering, disjointed answer—the kind of embarrassing verbal gymnastics that have become Harris’s trademark.
So why the two cuts? Editing interviews isn’t unusual, but 60 Minutes went beyond polishing; they flat-out sanitized Harris’s performance. That’s not editing for time. That’s editing for narrative. It was a blatant act of political damage control masquerading as journalism.
Internal Turmoil and a Public Exit
Bill Owens, the show’s executive producer since 2019, recently announced his resignation. His departure wasn’t framed as a hostile firing, but reading between the lines, it’s clear Owens was being pushed out—or boxed in.
In his memo to staff, Owens wrote:
“Over the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience.”
That’s as close to a whistleblow as one gets in mainstream media. Owens essentially admitted that editorial independence—once a hallmark of 60 Minutes—had been replaced with corporate micromanagement and ideological filtering. He continued:
“Having defended this show—and what we stand for—from every angle, over time with everything I could, I am stepping aside so the show can move forward.”
Translation: they broke it, and I’m not going down with the ship.
Getting Beat Down—Literally
To understand just how far 60 Minutes has fallen, one only needs to recall a bizarre and humiliating moment that perfectly encapsulates the modern state of Western media abroad. In 2011, 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan was brutally assaulted by a mob while covering protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. The horrifying attack highlighted not only the dangers of foreign reporting but also the disconnect between legacy media’s narratives and ground reality. Logan later said the media refused to talk about what really happened—who attacked her and why—because it would have contradicted the prevailing political storyline.
It was another warning sign: 60 Minutes, like much of corporate journalism, had become more concerned with narrative control than truth-telling. Even the safety of their own journalists became secondary to optics.
The Death Rattle of Corporate Journalism
The irony is staggering. A show once known for its fearless exposés now finds itself accused of being a tool for political manipulation. Viewership is declining, credibility is shot, and the lawsuits are piling up. What was once must-watch TV is now just another example of legacy media self-destructing under the weight of its own hypocrisy.
With Bill Owens out, lawsuits mounting, and public trust in free fall, 60 Minutes is rapidly becoming a cautionary tale of what happens when journalism becomes activism.
The ticking stopwatch is still there. But instead of signaling truth, it now ticks toward irrelevance.
Stephen Miller, the fearless Trump advisor and architect of America First immigration policies, dismantled a left-wing reporter’s attempt to smear the Trump administration’s deportation efforts. The reporter, clearly pushing a biased narrative, tried to frame the administration as cruel for deporting illegal alien mothers—ignoring the fact that these individuals broke U.S. law and that many, like the Honduran mother in question, requested deportation for themselves and their children.
The reporter smugly asked, “Is it the best use of the administration’s resources to be going after moms of young kids, basically?”—a classic leftist gotcha question designed to paint Trump’s enforcement policies as heartless. But Miller, refusing to play along, flipped the script and exposed the absurdity of the media’s open-borders agenda.
Miller’s Devastating Response: “Do you yourself have an opinion on this subject? What percentage of the, let’s just pick an even number of say, 10 million illegal aliens. Let’s say that Biden released, I think it’s close to 20 million. Let’s say he released 10 million illegal aliens into the country over the last four years. What percentage do you think we should let stay here of those 10 million?”
The reporter, flustered, shouted back, “I’m not trying to do a game!”—proving that the liberal media can’t handle it when their own emotional arguments are turned against them. Miller pressed further: “Is it your view that if a Democrat president releases 10, 15, 20 million illegals into the country, they all then should get to stay forever and for all of life?”
The reporter, unable to defend the disastrous Biden border crisis, deflected: “Stephen, I don’t have a view about what Democratic presidents do. I’m asking what the Republican president…”
Miller, unrelenting, shut it down: “Okay, so you don’t want to answer the question because you know the answer is obvious. Everyone that Biden let in has to go home. Of course. It’s a crazy thing to even ask. You think we should give administrative amnesty to some subset of the illegals that Biden [let in]?”
He then delivered the knockout blow, reaffirming Trump’s commitment to law and order: “ICE is going to continue to focus on raids against high-threat criminal aliens. We’re going to use the entire force and power of the federal government to get them all home. Many will choose also to leave voluntarily and take advantage of the CBP Home app. But we are not going to ask taxpayers to subsidize the presence of a single illegal alien in this country.”
🚨 MAJOR SMACKDOWN ALERT: Stephen Miller does it again. Fake news reporter in utter shambles.
REPORTER: "Is it the best use of the administration's resources to be going after moms of young kids, basically?"
This exchange perfectly encapsulates the media’s hypocrisy. They feign concern for illegal aliens while ignoring the catastrophic consequences of open borders—soaring crime, drained resources, and the erosion of American sovereignty. Meanwhile, President Trump and his administration are the only ones serious about protecting American citizens and enforcing the law.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The left’s mantra for the past few years regarding Trump was “no one is above the law”, but when it comes to radical left-wing judges breaking the law, they are singing a different tune.
Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder criticized FBI Director Kash Patel for posting a photo of Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan in handcuffs Friday after she was arrested on federal charges for obstructing ICE efforts to arrest an illegal alien outside her courtroom April 18. Patel posted the photo of the back of Dugan with her hands in cuffs as she was being led away by FBI agents with the message, “No one is above the law.” Holder accused Patel trying to “trying to maximize intimidation” by violating a Justice Department rule established by Holder restricting the release of photos of federal defendants. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
•Study: Complications From Abortion Pill 22 Times Higher Than FDA Says • Teen Who Slit Her Newborn Baby’s Throat Sent to Prison for 35+ Years • Colorado University Cancels “Sex Ed Summer Camp” for Kids •This Abortionist Killed About 42,000 Babies •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The Uni-Party, the Deep State, and the Military Industrial Complex seem to have an all-out war on peace. Maybe it’s only because it’s Trump who’s fighting for peace.
BREAKING: Pete Hegseth Hit With Another Round of Leaks Claiming He Used Unsecured Internet Line
By Cristina Laila – The Gateway Pundit – April 24, 2025
Another day, another Deep State leak. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was hit with another round of leaks on Thursday after several top aides have been fired for leaking. The attacks against Pete Hegseth’s use of Signal began last month after Jeffrey Goldberg, the anti-Trump editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, claimed he was accidentally added to a secure Signal group chat where top Trump administration officials discussed sensitive military operations against Iran-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen. The Biden Administration installed Signal on government-issued computers, but use of the app only became a scandal during the Trump Administration. READ MORE
Moriarty gives ‘diversion’ to Walz admin staffer but charges teen with felony for lesser property damage
By Jenna Gloeb – AlphaNews.org – April 24. 2025
The alleged double standard was too much for concerned citizen Jon Shanahan of Brooklyn Park, who filed a complaint this week with the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. Share This Story Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty is caught in yet another controversy—this time for letting a state employee off the hook after he was caught on video vandalizing Teslas in Minneapolis, racking up over $21,000 in damage. Dylan Adams, 33, a fiscal policy analyst for the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), won’t face a single charge. Instead, Moriarty’s office handed him a free pass in the form of a diversion program—something her own office guidelines say shouldn’t apply to cases with more than $5,000 in property damage. Adams caused more than four times that. READ MORE
•Abortion Biz That Killed Babies Up to Birth for 50 Years Permanently Closes • Pro-Life Father Mark Houck Fights to Hold Biden’s FBI Accountable • North Carolina Bill Would Ban Abortions on Babies With Beating Hearts •OBGYNs are Not Leaving Pro-Life States Because of Abortion Bans •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
Dr. Warren Hern’s clinic in Boulder, Colo., on Monday, June 1, 2009. Hern mentioned security measures necessary for him to practice. Such as U.S. Marshalls for guards and the bullet proof glass used in the office windows. (AP Photo/Ed Andrieski)
When Elon Musk announced in February that there were 10 million Social Security numbers belonging to holders apparently aged 120 years and older, instead of acknowledging the great potential for fraudulent activity, the corporate media downplayed the concerns. They insisted that Social Security fraud is “not very common” and maligned the Trump administration’s efforts to purge the federal government of waste and abuse. However, multiple instances of Social Security fraud confirmed in April alone are a reminder that the system has enabled abuse for years.
According to the Social Security database, these are the numbers of people in each age bucket with the death field set to FALSE!
Maybe Twilight is real and there are a lot of vampires collecting Social Security 🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/ltb06VX98Z
In late March, DOGE announced that, following a “major cleanup” of records, 9.9 million number holders listed with ages 120 years and older “have now been marked deceased.” (While people do live past 100, the oldest person who ever lived in modern times was Jeanne Louise Calment, of France, who died in 1997 at 122 years old.)
Corporate media and so-called experts have claimed that the listed ages of these centenarian number holders may be the result of “coding quirks” in the system and that efforts to mark these number holders as deceased could lead to more errors. But this does not change the fact that unused Social Security numbers marked as live are ripe for fraud.
What can you do with a spare Social Security number? You could register to vote again or sign up for social welfare, like housing, health insurance, cash assistance, and SNAP. Noncitizens can get a job, and of course, collect Social Security retirement or disability benefits.
Last month, a White House fact sheet, citing an inspector general report from 2024, noted how “The Social Security Administration made an estimated $72 billion in improper payments between 2015 and 2022.”
Social Security Fraud Is Alive And Well
Last week, Wendy Stone of Rochester, New York, pleaded guilty to “conversion/unlawful conveyance of government money, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine,” according to U.S. Attorney Michael DiGiacomo’s office.
Back in 2022, Stone went to the home of an acquaintance and found that person had died a few days earlier. Stone didn’t report the death to authorities. Instead, she moved the body to the basement of the home, stuffed it in a storage bin, and covered it in bleach, occasionally topping off the bleach to keep the body covered. It remained there from December 2022 to September 2023, the DOJ release explains. Stone, 63, “improperly collected” $7,900 of the victim’s Supplemental Security Income money, which is administered by the Social Security Administration, and used the victim’s Social Security number “to activate a new debit card.” Stone also later falsely claimed the victim lived with her to receive $1,070 in SNAP benefits, according to the release.
On April 9, Mavious Redmond of Austin, Minnesota, pleaded guilty to committing Social Security fraud for 25 years, roughly half her life. Redmond, 54, “collected more than $360,000 in Social Security payments intended for her mother,” who died in 1999, the DOJ said in an April 14 release.
“On multiple occasions, Redmond impersonated her deceased mother to keep her fraud scheme going,” reads the statement from Acting U.S. Attorney Lisa D. Kirkpatrick’s office. “For example, on June 4, 2024, Redmond personally visited the SSA office, posing as her deceased mother, and submitted a fraudulent SS-5 Application for Social Security Form using her mother’s name, date of birth, Social Security number, and forging her deceased mother’s signature.”
Deborah Bailey, 68, from Piscataway, New Jersey, pleaded guilty to theft of public money after claiming her dead mother’s Social Security retirement money for eight years after her death. After Bailey’s mom died in 2016, she didn’t tell the Social Security Administration, and an investigation revealed she withdrew more than $150,000 “in retirement benefits” from her mom’s bank account between 2016 and 2024. She faces sentencing in August, according to a DOJ release from U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s Office.
Reynaldo Martinez of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, admitted togetting his mitts on 40 SNAP cards using “stolen identities and stolen or fraudulent Social Security numbers.”
“Court documents reflect that Martinez appeared in person at multiple Rhode Island Department of Human Services offices and filed applications for SNAP benefits,” according to a DOJ release from April 2. “He did this by presenting fraudulent drivers’ licenses in various names but depicting his own photograph, and using Social Security numbers assigned to others, including that of a deceased individual, living adult citizens, and at least one juvenile.”
He admitted to receiving more than $33,000 in SNAP free food benefits. Martinez also admitted to cashing “altered” U.S. Treasury checks, which can be tax refunds, Social Security, or other benefits. Martinez pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in July, according to the DOJ. He was arrested and convicted multiple times in the past on other fraud and criminal charges, “dating back to 2012.”
Still, the desperate media really want the Trump administration to stop looking for fraud.
Last week, President Trump signed a memorandum aimed at “preventing illegal aliens from obtaining Social Security Act benefits.” Without missing a beat, Axios’ Jason Lalljee wrote under the headline: “Trump aids Musk’s Social Security fraud hunt, despite lack of evidence.”
But while the media cry about Trump eradicating fraud, and protesters key Teslas to punish Musk over DOGE findings, there are plentiful examples of Social Security fraud. The above are just a few admissions from April alone.
Not every mismarked 150-year-old Social Security number is connected to fraud, but for those and others that are, one person can bleed years of funding from the program, threatening its solvency and the security of those who truly need it.
Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.
Oh, the irony! California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the gel-haired darling of the left, has decided to play President Andrew Jackson’s foil in a modern-day Nullification Crisis. His lawsuit to block President Donald Trump’s tariffs — filed with all the fanfare of a Hollywood premiere — smacks of South Carolina’s 1832 tantrum over federal tariffs. Back then, the Palmetto State tried to nullify federal law, claiming it could pick and choose which national policies applied.
Newsom, it seems, fancies himself a latter-day John C. Calhoun, strutting onto the national stage with a States’ Powers swagger. The only problem? He’s reading from a script debunked by history, law, and common sense.
Let’s rewind to 1832. South Carolina, peeved over the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 — derisively called the “Tariff of Abominations” — declared them null and void within its borders. The state’s economy, tied to slave-driven cotton exports, chafed under duties that protected northern industry but raised costs for southern planters. Calhoun, then vice president, penned the intellectual case for nullification, arguing states could override federal laws they deemed unconstitutional. Andrew Jackson called this treasonous nonsense. He issued a Proclamation of Force, threatening troops, and Congress passed a compromise tariff to cool the feud. South Carolina backed down, but the episode laid bare a dangerous question: Can states defy federal authority rooted in the Constitution? Gavin Newsom, on a different day, would say that the Civil War answered that one with a resounding “no.”
Fast forward to 2025, and enter Newsom, California’s self-anointed guardian of the “resistance.” On April 16, Newsom announced a lawsuit to halt Trump’s tariffs, which slap a 10 percent baseline on imports and far steeper levies on goods from China. Trump justifies these under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law granting presidents broad authority in national emergencies.
Newsom, flanked by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, claims the tariffs are “unlawful” and will wreak “chaos” on California’s economy — think higher prices for almonds, wine, and Hollywood flicks as other nations hike their tariffs in response. Sound familiar? Like South Carolina, California is griping about federal policy hitting its economic interests. Like Calhoun, Newsom is betting on state power to thwart Washington. And like 1832, this is a clash over who gets to call the shots.
The parallels are uncanny, and the irony is thicker than a blanket of Sacramento Tule fog. Newsom, a Democrat who’s spent years preaching federal supremacy on everything from climate to immigration, now cloaks himself in the mantle of state sovereignty to dodge Trump’s trade agenda.
Let’s be clear: States don’t have rights; they have powers, delegated by the Constitution. Only people have rights, a truth the Founders etched into our framework. Newsom’s rhetoric, implying California can opt out of federal policy like some sovereign republic, misreads the Constitution as badly as Calhoun did. This is the same governor who has cheered federal overreach when it suits his progressive piety — think EPA mandates or Obamacare. Yet when Trump wields federal power to address trade deficits, Newsom cries foul, claiming California, the “world’s fifth-largest economy,” deserves special treatment. Newsom is dusting off Calhoun’s playbook, arguing his state can nullify federal law.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Newsom’s not just channeling South Carolina’s ghost. He’s auditioning for 2028. This lawsuit isn’t about protecting California’s farmers or tech bros; it’s about burnishing his anti-Trump credentials for a future presidential run. He’s been laying the groundwork for months, from begging foreign leaders to spare California from retaliatory tariffs to launching a tourism campaign to lure Canadians back to Napa Valley. Never mind that his own state is riddled with “rampant crime, homelessness, and unaffordability,” as a White House spokesperson pointed out. Newsom’s too busy playing global diplomat to fix the mess in his own backyard.
Here’s where the irony deepens. South Carolina’s nullification gambit failed because the Constitution vests Congress with the power to regulate commerce (Article I, Section 8). The Supreme Court has upheld this for centuries, from Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) to modern cases. Newsom’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues Trump’s use of IEEPA exceeds his authority. Good luck with that. Courts have historically given presidents wide latitude under emergency powers, and Trump’s trade war is hardly the first time IEEPA’s been invoked. Newsom’s legal Hail Mary is less about winning in court and more about rallying the coastal elites who cheer his every anti-Trump jab.
And let’s talk about the Logan Act, shall we? Newsom’s earlier stunt of cozying up to foreign governments to secure tariff exemptions for California skirts dangerously close to violating this 1799 law, which bars unauthorized citizens from meddling in U.S. foreign policy. If a conservative governor tried this, the media would scream “treason.” But Newsom gets a pass because, well, he’s the left’s poster boy. Imagine the headlines if Texas Gov. Greg Abbott negotiated trade deals with Mexico. The hypocrisy is staggering.
The Nullification Crisis of 1832 exposed the fragility of a Union in which states could cherry-pick federal laws. It took Jackson’s resolve and a compromise tariff to avert disaster. Today, Newsom’s tariff lawsuit risks reopening that wound, not because California will secede (don’t threaten us with a good time), but because it fuels a narrative of state defiance that undermines national unity. Trump’s tariffs may be bold, but they’re a federal prerogative, like it or not.
Newsom’s grandstanding, like South Carolina’s, is a losing bet. The Constitution hasn’t changed, and neither has the lesson: States don’t get to nullify federal law, no matter how much their governors crave the spotlight.
So, here’s to Gavin Newsom, California’s would-be Calhoun, tilting at windmills while his state’s problems fester. The Nullification Crisis ended with South Carolina eating crow. Newsom might want to study that history before his lawsuit crashes and burns.
There is controversy at George Mason University after Nicholas Decker, an economics PhD student published an essay asking “When Must We Kill Them?” in reference to Trump and his supporters. The essay captures the growing violent ideation on the left, fueled by rage rhetoric from politicians and commentators. The danger is that, for some on the extremes of our society, the question is not “when must we kill them?” but “when can we kill them?”
On his Substack “Homo Economicus,” Decker warns that “evil has come to America” and that Trump is “engaged in barbarism” and seeking “to destroy the institutions which oppose” him. He then suggests that the answer may be murder and violence.
“What remains for us to decide is when we fight,” Decker writes. “If the present administration wills it, it could sweep away the courts, it could sweep away democracy, and it could sweep away freedom. Protest is useful only insofar as it can affect action. Our words might sway the hearts of men, but not of beasts.‘
“If the present administration chooses this course, then the questions of the day can be settled not with legislation, but with blood and iron. In short, we must decide when we must kill them.“
This is obviously just the reckless rhetoric of one individual. However, it is indicative of a larger and growing problem on the left where people are increasingly turning to political violence. Rage gives people a sense of license to break free from basic norms of civility, decency, and even legality.
Decker is an example of that unhinged hatred masquerading as logic.
I found the essay deeply depressing. This is a student who clearly must be interested in teaching, but has not only undermined his chances of teaching but has adopted the very antithesis of an intellectual life.
Yet, I do not believe that this essay should be the basis for prosecution. The university has referred the matter to federal and state authorities for investigation. I have long opposed violent speech from being criminalized.
As someone who has received death threats for years from the left, I do not take such viewpoints lightly. However, I have long disagreed with sedition and violent speech prosecutions as a general matter.
College is often a time when students dabble with extreme or controversial viewpoints. Most quickly return to the center and moderate their positions. Some yield to the impulse to shock or to unsettle others. Again, it does not excuse the chilling statements made in this essay. While Decker added that “violence is a last resort,” he still maintains that it is an option. He ignores that Trump is the product of a democratic process and that the legal process is working to sort out these disputes.
Trump is likely to prevail in some cases, but not all. Our system does not guarantee that you will prevail in such controversies, and failure to succeed is not a license to use violence “as a last resort.”
What I am more concerned about is the culture that is producing such increasingly violent rhetoric on our campuses. Many current faculty have long espoused such violent positions. Indeed, some faculty members continue to make the news for violent political acts.
Of course, some professors have gone further and committed acts of political violence. Such conduct should be prosecuted and those faculty members fired. However, even in those extreme cases, liberal faculty have often rallied around their colleagues.
At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.
She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”
Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.
Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So, you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.
Another example comes from the State University of New York at Albany, where sociology professor Renee Overdyke shut down a pro-life display and then resisted arrest. One student is heard screaming, “She’s a [expletive] professor.” That, of course, is the point.
This student is voicing the same rage that he has heard from teachers and commentators. The current generation of faculty and administrators has created this atmosphere of political radicalism and moral relativism on campuses.
I genuinely feel saddened by Decker’s essay because we likely share a desire to teach and to be part of an intellectual community. The most essential part of that life is to defend a diversity of viewpoints and oppose violence as a means to force ideological compliance in others. I hope that Decker and others in our community will come to understand that in time.
Nina Jankowicz, the former head of Biden’s infamous Disinformation Governance Board, was “back with a vengeance.” After the outcry over the board led to its elimination, Jankowicz did what many of the displaced disinformation experts have done: she peddled her dubious skills to Europeans and others like a wandering rōnin without a master. Now, Jankowicz has appeared before one of the most anti-free speech bodies in the world — the European Union — to call upon those 27 countries to fight against the United States, which she called a world threat.
How the “Mary Poppins of disinformation” came to alight upon Europe is a familiar tale. The European Union has become the global hub for censorship efforts and, after she departed from the government, Jankowicz made a beeline for Europe.
I have been a long critic of Jankowicz, who became an instant Internet sensation due to a musical number in which she sang “You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation” in a TikTok parody of the song “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.” After the Biden Administration reluctantly disbanded her board, she later moved to join a European group as a foreign agent to continue her work to block views that she considers disinformation.
The false portrayal of the United States as a lawless, autocratic nation no doubt thrilled the Europeans. In announcing her heading a private disinformation group called the American Sunlight Project, Jankowicz used the same hysteria to attract donors, insisting that “Disinformation knows no political party. Its ultimate victim is our democracy.”
Of course, Jankowicz herself has been accused of disinformation that served one particular party. She was previously criticized for allegedly spreading disinformation and advocating censorship.
The ultimate irony is that Jankowicz knows that she can count on many of us in the free speech community to support her right to spread such sensational and inflammatory information. She has every right to trash this country and the results of the election.
Jankowicz has clearly found a home with globalists in Europe where our “Mary Poppins of Disinformation” is “practically perfect in every way”
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Their hill to die on, Democrats continue to double down on their stupid anti-American agenda; Open borders, rescuing MS-13 gangs from deportation, Men in women’s sports, etc.
Four Democrat House Members Arrive In El Salvador to Visit MS-13 Gangbanger Abrego Garcia – Trump Admin. Responds By Asking a Blunt Question
By Cullen Linebarger – The Gateway Pundit – April 21, 2025
Four House Democrats arrived in El Salvador on Monday to meet with their new hero, MS-13 terrorist Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and the visit did not go unnoticed by the Trump White House. As Fox News reported, Reps. Robert Garcia of California, Maxwell Frost of Florida, Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, and Maxine Dexter of Oregon all announced in a press release that they had arrived in El Salvador “to pressure the Trump Administration to abide by a Supreme Court order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.” The four Democrats went on to falsely describe Garcia as “a Maryland man with protected legal status who was unlawfully deported by the Trump Administration.” They also called his imprisonment a “direct violation of due process” under the United States Constitution. READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The left celebrates Earth Day by vandalizing Tesla dealerships while Bernie and AOC fly around in a fuel-burning private jet trying to get a failed populist rage going against Trump.
On Tuesday, Extinction Rebellion activists vandalized a Tesla showroom in Manhattan. Yes, that means that their reprehensible stunt against the electric vehicle leader happened on “Earth Day.” Seriously. The climate change radicals spray-painted “F*** Off DOGE” and “WE DO NOT CONSENT” on the showroom windows. They targeted Tesla to protest Elon Musk’s role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Two maskless men used fluorescent red and green spray paint to scrawl their messages, according to Fox News. They even drew a red circle with a slash, or “no” symbols, over DOGE signs, showing their disdain for Musk’s agency, whose worst sin is trying to cut government fraud and bloat. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
•Pope Francis Passes Away, Strongly Condemned Abortions • Melinda Gates: I’m Pro-Abortion But I’m a Faithful Catholic • Investigation Opened Into Death of Teen Who Planned Parenthood Killed •Andrew Cuomo May be Prosecuted After Lying About Killing Seniors •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
Comments orquestions? Email news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2025 LifeNews.com For info on advertising or reprinting news, email us.
LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report Tuesday, April 22, 2025
Top Stories
•Trump Administration Eyes $5,000 Baby Bonus to Boost Birth Rates • Tim Walz Signed a Law Allowing Infanticide • Democrat Resolution Honors PP CEO Cecile Richards •Pope Francis: “Defend the Unborn Against Abortion” •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The U.S. has implemented restrictions to limit funding and support for China’s military-industrial base, but some argue that U.S. investments in Chinese companies still contribute to its military capabilities.
China Using U.S. Investor and Consumer Funds for Its Military
By Antonio Graceffo – The Gateway Pundit – 11/26/2025
The People’s Republic of China is modernizing its military for a potential conflict with the United States, with Xi Jinping aiming for readiness by 2027—though a slowing economy may delay this goal. Despite these tensions, China continues to benefit from U.S. capital markets, with significant funding for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) coming from American investors and consumers, effectively putting U.S. money to work against its own interests. Since 2012, U.S.-China financial ties expanded significantly but have contracted since 2020 due to China’s economic slowdown, increased capital controls, and heightened U.S. government scrutiny of investments in China. READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The Uni-party has been kicking the can down the road for decades, but now there’s a new President in town ready to stop, crush the can, and fix long overdue problems
By Paul Ingrassia – The Gateway Pundit – Jan 3, 2024
“[America] is breaking down,” declared Donald Trump in a recent Truth Social post, responding to the outbreak of terrorism and violence that embroiled the nation in the first two days of the new year. Had victory not been secured on November 5th, the likelihood of the country surviving much beyond January 20th, given present dismal trends, would have been miniscule. In a little over two weeks from now, America will undergo the forty-sixth transition in the republic’s history. Just two years shy of its semiquincentennial (250th birthday), the republic is still very much a fledgling one, a toddler if not an infant, in the grand scheme of Western history. READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Letitia James is now getting a taste of her own medicine after she venomously went after Trump on her phony lawfare mission against him. Now she faces real, lawful charges for possible mortgage fraud and breaking campaign laws.
Branco Toon Store (New Product)
NEW EVIDENCE AGAINST NY AG: Letitia James’s Fishy Virginia Foreclosure Purchase in Martinsville Warrants Separate Investigation
By Guest Contributor – April 17, 2025
By Joel Gilbert—the investigative journalist who exposed the Letitia James Files. New York Attorney General Letitia James’s mortgage fraud problems just got even bigger, and may now include the possible breaking of campaign disclosure laws. Questions are now being raised about a foreclosure sale in December 2008 that involved James as a purchaser. Documents show her name appearing on the “Final Foreclosure Accounting” for the purchase of a single-family home at 21 Peters Street in Martinsville, Virginia. READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – This is what Easter is all about. The Death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, much to the disappointment of Evil.
Trump to Host Special Easter Service at White House, Top Preachers to Participate
Randy DeSeSoto – Western Journal – April 14, 2025
President Donald Trump will be hosting an Easter dinner and worship service at the White House on Wednesday. Preachers Greg Laurie, Franklin Graham, and Jentezen Franklin are all slated to participate, according to Fox News. The Holy Week schedule for the president is being organized by the White House Faith Office. “The newly created White House Faith Office is grateful to share that President Trump will honor and celebrate Holy Week and Easter with the observance it deserves,” Jennifer Korn, faith director of the White House Faith Office, told Fox. Read More
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
•Planned Parenthood Has Closed 10 Centers in 2025 • Missouri House Passes Amendment Banning Abortions • Delaware Legislature Passes Dangerous Assisted Suicide Bill •Abortions Fall 36% in South Carolina •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
Comments or questions? Email news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2025 LifeNews.com For info on advertising or reprinting news, email us.
LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report Friday, April 18, 2025
Top Stories
•95.9% of Abortions are Killing Babies as Birth Control • Senator Tommy Tuberville: Defund Planned Parenthood • Florida Sees Largest Abortion Drop in America •Tell Your Members of Congress to Defund Planned Parenthood •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
Political violence flared again in Pennsylvania on Sunday in another troubling example of an apparent nutjob who seemingly imbibed the leftist paradigm that legitimizes the use of force.
Cody Balmer — the Harrisburg man accused of torching the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion while Gov. Josh Shapiro, his family, and some guests slept inside — was charged Sunday with terrorism, attempted homicide, aggravated arson, and other related charges, according to a Pennsylvania State Police criminal complaint.
State police say Balmer was captured on several security cameras, and a woman contacted police and said that “her ex-paramour, Cody Balmer [38] was the individual responsible for setting the fire.” She told police he confessed to her and “wanted her to call police to turn him in.” Soon, he was outside police headquarters where he approached a state trooper and turned himself in, the complaint said.
Balmer told police he put gasoline from his lawnmower into two beer bottles and carried these homemade Molotov cocktails and a sledgehammer from his house, on a nearly four-mile walk through Harrisburg, to the mansion. Security cameras show he scaled the fence, broke a window, threw one bottle into the piano room, then broke another window, went inside, and deployed the second one to burn the dining room.
Balmer told police he knew it was possible Shapiro could be inside the mansion and might get injured, and when asked what he would have done if Shapiro had caught Balmer inside the home, Balmer “advised he would have beaten him with his hammer,” the complaint said. “During the interview, Balmer admitted to harboring hatred towards Governor Shapiro.”
“This type of violence is not OK,” Shapiro said in a press conference on Sunday, and he is right. But this type of violence is celebrated by Democrats and their left-wing media.
When they called the violent 2020 Black Lives Matter riots “peaceful protests,” as thugs threw bricks in windows, looted businesses, and burned neighborhoods, the left normalized violence. When Pennsylvania authorities responded to the protests with new rules for police, instead of clear punishment for the destruction of neighborhoods, they normalized violence.
Just saying Black Lives Matter is not enough.
We must listen 👂 We must take action ✊
These two laws are a down payment on the progress we still need in this commonwealth and in this country. #BLMpic.twitter.com/kX0U57J0oG
At that time, The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a column titled“Buildings Matter, Too,” about the destruction of buildings during the riots — a completely valid topic, for the paper’s architecture critic. The Inquirer’s “journalists of color”walked out in protest, the publication changed the column’s title and ran an apology, and Executive Editor Stan Wischnowski left the paper. The incident made it impossible to safely speak the truth there, and the response gave another win — a louder voice — to political violence.
Today, the left continues to devalue life and reward violence.
After another probable nutjob, Luigi Mangione, allegedly assassinated UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson (ostensibly to communicate some vague message about health insurance), shooting him in the back on a New York City sidewalk, the reaction should have been universal horror that a father and husband was needlessly dead. But some on the left thought Mangione may have had a “good point” (whatever it was, exactly) and some swooned, “Did you notice how handsome he is?”
Now there are women fangirling over him, and ditz writer Taylor Lorenz, like, totally gets it. In a mirthful CNN interview filled with laughter this week, Lorenz described how those women see Mangione.
“You’re going to see women especially that feel like, Oh my God, right? Like, here’s this man, who, who’s revolutionary, who’s famous, who’s handsome, who’s young, who’s smart. He’s a person that seems … like this morally good man, which is hard to find.”
Struggling CNN thinks content like this (Taylor Lorenz salivating over accused killer Luigi Mangione) is going to turn its ratings around pic.twitter.com/fKwA8cA3mt
Imagine how Thompson’s family feels seeing someone minimize his murder and fawn over the suspect.
When the lines between right and wrong are unclear, our culture drifts into danger, and Democrats should not be surprised when the political violence they normalized happens to one of their own.
Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.
The intense struggle between the Trump Administration and federal judges continued this week with another court ordering a halt to a nationwide program. In Massachusetts, District Judge Indira Talwani is preventing President Donald Trump from canceling a Biden program granting parole and the right to work to immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV). Judge Talwani’s order would require individual hearings for the half of a million individuals allowed into the country under this program by President Joe Biden.
Under the announcement published in the Federal Register, the Department of Homeland Security officially moved to terminate the CHNV Program. The announcement followed an Executive Order, signed on Trump’s first day in office, entitled “Securing Our Borders,” directing the DHS to end the CHNV program. Under the notice, DHS said that the parole status would expire in 30 days “unless the Secretary makes an individual determination to the contrary.” It further mandated that parolees who had not obtained a legal basis to be in the United States, such as a green card or other visa, must depart the United States before their parole expires.
In the prior hearing, Judge Talwani indicated that she would not allow that to happen, stating that the Administration’s interpretation of the law was “incorrect” and that “[t]he nub of the problem here is that [Homeland Security Secretary Krisit Noem], in cutting short the parole period afforded to these individuals, has to have a reasoned decision.”
In her opinion, Judge Talwani wrote:
“If their parole status is allowed to lapse, plaintiffs will be faced with two unfavorable options: continue following the law and leave the country on their own, or await removal proceedings. If plaintiffs leave the country on their own, they will face dangers in their native countries, as set forth in their affidavits.”
The court also noted that leaving would cause family separation and jeopardize their ability to seek a remedy based on the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Administration argued that it did have a “reasoned decision” to end the CHNV program and weighed the cost to the parolees. It noted that the parolees were always going to face family separation and costs since this was just a temporary, two-year program. It asserted that it did weigh alternative periods for winding down the program. While the court may disagree with its conclusions, it asserts that it has the same discretion used by President Biden in creating the program.
There was another pressing reason for the change. If the parolees were allowed to run the course of the full period, those who did not obtain legal status could force formal removal proceedings rather than the expedited removal under the program.
The Justice Department maintained:
“DHS’s decision to terminate the CHNV program and existing grants of parole under that program is within this statutory authority and comports with the notice requirements of the statute and regulations,” they wrote. “Additionally, given the temporary nature of CHNV parole and CHNV parolees’ pre-existing inability to seek re-parole under the program, their harms are outweighed by the harms to the public if the Secretary is not permitted to discontinue a program, she has determined does not serve the public interest.”
All of this presents another novel legal question. Parole is not a legal status under immigration laws. It is a status created by executive action and is now being curtailed under that same authority. However, these individuals came to the country under the promise of a two-year period. The question is whether a temporary program created by executive fiat can be treated as creating a type of vested right.
If Judge Talwani prevails, individual determinations of half a million cases would be an overwhelming burden on the Administration and easily run out the time granted under the program for these individuals. Indeed, for many of the individuals, the appellate process could exceed that period.
The court is not weighing the harshness of the decision but the president’s discretion in making such a decision. Judge Talwani suggests that, once created by President Biden, the program cannot be curtailed or shortened by President Trump. That question could very well find itself on the Supreme Court’s ever-lengthening docket.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – America is dying, and Trump is fighting to save her. Tariffs may cause short-term pain, but something must stop the decline and bring America back.
Peter Navarro Defends Trump’s Tariffs – “We’ve Given Away Our Houses, Our Office Buildings, Our Food Supply, Our Farmland” (VIDEO)
By David Greyson – The Gateway Pundit – April 4, 2025
Peter Navarro was on “Sunday Morning Futures” with guest host Jackie DeAngelis on Sunday to talk about the benefits of President Trump’s tariffs. “Let’s talk about the markets, the uncertainty out there, and the volatility. Do you expect it to continue?” DeAngelis asked. “First rule, particularly for the smaller investors out there, you can’t lose money unless you sell. Right now, the smart strategy is not to panic, just stay in because we are gonna have the biggest boom in the stock market we have ever seen under the Trump policies,” Navarro said. DeAngelis also discussed with Navarro about President Trump’s overall plans being pro-business and pro-consumer regarding tariffs, deregulation, tax cuts and spending cuts. Read More
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
•Judge Rules There’s No Right to Kill Babies in Abortions • Trump Will Celebrate Jesus on Easter • Investigation Covers Up How Military Called Pro-Lifers “Terrorists” •Abortionist Who Killed Woman in Botched Abortion Was Never Disciplined •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
FILE – In this June 29, 2015, file photo, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump smiles for a photographer before he addresses members of the City Club of Chicago, in Chicago. As other presidential candidates fight to raise money, Trump is reminding everyone hes already got a lot of it. The celebrity businessmans campaign was expected to reveal details on July 15 of his fortune, which he estimated last month at nearly $9 million when announcing his Republican presidential candidacy. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast, File)
The Supreme Court’s continuing failure to define lower courts’ authority is wreaking havoc on the reputation of the courts — and our constitutional order.
The Supreme Court has interceded six times in less than three months to rein in federal judges who improperly exceeded their Article III authority and infringed on the Article II authority of President Donald Trump. Yet the high court continues to issue mealy-mouthed opinions which serve only to exacerbate the ongoing battle between the Executive and Judicial branches of government. And now there is a constitutional crisis primed to explode this week in a federal court in Maryland over the removal of an El Salvadoran — courtesy of the justices’ latest baby-splitting foray on Thursday.
On Thursday last, in Noem v. Garcia, the Supreme Court issued a short two-page order on President Trump’s application asking the justices to vacate an injunction issued by Maryland federal judge Paula Xinis. That injunction, issued on April 4, 2025, ordered the Trump Administration “to facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025.” The lower court further held that the “preliminary relief is issued to restore the status quo and to preserve Abrego Garcia’s access to due process in accordance with the Constitution and governing immigration statutes.”
After the Fourth Circuit refused to stay Judge Xinis’ order, the Trump Administration filed an application with the Supreme Court seeking an immediate stay followed by vacatur of the injunction. In its application, the Trump Administration acknowledged that Garcia had been wrongly removed to El Salvador, agreeing that there was an order barring Garcia’s return to his native homeland. However, the Trump Administration stressed that the order also concluded Garcia, as an alien illegally present in the United States, was subject to removal under federal law — just not to El Salvador. The immigration judge also rejected Garcia’s petition for asylum and for withholding of removal under CAT, or the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld those decisions.
Further, while Garcia had been wrongly removed to El Salvador, the Trump Administration argued that Judge Xinis lacked the authority to order him to “facilitate and effectuate” Garcia’s return. First, it was not for a federal judge to tell the Executive branch how to engage in diplomatic relations. And second, the president lacks the ability to control a foreign sovereign, making it impossible for him to “effectuate” Garcia’s return to the United States. Finally, Judge Xinis’ order improperly directs the Trump Administration to admit Garcia even though he is a member of MS-13, which has been designated a terrorist organization.
Chief Judge John Roberts granted the Trump Administration an administrative stay, thereby nixing the April 7, 2025 deadline for the president to have “effectuated” Garcia’s return to the United States. Then on April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court entered an order stating the Trump Administration’s “application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order.”
But what precisely were those directions? Well, first, there was the deadline, which had already come and gone, and so the Court stated: “[T]he deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective.”
The Supreme Court then said that “[t]he rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand.” Here, the high court explained what parts of the lower court order it believed proper, namely to “require the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” However, “[t]he intended scope of the term ‘effectuate,” the Supreme Court explained, is “unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority.” The Supreme Court ended by stating “[t]he District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” But “the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps,” the Supreme Court added.
What exactly does any of that mean?
To Judge Xinis it meant she merely needed to clarify what “effectuate” means. But rather than do that, the Barack Obama appointee just dropped that directive from her injunction, amending her order “to DIRECT that Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible.”
She further directed the Trump Administration to file “a supplemental declaration from an individual with personal knowledge, addressing the following: (1) the current physical location and custodial status of Abrego Garcia; (2) what steps, if any, Defendants have taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s immediate return to the United States; and (3) what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return.”
Late Thursday, Judge Xinis ordered the Trump administration to file that declaration by 9:30 a.m. on Friday, even though the Supreme Court’s order only dropped Thursday evening around 7:00 p.m. The Maryland-based federal judge then denied the government’s motion for extension of time until Tuesday to file the declaration, but she gave them an additional two hours.
Unsurprisingly, 11:30 a.m. came and went without the declaration being filed. Soon after, the Trump Administration filed a response to the court’s amended injunction, noting it was “unable to provide the information requested by the Court on the impracticable deadline set by the Court hours after the Supreme Court issued its order.” The government’s response continued:
“Defendants are not in a position where they ‘can’ share any information requested by the Court. That is the reality. Defendants received the order late in the evening last night. They are reviewing the order and actively evaluating next steps. It is unreasonable and impracticable for Defendants to reveal potential steps before those steps are reviewed, agreed upon, and vetted. Foreign affairs cannot operate on judicial timelines, in part because it involves sensitive country-specific considerations wholly inappropriate for judicial review.”
Rather than re-evaluate her position, Judge Xinis doubled down, finding “Defendants have failed to comply with this Court’s Order,” and stating, “Defendants made no meaningful effort to comply.” She then entered a further order requiring the Trump Administration to file daily, on or before 5:00 p.m., “a declaration made by an individual with personal knowledge as to any information regarding: (1) the current physical location and custodial status of Abrego Garcia; (2) what steps, if any, Defendants have taken to facilitate his immediate return to the United States; (3) what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return.”
Judge Xinis added that if plaintiffs wanted any additional relief, they should file a motion by Saturday at 5:00 p.m. Garcia’s attorneys filed the suggested Motion on Saturday, asking the court to grant “three additional types of relief.”
First, the El Salvadoran’s lawyers asked the Court to order the government to, by end of day on Monday: (a) request “its agents and contractors release Abrego Garcia from custody in El Salvador pursuant to the contract or arrangement providing for his detention there at the Government’s direction; (b) dispatch personnel to accompany Abrego Garcia upon his release from [the El Salvadoran prison] to ensure his safe passage to the aircraft that will return him to the United States; (c) [p]rovide air transportation for Abrego Garcia to return to Maryland, because he may not be in current possession of sufficient identification to board a commercial flight; and (d) “[g]rant Abrego Garcia parole” and “prepare all paperwork and forms required to allow him to reenter the United States.”
Second, Garcia’s attorneys asked for the Court to grant their client discovery including production of the Trump Administration’s contract with El Salvador concerning detentions at the prison. The illegal alien’s attorneys further requested the court direct the Trump Administration to produce witnesses for the hearing scheduled for Tuesday. Specifically, Garcia’s attorneys wanted to question representatives from the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State, concerning: “(i) Abrego Garcia’s current physical location and custodial status; (ii) what steps, if any, the Government has taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States; (iii) whether the Government has informed officials at CECOT that it wishes Abrego Garcia to be released into U.S. custody; and (iv) what, if any, additional steps the Government intends to take, and when, to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.”
Finally, the plaintiff’s attorneys requested the court order the government to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the Court’s command that they file a declaration by Friday at 11:30 a.m.
Shortly after Garcia’s motion hit the docket, the Trump Administration filed its first required daily declaration. That declaration attested that, based on official reporting from our Embassy in San Salvador, “Abrego Garcia is currently being held in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador.” “He is alive and secure in that facility,” the declaration continued, adding: “He is detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador.” The second daily declaration, filed yesterday, stated the government’s declarant had nothing to add to those facts.
Judge Xinis has not yet ruled on the plaintiff’s motion, but given her refusal to respond reasonably to the Trump Administration’s request for an extension of time to file the declaration, her utter failure to show any deference to the Trump Administration’s handling of foreign affairs, and that the declarations said nothing of efforts by the Trump Administration to obtain Garcia’s release from prison, it seems likely she will grant Garcia much of what he requests.
Yet, those requests, as the Trump Administration pointed out yesterday in its response brief, directly infringe on the president’s Article II authority. “The federal courts have no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner,” the Trump Administration wrote. Rather, “[t]hat is the ‘exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.’”
While the Supreme Court has declared that “[s]uch power is ‘conclusive and preclusive,’ and beyond the reach of the federal courts’ equitable authority,” given her orders to date, Judge Xinis is unlikely to stand down. Rather, expect the Obama appointee to enter another scathing order demanding details and actions. But with its core executive powers at stake, the Trump Administration cannot comply.
The justices should have foreseen this standoff and defused the situation last week by clearly defining the limits of the lower court’s authority. The Supreme Court’s continuing failure to do so is wreaking havoc on the reputation of the courts — and our constitutional order.
Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. Margot’s work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion, National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. Cleveland is also of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland where you can read more about her greatest accomplishments—her dear husband and dear son. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
President Donald Trump pointed out Monday on his Truth Social account that the war between Russia and Ukraine began during President Joe Biden’s administration.
“The war between Russia and Ukraine is Biden’s war, not mine. I just got here, and for four years during my term, had no problem in preventing it from happening,” Trump wrote, adding that he “had nothing to do with this war” but is working “diligently to get the death and destruction to stop.”
“If the 2020 presidential election was not rigged, and it was, in so many ways, that horrible war would never have happened,” he continued. “President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy and Crooked Joe Biden did an absolutely horrible job in allowing this travesty to begin. There were so many ways of preventing it from ever starting. But that is the past. Now we have to get it to stop, and fast. So sad!”
On 60 Minutes Sunday, Zelenskyy called on Trump to support Ukraine.
“President Trump, being a strong president of a strong country, must be on Ukraine’s side,” Zelenskyy said. “I think it is wrong that America wants to be neutral.”
Zelenskyy also warned Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ultimate goal could result in a World War.
“If we do not stand firm, he [Putin] will advance further,” Zelenskyy told CBS News. “It is not just idle speculation; the threat is real. Putin’s ultimate goal is to revive the Russian empire and reclaim territories currently under NATO protection. Considering all of this, I believe it could escalate into a world war. There won’t be a safe place, there won’t be a safe place for [anyone].”
President Donald Trump on Monday said CNN refuses to report accurately on the decrease in migrants crossing the southern border because “they hate our country.” During a meeting with El Salvador President Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office, Trump talked about military and law enforcement recruitment that has surged.
“Actually, what you’re doing with the border is remarkable. It has dropped, what, 95%? It’s incredible,” Bukele said to Trump.
“As of this morning, 99%, 99.1% to be exact,” Trump replied.
“Why are those numbers not in the media?” Bukele asked.
“Well, they get out, but the fake news, you know, like CNN — CNN over here doesn’t want to put them out because they don’t like putting out good numbers … because I think they hate our country, actually,” Trump said.
Trump then asked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to comment.
“It’s just been absolutely phenomenal what a great leader can do,” Noem said. “Clear direction. Our laws matter. We should only have people in our country that love us. And our Border Patrol and our ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officers and law officers have done fantastic work. So, we’re proud of them.’
“Now, we just need to get the criminals and murderers and rapists and dangerous gang members and terrorist organizations out of our country.”
After the media availability ended, CNN’s Dana Bash took issue with Trump’s words.
“I just want to say, for the record, since we heard President Trump say in the Oval Office that CNN hates our country, CNN does not hate our country,” she told viewers. “That should go without saying.”
Bash added, “I’ve been here for 32 years, and I see a rhetorical device in him trying to say such a thing. That said, I want to focus on the news that we heard.”
Below is my column in the Hill on recent disclosure that the Biden Administration may have withheld evidence contradicting the Chinese on the origins of COVID. Millions of Americans lost loved ones and would like to know who was responsible. It appears that our government and many experts were less motivated to find that answer.
Here is the column:
Imagine a world war that left more than seven million dead, hundreds of millions became ill, wrecked the global economy, and left a generation with lasting psychological and developmental injuries. We have seen such wars in history. What is different in this circumstance, however, is that all of that happened, and yet, years later, we still have no agreement on the original cause or possible culprits behind a pandemic that ravaged the world.
Worse yet, many politicians, experts and journalists do not seem inclined to find the answers. This is like fighting World War II and then shrugging off the question of what actually started it.
New questions are being raised over long-withheld evidence on the origins of COVID, information that contradicted the accounts of not just the Biden administration but also allies in academia and the media.
The Chinese first reported the outbreak in December 2019 and insisted that it came from a wet market in Wuhan — a natural or “zoonotic” transfer from bats sold at the market. Others were skeptical and pointed to the nearby Wuhan government virus lab, known to have conducted coronavirus studies with bats. This lab had a history of safety and contamination concerns.
The “lab-leak theory,” which was always the most obvious explanation, was further reinforced by scientists who saw evidence of possible manipulation of the virus’s genetic code, particularly the “spike protein” that enables the virus to enter the human body in a “gain of function” operation. There was (and still is) a serious controversy over the origins of the virus, but any debate was quickly scuttled in favor of the natural theory.
The Chinese immediately moved to crush any speculation of a lab-leak. Wuhan scientists were gagged and the Chinese refused to allow international investigators access to them or the lab in question. The Chinese also used their considerable influence over the World Health Organization and other groups to dismiss or downplay the lab theory..
Now, a long-withheld military report has finally been released by the Trump administration. It appears to confirm what was once denied by the Biden administration: U.S. military service members contracted COVID-19-like symptoms after participating in the World Military Games in October 2019 in Wuhan.
That contradicts China’s timeline. It suggests a longer cover-up in that country, which allowed the virus to spread not only to the U.S. but to countries around the world. Other nations also reported that their military personnel had fallen ill after attending the same games, suggesting that the virus was not only spreading but already raging in the area at that time.
The most disturbing aspect of this report is not the alleged conduct of the Chinese government, but that of our own. Rumors of U.S. military personnel coming down with the virus had long been out there. Republicans in Congress repeatedly asked the Biden administration about any report on the outbreak. Then-Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby told The Washington Post in June 2021 that the military had “no knowledge” of COVID-19 infections among the troops participating in those games.
Even as the illness associated with the games became known, the Biden administration repeatedly refused to confirm the U.S. cases, and a 2022 report was withheld from both Congress and the public. If true, the level of duplicity and dishonesty is shocking. In the U.S. alone, more than 1.2 million died and more than 111 million were made sick by this virus. Yet the Biden administration is accused of withholding this information from the world. Why?
This disclosure follows an equally troubling disclosure that scientists in the Biden administration actually found support for the lab theory but were silenced by their superiors.
Last December, the Wall Street Journal released an alarming report on how these scientists supported the lab theory on the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from a critical briefing of Biden, but government scientists were reportedly warned that they were “off the reservation” in supporting the lab theory.
As scientists were being attacked publicly and blacklisted for supporting the lab theory, experts at both the FBI and the Energy Department found the lab theory credible. Although no theory could be proven conclusively, it was deemed a more likely scenario than the natural-origin theory. The CIA also found the lab theory credible.
What the public was hearing was entirely different. They were hearing the same narrative laid out by the Chinese government in December 2019. The Chinese relied upon western scientists to form a mob against anyone raising the lab-leak theory as a possible explanation. Many were enlisted to sign letters or publish statements denouncing the idea. It became an article of faith — a required virtue signal among university scientists. The western media were equally primed to quash the theory.
After President Trump embraced the lab theory, the Chinese had the perfect setup. The media was on a hair-trigger in opposition and denounced his comments as not only unfounded but also racist. MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace mocked Trump and others for spreading “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt insisted that “we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified.”
MSNBC’s Joy Reid called the lab leak theory “debunked bunkum.” Over at CNN, reporter Drew Griffin criticized the “widely debunked” theory and host Fareed Zakaria told viewers that “the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory” in the lab leak.
The Washington Post was particularly dogmatic. After Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) raised the lab-leak theory, he was chastised for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”
The Post’s “fact checker” Glenn Kessler mocked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for entertaining the theory. “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus to jump from the lab,” he posted. “Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”
Even in 2021 when countervailing evidence was surfacing, the unrelenting attacks continued. New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli urged journalists not to mention the “racist” lab theory. Social media companies also enforced the narrative and, with the coordination of the Biden Administration, experts raising the lab theory were targeted, censored, and blacklisted.
It now appears that the COVID outbreak may have occurred months before the alleged wet market release — months that could have been used to contain the virus. Instead, China is accused of suppressing the news and allowing the virus to spread worldwide. Our military personnel alone went home from the Wuhan games to 25 states, potentially carrying it with them. When information on these infections connected to the games was reported around the world, China even suggested that the U.S. used the games to release the weaponized virus.
In 2020, I wrote a column on why China seemed poised to avoid any liability for what might be the greatest act of negligence in history. The sheer size of the disaster somehow seemed to insulate China. As Joseph Stalin had once said, “a single death is a tragedy” and “a million deaths is a statistic.”
Try more than seven million, and you have a statistic that was not worth confronting the Chinese over. What was done was done.
Attorney Chris Madel said, “Today is a complete vindication for Liz Collin, Dr. Chaix, and Alpha News—and a complete victory for the First Amendment.” On Tuesday, Judge Edward T. Wahl dismissed the defamation lawsuit filed by Katie Blackwell—the Assistant Chief of Operations for the Minneapolis Police Department—against Alpha News, senior reporter Liz Collin, director Dr. JC Chaix, and others. In filing the lawsuit, Blackwell and her attorneys labelled Alpha News and the other defendants as “extremists.” They claimed that “this lawsuit involves the politically motivated attack on a respected member of the Minneapolis Police Department who was maliciously defamed with respect to her performance of the duties of her employment and profession by extremists who are more interested in shaping a narrative and provoking outrage than in communicating any version of truth.”… READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – People suspect that many Democrats and some Republicans are being paid off through CCP money and that it’s influencing their vote on China trade policies, all the while calling Trump a Putin puppet without evidence.
Progressive Anti-Audit Democrats Took Communist-Sponsored Trips to China; “Collaborated Extensively” With CCP
By Julian Conradson – The Gateway Pundit – Aug 19, 2021
Multiple prominent Democrats who have been leading the charge against efforts to audit the 2020 election were just exposed for their “extensive collaboration” with one of the Chinese Communist Party’s most influential propaganda groups. According to an exclusive report byThe National Pulse , “NewDEAL Leaders,” a radical-progressive Democrat ‘network’ comprised of state and local elected officials, has repeatedly sent lawmakers on trips to China that were paid for by the CCP, and have essentially been colluding with America’s foremost adversary since at least 2016. The trips were paid for by funds from the People’s Liberation Army of China, with the express intent to “influence” US policy decisions. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
•Hospital Wants to Remove Baby’s Life Support Without Consent • Planned Parenthood Aborted Triplets, Left Parts of Babies Inside Mom • Democrats are So Rabidly Pro-Abortion, They’re Fine With Infanticide •Canada Has Abortions Up to Birth, Pierre Poilievre Won’t Stop It •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
After sitting back for four years while the leader of the Democrat Party allowed millions of illegal aliens to invade the country, 208 Democrats voted against legislation Thursday that would keep foreign nationals out of American elections.
The Republican-led House passed the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act 220-208. The legislation, introduced by Texas Rep. Chip Roy, would require documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.
“Despite the ridiculous attacks and purposeful misinformation spread about the bill, I am pleased to see that the House of Representatives once again passed the SAVE Act on a bipartisan basis to ensure only U.S. citizens vote in federal elections,” Roy said in a statement to The Federalist.
“In order to preserve this republic, we must uphold what it means to be able to vote in a U.S. election,” Roy continued. “I am grateful that my colleagues answered the call and passed the SAVE Act, as this serves as a critical first step to ensure that we maintain election integrity throughout our country. It is now up to the Senate to take up, pass, and send this important bill to President Trump’s desk.”
Four Democrats — Rep. Ed Case (HI); Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX); Rep. Jared Golden (ME); and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA) — voted alongside Republicans to pass the SAVE Act.
Democrat Reps. Vicente Gonzalez Jr. of Texas and Don Davis of North Carolina previously voted in July to pass the SAVE Act but voted in opposition to the legislation on Thursday. The previously legislation passed in July, 221 to 198, after Democrats stated noncitizen voting is already illegal.
But just because noncitizen voting is already illegal doesn’t mean it’s not happening — or that current law does anything to prevent it. Current law prohibiting noncitizens from voting is largely toothless, with prospective voters simply checking a small square box on a federal registration form attesting under penalty of perjury that they are a citizen.
The SAVE Act would amend the 1993 National Voter Registration Act to make documentary proof of citizenship a requirement to register to vote. The legislation would add the additional, necessary layer of protection to keep foreign nationals out of U.S. elections. Under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), states are required to check information about newly registered voters in federal elections against information stored in the state’s motor vehicle administration database. Individuals who do not have a driver’s license identification number can instead provide the last four digits of his Social Security number. But foreign nationals can obtain both of those documents, so neither one really confirms citizenship.
In California, prospective voters who lack both a driver’s license identification number and a Social Security number can instead provide proof of identity — not citizenship — using low-security identification like a gym membership, utility bill, or credit card.
Such a vulnerable system has enabled 11,198 noncitizens to register to vote in Pennsylvania despite, as Democrats have made clear, it being illegal, according to the Washington Times. Oregon’s Secretary of State meanwhile found nine noncitizens who had voted in past elections after discovering “more than 300 noncitizens were erroneously registered to vote,” as reported by The Federalist’s Logan Washburn. Similarly, a Georgia audit found 20 noncitizens registered to vote — nearly half of which cast a ballot in previous elections, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The SAVE Act now heads to the Senate for a vote.
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2
Protests against President Donald Trump’s administration have been cropping up nationwide. They appear to have two things in common — gray hair and a lack of energy. Are Americans supposed to believe these are organic? Or are they organized by left-wing groups to undermine Trump’s administration?
Now the answers to those questions are becoming clear. The “Hands Off” protests of April 5 and earlier anti-Tesla protests were supported by a coalition of powerful leftist groups, including The Indivisible Project, and organized through Mobilize America — which was initially founded as a Democrat PAC. Now leftist organizers are planning more demonstrations across America for the socialist holiday May Day.
The ‘Hands Off’ Protests
Leftists gathered in cities across America to protest Trump’s administration on April 5. As images of the events streamed in from across the web, something soon became clear — many of the protestors were elderly.
Anti Trump protest in Charles Town, WV. About 200 people, not paid protestors, but the median age appears to be about 70. pic.twitter.com/ygFoKa8Ybn
Whether disaffected boomers, one-time hippies, or former bureaucrats, these were people with extra time on their hands. This was not lost on far-left activists, who used Mobilize America — a “volunteer management platform and network that connects left-wing organizations, campaigns, and activists,” according to InfluenceWatch — to stage the Hands Off protests, apparently attempting to subvert confidence in the Trump administration.
Hands Off is tied to the Indivisible Project, which launched in 2016 to help leftists “Resisting the Trump Agenda,” according to InfluenceWatch. Indivisible is listed among Hands Off’s “partners,” and the group’s website directs users to various Hands Off materials. Hands Off directs “general inquiries” to an Indivisible.org email address. When The Federalist asked about this, Indivisible Project Chief Campaigns Officer Sarah Dohl said the address online was a “typo.”
“Hands Off is a campaign, not an organization,” according to Dohl. She called it a “broad coalition effort,” pointing to “nearly 200 partner organizations.” According to Dohl, Indivisible provided Hands Off participants with content, toolkits, and “digital infrastructure.”
“We were proud to help build the Hands Off website and provide early infrastructure to get the campaign off the ground,” Dohl said. “The site and campaign are now supported by many different groups, not just Indivisible.”
A host of leftist groups “partner[ed]” in the Hands Off protests, including the anti-religious freedom Human Rights Campaign, leftist League of Women Voters, far-left Our Revolution, radical environmentalist group Greenpeace, and anti-Trump Women’s March. Left-wing union giants AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, Service Employees International Union, and United Auto Workers also supported the demonstrations.
Indivisible provided graphics and messaging to protestors, even suggesting wording for their signs and offering to reimburse groups up to $200 worth of expenses for each protest — though Dohl previously told The Daily Signal the group does “not pay protestors.”
An Indivisible document online guides demonstrators on “Tesla Town Halls,” specifically “how to plan a Tesla protest” and “executing your Tesla protest.” It listed grievances with Trump’s administration, including alleged “economic terrorism.”
“The idea of ‘Tesla Town Halls’ was one of several suggestions we offered as part of our early February congressional recess guidance — alongside more traditional options … ” Dohl said. As The New York Post reported, Indivisible also backed the “Musk or Us” protest during Congress’s March recess, encouraging the use of messages such as “Fire Elon Musk” and “GTFO Musk.”
Another main group behind the anti-Musk town hall protests was MoveOn, as The Washington Free Beacon reported. MoveOn is listed among the “partners” of the Hands Off protests.
Despite the burning Tesla graphic, Indivisible included a disclaimer in its document about a “commitment to nonviolent action.” The group recommended protesting “during business hours when foot traffic is high,” and focusing on “Tesla showrooms, factories, and dealerships.”
“Indivisible was not the central organizer of the Tesla day of action. … Some local groups chose to participate and did so peacefully,” Dohl said to The Federalist.
In the protest guidance document, Indivisible told anti-Tesla demonstrators to register their event with Mobilize America — the same group used to organize Tesla Takedown and Hands Off demonstrations. Dohl called Mobilize a “widely used events platform.”
“Like many other organizations, we use it to share volunteer opportunities and amplify partner events,” Dohl said. “There’s nothing unusual about that — it’s just a tool.”
Plotting May Day Protests
The Hands Off website hosts a link to the May Day National Day of Action. “This is a war on working people — and we will not stand down,” the May Day webpage reads. Itlinks to a “May 1st National Day of Action Host Toolkit,” featuring the popular Marxist iconography of the raised fist. The guide provides demonstrators with things like “sample social media posts,” a “sample email,” and even a “sample message frame” to “[a]lign your message with the broader movement,” even providing specific wording.
The guide tells organizers to register their event with Mobilize America to enable radical activists to “push out your event and help recruit attendees.” The document gives “[f]ull credit to Hands Off and Indivisible for sharing a sample toolkit we are building from.”
Dohl told The Federalist her group “isn’t involved in planning May Day actions directly, and our understanding is that plans are still coming together across the coalition.”
“[W]e expect to see mobilizations happening throughout the spring,” Dohl said.
The left-wing Action Network is also involved, hosting a map of the May Day events and description that declares, “We will not be intimidated by Trump, Musk, or their billionaire backers. … Their time is up. And May Day is just the beginning.” According to InfluenceWatch, Action Network “emerged during the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011.” It also helped organize the anti-Keystone XL pipeline protests, the anti-gun March for Our Lives, and the anti-Trump Women’s March. Some Tesla Takedown “global day of action” organizers used Action Network to plot anti-Tesla demonstrations on March 29.
According to an online map, the May Day protests are planned for the coming weeks in major cities across the country.
Follow the Money
Indivisible was “founded by two left-wing activists” in 2016 to oppose the Trump agenda, according to InfluenceWatch. The infamous Tides Foundation, a leftist dark money giant that sponsored pro-Hamas protests on college campuses last spring, is a “funding partner” to Indivisible’s 501(c)(3) branch. LinkedIn co-founder and Democrat megadonor Reid Hoffman, who said he wished he had made Trump a “martyr” before last summer’s assassination attempt, has also contributed to Indivisible.
Mobilize America initially began as a Democrat PAC and received thousands from Democrat sources, according to InfluenceWatch. But Federal Election Commission filings listed the PAC as “terminated” in fiscal year 2019-2020. And, as Capital Research Center Investigative Researcher Parker Thayer pointed out, Mobilize’s privacy policy shows the group was listed as part of Bonterra LLC as of February 2023. Bonterra provides various left-wing volunteer and fundraising services.
The Federalist also contacted Hands Off and Mobilize, but they did not comment in time for publication.
Logan Washburn is a staff writer covering election integrity. He is a spring 2025 fellow of The College Fix. He graduated from Hillsdale College, served as Christopher Rufo’s editorial assistant, and has bylines in The Wall Street Journal, The Tennessean, and The Daily Caller. Logan is from Central Oregon but now lives in rural Michigan.
His bold leadership, which quickly brought 75 countries to the negotiating table, he said, should be applauded. Clearly, his strategy is working: America is gaining leverage, and China is becoming more and more isolated.
While conservatives have been divided and disorganized about how to respond to the president’s policy, with almost all Republicans in Washington still watching from the sidelines, we’re calling on Americans to unify around a “yes, and” agenda.
That means saying yes to strategic, reciprocal tariffs that target China and other trade abusers—based on their barriers, not simply the balance of trade—as we work toward true free and fair trade.
And it means insisting that tariffs are most effective when paired with a broad array of conservative policies that alleviate economic pain on the American people. While Trump works to liberate us from foreign abuses, congressional Republicans must fight to liberate Americans from the burdens of federal regulations, mandates, and taxes.
Republicans Must Make Tax Cuts Permanent
First, we must not settle for extending the status quo on tax relief. Thanks to the majorities Trump delivered in November, Republicans must pursue deeper tax reform through reconciliation. Every penny raised from tariffs should be offset with pro-growth tax cuts.
Making the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent is a good start, but we also must remove every remaining tax penalty on expanding hiring and business operations in America by adopting full and immediate expensing for all investments. Pairing this with a simplified flat tax for all is even better. Congress should collapse the personal income and corporate tax rates to 15%.
Second, Congress should work alongside the Trump administration, using the reconciliation process, to transform the current 10% universal tariff into a true border-adjusted tariff. That means applying a universal 10% tariff on all imports, while granting a matching 10% credit to all American exports.
That isn’t just smart policy—it’s a long-overdue correction to a global tax system that has punished American industry for decades.
We’ve let foreign goods pour into our markets tax-free, while our manufacturers are taxed at home and slapped again abroad. That’s not free trade—it’s economic surrender. And no country has abused this broken system more brazenly than China, which has cheated on trade, exploited our openness, and gutted the U.S. industry while Washington looked the other way.
If we want to rebuild our economy, secure our supply chains, and end our dependence on adversarial regimes, then a border adjustment tariff must be part of the conservative economic playbook.
As a bonus, these revenues can be used to offset lost revenue from the lower tax rates we are calling for.
Congress Must Cut Federal Spending
Third, Republicans must finally get serious about cutting spending—not with half measures or messaging bills, but with real, structural reform. Through reconciliation, Congress should significantly cut mandatory spending riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse.
Now is not the time to settle for the lowest common denominator, which is always a temptation in politics. If we are to undo the fiscal and inflationary damage done by the previous administration and decades of fiscal irresponsibility, we must go big and take advantage of this historic electoral mandate.
Then, through the appropriations process, we must slash the bloated discretionary budget that fuels the unchecked growth of the federal bureaucracy.
In the meantime, the Department of Government Efficiency must be fully unleashed to do its job—scrutinizing every dollar, rooting out inefficiency, and holding agencies accountable. This is how we restore fiscal integrity and prove to the American people that their government works for them, not the other way around.
Businesses Need Deregulation
Fourth, American enterprise must be unleashed through sweeping deregulation. For too long, unelected bureaucrats have imposed crushing rules that stifle innovation, punish small businesses, and expand government control far beyond its proper bounds.
It’s time for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority, starting by empowering lawmakers to roll back legacy regulations that have accumulated over decades of executive overreach by passing the REINS Act and the Sunset Act.
At the same time, the administration should lead a coordinated effort—through executive orders and agency rulemaking—to dismantle the regulatory state piece by piece.
Fifth, permitting reform is long overdue, and it’s time we treat it like the national priority it is. For decades, radical environmentalists and bloated bureaucracies have used red tape to delay, derail, and destroy American energy and infrastructure projects. The result? Higher costs, energy dependence, and missed opportunities for American workers.
We need to streamline the permitting process from top to bottom—cut timelines, eliminate duplicative reviews, and ensure projects get approved on merit, not political ideology. If we’re serious about unleashing American energy, rebuilding our industrial base, and securing true energy independence, then Congress must act—the administration must lead—with bold, unapologetic reform.
In Washington, conservatives talk a lot about policies, but policies are not ends in themselves. They’re tools to achieve a certain end—the flourishing of the American people. Americans care about policy only insofar as it influences how they can purchase a home, build strong families, raise their children in safe communities, and live lives rooted in faith, purpose, and freedom.
For too long, America’s strength has been undermined by a bipartisan failure to defend our own economic foundation. Congress and previous presidents ran up our debt, piled up regulations, outsourced our manufacturing base, surrendered our supply chains, and signed trade deals that ignored Chinese cheating.
All of this served government bureaucrats, but not the American family. The result? Hollowed-out towns, lost jobs, and a working class forced to pay the price for decisions made in Washington and on Wall Street.
This result wasn’t inevitable—it was a choice. And it’s time we choose differently. It’s time to put American industry, families, and sovereignty back at the center of our national agenda.
As conservatives, we’re not just fighting for policies—we’re fighting for the American way of life. A way of life rooted in personal responsibility, bound by opportunity, and defined by human dignity. Every policy we advance—whether it’s tax reform, deregulation, tariffs, or border security—must serve that higher purpose: to strengthen families, empower communities, and preserve the blessings of liberty for the next generation.
Parental rights are emerging as one of the major civil liberties movements of this generation — and one of the greatest conflicts between the right and the left in this country. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled schools can hide a change of gender in young children from their parents. Now, Colorado is poised to pass a law that would threaten the custody rights of parents who “deadname” or “misgender” their own children. If a parent does not adopt a child’s new pronouns or name, they could be found to have exercised “coercive control” and lose custody in divorce proceedings in favor of a more enlightened parent.
As someone who grew up in an Italian family, I must confess that I thought “coercive control” of a parent was called . . . well . . . parenting. I can still remember my Sicilian mother brandishing a broom in front of our door to prevent one of my sisters from going out with a boy that she did not like. She simply declared “I gave you life, I can take it away” and my sister went back upstairs.
I admit the Italian parental style can be a bit shocking for outsiders and misunderstood by many. (My Irish father would sit bemused in the kitchen). In reality, it was all drama, but you knew that it conveyed not anger but love.
Under the new proposal, House Bill 25-1312, Colorado would use the “Kelly Loving Act” to make “deadnaming” and “misgendering” children a factor in child custody disputes. Referring to your child’s biological gender or given name or pronoun would now be considered harmful and abusive, inviting a court to take your child away from you as a coercive parent.
“Section 2 provides that, when making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child for purposes of parenting time, a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual’s gender-affirming health-care services as types of coercive control. A court shall consider reports of coercive control when determining the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child.”
So, the state will require parents to adopt a gender, name, and pronoun that they believe are harmful for their children. Many such parents may believe that a young child should proceed slowly and not make such changes as they consider the implications of such decisions.
One question is whether this would be limited to custody proceedings or eventually expand to families generally. If this is deemed abusive or harmful during custody battles, it would also be presumably abusive or harmful outside of such proceedings. The fear is that the underlying conclusions could support a view of a household being abusive and not being in the best interests of the child.
Notably, the Supreme Court will now be considering a Colorado case involving a ban on counselors offering “conversion therapy” for children. Under the state rule, a counselor can lose her license if she agrees to such counseling at the request of her parents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit tossed the challenge, ruling that conversion therapy is harmful and the rule is part of an effort to regulate the healthcare profession.
“This bill is the bare minimum of what we can do as a state, and the fact that we have to legislate for people to not bully and misgender and deadname people because of whatever insecurities they might have is sad to me. Why can’t we just respect one another? Why can’t we just understand that someone else’s identity has nothing to do with me or you?”
The bill passed the committee on a straight party vote with Republicans in opposition. I believe that the Democrats are not just ignoring parental rights but political realities. They will find that this is not a partisan issue. It is a primal issue. For parents, Democratic politicians like Garcia fail to “understand” that it has a lot “to do with them.” They are the parents of these children. If Democrats do not “understand” that, they are likely soon to find that out.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The globalist keeps underestimating Trump and is like the coyote in a Roadrunner scenario. They are wrong again, but that doesn’t stop them from trying. Toon Revised from 2017.
WAYNE ROOT: Trump is Roadrunner. Democrats are Wiley E. Coyote. “Beep, Beep.” And Here is How Trump Can Turn Tariffs into Most Popular Grand Slam Home Run in History!
By Assistant Editor – The Gateway Pundit – April 7, 2025
By Wayne Allyn Root
Believe it, or not, I still have Democrat friends. Just a handful out of the 6,000 names in my cell phone address book. But those few Democrats keep texting me to say, “We finally got him. Your friend Trump has finally done it. He screwed up- he’s destroyed the economy, he’s destroyed the Republican Party.”And I just smile and laugh.I’ve heard this exact same delusional, wishful thinking a hundred times since 2015. It’s been 10 straight years of “He’s finally done it. Trump is finished.” And for 10 years all these delusional Democrats have been dead wrong every time. READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Compared to Mr. Sippy Cup Biden, President Trump is bound to leave behind a larger-than-life legacy that is sure to end up in the Smithsonian Archives.
BREAKING: Trump Announces Immediate Tariff Increase on China to 125% and Grants 90-Day Tariff Reduction for Over 75 Other Countries
By Cassandra MacDonald – The Gateway Pundit – April 9, 2025
The announcement led to an immediate and massive surge in the stock market. Trump announced the tariff change on Truth Social, writing that it was due to China’s “lack of respect for the World’s Markets.” In response to Trump’s original 104% tariff on China, the Chinese government announced it would retaliate by increasing tariffs on American products from 34% to 84%. Trump highlighted discussions with representatives from over 75 other countries by U.S. departments such as Commerce, Treasury, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). These nations, he wrote, have sought to negotiate solutions regarding trade barriers, tariffs, currency manipulation, and non-monetary tariffs. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
•Pro-Abortion Man Who Tried to Assassinate Kavanaugh Pleads Guilty • Senate Budget Paves the Way to Defund Planned Parenthood • Baby Saved When Mom Changes Her Mind During the Abortion •New Study Shows Grief More Common Than Relief After Abortion •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
Comments orquestions? Email news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2025 LifeNews.com For info on advertising or reprinting news, email us.
LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report Thursday, April 10, 2025
Top Stories
•Woman Who Brutally Assaulted Pro-Life Advocate is Arrested • House Passes Resolution That Sets Up Defunding Planned Parenthood • Joe Biden Broke the Law, Used Anti-AIDS Program to Fund Abortion •Kansas Legislature Overrides Gov Kelly’s Veto of 3 Pro-Life Bills •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
The White House is signaling that new tariffs on Chinese imports are taking effect after China’s government missed a deadline to lift its retaliatory tariffs that were imposed in response to President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that because China declined to lift its retaliatory tariff, the president’s additional 50% tariff levied on top of previously imposed tariffs of 20% and 34% took effect, bringing the total tariff on Chinese goods to 104%.
She added that the tariffs took effect at noon Eastern Time on Tuesday, with tariff collection set to begin on Wednesday. Leavitt said that U.S. trading partners should be coming to the administration with deals to improve trade terms.
“The president’s message has been simple and consistent from the beginning to countries around the world – bring us your best offers and he will listen,” Leavitt said during a White House press briefing Tuesday. “Deals will only be made if they benefit American workers and address our nation’s crippling trade deficits.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said China’s failure to lift retaliatory tariffs prompted the Trump administration to hike tariffs further. (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque / Reuters)
Leavitt said that by contrast, China’s retaliatory tariffs have prompted Trump to increase duties on Chinese imports in response, serving as an example of what other countries that follow suit can expect.
“On the other hand, countries like China, who have chosen to retaliate, and try to double down on their mistreatment of American workers are making a mistake,” she said.
“President Trump has a spine of steel and he will not break, and America will not break under his leadership. He is guided by a firm belief that America must be able to produce essential goods for our own people and export them to the rest of the world,” Leavitt said. “A strong America cannot be solely dependent on foreign countries for our food, medicines, and critical minerals, and America must always maintain a robust defense supply chain.”
Tariffs are taxes on imported goods that are paid by the importer, who typically passes the higher costs on to consumers. (Photo by Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images / Getty Images)
The Trump administration has centered its tariff strategy around the elimination of trade deficits. After touting plans for “reciprocal” tariffs, the administration’s formula for those tariffs was calculated based on the size of the U.S. trade deficit with various trading partners.
Economists tend to dismiss trade deficits as neither good nor bad, arguing they’re the result of mutually beneficial trade decisions. Ryan Young, senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, previously told FOX Business that trade balances don’t “say anything about a country’s economic health, good or bad,” and noted the U.S. has run trade deficits for over 50 years.
The U.S. and China are escalating their trade war with tariff hikes. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images / Getty Images)
“The U.S. has run a trade deficit every year since the 1970s, yet living standards are better by almost every measure, whether it’s income, unemployment rate, life expectancy, percentage of low-income households with air-conditioning, internet and other goods,” he said.
“If the trade deficit were harmful, much of what we see all around us every day should not exist,” Young added.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon wrote in his annual shareholder letter released Monday that trade deficits “are not necessarily good or bad” and observed, “Even if our country had no net trade deficit, it would likely be running deficits with some countries and surpluses with others.”
RINO Congressman Announces He Will Be Introducing Legislation to Sabotage President Trump’s Tariff Authority (VIDEO)
By Cullen Linebarger – The Gateway Pundit – April 6, 2025
A RINO Congressman announced on Sunday that he would be moving to undercut President Trump’s bold move to reshape the global economic order with reciprocal tariffs on countries that have taken advantage of America for years. The Gateway Pundit previously reported that President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday the implementation of a 10% baseline tariff on all imports, effective April 5, 2025. On April 9, the worst offenders will be hit with even tougher measures. Speaking from the White House Rose Garden, Trump proclaimed April 2 as “Liberation Day,” marking a new era of economic independence. He emphasized that this measure is essential to protect American jobs and revitalize domestic manufacturing. The White House also released a detailed chart showing how badly many countries have been ripping off American workers, charging high tariffs on U.S. goods while benefiting from America’s generosity in return. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
•Woman Who Assaulted Pro-Life Advocate Won’t Take Responsibility • Michael Schiavo Keeps Secret Files About Terri Schiavo Sealed • Kansas Gov Vetoes Bill to Protect Christians Adopting Children •Colorado Passes Bill Forcing Taxpayers to Fund Abortions Up to Birth •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
The unhinged left, fueled by Trump Derangement Syndrome and seething hatred for Elon Musk, is trending more violent, according to a new study that finds political violence targeting President Donald Trump and his billionaire adviser is “becoming increasingly normalized.” The report, produced by the Network of Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in partnership with Rutgers University’s Social Perception Lab, finds a broader “assassination culture” appears to be “emerging within segments of the U.S. public on the extreme left, with expanding targets now including figures such as Donald Trump.”
Less than a year after assassination attempts on then-presidential candidate Trump and the literally explosive violence against Musk’s Tesla electric vehicles, it’s no secret that leftists are ratcheting up violent rhetoric and actions. The more troubling trend is that an “assassination culture” isn’t just coming from the “fringe” left.
“These attitudes are not fringe — they reflect an emergent assassination culture, grounded in far-left authoritarianism and increasingly normalized in digital discourse,” states the report, titled, “Assassination Culture: How Burning Teslas and Killing Billionaires Became a Meme Aesthetic for Political Violence.”
“The reports found widespread justification for lethal violence — including assassination — among younger, highly online, and ideologically left-aligned users,” the authors of the latest study write.
On Friday, a California man reportedly“angry with pharmacies” was arrested on charges of murdering a Walgreens employee just days after the Luigi Mangione Act was filed with the state. ABC 30 reported that Erick Velazquez, the victim, was not a pharmacist, and was a respected husband and father of two.
Source: NCRI data
NCRI accessed the violence zeitgeist with original survey data and open-source intelligence analysis to determine “how normalized and justified violence against the administration has become in public discourse.”
“The findings signal a threat to political stability and public safety,” the reports warns.
Here are some of the troubling numbers, according to the report:
Murder Justification: 31% and 38% of respondents stated it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk and President Trump, respectively. (These effects were largely driven by respondents that self-identified as left of center, with 48% and 55% at least somewhat justifying murder for Elon Musk and President Trump, respectively, indicating significantly higher justification for violence against these figures.)
Property Destruction: Nearly 40% of respondents (39.8%) stated it is at least somewhat acceptable (or more) to destroy a Tesla dealership in protest.
Psychological/Ideological Correlations with Assassination Culture: These beliefs are highly correlated with one another, as well as with the justification of the murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO and hyper-partisan left-wing ideology. (This suggests that support for violence is part of a broader assassination culture, underpinned by psychological and ideological factors.)
Interestingly, the report finds liberal social media platform BlueSky “plays a significant and predictive role in amplifying radical ideation.” BlueSky has seen its new user numbers surge since November’s election, according to the leftist publication The Guardian. Curiously, the “great X-odus” has been driven by liberals “seeking to escape Elon Musk’s X amid warnings from anti-hate speech campaign groups and the EU about misinformation and extremism on the platform,” The Guardian asserts.
NCRI also found that users are increasingly tying the “memification” of Mangione with calls for political violence against Trump, Musk and others, “reflecting the growing cyber-social presence of assassination culture.” Mangione supporters have been using a meme of the Luigi character from the Super Mario Brothers video game/movie franchise as a symbol of political violence. Some of the threats echo the “Deny, Defend, Depose” mantra inscribed by Mangione on the shell casing that killed Brian Thompson, according to the report.
Source: NCRI data
‘We Will Gut You’
In February, law enforcement officials charged 28-year-old David Allen June Cherry of southern Indiana with felony intimidation after police say he posted online multiple violent threats against Elon Musk, including that Cherry would “gut” the close adviser to President Donald Trump.
“You’ve broken the law. You’re on the hit list,” Cherry allegedly declared on the Musk-owned social media platform X, to a Musk post, according to an affidavit.“You’re robbing American people. We will gut you and parade your corpse in the streets,” the leftist allegedly menaced Musk a short time later.
Indiana State Police tracked Cherry at his job at Batteries Plus and arrested him, according to news accounts. Detectives reportedly seized an AR-15-style rifle, a handgun, ammunition and a ballistic vest at his Palmyra home, according to Fox7.
Cherry, who reportedly runs an online business selling anti-Musk merchandise — including an “anti-oligarch” patch with what appears to be an image of a raised-arm Musk in cross-hairs — told officials he merely wanted to make his posts “edgy” to spur social media reactions, and that he meant Musk no harm. He was released on $2,500 bond and faces the potential of six years in prison on the felony counts while he continues his hate campaign against the billionaire founder of Tesla and SpaceX. His trial is set for August, according to court records.
Southern Indiana man arrested after allegedly posting threats towards Elon Musk on X https://t.co/URy7n3vnxu
Cherry appears to be celebrating his alleged intimidation game on his Red Pawn Dynamics page.
“Let it be known that Red Pawn scared the richest man on the planet. What a giant p*ussy,” the webpage boasts.
His GoFundMe page has raised $4,500 of a $15,000 goal, supposedly for legal fees and to get his car out of impound. His supporters claim the First Amendment protects Cherry’s speech and that he is being persecuted because “his opinion was about a billionaire.”
‘Too Far Down the Deep End’
Musk reportedly has been the target of a growing number of threats over his leadership role in Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency and his pledge to trim $2 trillion a year from the bloated, wasteful and fraud-plagued federal budget. A Tennessee man reportedly upset with Trump and Musk was arrested on charges of assembling explosives to “burn down” Musk’s artificial intelligence data facility in Memphis. Ethan Paul Early, 25, told police that his friends talked him out of going through with the plan. He said had gotten too wrapped up in politics and had gone “too far down the deep end,” according to the affidavit, KBTX reported.
A recent Fox News analysis found that there have been more than 50 reported targeted attacks on Tesla EVs, dealerships and charging stations in the U.S., and at least 17 internationally.
“The incidents range from minor vandalism, such as keying or graffiti, to more extreme cases like arson and drive-by shootings allegedly targeting Tesla vehicles,” the news outlet reports.
Trump, who was shot and narrowly escaped being assassinated at a Pennsylvania campaign rally in July, is a constant target of threats from members of the unhinged left. On Friday, Jupiter, Florida, police arrested Glen DeCicco on charges of making written threats on his Facebook page a to kill Trump. “The Jupiter Police Department worked in coordination with the United States Secret Service throughout the investigation,” the press release states.
‘Real-World Escalation’
The NCRI report on the growing assassination culture notes support for such political violence on the right, but the prevalence is not nearly as large.
“This report points to disturbingly high levels of support for political violence, particularly targeting President Donald Trump and Elon Musk,” the authors write. “Across survey responses, nearly one-third of respondents—and a significantly higher share of left-leaning respondents—expressed some degree of justification for acts of lethal violence.”
While threats and acts of violence rise on the left, the silence from Democrats in power is deafening. But we’ve seen this movie before. Spoiler Alert: It doesn’t end well for a lot of innocent people. Attorney General Pam Bondi has rightly called the spate of attacks against Tesla “nothing short of domestic terrorism,” because that’s what it is. Just like the myriad acts of domestic terrorism by the left during the Black Lives Matter riots at the end of Trump’s first term.
“For the last five years, the violent left has run rampant with few consequences for the chaos it has sown,” Karol Markowicz recently wrote in the New York Post.
The NCRI report includes a stark warning.
“Unless political and cultural leadership explicitly confronts and condemns this trend, NCRI assesses a growing probability of real-world escalation,” the report concludes. “Given the current economic volatility and institutional distrust, the online normalization of political violence may increasingly translate into offline action.”
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
The Department of Homeland Security is “unapologetic” about using lie-detector tests on staffers as it aims to snuff out “leakers” who feed internal agency information to the public, Fox News Digital learned.
“Under Secretary Noem’s leadership, DHS is unapologetic about its efforts to root out leakers that undermine national security,” Tricia McLaughlin, DHS’ assistant secretary for public affairs, told Fox News Digital Monday. “We are agnostic about your standing, tenure, political appointment or status as a career civil servant – we will track down leakers and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.”
McLaughlin’s response follows Politico’s Friday reporting that the department had administered a lie detector test in March to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Chief Cameron Hamilton following a meeting between DHS and an advisor to President Donald Trump, Corey Lewandowski. The test ultimately cleared Hamilton, according to the outlet, as officials worked to determine if information from the meeting had been leaked. The meeting reportedly focused on Trump administration efforts to “eliminate” FEMA – an agency Trump repeatedly has railed against for not doing its job in effectively aiding citizens during disasters.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visits the Mariposa Port of Entry, Saturday, March 15, 2025, in Nogales, Arizona. (Alex Brandon/The Associated Press)
The use of polygraph tests at intelligence and national security agencies is not new, with the FBI, CIA and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives all using polygraph tests as part of background and security checks for potential agents or investigators, respective agency websites show. The FBI reported that in addition to a long history of using polygraph machines to screen potential hires, the bureau has increasingly used lie-detector tests on staffers who handle sensitive information since 2001, when the FBI arrested one of its own, former agent Robert Hanssen, for spying for Russia.
The Pentagon additionally announced in March that it was launching an investigation into alleged leaks of information concerning national security, which could include polygraph tests for employees in the Defense Department, Fox Digital previously reported. DHS had previously vowed it would use polygraph tests to weed out staffers who leaked information on immigration raids, citing that the department is a “national security agency.”
“The Department of Homeland Security is a national security agency,” McLaughlin posted to X in response to a message from February that DHS planned to polygraph staffers who may have leaked information. “We can, should, and will polygraph personnel.”
Secretary Kristi Noem issued an internal directive in February explaining polygraphs administered by DHS must include a question about unauthorized communication with media outlets and nonprofits, according to a report by Bloomberg Government.
The department already uses polygraph exams during the hiring process of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers and agents. (Getty images)
Border czar Tom Homan speculated in February that an internal leak tipped off illegal immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Colorado and California. The leaked intel allegedly allowed Tren de Aragua gang members to evade arrest at the time.
The department already uses polygraph exams during the hiring process of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers and agents in order to determine “suitability for employment” and “in support of internal and counterintelligence investigations,” according to the agency’s website.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speaks during a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, March 26, 2025. (Alex Brandon/The Associated Press)
“The federal government uses the polygraph exam to understand an applicants’ past behavior, personal connections and personal integrity,” DHS said on a web page explaining why it administers polygraph exams to CBP applicants. “Almost every Border Patrol Agent, Customs and Border Protection Officer, and Air and Marine Operations Agent who has joined CBP has taken, and passed, a Polygraph Exam.”
Fox News Digital’s Elizabeth Pritchett contributed to this article.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Prominent conservative legal scholars on Monday debated the proper legal response to liberal federal judges’ injunctions against actions by the Trump administration. From legislation that would alter the judiciary’s powers to introducing articles of impeachment, the commentators offered varying solutions to the current controversy over the separation of powers in a panel discussion at The Heritage Foundation.
Central to the discussion was Washington, D.C.-based U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg’s injunction against deportation flights leaving the United States, which the panelists unanimously criticized. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley was in the camp of urging Congress and the White House to refrain from combating the judiciary too fiercely.
“Where I’ve been critical of the administration is often on the rhetoric, and I think it has committed some unforced errors,” said Turley. “They’ve got to really pick the hills to fight on.”
The judicial scholars at a panel discussion Monday were unanimously critical of federal Judge James Boasberg’s injunctions against the Trump administration. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Turley added that he does not support impeaching judges, and that he thinks the legal system will sort out judicial overreach. A number of members of the House of Representatives have already introduced articles of impeachment against judges who have issued injunctions against Trump administration actions.
“I also don’t agree with limiting jurisdiction or limiting funds. I believe we have the world’s greatest judicial system, and it’s working. Injunctions have been lifted. The Supreme Court just recently again ruled in favor of the Trump administration,” Turley said.
Additionally, the GWU law professor warned against what he sees as a dangerous precedent of ignoring court rulings, which would likely continue in future administrations. However, Mike Davis, the president of the conservative advocacy group Article III Project, disagreed with Turley. Davis argued that the scope of injunctions was so beyond the norm that impeachments were necessary.
Mike Davis of the Article III Project (Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)
Davis spoke at length of Boasberg’s order for American deportation flights to be returned to the United States. He described that as an “unacceptable” instance of judicial overreach that damages “the president’s ability to conduct foreign affairs.”
“It’s a red line, and that’s the reason I have called for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg. I have called for the Trump administration to ignore his order. I’ve never done this before” he said. “This is a very serious matter for the judiciary’s legitimacy.”
One point of agreement uniting all of the panelists, however, was that the judges were in the wrong for their far-reaching rulings. Turley indicated he was open to supporting legislation that would require more than one judge to sign off on national injunctions against a president’s executive orders.
“I would like to see at a minimum, any class action has to go through a separate three-judge panel with very narrow conditions, under which a national injunction can be held. I would also like to see Congress collapse the time for appeal,” Turley said.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., have introduced legislation that would require that nationwide injunctions be approved by a three-judge panel.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, agreed with the case for allowing Congress to limit judges’ authority and requiring multiple rulings for there to be a nationwide injunction. He alluded to laws passed by Congress during the civil rights movement to enforce equal voting laws, arguing that these establish a precedent for the proposed legislation.
“When the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 … they didn’t trust some of the federal judges in the Southern courts who had been put forward by the Democratic Party, that they would rule the right way on certain voting cases, and so they set up a system of a three-judge panel … and so, we’ve done this before. It’s something that could be done again.”
Below is my column in the Hill on the rising political violence on the left. Many have found an irresistible release from both reason and responsibility in rage. A new study found more people embracing political violence. Joel Finkelstein, the lead author of the report, stated that “what was formerly taboo culturally has become acceptable… We are seeing a clear shift – glorification, increased attempts and changing norms – all converging into what we define as ‘assassination culture.’” Roughly 40 percent reportedly found it somewhat justifiable to burn a Tesla or even to kill Donald Trump.
Here is the column:
“We should replace our piece of crap Constitution.”
Those words from author Elie Mystal, a regular commentator on MSNBC, are hardly surprising from someone who previously called the Constitution “trash” and urged not just the abolition of the U.S. Senate but also of “all voter registration laws.” But Mystal’s radical rhetoric is becoming mainstream on the left, as shown by his best-selling books and popular media appearances.
There is a counter-constitutional movement building in law schools and across the country. And although Mystal has not advocated violence, some on the left are turning to political violence and criminal acts. It is part of the “righteous rage” that many of them see as absolving them from the basic demands not only of civility but of legality. They are part of a rising class of American Jacobins — bourgeois revolutionaries increasingly prepared to trash everything, from cars to the Constitution.
The Jacobins were a radical group in France that propelled that country into the worst excesses of the French Revolution. They were largely affluent citizens, including journalists, professors, lawyers, and others who shredded existing laws and destroyed property. It would ultimately lead not only to the blood-soaked “Reign of Terror” but also to the demise of the Jacobins themselves as more radical groups turned against them.
Of course, it is not revolution on the minds of most of these individuals. It is rage. Rage is the ultimate drug. It offers a release from longstanding social norms — a license to do those things long repressed by individuals who viewed themselves as decent, law-abiding citizens. Across the country, liberals are destroying Tesla cars, torching dealerships and charging stations, and even allegedly hitting political dissenters with their cars.
Last week, affluent liberal shoppers admitted that they are shoplifting from Whole Foods to strike back at Jeff Bezos for working with the Trump administration and moving the Washington Post back to the political center. They are also enraged at Mark Zuckerberg for restoring free speech protections at Meta.
One “20-something communications professional” in Washington explained“If a billionaire can steal from me, I can scrape a little off the top, too.” These affluent shoplifters portrayed themselves as Robin Hoods. Of course, that is assuming Robin Hood was stealing organic fruit from the rich and giving it to himself.
On college campuses, affluent students and even professors are engaging in political violence. Just this week, University of Wisconsin Professor José Felipe Alvergue, head of the English Department, turned over the table of College Republicans supporting a conservative for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He reportedly declared, “The time for this is over!” Likewise, a mob this week attacked a conservative display and tent on the campus of the University of California-Davis as campus police passively watched. The Antifa protesters, carrying a large banner with the slogan “ACAB” or “all cops are bastards,” trashed the tent and carried it off.
Of course, many of the American Jacobins are themselves bourgeois or even affluent figures. And they are finding a host of enablers telling them that the Constitution itself is a threat, and that the legal system has been corrupted by oligarchs, white supremacists, or reactionaries. This includes leading academics and commentators who are denouncing the Constitution and core American values. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, is the author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”
In a New York Times op-ed, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
Commentator Jennifer Szalai has scoffed at what she called “Constitution worship.” “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us,” she wrote. “A growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.”
Members of Congress such as Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) have called for Tesla CEO Elon Musk to be “taken down” and said that Democrats have to be “OK with punching.” Some take such words as a justification to violently attack a system supposedly advancing the white supremacy or fascism. Fortunately, such violence has been confined so far to a minority of radicalized individuals, but there is an undeniable increase in such violent, threatening speech and in actual violence.
The one thing the American Jacobins will not admit is that they like the rage and the release that it brings them. From shoplifting to arson to attempted assassination, the rejection of our legal system brings them freedom to act outside of morality and to take whatever they want.
Democratic leaders see these “protests” as needed popularism to combat Trump — to make followers “strike ready” and “to stand up and fight back.”
For a politician, a mob can become irresistible if you can steer it against your opponents. The problem is controlling the mob once it has broken free of the bounds of legal and personal accountability.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Gov Walz is the leader of the vile left-wing pack attacking Tesla as a way to destroy Elon Musk as he uncovers waste, fraud, and abuse in our government.
As of Dec. 31, 2024, the Minnesota State Board of Investment (SBI) had invested in Tesla through both its U.S. Stock Actively Managed Fund and U.S. Stock Index Fund. Gov. Tim Walz appeared to relish the declining stock price of Tesla, Inc. during a recent town hall event—held not in Minnesota, but in another state. Speaking to a Wisconsin audience, Walz referenced Tesla’s stock price in real time. “On the iPhone they’ve got that little stock app. I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day. 225 and dropping!” he said, appearing pleased by the company’s declining market value on that day. READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Big changes are happening at the White House press room. Safe to say the legacy media is getting a long-overdue demotion, allowing the alternative media to have a larger voice.
As the Gateway Pundit recently reported, the Trump administration is planning to take over the seating chart in the briefing room, a power once held by the far-left White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA). Members of the WHCA, who are apparently a bunch of toddlers throwing a tantrum over the change, considered doing a 1960s style ‘sit-in’ protest in order to object to the changes. The left views the entire world as a liberal college campus. This is just more proof of that. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
•Pro-Life Attorney Harmeet Dhillon Confirmed as AG for Civil Rights • Grandma Arrested for Praying at Abortion Clinic Slams UK • Europe’s Censorship of Public Prayer Proves JD Vance Was Right •Planned Parenthood is a Money-Hungry Abortion Machine •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
Comments orquestions? Email news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2025 LifeNews.com For info on advertising or reprinting news, email us.
LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report Saturday, April 5, 2025
Top Stories
•Pro-Life Activist Brutally Assaulted • Pro-Life Grandma Convicted of Holding Sign at Abortion Clinic • Trump Restores Funding to States Biden Punished for Being Pro-Life •Texas AG Sues San Antonio for Illegally Funding Abortion Travel •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
We have been following the rise of political violence on the left since the Trump election. In reality, attacks on conservative and pro-life faculty and students is nothing new. Today, I am speaking at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill on free speech after a student recently trashed a pro-life table on the campus in Asheville. Now, on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, a professor allegedly trashed a table of the College Republicans over their support for Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel. The accused José Felipe Alvergue, is not just a professor but the chair of the English department.
Tatiana Bobrowicz, the chair of the College Republicans at the school, said she set up the table supporting Schimel outside the student center about 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, with candy, doughnuts and literature. Then a man walked up and demanded to know what they were doing. He accused them of being too close to a polling location (which was located in the nearby student center).
Bobrowicz tried to explain that they were not in violation (which allows for tables beyond 100 feet) and that location was approved by the university. She then said that the man declared “the time for this is over,” flipped the table over and then walked away.
Bobrowicz immediately called the police and the UW-Eau Claire identified the man as José Felipe Alvergue, the chair of the English department. He has been put on leave by the university.
In his university bio, Alvergue identifies as “a member of the Salvadoran diaspora.” He adds this rather cryptic statement about “unlocking empathy”:
” I believe that we can’t unlock the empathy hidden behind words if we don’t understand what is at stake in the risk writers and artists take when they decide to transform the matter which makes up the world around them into the story words communicate.”
He is now charged with disorderly conduct, according to Wisconsin court records. While this is a relatively minor crime, it was a crime committed against both students and free speech on campus. He must appear for a court appearance on May 7. He would be hardly unique in advocating or even being convicted of political violence on campus.
At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.
She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”
Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.
Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So, you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table. Hunter College, however, did not consider this unhinged attack to be sufficient to terminate Rodríguez.
Another example comes from the State University of New York at Albany, where sociology professor Renee Overdyke shut down a pro-life display and then resisted arrest. One student is heard screaming, “She’s a [expletive] professor.” That of course is the point.
If convicted, Alvergue would be not just guilty of the underlying charge but committing political violence against students. There does not appear to have been mitigating circumstances or any provocation other than students who hold an opposing view from his own.
He then walked away rather than address the matter with the students and the authorities. If convicted, the question is whether conservative students should have to wait for Alvergue to find a way to “unlock [his] empathy” through what is clearly uncontrollable rage.
Below is my column in The Hill on the President stating that he is not joking about pursuing a third term. The statement lit up the media. However, it works better as a jump scare for liberals than a credible claim for the courts.
Here is the column:
The late Justice Antonin Scalia famously said that Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes.” His point was that courts are skeptical of using minor provisions in a statute to achieve sweeping new legal changes.
The challenge of stuffing an elephant into a mousehole came to mind this week after President Donald Trump said that he is “not joking” about considering a third term and that experts told him it is possible under the Constitution.
One often has to take such moments with a heavy dose of skepticism from a president who clearly relished handing snake-in-a-can soundbites to the media just to watch the resulting screams. If so, he was not disappointed. The media went into renewed vapors as commentators pronounced, yet again, the death of democracy.
However, given the president’s statement, it is important to be clear about the basis for this theory, which has long been something of a parlor game for law professors on how a president might be able to circumvent the two-term limitation imposed by the 22nd Amendment.
Let’s start with the language. Ratified in 1951, the amendment was passed ironically by Republicans who were reacting to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s decision to break from the tradition of two-term presidencies by seeking a third term. The intent was clear. They believed that serving more than two terms exposed the country to the danger of a politician occupying the office for life or prolonged periods. To prevent that, the amendment states:
“No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the president more than once.”
Notably, the language includes those who were not necessarily elected to the office but “held” the office for more than two years (presumably through succession to the office due to a vacancy).
Few seriously doubt the intent of the amendment to prevent any person serving a third term to force a change of leadership in the nation. That is when the mousehole comes in. The amendment refers to a person being “elected.” Thus, some advocates claim that the amendment does not prevent a president from “serving” a third term — only being “elected” to such a term.
This strained interpretation would mean that the drafters were solely aggrieved by the thought of someone running for the office and not serving in the office. There is no compelling historical support for that interpretation.
Under this interpretation, a two-term president could engineer a third term by running for vice president and having the elected president then resign after the inauguration. The problem with this tactic is another amendment. The 12th amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
Trump could not run for vice president because he is ineligible to be president. Accordingly, he would likely be barred from many state ballots from running for vice president.
Yet, there is an even smaller mousehole. Trump could have two people run for president and vice president as stand-in officeholders while he could engineer his election as Speaker of the House of Representatives. After the election, they could both resign, and Trump would be third in the line of succession. Putting aside the considerable level of faith in both the president and vice president resigning, the maneuver would make a mockery of the constitutional design behind the amendments.
It would also make leading Republican candidate’s mockeries as types of “mini-mes” for Trump. Even the debate of such a maneuver before the election would demean figures like Vice President J.D. Vance as mere cutouts in a Constitutional sleight-of-hand.
The fueling of this talk also works in favor of those politicians and commentators who continue to claim that Trump is an autocrat committed to the destruction of the American democracy. It suggests that Trump is open to trashing constitutional traditions or language to achieve prolonged power. In fairness to those advocating this theory, this is not an assault on democracy or a call for tyranny. It is an effort to use clever interpretations of the Constitution to allow for a third term. Voters would be aware of this maneuver when going to the polls (which is doubtful), and courts would have to uphold the interpretation (which is even more doubtful).
In the end, the powder is not worth the prize in raising this prospect. President Trump has carried off the political comeback of the century. His administration is set to make history with sweeping changes that continue to garner considerable support among the public. This claim will only undermine that legacy, and the support needed to achieve it.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The Violence coming from the left is reminiscent of the French Revolution. Assaulting conservatives, vandalizing Teslas, assassination attempts, and multiple Riots because Democracy didn’t go their way. We aren’t that far away from the Left rolling out the guillotines.
Victor Davis Hanson Explains That the MAGA Revolution is Actually a Counter-Revolution to the Insanity of the Left (VIDEO)
By Mike LaChance – The Gateway Pundit – Feb 26, 2025
In a video recently shared on Twitter/X, the always brilliant Victor Davis Hanson broke down how the MAGA revolution is not actually a revolution, but a counter-revolution aimed at reversing the damage that the left has done in recent years. Hanson points back to the Obama years and follows through to the Biden years, which he correctly describes as Obama’s third and most radical term. He points out the many crazy things the left has done in that time, changing the way we vote, tearing down statues, rewriting our history, inventing new genders and on and on. He suggests that MAGA is a almost more of a restoration than a revolution. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
•Trump Restores Funds That Biden Took From Pro-Life States • South Carolina Fights at SCOTUS to Defund Planned Parenthood • Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz Closes 4 Centers in Michigan •Governor Glenn Youngkin Leads Virginia March for Life •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
It’s been a banner week for authoritarians in Europe, and it’s only Wednesday.
On Monday, a French court banned Marine Le Pen, the leader of the right-wing National Rally party and the frontrunner in the 2027 presidential election, from seeking public office for the next five years. The same day, The Telegraph reported that a toddler had been booted from a U.K. preschool for being insufficiently supportive of LGBT politics. Over the weekend, a British couple revealed they had been arrested based on complaints they expressed in a WhatsApp chat about their daughter’s public school.
This is exactly the kind of crackdown on free expression that Vice President J.D. Vance chastised complicit European leaders about in February, in an address at the Munich Security Conference. This week’s insanity further proves Vance’s dire warnings were right.
Vance called out the U.K., Germany, Sweden, and the European Union for censoring and criminalizing the free expression of their citizens, citing police raids against Germans for comments posted online and the prosecution of a British man who dared to pray in silence outside of an abortion facility.
“[A]cross Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat,” he said. That may have been an understatement.
France isn’t the first country to bar political opposition candidates from its elections. In December, Romania’s highest court suspended its presidential election, blaming Russian interference. (Where have we heard that one before?) Calin Georgescu, who cast himself as a Trumpy “Romania first” candidate, took the lead in the country’s first round of voting before the court canceled the election and then barred Georgescu from running again.
Meanwhile, leftists in the German parliament have been threatening a ban on Germany’s prominent right-wing party, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). In January, lawmakers considered asking the country’s highest court to “examine whether the AfD is an anti-constitutional party,” which Politico characterized as the “first step toward legally banning it under German law.” Leftist lawmaker Carmen Wegge, one of the partisans behind the effort, claimed AfD posed “dangers to democracy” as she tried to ban the party from the democratic process.
Now, France is the latest in what Vance described as a disturbing trend of “European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others.”
In addition to her five-year ban on seeking office, Le Pen, who held a double-digit lead over the next closest candidate in France’s presidential election, was also slapped with a fine and a prison sentence for which she’ll likely be subject to two years of house arrest. Like U.S. President Donald Trump, Le Pen was accused of complex financial crimes that were alleged to have taken place years ago, with her opponents eagerly invoking the “rule of law” to defend their prosecution of political opponents. The similarities weren’t lost on Trump himself.
After the verdict was disclosed, Le Pen told reporters, “I am eliminated, but in reality, it’s millions of French people whose voices have been eliminated.”
She’s right, the voices of European citizens are being silenced — and not just by courts disenfranchising them by booting their preferred candidates from elections. From parents to preschoolers, Europeans are no longer free to express their views without fear of retribution from the government.
Since Britain’s “Online Safety Act” went into effect in October 2023, authorities have charged 292 people and convicted 67 under the anti-speech law. Among other things, the law criminalizes“false information intended to cause non-trivial harm” and targets “mis- and disinformation.” Months before the law went into effect, a mother posted footage of police arresting her autistic daughter for commenting that a female police officer looked like her lesbian grandmother. A spokesman for the West Yorkshire Police confirmed to the BBC that “a 16-year-old had been arrested on suspicion of a homophobic public order offence.”
On Sunday, the U.S. State Department’s Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau issued a statement expressing concern “about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.” The State Department drew attention to the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, a 62-year-old woman who stood trial last month for holding a sign near an abortion facility with the words “here to talk, if you want.”
As U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer tries — so far, unsuccessfully — to escape imminent tariffs from the Trump administration, Britain’s authoritarian speech codes undermine Starmer’s case for special treatment from the United States. According to The Telegraph, someone “familiar with trade negotiations” said the U.K. deserves “no free trade without free speech.”
Things are no better in Germany, where 16 separate “online hate task forces” are tasked with tracking down online commenters who are accused of publishing false or “hateful” speech. Just one of those 16 units “works on around 3,500 cases a year,” according to a report from CBS.
German prosecutors readily admitted to CBS that in their country it is a “crime to insult somebody in public” or even to repost false information online. Germans whose speech lands on the wrong side of the statute may have their homes raided by armed police, be slapped with fines or imprisoned, and/or have their phones and laptops confiscated.
The European Union’s Digital Services Act, which took effect last year, ensures speech that authorities deem “hateful” can be punished across the continent. Trump’s Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr blasted the law as “incompatible” with the “free speech tradition.”
Jailing citizens for the expression of ideas and barring political candidates from elections are two sides of the same authoritarian coin. Neither is compatible with self-government.
“[S]hutting down media, shutting down elections, or shutting people out of the political process,” as Vance told European leaders in February, “is the most surefire way to destroy democracy.”
He was right. Unfortunately, European leaders appear to have taken his statement as an instruction manual instead of an urgent warning.
Elle Purnell is the elections editor at The Federalist. Her work has been featured by Fox Business, RealClearPolitics, the Tampa Bay Times, and the Independent Women’s Forum. She received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @_ellepurnell.
I feast on the carcasses of Democrats who have fallen on the battlefield against MAGA. I’ve developed a taste for their rancid meat.
And because Donald Trump decimated Democrats on November 5, and then again when he took the Oval Office back in January, there is plenty of Democrats meat to feed all the starving people in Ethiopia. Trump’s defeat of Democrats has left their party leaderless, as the party flails under the weight of its own incompetence.
After engineering Joe Biden’s fraudulent 2020 victory, Democrats undoubtedly patted themselves on the back, thinking they had secured permanent dominance. Game over for Trump, MAGA, and America, they smugly assumed. But hubris has a way of biting back—hard.
Needless to say, Democrats would probably take back their decision to oust Trump in 2020 and imprison innocent American citizens if given the chance. Because that shallow victory will go down in history as the worst decision ever.
Democrats rang the bell, and MAGA stepped into the ring and delivered a knockout.
Biden’s Weakness Was Just the Beginning
Joe Biden was undoubtedly the weakest leader in modern history, possibly ever. Like most of his life, he fooled himself into believing he was qualified, that he had the fortitude for leadership. He failed himself, his party, and the country.
And now, the old guard is crumbling under pressure.
Chuck Schumer has come under fire, ostensibly for refusing to shut down the government in a performative stand against Republican spending bills. But as I’ve written elsewhere, the real issue is deeper than the obvious Democrat ploy suggests: Democrats are sick of the same tired faces running their party into the ground.
Speaking of tired old faces, Nancy Pelosi—the queen of backroom power plays—has reportedly advised Schumer to step aside and for Hakeem Jeffries to take the reins.
Nancy Pelosi privately offered some advice for Hakeem Jeffries as Democrats devolved into bitter infighting over a government funding bill reviled by much of their party.
“Use your power,” she told him in an hour-long sit down in his office earlier this month, telling Jeffries to flex his muscle with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and sharpen their party’s strategy with a shutdown looming, according to a person briefed on their conversation.
Imagine wanting a weakling like Hakeem Jeffries to take the lead?
Jeffries: A Leader in Title Only
Remember when Biden was visibly incapacitated, slurring through speeches, and stumbling off stages? Jeffries didn’t just stand by him—he propped him up like a Weekend at Bernie’s corpse. He lacked the courage for a political mercy killing, proving he’s more follower than leader.
Watch Jeffries in any high-stakes meeting, and he looks as lost as last year’s Easter eggs. The man isn’t a leader—he’s an affirmative action appointment, hailed as a “powerful fundraiser” because he knows how to funnel cash through LLCs and NGOs.
The CNN article continues:
And in the aftermath of Jeffries breaking with Schumer over the GOP funding bill, and as Trump challenges the limits of his power, House Democrats say it’s Jeffries’ time to step up and help articulate a badly needed vision for a party in crisis, according to interviews with more than two dozen members and operatives.
“We need to have a strategy, and it can’t be surrender,” Rep. Jared Huffman of California said in an interview. As for Jeffries, he said: “I think he understood the moment.”
Democrats, in their infinite delusion, believe their abysmal polling is because they haven’t “stopped Trump”. They desperately crave a figurehead to rally behind.
Here’s a suggestion for Jeffries: He’s the Black guy in the Hollywood horror film—which means he’s the first to die.
Democrats’ Self-Inflicted Crisis
Democrats are at historic lows with the American public because their policies are insane. The longer it takes them to realize this, the better for Republicans.
Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan whined:
“We gotta show people we are willing to stand up,” adding that Democrats “have to be willing to cut waste and fraud” but also defend key government programs.
“People are scared, they are angry,” she said. “We have to protect the programs that people rely on.”
Hear that dog whistle? Democrats aren’t protecting anything—they’re manufacturing outrage to distract from their failures.
Meanwhile, President Trump has practically sealed the border and dropped inflation faster than a Leftist woman’s panties at a Weinstein casting party. Next, he may soon end Biden’s disastrous Ukraine money pit—cutting off a key Democrat cash pipeline.
Worse for them, Trump is dismantling their internal war machine against the American people—defanging USAID, exposing ActBlue’s money laundering, and systematically undoing the Deep State’s grip.
Jeffries was handed an impossible job: stopping a political Superman.
Jeffries’ Moment of Truth—And Failure
The article explains:
In his third year leading House Democrats, Jeffries is now facing his biggest national moment yet. And it comes at a politically vulnerable time for him personally. Before Schumer’s crisis of confidence, Jeffries’ leadership had also been the subject of questions from a divided House caucus and party base.
“He’s never been in the position like this before,” said one senior House Democratic member, who said Jeffries “has had to adjust” and has been “slow” at times to tap into the anger from the Democratic base.
Translation: Jeffries is in over his head.
Democrats can no longer contain their internal strife, and we’re only a couple of months into Trump’s second term. Let me confidently remind every Leftist: Things will get worse for you. Add a few high-profile perp walks for election interference or other Democrat crimes, and the party may retreat into its rat holes for a decade.
The Democrats’ Sinking Ship
Hakeem Jeffries isn’t just weak—he’s emblematic of a party that has lost its way. Democrats don’t need a new leader; they need a new ideology. Until then, they’ll keep flailing, while Trump and MAGA keep winning.
And Jeffries? He’ll just keep being the guy in the room who looks like he forgot why he walked in.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the increasing political violence on the left, particularly targeting Elon Musk, his companies, and his clients. There have been more arrests of people engaging in property destruction. What is most striking, however, is how Democrats have torched their core beliefs to pursue a scorched Earth campaign against Musk.
Here is the column:
In this “Age of Rage, it is common for people to become the very thing that they despise in others, jettisoning their most cherished values to strike out at those they hate. Since the election, Democrats have shown that very self-destructive quality of rage in adopting anti-immigrant, anti-free speech, anti-labor, and even anti-environmental positions to get at Donald Trump or his supporters. It consumes every part of a person. It is addictive, and it is contagious. What these rage addicts will not admit, however, is that they like it; they need it.
This time, they are targeting Elon Musk, whose dealerships, charging stations, and customers have been hit by political violence from the left. While other billionaires from George Soros to Mark Zuckerberg have spent big on elections for the left, Musk is somehow uniquely evil because he gives money to Republicans and supports the Trump Administration.
This scorched Earth campaign was evident this week in New York, where democratic legislators are again moving to weaponize state laws for political purposes — just like they did with Trump. New York state Sen. Pat Fahy (D-Albany) is pledging to bar Musk from direct sales in the state.
Notably, Fahy has been a longtime advocate of electric vehicles. The move will make it more difficult not just for Musk but other EV dealers to survive, but climate change policies be damned. Fahy and her colleagues want to get at Musk in any way they can.
Fahy explained, “No matter what we do, we’ve got to take this from Elon Musk. He’s part of an effort to go backwards.”
The move is not unique:
* The left decries political violence like January 6th but is largely silent as Teslas are set on fire and Cybertrucks are covered with graffiti. It promotes boycotts and rallies with a wink at the vandals. As the violence increases around the country, the left has held protests featuring signs like “Burn a Tesla, Save Democracy.”
* Democrats have made the defense of immigration a core issue and have objected even to the use of the term “illegal” or “unlawful” to refer to those crossing the Southern border. Yet, they have attacked Musk due to his status as a naturalized citizen. He is denounced as a “foreigner” “meddling” in our government. Some questioned Musk’s loyalty because he is a naturalized American.
* Those who insist that they believe in free speech are supporting censorship and opposing Musk for restoring free speech protections on X.
* In California, labor advocates oppose expanded operations from SpaceX that would benefit workers in the state. California Coastal Commissioner Gretchen Newsom tried to block increased SpaceX launches despite their benefit for both the California economy and national security. Because he “aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” it does not matter that this would cost money and labor opportunities. Retaliation for “hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods” was more important.
Still, the greatest hypocrisy may be found in the Democrats’ willingness to abandon environmental priorities for political revenge. It is a contest of virtue-signaling. Fighting for Mother Earth is fine on most days, but nothing compares to destroying Elon Musk.
Lawmakers and advocates are also pressuring pension funds to divest from Tesla while trying to force Tesla showrooms to close — at the cost of New York jobs.
Tesla is an American company making and selling cars in this country. It sells more electric vehicles in the US and New York than any other manufacturer. Yet it must now be destroyed because, unlike a Soros or a Zuckerberg, Musk’s political views are not acceptable to the left.
Tesla was allowed to operate five locations to directly sell to consumers under a 2014 deal because it was viewed as good for New York jobs, the New York economy, and, most importantly, the environment.
None of that matters now.
Fahy explained, “The bottom line is, Tesla has lost their right to promote these when they’re part of an administration that wants to go backwards. Elon Musk was handed a privilege here.”
It also does not matter that companies like Rivian and Lucid (and their employees) will be caught in the crossfire. Nothing matters but revenge.
Many Democrats seem to have lost a capacity for shame. They are disgusted only by the refusal of others to yield to their demands, not the use of any means to achieve political ends. The question is, what do Democrats like Fahy now stand for when everything they are is now defined by those they hate?
In a stunning display of weakness, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) canceled all remaining votes for the week, effectively derailing critical conservative legislation—including the SAVE Act and measures to rein in rogue judicial activism—despite having full authority to keep Congress in session. This cowardly retreat came after a humiliating defeat on the House floor, where Johnson failed to block a controversial rule allowing new parents in Congress to vote remotely—a pet project of Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) and her Democrat ally, Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-CO).
While Luna celebrated this as a “historical day,” conservatives erupted in fury, calling her move “tone-deaf, selfish, and a betrayal” of hardworking Americans. One angry voter blasted Luna on social media:
“A selfish action by Congress led by @RepLuna. I’m disappointed because I had to go back to work two weeks after my three children because I couldn’t afford to go without food for them. They really showed their selfishness and showed that they don’t care about their constituents!”
Another conservative echoed the outrage:
“Congress is supposed to represent the American people. Most Americans work full-time jobs—sometimes 2 jobs! We are done letting you steal our hard-earned tax dollars and seeing you kick back and do nothing!”
A handful of Republicans just joined every House Democrat to take down a rule.⁰ This means we can’t take any further action on President Trump’s agenda this week:⁰ No SAVE Act No vote to address rogue judges attacking Trump No votes to repeal Biden regulations pic.twitter.com/Fc3FLZTS5Y
— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) April 1, 2025
Johnson’s Spineless Retreat
Instead of regrouping and forcing a vote on Trump’s agenda, Johnson chose to fold like a cheap suit, allowing Democrats and a handful of turncoat Republicans to dictate the House’s schedule. As political commentator Nick Sortor raged:
“A handful of Republicans just BLOCKED ALL remaining House votes this week. Why? Because they want to force the ability of some members to vote from home. REMINDER TO CONGRESS: THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU. You work for the American people. If you can’t do the job, RESIGN.”
THE HOUSE is done voting for the week. It's Tuesday. They'll be back Monday.
This is a choice, of course. They can bring up the SAVE Act at any time without a rule.
Even popular conservative commentator “Catturd” didn’t hold back:
“Another week of Republicans caving to Democrats and Republicans in Congress getting nothing done to help Trump for another week is all that happened here. Another week of rogue judges destroying the MAGA agenda. The Republican Congress has done exactly ZERO to even pass one of Trump’s executive orders into law, while Trump works 100-hour weeks. Enjoy another week off.”
Liberal Media Cheers While America Loses
Predictably, the left-wing media is gleefully spinning Johnson’s surrender as a win for “working parents” while ignoring the real victims: the American people. Instead of fighting for election integrity, stopping activist judges, and advancing Trump’s America First policies, Johnson let the clock run out, handing Democrats yet another unearned victory.
Jake Sherman of Punchbowl News exposed Johnson’s cowardice:
“This is a choice, of course. They can bring up the SAVE Act at any time without a rule. They can go back to rules. It’s only Tuesday!! But they’re done for the week after @realannapaulina beat @SpeakerJohnson on that rule vote over proxy voting for parents.”
— Anna Paulina Luna (@realannapaulina) April 1, 2025
Trump Fights While GOP Fumbles
While President Trump works tirelessly to save this country from Biden’s destruction, the Republican Congress continues to trip over itself. Instead of standing strong, Johnson chose to run away, leaving Trump’s agenda in limbo. The American people deserve leaders who fight, not politicians who cave at the first sign of pressure.
•Trump Admin Defunds Planned Parenthood Abortion in 9 States • Trump Refuses to Sign UK Deal Until It Stops Persecuting Pro-Life Grandma • New Mexico Governor Wants $10 Million for Abortion Center •Attorneys Will Ask Supreme Court to Let States Defund Planned Parenthood •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.