The Supreme Court just slammed the door on transgender minors’ access to so-called gender-affirming care in Tennessee. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld the state’s ban, as the Associated Press reports, delivering a sharp rebuke to progressive activists pushing experimental treatments on kids. This decision signals a judicial pushback against the left’s relentless gender ideology crusade.
Tennessee’s law, SB1, bans puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors while allowing these drugs for other medical purposes. The high court, a federal appeals court, and 26 other states agree: states can regulate unproven medical interventions for kids. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority, said the law doesn’t violate equal protection because it hinges on age and medical use, not sex.
Roberts’ opinion cuts through the noise of “fierce scientific and policy debates” about the safety and efficacy of these treatments. He rightly noted that the Constitution doesn’t empower judges to play doctor or resolve cultural tug-of-wars. Progressives wail, but this ruling respects states’ rights to protect vulnerable children from irreversible choices.
The case began when families of transgender minors, backed by Biden’s Justice Department in December 2024, argued that Tennessee’s ban amounted to unconstitutional sex discrimination. A Cincinnati appeals court had already upheld the law, overturning a trial court’s decision. The Supreme Court agreed, applying rational basis review -- the lowest constitutional scrutiny level -- because the law doesn’t target sex.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, doubled down, insisting transgender-status laws don’t deserve special judicial oversight. “Courts must give legislatures flexibility,” Barrett wrote, a polite way of telling activists to take their complaints to voters, not judges. This clarity should make woke litigators think twice.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, predictably, dripped with melodrama, claiming the Court “abandons transgender children” to “political whims.” She even compared the ban to outlawing interracial marriage -- a rhetorical overreach that trivializes civil rights history. Her tears won’t change the fact that legislatures, not courts, set medical policy.
Twenty-six other states have similar bans, reflecting a growing consensus that minors need protection from untested medical fads. The Williams Institute estimates 300,000 transgender teens and 1.3 million adults live in the U.S., yet numbers don’t justify bypassing science or reason. States aren’t banning care outright -- they’re ensuring kids wait until adulthood for life-altering decisions.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti hailed the ruling as a “landmark VICTORY” for “America’s children.” His enthusiasm is warranted: the Court just handed states a playbook to resist progressive overreach. The ACLU’s Chase Strangio called it a “devastating loss,” but their agenda has long ignored parental rights and medical caution.
President Donald Trump’s administration has fueled this momentum, suing Maine in April 2025 to enforce bans on transgender athletes in girls’ sports. Trump’s team also pushed to block federal funding for gender-affirming care for those under 19, favoring talk therapy instead. These moves align with his order defining sexes as male or female, a stance that resonates with common sense.
The United Kingdom’s top court recently ruled that trans women can be excluded from single-sex spaces, showing even liberal Europe draws lines. Back in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court protected transgender workers from job discrimination, but that ruling, penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch, focused on employment, not medical care. The Tennessee case doesn’t touch that precedent, despite leftists’ attempts to conflate the two.
Sotomayor’s second jab, warning of “retreating from meaningful judicial review,” suggests courts should micromanage state policy. Her logic would turn judges into super-legislators, a role conservatives have long rejected. The Court’s restraint here is a feature, not a bug.
Trump’s Justice Department, reversing Biden’s stance, backed Tennessee’s law, underscoring a shift toward prioritizing child welfare over ideology. The administration’s broader efforts -- curbing transgender military service and regulating bathroom access -- reflect a consistent push to restore clarity in policy. Critics cry foul, but voters elected this vision.
The Court’s ruling doesn’t end the debate, but it sets a firm boundary: states can protect children from unproven treatments. Roberts’ words about “sincere concerns” and “profound implications” acknowledge the stakes without caving to emotional blackmail. This isn’t about denying care -- it’s about ensuring decisions are made with maturity and evidence.
Barrett’s call for legislative “flexibility” is a masterclass in judicial humility. Courts aren’t here to rubber-stamp progressive wish lists or play culture war referee. Tennessee’s victory is a reminder that democracy, not activism, shapes policy.
As the left scrambles to spin this as a tragedy, conservatives celebrate a Court that respects limits. The ruling curbs a radical agenda while safeguarding kids from irreversible harm. Expect more states to follow Tennessee’s lead, armed with the Constitution and common sense.
Israel’s relentless airstrikes have pounded Iran’s nuclear ambitions into the ground. For five days, the Israeli military has targeted Iran’s military brass, nuclear scientists, uranium enrichment facilities, and ballistic missile program, leaving 224 dead. Tehran’s response -- launching over 370 missiles and hundreds of drones -- has killed 24 in Israel, as the Associated Press reports, escalating a conflict that’s spiraling fast.
Israel’s attacks, now in their fifth day, have zeroed in on Iran’s Natanz enrichment site, with the International Atomic Energy Agency confirming damage to its underground centrifuge halls. Iran retaliated with a fresh missile barrage on Tuesday, while Israel claims to have killed Gen. Ali Shadmani, Iran’s top military commander. The body count and destruction paint a grim picture of a region on the brink.
Israel’s initial strikes hit Natanz, 135 miles southeast of Tehran, wrecking an above-ground enrichment hall and electrical systems. The underground section, housing 10,000 centrifuges, was thought to be untouchable, shielded by anti-aircraft defenses and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Yet, the IAEA’s Tuesday report revealed Israel’s bombs breached those defenses, dealing a blow to Iran’s nuclear pride.
“Based on continued analysis,” the IAEA stated, satellite imagery showed “direct impacts” on Natanz’s underground halls. This admission shatters Iran’s narrative of an impregnable fortress. Tehran’s claim of a peaceful nuclear program, dormant since 2003, rings hollow when the IAEA warns Iran could churn out several nukes if it wanted.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu didn’t mince words, boasting the strikes set Iran’s nuclear program back “a very, very long time.” Meanwhile, Iran’s Fordo facility, buried deeper than Natanz, remains untouched -- for now. Netanyahu’s confidence suggests that Israel is not done flexing its military muscle.
Iran’s retaliation has been fierce but sloppy, with 370 missiles and hundreds of drones failing to overwhelm Israel’s defenses. Israel’s Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin claimed “full aerial superiority” over Tehran’s skies, destroying 120 Iranian missile launchers and two F-14 fighters. Tehran’s saber-rattling placards demanding a “severe” response seem more like bluster than strategy.
Tehran, a city of 10 million, is unraveling as residents flee in droves. Trump’s Tuesday social media post urging evacuation, echoing Israel’s call for 330,000 to abandon central Tehran, has sparked chaos. The Grand Bazaar is shuttered, gas stations are swamped, and traffic clogs roads to the Caspian Sea.
“Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” Trump declared, amplifying panic in a city already on edge. His call for safety clashes with his dismissal of ceasefire talks: “I’m not looking at a ceasefire.” Trump’s tough talk signals a no-nonsense approach, rejecting the diplomatic dithering of globalist elites.
Iran’s leadership, scrambling to project control, canceled medical leave for doctors and nurses. Yet, the appointment of new generals to replace those killed betrays their losses. The Revolutionary Guard’s bravado can’t mask the fact that Israel’s strikes are hitting harder and smarter.
Trump, cutting short his Group of Seven summit in Canada, made clear he’s not chasing peace deals. “I’m not too much in the mood to negotiate,” he said, brushing off French President Emmanuel Macron’s ceasefire chatter. The G7’s statement demanding Iran never acquire nukes aligns with Trump’s hardline stance, not Macron’s wishy-washy diplomacy.
Israel’s military precision is staggering, striking 10 Quds Force command centers in Tehran and issuing evacuation warnings for areas housing state TV and Revolutionary Guard hospitals. The destruction of a third of Iran’s missile launchers, some mid-launch, underscores Israel’s dominance. Tehran’s propaganda can’t spin away this reality.
Netanyahu’s claim of crippling Iran’s nuclear program isn’t just bravado -- it’s a warning to progressive apologists who downplay Iran’s threat. The IAEA’s confirmation of Natanz’s damage proves Israel’s strikes are more than symbolic. Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear narrative is as credible as a woke campus protest.
Iran’s missile and drone barrages, meant to overwhelm Israel, have largely fizzled against Israel’s aerial superiority. The loss of two F-14s and 120 launchers exposes Iran’s military as a paper tiger. Tehran’s new missile volley on Tuesday seems more desperate than defiant.
Trump’s evacuation warning, paired with Israel’s, has turned Tehran into a ghost town, with shops closed and families fleeing. His cryptic hint about sending Vice President JD Vance to meet Iranians -- “I may” -- keeps Tehran guessing. Unlike the left’s obsession with endless talks, Trump’s moves are bold and unpredictable.
The Israel-Iran clash, fueled by Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and missile aggression, shows no sign of cooling. Israel’s ability to strike Natanz’s underground halls and kill top generals proves its resolve. Trump’s rejection of ceasefire nonsense and focus on strength signal a return to unapologetic leadership, not globalist hand-wringing.
Randi Weingarten’s dramatic exit from the Democratic National Committee signals a brewing revolt against the party’s suffocating progressive orthodoxy. The American Federation of Teachers president, a longtime Democratic National Committee insider, clashed with new chairman Ken Martin over his allegedly heavy-handed leadership, as Just the News reports. Her resignation exposes the Democrats’ struggle to balance their radical wing with pragmatic voices.
Weingarten, a DNC member since 2002, resigned after Martin ousted her from the influential Rules and Bylaws Committee. This committee, where she has served since 2009, shapes the party’s presidential nominating process. Martin’s move to sideline her sparked a public feud, revealing cracks in the Democrats’ unified facade.
Earlier this year, Weingarten backed Ben Wikler, Wisconsin’s Democratic Party chairman, for the DNC chairmanship against Martin. Her support for Martin’s rival likely fueled his decision to remove her from the committee. It’s a classic case of party elites punishing dissent while preaching inclusivity.
In a June 5 letter, Weingarten rejected Martin’s offer to stay on the broader DNC. “I appear to be out of step with the leadership you are forging,” she wrote, taking a sharp jab at Martin’s vision. Her words drip with frustration at a party drifting further into ideological extremism.
Weingarten’s tenure on the DNC’s Platform Committee and as a delegate since 1992 made her a party stalwart. Yet, her principled stand against Martin’s purge shows she’s unwilling to bow to the progressive machine. This is a wake-up call for Democrats who think loyalty trumps debate.
Martin’s leadership also clashed with the vision of now-former DNC vice chairman David Hogg, who pushed to fund primary challengers to incumbent Democrats. Party bosses, predictably, frowned on Hogg’s defiance of their iron grip. Weingarten’s support for Hogg’s “ruffle some feathers” approach further alienated her from Martin’s camp.
Hogg’s plan to shake up the party by backing challengers over incumbents didn’t sit well with the establishment. Last week, he announced that he wouldn’t seek to retain his vice chairman role after the DNC voted to redo the election due to a procedural technicality. The party’s quick move to neuter Hogg’s influence reeks of desperation to control the narrative.
Weingarten’s alignment with Hogg put her at odds with Martin’s vision of a tightly controlled party. Her push to “enlarge our tent,” as she put it, clashes with the Democrats’ obsession with ideological purity. Ironically, a party claiming to champion diversity shuns those who dare think differently.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Martin and Hogg supporter, tried to downplay the mess. “I certainly wished we wouldn’t have dirty laundry in public,” he said, admitting the dispute’s embarrassing visibility. His attempt to sweep the drama under the rug only highlights the party’s fragility.
Walz insisted that Martin’s focus remains on “expanding the party.” But actions speak louder than words, and Martin’s purge of Weingarten suggests otherwise. Kicking a seasoned leader off a key committee hardly screams inclusivity.
Weingarten’s resignation is a symptom of a deeper Democratic Party disease: an inability to tolerate dissent. Her support for Hogg’s bold strategy and Wikler’s chairmanship bid showed her commitment to a broader, less dogmatic party. Martin’s response was to slam the door in her face.
The Rules and Bylaws Committee, now without Weingarten’s experience, will likely rubber-stamp Martin’s agenda. This power grab ensures the nominating process tilts toward the progressive elite’s favorites. Voters craving a fairer system are left in the dust.
Weingarten’s exit underscores the Democrats’ self-inflicted wounds. By alienating voices like hers, they risk shrinking their base while pretending to expand it. The irony is thicker than a union contract.
Hogg’s sidelining and Weingarten’s ouster prove the party fears internal competition. Martin’s leadership seems more about control than growth, despite Walz’s feeble defense. This isn’t a party building a big tent; it’s a clique fortifying its bunker.
The public spat, as Walz lamented, lays bare the Democrats’ dysfunction. Weingarten’s principled stand and Hogg’s rebellious streak expose a party at war with itself. For conservatives, it’s a reminder: a divided opponent is a weaker one.
Washington, D.C.'s sanctuary city status just took a major hit. On Thursday night, the Republican-controlled House passed a bill to force the District to comply with federal immigration laws, ending policies that shield unauthorized migrants from federal authorities, as Just the News reports. This move signals a broader push to prioritize public safety over progressive agendas.
The House voted 224-194 to pass legislation that dismantles D.C.'s sanctuary city framework. The bill mandates cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests and requires sharing immigration status data with the Department of Homeland Security. It’s a direct challenge to local leaders who’ve leaned into permissive immigration policies.
Eleven Democrats crossed party lines to support the measure, per Roll Call’s tally. Their votes reveal cracks in the left’s unified front on sanctuary policies. Perhaps some are waking up to the chaos these policies invite.
House Speaker Mike Johnson heralded the bill’s passage, tying it to recent unrest over ICE arrests in Los Angeles. “The inexcusable violence in Los Angeles is the latest example of what happens when cities put left-wing political agendas ahead of public safety,” he said. His words cut to the core: ideology shouldn’t trump law and order.
The legislation targets D.C.’s refusal to honor ICE requests to detain individuals for federal custody. If the GOP-led Senate passes it and it becomes law, D.C. will no longer shield unauthorized migrants from deportation processes. This could set a precedent for other sanctuary cities.
Johnson didn’t mince words about D.C.’s leadership. “For years, D.C. leaders have followed the lead of sanctuary states like California and New York, choosing to shield illegal aliens from federal law instead of protecting American citizens,” he said. His critique exposes the folly of prioritizing political posturing over citizen safety.
The bill’s passage reflects growing frustration with sanctuary cities that flout federal immigration authority. By requiring D.C. to align with national laws, Republicans aim to restore accountability. It’s a bold step to curb what many see as reckless defiance.
The 224-194 vote margin shows a clear divide in Congress. While most Democrats stood firm against the bill, the 11 who broke ranks signal a shift. Their support suggests even some on the left recognize the risks of unchecked sanctuary policies.
If signed into law, the bill will force D.C. to share immigration status information with Homeland Security. This provision dismantles a key pillar of the District’s sanctuary framework. Transparency, not obstruction, is the goal here.
Thursday’s vote wasn’t just about D.C. -- it’s a warning shot to other sanctuary jurisdictions. Cities like Los Angeles, rocked by protests over ICE actions, are on notice. The GOP is betting that voters want safety over ideological experiments.
Johnson’s reference to Los Angeles underscores the stakes. Protests there erupted after ICE’s mass arrests of suspected unauthorized migrants. Sanctuary policies, he argues, fuel such unrest by undermining federal enforcement.
The bill’s path forward hinges on the Senate, where GOP control offers hope for passage. Yet, Democratic resistance could stall it. The fight over sanctuary cities is far from over.
For now, the House’s action puts D.C. on a collision course with federal priorities. Ending sanctuary status could streamline ICE operations in the capital. It’s a pragmatic move to restore order in a city too often swayed by progressive dogma.
The 11 Democrats who backed the bill deserve scrutiny. Their votes suggest a rare willingness to challenge their party’s orthodoxy. Maybe they’ve seen enough of the sanctuary city fallout to question the narrative.
As the bill heads to the Senate, the debate over immigration enforcement intensifies. Republicans are drawing a line: public safety trumps political correctness. D.C.’s sanctuary days may soon be numbered.
Israel’s audacious overnight assault on Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure has ignited a new Middle East war.
After eight months of covert planning, the operation targeted Iran’s nuclear scientists, missile sites, and top generals, aiming to dismantle Tehran’s atomic ambitions, as Axios reports, And Donald Trump was in on all of it.
Following Iran’s October attack on Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered a meticulous plan to neutralize Iran’s growing missile arsenal and nuclear capabilities, delivering the regime’s biggest blow since 1979. The operation, involving air strikes and Mossad sabotage, has killed key figures like the Revolutionary Guard commander and two nuclear scientists. It’s a masterclass in precision, with more to come.
Israel’s preparations began amid escalating tit-for-tat attacks, driven by intelligence revealing Iran’s rapid nuclear weaponization progress. A new underground enrichment facility, immune to U.S. bunker busters, was weeks from opening, pushing Netanyahu to act. Progressive dreams of a nuclear deal? Shattered.
For eight months, Israel gathered intelligence, positioned assets, and ran drills, all while President Donald Trump chased a nuclear deal. Some White House officials fretted that Netanyahu might strike without U.S. approval, but he assured Trump otherwise. Coordination or not, Israel’s resolve was unshakable.
Two Israeli officials told Axios, “We had a clear U.S. green light.” That claim smells like post-strike bravado, especially since Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the attack “unilateral” with no U.S. involvement. The truth? Probably somewhere in the fog of war.
Trump admitted he knew the strike was coming but stressed that there was no U.S. military role. Publicly, the White House distanced itself, but whispers suggest Trump’s team quietly cheered Israel’s move while misleading Iran. Classic MAGA: support the ally, dodge the blowback.
Israel’s opening salvo targeted 25 nuclear scientists, with at least two confirmed dead, aiming to decapitate Iran’s bomb-making expertise. The Revolutionary Guard’s commander, military chief of staff, and another senior general also fell. This wasn’t a warning shot -- it was a death knell.
Mossad’s sabotage hit missile and air defense sites, while air strikes pounded nuclear facilities. Israel plans to keep hammering underground sites and other targets for days, possibly weeks. Iran’s nuclear dreams are on life support.
The operation’s scale is staggering, described as the biggest single blow to Iran since its 1979 revolution. Israel’s goal? “Eliminate” Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities entirely. That’s not ambition -- it’s a mission to reshape the region.
Israeli officials insist the strike was coordinated with Washington, despite America's public denials. Netanyahu’s aides claim that a Monday call with Trump was about synchronizing plans, not halting the strike as initially briefed. Sounds like someone’s rewriting the script to save face.
Rubio’s “unilateral” comment clashes with Israel’s “green light” narrative, leaving the extent of U.S. intelligence or logistical support unclear. The White House’s public dodge suggests that the administration is happy to let Israel take the heat. Smart, if a bit spineless.
Trump’s team reportedly backed the strike privately while publicly feigning surprise to throw Iran off. If true, it’s a slick move -- support Israel’s gutsy play without getting American hands dirty. The woke crowd must be fuming at the realpolitik.
Israel is now bracing for Iran’s counterattack, which could involve hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones targeting Israel and possibly U.S. bases. Iranian officials vowed on Friday to hit American targets too, escalating the stakes. Buckle up -- this could get ugly.
The operation has obliterated hopes of a nuclear deal, launching a new war that might drag in the U.S. Iran’s weakened air defenses and missile losses make retaliation tricky, but Tehran’s not known for restraint. Pride often trumps strategy in the ayatollah’s playbook.
Israel’s strike, born from Iran’s October aggression, has redefined the Middle East’s power balance. Netanyahu’s gamble could secure Israel’s safety or ignite a broader conflict. Either way, the woke fantasy of appeasing Iran just took a well-deserved hit.
Tensions in the Middle East are spiking, and President Donald Trump isn’t mincing words. On Wednesday he issued a cryptic warning about escalating dangers, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the voluntary evacuation of military dependents from U.S. bases across the region, as the Daily Mail reports. The move signals a sobering reality: the Biden-era diplomacy dance with Iran is crumbling fast.
Trump’s warning came as Hegseth greenlit the departure of spouses and children from bases in Iraq, Syria, Qatar, and the UAE, with Bahrain’s U.S. Navy base hit hardest. The State Department also ordered nonessential personnel out of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and authorized evacuations from Bahrain and Kuwait. This isn’t a drill -- it’s a calculated response to a region teetering on the edge.
“You’ll have to see,” Trump said when pressed on the evacuations. That’s classic Trump -- keeping the left-leaning media guessing while signaling strength. His vagueness isn’t indecision; it’s a deliberate jab at Iran’s saber-rattling regime.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions are at the heart of this mess. Since April 2025, the U.S. and Iran have held five rounds of talks to revive the 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump wisely scrapped in 2018. Negotiations have stalled, with Iran’s parliament speaker whining that the U.S. proposal doesn’t lift sanctions -- Tehran’s favorite excuse for defiance.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is sounding alarms, too. Earlier in the week, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi warned that Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium is growing, with unresolved questions about its nuclear program. Iran’s claim of a “peaceful” program is as believable as a woke professor preaching free speech.
Grossi didn’t stop there. “Unless Iran assists in resolving outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to assure that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful,” he said. Translation: Iran’s playing a dangerous game, and the world’s not buying its innocent act.
The State Department’s evacuation orders are a stark admission: the Middle East isn’t safe for American families. Nonessential personnel and families in Bahrain and Kuwait are getting government-funded exits, while Baghdad’s embassy, already on skeleton staffing due to years of rocket attacks, is thinning out further. No uniformed service members are leaving, though -- our troops are holding the line.
“President Trump is committed to keeping Americans safe,” a State Department official told The Hill. That’s a refreshing change from the progressive obsession with appeasing rogue regimes. Reducing the embassy’s footprint in Iraq shows Trump’s team isn’t gambling with American lives.
Trump didn’t sugarcoat the situation. “Are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place,” he said of the evacuations. Unlike the left’s endless word salads, Trump’s approach cuts through the noise.
Iran is not backing down, either. Defense Minister Amir Aziz Nasirzadeh boasted, “If conflict is imposed on us, the opponent’s casualties will certainly be more than ours.” His threat to target U.S. bases across the region is bold but reeks of desperation from a regime cornered by its failures.
Nasirzadeh doubled down, claiming, “We will target all of them in the host countries without hesitation.” That’s not diplomacy -- it’s a tantrum from a regime that can’t handle Trump’s no-nonsense approach. Iran’s bluster only proves why these evacuations are necessary.
The Iranian mission to the U.N. had the gall to lecture, “Diplomacy—not militarism-is the only path forward.” This is from a regime secretly conducting nuclear activities at three undeclared sites, as the IAEA reported in May 2025. Hypocrisy doesn’t get much thicker.
Trump’s stance on Iran’s nuclear ambitions is crystal clear. “Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon, very simply, they can’t have a nuclear weapon,” he declared. That’s the kind of leadership missing from the woke crowd’s endless negotiations with tyrants.
But Trump’s not optimistic about a deal. “They seem to be delaying, and I think that’s a shame,” he said, noting he’s “less confident now” than months ago. He’s right—Iran’s stalling tactics are a slap in the face to anyone serious about global security.
The Defense Department emphasized, “The safety and security of our service members and their families remains our highest priority.” With U.S. Central Command monitoring the region, Trump’s administration is proving it values American lives over diplomatic photo-ops. That’s a message Iran -- and the progressive elite -- can’t ignore.
A New Jersey congresswoman’s protest antics have landed her in hot water with a federal grand jury. Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) faces three charges for allegedly roughing up federal agents during a chaotic immigration protest, as Politico reports. The indictment, announced on Tuesday, signals a crackdown on those who think they’re above the law.
On May 9, outside a Newark immigration detention facility, McIver allegedly interfered with law enforcement, leading to charges that could mean 17 years behind bars. The incident involved a scuffle after agents attempted to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was later charged with misdemeanor trespassing, though that charge was dropped. This is the Trump administration’s latest move to hold accountable those disrupting immigration enforcement.
The trouble began when Baraka was invited into a gated area at the facility, only to be told to leave. As agents moved to arrest him, McIver allegedly slammed her forearm into one officer and grabbed another, per a criminal complaint filed last month. Federal prosecutors aren’t playing games, and McIver’s actions have now earned her a starring role in a federal indictment.
Body cameras and facility footage captured McIver’s alleged attacks, showing her using both forearms to strike another officer. This wasn’t a peaceful protest but a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice, prosecutors say. The progressive playbook of chaos over order is on full display here.
“As I have stated in the past, it is my Constitutional obligation as the Chief Federal Law Enforcement Officer for New Jersey to ensure that our federal partners are protected,” interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba posted on social media. Her words underscore a no-nonsense approach to law enforcement safety. Yet, McIver’s allies see this as a witch hunt, not accountability.
“An effort by Trump’s administration to dodge accountability for the chaos ICE caused,” McIver claimed in a statement. Her attempt to spin this as political persecution falls flat when you consider the video evidence. Blaming ICE for her actions is a tired tactic from the left’s victimhood manual.
The indictment adds a misdemeanor count for McIver’s alleged interference with other officers beyond the two named in the initial complaint. This escalation suggests prosecutors are digging deeper into her role in the melee. It’s a bold move, but one that fits the administration’s push to restore law and order.
Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez were also at the scene, though they’ve escaped charges so far. Their presence raises questions about how far progressive lawmakers will go to grandstand against immigration policies. The line between protest and lawbreaking seems awfully blurry for some.
Habba’s office called the indictment “the next step in a process that my office will pursue to a just end.” Her resolve is clear, but critics point to her office’s fumbles in Baraka’s dropped trespassing case. A federal judge labeled those efforts “worrisome” and “embarrassing,” which doesn’t inspire confidence in the prosecution’s batting average.
Baraka, now suing Habba, was a central figure in the May 9 incident. His brief arrest attempt sparked McIver’s alleged outburst, and his dropped charge hasn’t cooled tensions. The timing of the indictment, as polls closed in New Jersey’s gubernatorial primary with Baraka on the ballot, smells like more than coincidence to some.
“The facts of this case will prove I was simply doing my job,” McIver insisted in her statement. Her claim of just doing her job rings hollow when “job duties” include allegedly assaulting federal agents. The courtroom, not press releases, will settle that argument.
The Trump administration’s broader strategy is evident: no tolerance for those undermining immigration enforcement. Troops sent to Los Angeles over similar protests show this isn’t just a New Jersey issue. Progressives crying “intimidation” might want to check their own actions before pointing fingers.
Habba’s office has faced criticism for sloppy work, particularly in Baraka’s case, which could haunt this prosecution. A federal judge’s sharp rebuke over “blunders” suggests McIver’s defense team will come out swinging. If the evidence isn’t airtight, this could become another embarrassment for Habba.
“While people are free to express their views for or against particular policies, they must not do so in a manner that endangers law enforcement,” Habba emphasized online. Her point is hard to argue: free speech doesn’t include free swings at officers. McIver’s team will need more than rhetoric to counter that.
The indictment wasn’t posted on federal court websites by Tuesday night, leaving some details murky. Still, with up to 17 years on the line, McIver’s political future hangs in the balance. This case is a stark reminder that actions have consequences, even for those cloaked in progressive virtue.
A Minnesota lawmaker’s stunning admission of being in the U.S. “illegally” has ignited a firestorm.
Rep. Kaohly Vang Her, a Democrat elected in 2018, made a confession this week, during a House floor debate on public health care for unauthorized migrants, revealing her family’s complicated immigration status stemming from her father’s paperwork fraud decades ago, as the Daily Mail reports. Social media erupted with calls for her removal, while Los Angeles faced a National Guard deployment amid anti-ICE protests.
The lawmaker, born in Laos and a U.S. citizen since naturalization, shared her story while advocating for health care access. “Because his mother had died, my father… put my grandmother down as his mother,” Her said. That sleight of hand, she claims, left her family’s legal status in limbo.
Her confession, though, doesn’t erase her citizenship status. Minnesota law demands that candidates be qualified voters, meaning U.S. citizens for at least three months. She meets the requirement, but the optics of her admission still sting.
“And so I am illegal in this country,” Her declared, doubling down on her family’s situation. The statement, meant to humanize the debate, instead fueled a conservative backlash. Critics argue it exposes a broken system where laws bend for political gain.
Social media didn’t hold back. “We’ve been told… illegal aliens don’t vote… Now we find out they RUN,” one user tweeted, sarcasm dripping. The post captures a sentiment: frustration over perceived double standards in enforcement.
Calls for Her’s ouster grew louder online. “She needs… to be removed from the country!” one X user demanded, invoking ICE’s top brass. The rhetoric, while heated, reflects a broader distrust in immigration oversight.
Another user quipped, “TOM HOMAN!!! You’re up buddy,” tagging ICE’s former director. The viral outrage underscores a conservative rallying cry: enforce the law, no exceptions. Her’s defenders, meanwhile, point to her citizenship as a shield.
Her’s revelation came as Los Angeles grappled with unrest. Violent anti-ICE protests rocked the city over the June 7-8 weekend, triggered by immigration raids detaining 44 people. Tensions simmered, as a fourth day of protests loomed on June 9.
President Donald Trump didn’t hesitate, ordering 2,000 National Guard members to Los Angeles. By midday Monday, 1,000 were on the ground, with the rest expected by nightfall. “Completely obliterated,” Trump said, warning of chaos without the deployment.
California’s leadership pushed back hard. Gov. Gavin Newsom called the move “illegal and immoral,” vowing a lawsuit. The clash highlights a deeper divide over federal versus state power on immigration.
Despite the protests, Los Angeles streets stayed calm on June 9. The National Guard’s presence, critics argue, was more political theater than necessity. Still, the show of force sent a message: order would be maintained.
Her’s floor speech tied her story to policy, but it backfired spectacularly. Her status as a naturalized citizen may protect her legally, but politically, it’s a landmine. Conservatives see her as proof of lax enforcement.
Trump’s broader agenda loomed large. His “One Big Beautiful Bill,” now in the Senate, pushes border security, tax cuts, and Medicaid slashes while gutting green-energy programs. It’s a bold play, and Her’s gaffe only fuels its momentum.
The saga of Rep. Her and the Los Angeles unrest reveals a nation at odds. Immigration policy, once a bureaucratic footnote, now drives wedges between citizens and lawmakers alike. Her’s confession, however well-intentioned, may cost her more than votes.
ABC News just tossed its senior national correspondent, Terry Moran, into hot water for a late-night X post that crossed the line. The veteran reporter, known for his political coverage, took a swipe at White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and it cost him, as Variety reports. This isn’t just a slap on the wrist -- it’s a wake-up call for journalists who blur the line between reporting and ranting.
Moran’s post, deleted after sparking backlash, labeled Miller a “world-class hater” driven by “bile” rather than brains. The Sunday midnight missive described Miller as a key figure shaping Trump’s policies. In one fell swoop, Moran traded objectivity for a personal attack, and ABC wasn’t amused.
“ABC News stands for objectivity and impartiality,” an ABC spokesperson declared. That’s a polite way of saying Moran’s post was a journalistic foul. Suspended pending review, Moran’s career now hangs in the balance for a tweet that reads more like a Reddit rant than a newsroom dispatch.
Moran’s X post didn’t just criticize Miller -- it painted him as a villain who “eats his hate.” This wasn’t analysis; it was a character assassination. For a reporter who once landed a well-received interview with Trump, this lapse in judgment stings.
“Miller is one of the people who conceptualizes the impulses of the Trumpist movement,” Moran wrote. Fine, that’s a defensible take. But calling Miller’s hatred his “spiritual nourishment” isn’t reporting—it’s a soapbox sermon that undermines ABC’s credibility.
The post violated ABC’s standards, and for good reason. Newsrooms aren’t platforms for personal vendettas. Moran’s outburst shows why conservatives distrust corporate media, which often cloaks bias in the guise of journalism.
Miller didn’t sit quietly. On Sunday morning, he fired back on X, calling Moran’s post a “full public meltdown” that exposes the “radical” press. Miller’s response was sharp, framing Moran as a privileged anchor hiding behind a journalist’s mask.
“The most important fact about Terry’s meltdown is what it shows about the corporate press,” Miller wrote. He’s not wrong -- Moran’s post reeks of the elitism conservatives rail against. When reporters trade facts for feelings, trust in the media erodes further.
Vice President JD Vance also leapt to Miller’s defense. “I know [Miller] quite well, and I know he is motivated by love of country,” Vance posted. He argued Miller fights against rules that favor the well-connected, a point that resonates with Trump’s base.
ABC, backed by Disney, is no stranger to controversy. Last December, Disney paid $15 million to settle a defamation suit from Trump after anchor George Stephanopoulos misstated facts about a civil case involving E. Jean Carroll. That settlement looms large as ABC grapples with Moran’s misstep.
Carroll’s case against Trump, where she prevailed despite his denials, was a legal win but a PR mess. Stephanopoulos’ error fueled perceptions of bias, and now Moran’s post adds fuel to the fire. ABC’s pattern of slip-ups invites scrutiny from conservatives who smell agenda-driven reporting.
The Trump administration’s exclusion of outlets like the Associated Press from events signals a broader war on perceived media bias. Moran’s post hands Trump’s team fresh ammunition. It’s a self-inflicted wound for a network already on thin ice.
Trump’s legal volleys extend beyond ABC. He’s suing Paramount Global over a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, alleging deceptive editing. Experts call the suit flimsy, but Paramount’s settlement talks suggest its executives are rattled.
Paramount, navigating a Skydance Media acquisition, can’t afford prolonged fights. Trump’s lawsuits, even if weak, keep media giants on edge. Moran’s post, while unrelated, fits into this tense landscape where every misstep is magnified.
Moran’s suspension should be a lesson: journalists must stick to facts, not feelings. His attack on Miller wasn’t just unprofessional -- it was a gift to those who argue the press is out of touch. ABC’s swift response shows it knows the stakes, but the damage is done.
Washington’s swamp just got murkier. Republicans are tightening the screws on Biden-era officials accused of spinning tales to Congress about everything from FBI memos to the former president’s health. The stench of obfuscation is hard to ignore.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) dropped a bombshell with internal FBI memos showing the bureau’s targeting of “radical traditionalist Catholics” was far broader than former FBI Director Christopher Wray claimed in 2023, as Just the News reports. These memos, unearthed through Grassley’s probe, paint a picture of an agency casting a wide net over religious groups. It’s a classic case of bureaucrats saying one thing while doing another.
In 2023, Wray told Congress that a January memo from the FBI’s Richmond Field Office, labeling traditional Catholics as potential extremists, was a lone wolf effort. “A single product by a single field office,” he called it. Funny how that “single” memo ended up in the hands of over 1,000 FBI personnel across 13 field offices.
The Richmond memo wasn’t just a one-off; it sparked at least 13 more documents using similar language. Nearly 20 analysts from multiple field offices accessed it, and other offices even chipped in on its creation. So much for Wray’s isolated incident narrative.
Grassley, not one to let sleeping dogs lie, accused Wray of stonewalling his investigation. “Congress needs to know who participated in this obstruction,” he wrote, pointing to a “pattern of deception.” When a senator smells a cover-up, it’s usually because something stinks.
The memo’s fallout triggered a Justice Department Inspector General review, led by Michael Horowitz. His findings? The memo’s link between Catholicism and violent extremism was flimsy, riddled with “errors in professional judgment.”
Horowitz cleared the FBI of malicious intent but flagged the need to investigate one threatening individual tied to the memo. The bureau, under Wray’s orders, scrubbed the memo from its systems after his July 2023 House Judiciary Committee testimony. Too little, too late, some might say.
“The memo is not something I will defend,” Wray admitted in 2023. Yet, his earlier downplaying of its scope suggests either ignorance or something more calculated. Neither option inspires confidence in the FBI’s leadership.
Grassley’s letter to current FBI Director Kash Patel warned that field offices might have acted on the memo’s biased sources, putting innocent Catholics under scrutiny. “This raises serious concerns,” he wrote. That’s putting it mildly when faith-based profiling is on the table.
The FBI memo isn’t the only Biden-era controversy. House Oversight Committee chair James Comer launched a probe into Biden’s use of an autopen to sign documents, including pardons, in his final days. Questions swirl about whether Biden, given his admitted mental decline, even knew what he was “signing.”
“Let me be clear: I made the decisions,” Biden insisted Wednesday. Sure, and the autopen just happened to scribble his name on pardons while he napped. Comer’s probe, seeking testimony from former aides like Ron Klain and Anita Dunn, aims to uncover who was really calling the shots.
President Donald Trump jumped in, ordering Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate the autopen use for possible deception about Biden’s mental state. If aides were puppeteering the presidency, that’s not just unethical -- it’s a constitutional crisis. The MAGA base is watching closely.
DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas also caught heat in 2023 for claiming the border was secure. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan called him out, noting the FBI couldn’t track over 12 migrants linked to an ISIS-tied smuggler. “Your testimony under oath” doesn’t match reality, Jordan wrote, exposing another Biden official’s loose relationship with the truth.
House Republicans tried to impeach Mayorkas for failing to enforce immigration law and lying to Congress, but Senate Democrats killed the effort without a trial. They also pushed to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for dodging subpoenas about Biden’s classified documents mishandling. Both attempts fizzled, proving Congress’s bark is often worse than its bite.
These scandals -- FBI memos, autopen shenanigans, border lies -- point to a Biden administration more focused on narrative control than governance. Republicans, now with Trump’s backing, are digging for answers. If they keep pulling threads, the whole tapestry of Biden’s legacy might unravel.
