Legal immigrants are flipping the script on immigration policy, shocking progressive pundits. Once reliably soft on enforcement, these voters now demand tougher borders, according to new polling, as RealClearPolitics reports. The woke elite’s open-border fantasies just hit a brick wall.
Foreign-born citizens, including legal immigrants, have swung dramatically toward conservative immigration stances since 2020, with a 40-point shift in voter trust favoring Republicans by eight points in 2024 and 2025. No other group has moved so sharply rightward on this issue. This seismic change exposes the disconnect between progressive rhetoric and real-world sentiment.
In 2016, only 36% of immigrant citizens backed Donald Trump. By 2020, his support among them grew to 39%. Fast-forward to 2024, and Trump’s share soared to 47%, with some polls showing him nearly tying or even edging out opponents among these voters.
The shift isn’t just electoral -- it’s attitudinal. In 2020, immigrant citizens viewed undocumented immigrants favorably, with a net rating of +23 points. That goodwill has evaporated, dropping to a net unfavorable -6 points by 2024, signaling a rejection of unchecked migration.
“Immigrant citizens have become increasingly unfavorable in their views of those immigrants who are here illegally,” said CNN analyst Harry Enten. That’s a polite way of saying legal immigrants are fed up with lawbreaking at the border. The progressive dream of universal amnesty is crumbling under scrutiny.
Back in 2020, immigrant voters gave Democrats a 32-point lead on immigration trust. That advantage has not only vanished but reversed, with Republicans now holding an eight-point edge. This isn’t a minor tweak -- it’s a full-scale rebellion against soft-on-crime border policies.
Trump’s growing appeal among immigrant voters underscores their frustration with lax enforcement. Polls in 2024 showed him splitting the immigrant vote almost evenly, a far cry from the Democrats’ dominance just four years earlier. The left’s sanctimonious lectures on “compassion” clearly aren’t resonating.
Enten notes, “This is why Donald Trump feels so comfortable.” He’s right -- legal immigrants are aligning with Trump’s hardline stance, not the left’s borderless utopia. The data shows they’re distancing themselves from unauthorized migrants and the policies that enable them.
Protests against immigration crackdowns, including ICE raids, have erupted in cities like Los Angeles, where demonstrators rallied for what may be a fifth consecutive day. Similar scenes unfolded nationwide, with activists decrying tougher enforcement. But these protests seem out of touch with the shifting views of immigrant voters themselves.
The Los Angeles protests highlight the growing divide between progressive activists and the broader immigrant community. While marchers chant for open borders, legal immigrants are quietly backing policies that prioritize law and order. It’s a stinging rebuke to the woke narrative.
The 40-point shift among immigrant voters is unmatched by any other demographic. No group has moved so decisively toward conservative immigration policies in such a short time. This trend exposes the fragility of the left’s coalition when reality bites.
Trump’s 47% share of the immigrant vote in 2024 reflects a broader demand for accountability. Legal immigrants, who navigated the system lawfully, appear increasingly resentful of those who bypass it. The left’s refusal to acknowledge this resentment is political malpractice.
“They become increasingly favorable, not just towards Donald Trump, but towards the Republican point of view,” Enten observes. Translation: legal immigrants aren’t just voting for Trump -- they’re endorsing a worldview that values borders and consequences. Progressives are left clutching their talking points in disbelief.
The drop in favorable views toward undocumented immigrants, from +23 to -6 points, shows a clear hardening of attitudes. Legal immigrants are drawing a line, and it’s not the one the left expected. The era of unchecked migration may be nearing its end.
As protests rage and polls shift, one thing is clear: legal immigrants are rewriting the immigration debate. Their swing toward conservative policies signals a rejection of the progressive agenda. The woke crowd may scream louder, but the voters are speaking clearly.
A chilling propaganda video from al-Qa’ida’s latest figurehead, Sa’ad bin Atef al-Awlaki, demands blood for America’s support of Israel. The 34-minute screed, dropped Sunday, isn’t just a rant -- it’s a hit list targeting President Trump and his inner circle. This isn’t the free speech of a keyboard warrior; it’s a terrorist’s call to arms.
Al-Awlaki, who took the reins of al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in March 2024, named Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and even Elon Musk as targets for elimination due to their pro-Israel views, as the New York Post reports. He urged Muslims in the U.S. to “take revenge” with no regard for who gets caught in the crossfire. It’s a grim reminder that AQAP, a U.S.-designated terrorist group, thrives on chaos.
The video, titled “Inciting the Believers,” doesn’t stop at politicians. Al-Awlaki called for attacks on their families and anyone linked to the White House, claiming “no red lines” exist because of Gaza’s turmoil. This isn’t nuanced geopolitics -- it’s a thug’s playbook for indiscriminate violence.
“Do not consult anyone about killing infidel Americans,” al-Awlaki declared. That’s not a metaphor; it’s a directive to bypass reason and morality. His words aim to weaponize grievance into murder, cloaked in a warped sense of justice.
He didn’t just target Trump’s team -- he praised suspects behind recent antisemitic attacks and past attempts on Trump’s life. Applauding would-be assassins while calling for more isn’t leadership; it’s a coward’s script for anarchy. The U.S. State Department’s $6 million bounty on al-Awlaki underscores his danger.
“Go after them and their families,” he said, extending his vendetta to anyone near power. Families aren’t collateral damage in his world -- they’re deliberate targets. This is the kind of ideology that justifies bombing hospitals while crying victim.
Al-Awlaki’s hatred spills beyond politics, demanding “strikes” on all Jews. “Do not leave a single safe place for Jews,” he ranted, equating their existence to Palestinian suffering. It’s a tired, hateful trope that fuels violence, not solutions.
He tied his call to Gaza, claiming Israeli actions justify his bloodlust. “Even hospitals are being bombed,” he said, painting a one-sided picture to stoke rage. Conveniently, he ignores the complexities of a war where his allies aren’t exactly choirboys.
“Take revenge,” he urged, as if vengeance solves anything. His logic is as shallow as it is dangerous -- retaliation without end, reason be damned. It’s the kind of thinking that keeps the Middle East in perpetual flames.
Al-Awlaki’s rise to AQAP’s helm in 2024 marked a new chapter for a group long bent on attacking the West. The $6 million price on his head reflects his history of inciting violence against the U.S. He’s not a new face; he’s a seasoned menace with a louder megaphone.
His video’s release on Sunday wasn’t a random outburst -- it’s calculated propaganda. By targeting high-profile figures like Trump and Musk, he’s betting on headlines to amplify his message. It’s terrorism by the media, and he’s playing the game well.
“There are no red lines,” he said, justifying attacks on civilians. That’s not a strategy; it’s a tantrum dressed up as ideology. Al-Awlaki’s vision leaves no room for peace, only carnage.
The U.S. has long branded AQAP a foreign terrorist organization, and al-Awlaki’s latest stunt shows why. His calls for assassination aren’t just threats -- they’re a direct challenge to national security. Ignoring them isn’t an option; it’s an invitation for disaster.
Trump and his team, targeted for their unapologetic support of Israel, represent the kind of resolve al-Awlaki despises. His video isn’t just about Gaza -- it’s about punishing anyone who dares stand with America’s allies. That’s not a cause; it’s a vendetta.
Al-Awlaki’s propaganda thrives in the shadows of a world obsessed with moral relativism. Calling for murder while waving a flag of victimhood isn’t justice—it’s terrorism, plain and simple. America must answer with strength, not handwringing, to keep this thug’s dreams from becoming reality.
ICE raids in Los Angeles snagged illegal immigrants with rap sheets that’d make a hardened cop flinch. The operation targeted individuals whose criminal histories include murder, assault, and sexual battery, as Just the News reports, proving that the agency’s focus on public safety isn’t just talk. Progressives might clutch their pearls, but ignoring these records won’t make communities safer.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement rounded up six immigrants, each with serious convictions, sparking protests and a National Guard deployment. The raids zeroed in on Los Angeles, where agents arrested individuals whose crimes range from second-degree murder to domestic violence. This isn’t about “undocumented dreamers;” it’s about enforcing laws that protect American citizens.
Cuong Chanh Phan, a 49-year-old from Vietnam, was among those detained. His conviction for second-degree murder earned him 15 years to life, yet he was still roaming free. One wonders how many chances the left’s “compassionate” policies would grant someone like Phan.
Lionel Sanchez-Laguna, a 55-year-old from Mexico, didn’t exactly scream “model citizen” either. His record includes discharging a firearm at a dwelling, battery on a spouse, and willful cruelty to a child. “Sanchez-Laguna’s criminal history includes discharging a firearm,” a DHS spokesperson noted, but the woke crowd would rather demonize ICE than address his actions.
Sanchez-Laguna’s rap sheet doesn’t stop there. He faced convictions for assault with a semi-automatic firearm and personal use of a firearm, each netting three years in prison. Some think probation and jail stints are just gentle nudges for reform.
Delfino Aguilar-Martinez, a 51-year-old from Mexico, joined the arrest lineup with a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. His attack caused great bodily injury, landing him a year in jail. The leniency of such sentences raises eyebrows when public safety is at stake.
Armando Ordaz, a 44-year-old from Mexico, was arrested with a history of sexual battery and petty theft. His 135-day jail stint for sexual battery and probation for stolen property suggest a revolving door of justice. Critics of ICE might call this “overreach,” but victims likely see it differently.
Jose Cristobal Hernandez-Buitron, a 43-year-old from Peru, wasn’t a lightweight either. A robbery conviction earned him a decade behind bars. Yet, somehow, he was back on the streets, testing the limits of America’s patience.
Jordan Mauricio Meza-Esquibel, a 32-year-old from Honduras, rounded out the group. Arrests for distributing heroin and cocaine, plus domestic violence, paint a troubling picture. The left’s narrative of “harmless migrants” crumbles under the weight of these facts.
Anti-ICE protesters didn’t take kindly to the raids. They defaced federal property, turning their rage into vandalism. Such antics only underscore the disconnect between their ideology and the reality of criminal behavior.
The protests escalated, with clashes between demonstrators and local police. Law enforcement faced a barrage of hostility for simply doing their jobs. It’s a curious irony when “tolerance” advocates resort to violence to make their point.
President Donald Trump responded decisively, deploying 2,000 National Guard members to quell the unrest. The move signals a no-nonsense approach to maintaining order. Critics may cry “militarization,” but protecting communities from chaos isn’t negotiable.
The raids highlight a broader issue: lax enforcement emboldens criminal behavior. When unauthorized migrants with violent records roam free, public safety takes a backseat to political correctness. ICE’s actions, while controversial, prioritize the rule of law over feelings.
Progressive talking points often gloss over the victims of these crimes. A spouse battered, a child endangered, a life taken -- those aren’t abstract statistics but real human costs. Dismissing them as “collateral damage” in the name of open borders is indefensible.
These arrests send a clear message: America won’t be a sanctuary for lawbreakers. The National Guard’s presence reinforces that commitment, despite the howls of outrage from the usual suspects. It’s time to choose safety over sentimentality, and ICE’s raids are a step in that direction.
The International Criminal Court just got a reality check from Uncle Sam. On Thursday, the State Department slapped sanctions on four ICC judges for their overreaching actions against the U.S. and Israel, as Just the News reports. This move signals a no-nonsense stance against globalist meddling in sovereign affairs.
The sanctions hit judges Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza of Peru, Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou of Benin, and Beti Hohler of Slovenia for their roles in ICC decisions targeting American and Israeli officials.
Two of these judges greenlit arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The other pair authorized an ICC probe into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan. Apparently, the ICC thinks it can play world cop without pushback.
“As ICC judges, these four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC’s illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or our close ally, Israel,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared. That’s diplomatic speak for “back off.” The ICC’s arrogance in targeting democratic nations is a woke power grab dressed as justice.
The court’s claim to unchecked authority reeks of globalist overreach. Rubio called it a “politicized” move, and he’s not wrong. When unelected judges target elected leaders, it’s not justice—it’s a kangaroo court.
“The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies,” Rubio added. This isn’t about accountability; it’s about undermining nations that don’t bow to the progressive world order. The U.S. isn’t here for it.
The sanctions are a clear message: the U.S. won’t tolerate infringements on its sovereignty. Nor will it let its allies, like Israel, be bullied by an unaccountable court. The ICC’s actions threaten the very freedoms Americans have fought for.
“This dangerous assertion and abuse of power infringes upon the sovereignty and national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel,” Rubio stated. He’s spot-on -- letting the ICC run wild sets a precedent for global bureaucrats to override national laws. That’s a hard pass.
The State Department’s move isn’t just about these four judges. It’s a broader stand against the ICC’s attempt to flex a muscle it doesn’t have. Sovereignty isn’t negotiable, and the U.S. is drawing a line in the sand.
Rubio didn’t stop at slamming the ICC. “I call on the countries that still support the ICC, many of whose freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices, to fight this disgraceful attack on our nation and Israel,” he urged. That’s a polite way of saying, “Remember who’s had your back.”
Many ICC-supporting nations owe their liberty to American blood and treasure. Yet they cheer a court that targets U.S. and Israeli leaders while ignoring real tyrants. Hypocrisy much?
The U.S. has every right to protect its interests and those of its allies. The ICC’s selective justice -- going after democracies while giving dictators a pass -- exposes its true agenda. It’s not about fairness; it’s about control.
“The United States will take whatever actions we deem necessary to protect our sovereignty, that of Israel, and any other U.S. ally from illegitimate actions by the ICC,” Rubio vowed. That’s the kind of backbone missing from too many globalist-appeasing administrations. The ICC isn’t above accountability.
These sanctions are a shot across the bow. The U.S. won’t sit idly by while a rogue court tries to play judge, jury, and executioner. Expect more pushback if the ICC doesn’t get the memo.
The State Department’s actions remind the world that America prioritizes its sovereignty and alliances. The ICC may think itself untouchable, but the U.S. just proved otherwise. Time for the court to rethink its overreach before it is hit with more consequences.
Corporate America’s once-vibrant Pride Month displays are fading faster than a rainbow flag in a storm. In 2025, major brands, sports teams, and even government policies are dialing back support for Pride initiatives, citing economic pressures and public backlash, as Just the News reports. This shift, rooted in a growing anti-woke sentiment, signals a cultural pivot that’s impossible to ignore.
From Bud Light’s billion-dollar blunder to NASCAR’s hesitant social media posts, businesses and organizations are retreating from Pride Month endorsements amid consumer pushback and policy changes. An infamous 2023 Bud Light campaign featuring Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer, sparked a $1.4 billion revenue drop for Anheuser-Busch InBev after widespread mockery. That fiasco popularized the phrase “Get woke, go broke,” and it’s still echoing.
In 2023, the Los Angeles Dodgers stumbled into controversy by hosting the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,” a queer and trans drag group, at the franchise's Pride Night. The backlash was swift, prompting the team to balance the scales with a Christian Faith and Family Night that drew thousands. Clearly, pandering to progressive ideals doesn’t always hit a home run.
Fast forward to 2025, and corporate enthusiasm for Pride has plummeted. A Gravity Research survey shows a 60% drop in corporate Pride engagement from 2023 to 2024, with 39% of companies further scaling back this year. Big names like Mastercard, Citi, Pepsi, Nissan, and PwC have yanked their sponsorships from NYC Pride, leaving organizers scrambling.
NYC Pride is reeling from a $750,000 funding shortfall in 2025, while San Francisco Pride faces a $200,000 gap. Even Anheuser-Busch and Target, once stalwart Pride supporters, have trimmed their sponsorships, citing economic concerns or pressure from conservative groups. It’s a stark reminder that dollars follow demand, not dogma.
The sports world is also stepping back from the rainbow spotlight. Nine NFL teams and the Texas Rangers have opted out of issuing Pride Month proclamations in 2025. NASCAR, while flirting with Pride-themed social media posts, appears to be waffling on its commitment, likely wary of alienating its core fan base.
Government policies are reinforcing this cultural recalibration. On Jan. 21, the Trump administration’s “One Flag Policy,” spearheaded by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, banned Pride flags at U.S. embassies and State Department facilities. Only the American, POW/MIA, and Wrongful Detainees flags are permitted, signaling a return to national unity over identity politics.
Just days later, on Jan. 27, President Trump signed an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving openly in the military. The “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” directive disqualifies those with gender dysphoria, prohibits non-biological pronouns, and bans sex-change surgeries for service members. It’s a clear rejection of progressive gender policies in favor of traditional standards.
State-level actions are following suit. Utah’s new legislation bans Pride flags alongside political flags like “Make America Great Again,” allowing only the U.S. flag, Utah state flag, and military flags. This move underscores a broader push to keep public spaces free of ideological symbols.
The U.S. Navy, under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, was ordered to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, a ship that honored the first openly gay elected official in California. Such symbolic changes reflect a deliberate shift away from celebrating progressive icons. It’s a bold statement that not every legacy gets a permanent plaque.
This year also marks the tenth anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. While that ruling remains untouched, the declining fervor for Pride suggests cultural priorities are shifting. The rainbow’s shine is dimming as pragmatism takes center stage.
The backlash against woke initiatives isn’t just about flags or sponsorships; it’s about a broader rejection of forced ideological conformity. Companies like Bud Light learned the hard way that alienating core customers for a fleeting progressive nod can tank profits. The market, it seems, votes louder than any activist group.
Pride organizers are feeling the pinch, with no comment from GLAAD on the funding crises in New York and San Francisco. The silence speaks volumes -- when even advocacy groups go quiet, the writing’s on the wall. Pride’s once-unassailable status is now a financial and cultural question mark.
Conservative pushback, coupled with economic realities, is forcing a reckoning. Brands and teams are realizing that neutrality might be the safest bet in a polarized world. Taking sides, as Bud Light and the Dodgers discovered, can cost more than it gains.
As 2025 unfolds, the retreat from Pride Month reflects a cultural tide turning against performative progressivism. From corporate boardrooms to government policies, the message is clear: Woke agendas are losing their grip. And that, folks, is a trend worth watching.
A Wisconsin schemer’s plot to frame a migrant for threatening President Donald Trump’s life unraveled spectacularly this week.
Demetric Scott, charged Monday, allegedly forged letters posing as an unauthorized migrant to smear Trump’s immigration stance and dodge a robbery trial, as Just the News reports. The plan? Frame Ramón Morales Reyes to get him deported before he could testify against Scott.
Last month, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Morales Reyes’ arrest, mistakenly believing he penned the threatening letters. Progressives cheered, eager to paint Trump’s policies as sparking violence. Their narrative collapsed when Morales Reyes’ limited English proved he couldn’t have written them.
A handwriting sample quickly cleared Morales Reyes, exposing Scott’s clumsy forgery. Scott’s real target wasn’t Trump but Morales Reyes, whose testimony threatens Scott’s freedom in a July robbery trial. This wasn’t political passion -- it was cold, calculated witness tampering.
Scott now faces felony witness intimidation, identity theft, and two counts of bail jumping. Milwaukee police say he confessed to writing the letters, confirming his scheme was about deportation, not assassination. The left’s rush to blame Trump’s rhetoric looks foolish now.
Morales Reyes, currently in ICE custody, tipped off law enforcement about Scott’s possible vendetta. His alertness helped unravel the plot, though his alleged criminal record keeps him in removal proceedings. Funny how the “victim” here outsmarted the mastermind.
Investigators found Scott made multiple calls about mailing the letters, per a criminal complaint. His sloppy execution left a trail even a rookie detective could follow. So much for the progressive fantasy of a grand anti-Trump conspiracy.
The letters themselves were a clumsy mix of anti-Trump jabs and immigration policy gripes. Scott thought he could pin them on Morales Reyes and ride the woke wave of outrage to freedom. Instead, he’s learning that forging threats against a president isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Morales Reyes’ limited English was a glaring clue from the start. Yet Noem’s initial misstep gave the left fuel to stoke their “Trump’s policies breed hate” narrative. They should’ve waited for the facts -- always a weak spot for the woke crowd.
Scott’s desperation stemmed from the upcoming robbery trial, where Morales Reyes’ testimony could seal his fate. By posing as Morales Reyes, Scott hoped ICE would swoop in and ship the witness out. Clever in theory, disastrous in practice.
Now, Scott’s facing more charges than he bargained for, and his bail-jumping counts suggest he’s no stranger to dodging consequences. The irony? His plot to silence Morales Reyes has only amplified the spotlight on his crimes.
Morales Reyes, meanwhile, remains in ICE custody, his removal proceedings tied to a prior alleged criminal record. His role as a key witness ensures he’s not going anywhere until the July trial. Scott’s scheme didn’t just fail -- it backfired spectacularly.
The left’s eagerness to tie this to Trump’s immigration policies was predictable but premature. They saw a chance to dunk on MAGA and ran with it, facts be damned. Now they’re left with egg on their faces as Scott’s selfish motive comes to light.
This saga underscores why rushing to judgment is a fool’s game, especially when the woke lens distorts reality. Scott’s no ideologue; he’s just a guy who thought he could game the system. Too bad for him, the system’s not as gullible as he thought.
Trump’s policies, often maligned as divisive, weren’t the spark here -- Scott’s grudge was. The real story is a petty criminal’s failed attempt to manipulate immigration enforcement for his own gain. That’s the truth, no matter how loudly the progressive chorus cries otherwise.
Disney’s latest layoffs hit like a woke script rewrite nobody asked for. Hundreds of employees worldwide got pink slips starting Monday, with the axe falling hardest on Disney Entertainment’s film and TV marketing, publicity, casting, and development teams, as Deadline reports. Corporate finance wasn’t spared either, proving no corner of the Magic Kingdom is safe from the cost-cutting guillotine.
This fourth round of layoffs in 10 months is Disney’s biggest yet, slashing jobs across the Los Angeles-based Entertainment Television staff and beyond. It’s part of CEO Bob Iger’s $7.5 billion cost-cutting crusade, which already obliterated 7,000 jobs in 2023. No entire teams are gone, but the selective cuts sting just as much.
Disney is chasing streaming profits while traditional media bleeds, a trend mirrored by NBCUniversal’s recent cable network spinoff. Better-than-expected Q2 earnings last month, fueled by theme parks, sports, and streaming, didn’t save these jobs. Direct-to-consumer profits jumped $289 million, but apparently, that’s not enough to keep the payroll intact.
Last July, Disney trimmed 140 jobs, roughly 2% of its workforce, including 60 at National Geographic. Those cuts were sold as “streamlining,” but they’re starting to look like a fire sale. The progressive push for streaming supremacy comes at a human cost.
By October, Disney shut down ABC Signature, folding it into 20th Television, and merged ABC and Hulu’s scripted drama and comedy teams. That restructuring cost about 30 jobs, a small but sharp jab in the name of efficiency. Consolidation sounds nice until you’re the one packing boxes.
Early March brought another 200 layoffs, gutting 6% of ABC News Group and Disney’s entertainment networks like Freeform and FX. The pattern is clear: Disney’s slicing away at its legacy media to prop up its streaming dreams. It’s a gamble that’s leaving loyal workers in the dust.
Bob Iger’s been preaching cost cuts since 2023, and he’s not slowing down. His $7.5 billion savings goal is a corporate altar where jobs are sacrificed for Wall Street’s approval. Meanwhile, he’s crowing about new theme park jobs at shareholder meetings, as if that softens the blow for laid-off TV staff.
Disney’s not alone in this mess -- NBCUniversal is spinning off cable networks into a new entity called Versant, shedding staff along the way. Traditional media is on life support, and executives are pulling the plug to chase streaming unicorns. It’s a brutal pivot that prioritizes pixels over people.
The Los Angeles epicenter of Disney Entertainment Television took the brunt of this round. Marketing, publicity, casting, and development roles -- core to storytelling -- are now collateral damage in Iger’s quest for leaner books. Creativity’s getting sidelined for spreadsheets, and that’s a plot twist nobody loves.
Disney’s Q2 earnings glowed, with experiences, sports, and streaming driving the bus. Direct-to-consumer operating profit hit $336 million, a $289 million leap, yet layoffs keep coming. Funny how “better-than-expected” results still mean pink slips for hundreds.
Iger’s vision leans hard into Disney’s theme parks, where new jobs are supposedly sprouting. But swapping TV and film roles for rollercoaster operators feels like a bait-and-switch. The Magic Kingdom is losing its storytellers to fund more popcorn stands.
No entire teams were wiped out, Disney claims, as if that’s a consolation prize. Selective cuts across film, TV, and finance still shatter lives and disrupt families. Precision doesn’t make the pain less real.
The broader media landscape’s no rosier, with NBCUniversal’s Versant spinoff signaling more industry upheaval. Disney’s layoffs reflect a desperate shift from cable and broadcast to streaming’s uncertain promise. It’s a race to relevance that’s trampling workers in the process.
These cuts aren’t just numbers -- they’re people who built Disney’s legacy, now discarded for a shiny new app. The anti-woke crowd sees this as karma for Disney’s progressive posturing, but it’s hard to cheer when real folks are hurting. Still, the company’s pivot feels like a betrayal of its roots.
Disney’s cost-cutting saga is far from over, and Iger’s $7.5 billion target looms large. As streaming wars rage, expect more casualties in the name of “efficiency.” The Magic Kingdom is looking less magical for those left jobless in its shadow.
Iran appears poised to slam the door on America’s latest nuclear deal, potentially signaling more trouble ahead.
Last week, Oman’s Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi delivered a U.S. proposal to Tehran, which Iran’s now ready to reject, per a senior diplomat, as Reuters reports. This follows five failed rounds of talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff. The diplomat called the proposal a “non-starter,” exposing Washington’s tired playbook.
“Iran is drafting a negative response,” the diplomat sneered, hinting at a flat-out rejection. That’s no surprise when the U.S. demands that Iran ditch uranium enrichment and ship out its stockpile -- a condition that Tehran has laughed off for years.
Tehran’s nuclear committee, under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, branded the U.S. offer “completely one-sided.” Iran insists it’s chasing peaceful nuclear tech, not weapons, despite Western side-eyes. The U.S. proposal’s silence on sanctions relief only fuels Iran’s defiance.
“No clear explanation” on lifting sanctions, the diplomat griped, pointing to what he suggested were America’s vague promises. Iran’s oil economy has been choked by sanctions since Trump ditched the 2015 nuclear deal in 2018. Washington’s phased sanction relief feels like a carrot dangled just out of reach.
Trump is back in 2025, cranking up his “maximum pressure” with tighter sanctions and military threats. He pulled the U.S. out of the 2015 deal, which traded Iran’s nuclear curbs for sanctions relief, only to see Iran ramp up enrichment. History’s repeating, and nobody’s learning.
Iran’s response to 2018 sanctions was to enrich uranium beyond the 2015 deal’s limits. Now, it demands that all U.S. sanctions vanish instantly, not in phases as Washington prefers. Tehran is not here for half-measures or empty promises.
The U.S. State Department stayed mum, likely because they know this deal is dead on arrival. Iran is willing to cap enrichment but wants guarantees that the U.S. won’t backstab them again.
Two Iranian officials recently floated a pause in enrichment if the U.S. frees frozen funds and respects Iran’s civilian nuclear rights. That’s a long shot when Trump is fixated on stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions to avoid a regional arms race. Israel is watching, and they’re not playing nice.
Israel sees Iran’s nuclear program as a direct threat and has threatened airstrikes on its facilities. In April 2025, Saudi Arabia’s defense minister warned Iran to take Trump’s offer seriously to avoid war. Tehran’s not sweating it, with Araqchi shrugging off Israel’s threats in Cairo.
“I do not think Israel will commit such a mistake,” Araqchi said, brushing off the saber-rattling. His confidence might be bravado, given Iran’s weakened “Axis of Resistance” allies like Hamas and Hezbollah. Military setbacks have left Tehran’s regional clout wobbling.
Iran’s economy is gasping under sanctions targeting its central bank and oil company, slapped on since 2018 for alleged terrorism ties. Tehran’s desperate for relief but won’t kneel to what it sees as a “bad deal.” Pride is a powerful motivator, even when it’s costly.
Trump is pushing to block Iran from going nuclear, fearing a domino effect that could arm the Middle East. Iran, meanwhile, wants sanctions gone to revive its battered economy. Both sides are digging in, and compromise feels like a fairy tale.
The U.S. proposal’s rigid stance on enrichment and fuzzy sanctions relief plan reeks of diplomatic laziness. Iran’s nuclear negotiators, backed by Khamenei, aren’t buying what Washington’s selling. Expect Araqchi’s formal rejection to land like a diplomatic middle finger.
This standoff’s a masterclass in stubbornness, with neither side blinking. Trump’s threats and Iran’s defiance are steering this toward a dangerous edge. If talks collapse, the Middle East could get a lot hotter -- and not from the desert sun.
A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) employee’s alleged plot to leak classified documents has landed him in handcuffs, driven by his disdain for President Donald Trump’s administration. Nathan Villas Laatsch, an IT worker in the DIA’s Insider Threat Division, thought he could play whistleblower with a foreign government. Turns out, betraying your country comes with a one-way ticket to a courtroom.
Laatsch, tasked with spotting internal security risks at the DIA, allegedly offered classified materials to a “friendly foreign government,” according to court documents, as Politico reports. His job was to catch leakers, yet he became the very threat he was hired to stop. The irony is thicker than a government bureaucracy.
His scheme began with an email, intercepted by the FBI, in which he voiced his intent to share sensitive information. “The recent actions of the current administration are extremely disturbing to me,” Laatsch wrote, per an FBI affidavit. Sounds like someone let personal politics override national loyalty.
Agents at the FBI, not ones to sit idly, launched an undercover operation, posing as representatives of the foreign government Laatsch contacted. “Good afternoon, I received your message and share your concerns,” an agent responded, setting the trap. Laatsch took the bait, oblivious to the net closing around him.
In communications with the undercover agents, Laatsch doubled down on his motives. “I do not agree or align with the values of this administration,” he emailed, as cited in court records. Disagreement doesn’t justify treason, but try telling that to someone blinded by ideology.
Laatsch even requested citizenship in the foreign country, citing deteriorating conditions in the U.S. His calculus, as he put it, was that doing nothing was worse than acting recklessly. Spoiler alert: The FBI disagreed.
On Thursday, Laatsch’s plan crumbled when he met an undercover agent at a pre-arranged spot in northern Virginia. He handed over materials, thinking he was aiding a foreign ally, only to be arrested on the spot. Actions, as they say, have consequences.
“I’ve given a lot of thought to this before any outreach, and despite the risks, the calculus has not changed,” Laatsch wrote earlier, per court documents. That “thought” clearly skipped the part about federal prison. Hubris makes a poor counselor.
The FBI Washington Field Office is now spearheading the investigation, ensuring every detail of Laatsch’s betrayal is uncovered. His initial court appearance was set for Friday in Alexandria. The gavel awaits, and it’s not known for sympathy.
FBI Director Kash Patel didn’t mince words about the case’s significance. “This case underscores the persistent risk of insider threats,” he posted on X. When the watchers need watching, you know the system’s been stress-tested.
Laatsch’s role in the Insider Threat Division made his actions particularly galling. He was entrusted to protect national secrets, not peddle them to foreigners. The betrayal stings worse when it’s from within.
Patel also praised law enforcement’s swift response. “The FBI remains steadfast in protecting our national security,” he wrote on X. Good to know someone’s still guarding the gates while others try to pry them open.
Laatsch’s case is a stark reminder that personal grudges don’t trump national security. “I do not see the trajectory of things changing,” he wrote, justifying his actions. Too bad he didn’t see the FBI’s sting operation coming instead.
The Department of Justice’s announcement made clear that Laatsch’s motives don’t excuse his crimes. Offering classified material to a foreign government isn’t a protest; it’s a felony. The law doesn’t care about your feelings.
As Laatsch faces the consequences, conservatives can only shake their heads at yet another ideologue thinking they’re above the rules. The MAGA movement thrives on loyalty to country, not tantrums over policy. Let’s hope the courtroom delivers a reality check.
President Donald Trump just slammed the door on CBS News’ multimillion-dollar settlement offer. The network’s attempt to dodge a $20 billion lawsuit over a doctored 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris fell flat, as the Daily Mail reports. Trump’s not playing games with media outlets he accuses of playing fast and loose with the truth.
Trump filed the lawsuit in October 2024, targeting CBS, its parent company Paramount Global, and 60 Minutes, alleging the network deceptively edited Harris’ interview to make her look sharper than she was. Settlement talks kicked off nearly a month ago, with CBS offering $15 million to make the problem disappear. Trump called that offer “not even close” and demanded at least $25 million plus a public apology.
The lawsuit claims CBS correspondent Bill Whitaker’s prime-time interview with Harris was manipulated to hide her stumbling responses on issues like the Israel-Hamas war. Trump argues the edited footage swapped in clearer answers from another part of the interview to prop up Harris and smear him. A source close to Trump’s team didn’t mince words: “This was election interference.”
CBS denies any wrongdoing, insisting that the 60 Minutes broadcast was “not doctored or deceitful.” The network calls Trump’s allegations “completely without merit,” but that hasn’t stopped the former president from escalating the fight. Actions have consequences, and CBS might be learning that the hard way.
The lawsuit has ballooned into one of the largest defamation-related claims ever aimed at a media company. Legal analysts, however, argue the First Amendment gives CBS a sturdy shield, suggesting Trump’s case might fizzle in court. Still, the threat of a drawn-out legal battle looms large.
Paramount’s $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media is now caught in the crossfire. Trump has threatened to block federal approvals for the deal, and his Federal Communications Commission is probing CBS for potential “news distortion.” The merger’s fate could hinge on how this dispute plays out.
Paramount chairwoman Shari Redstone is personally mediating to cool the conflict, with sources saying she’s willing to offer up to $50 million to settle. If the Skydance merger goes through, Redstone stands to pocket $2 billion -- a tidy sum that might explain her urgency. But throwing cash at the problem won’t erase the damage to CBS’s credibility.
Inside CBS, the fallout is palpable. Wendy McMahon, CEO of CBS News, stepped down earlier this month, citing “differing views on the path forward.” Bill Owens, the longtime executive producer of 60 Minutes, also resigned, pointing to concerns over “editorial independence.”
CBS journalists are sounding alarms about Paramount’s handling of the situation. Scott Pelley, a 60 Minutes veteran, noted during a recent broadcast that Paramount has started supervising content in “new ways.” Many in the newsroom fear the company is sacrificing integrity to protect its merger.
Trump’s rhetoric isn’t helping calm nerves. He’s called for 60 Minutes to be canceled and threatened to revoke broadcast licenses and even jail journalists. CBS staffers are bracing for retaliation, especially with Elon Musk, Trump’s billionaire advisor, hoping the 60 Minutes team faces “long prison sentences.”
The lawsuit’s ripple effects are undeniable. Paramount faces internal criticism from CBS journalists who accuse the company of compromising the newsroom to save the Skydance deal. Meanwhile, 60 Minutes, with its 10 million weekly viewers, keeps airing investigations critical of Trump’s administration.
Trump’s no stranger to winning big against media giants. He’s already secured $25 million from Meta, $15 million from ABC News, and $10 million from X in prior settlements. CBS might’ve underestimated a man who knows how to play hardball.
A media attorney warned the New York Post that settling with Trump could look like a “payoff,” opening Paramount to criminal liability and shareholder lawsuits. “This is legally radioactive,” the attorney said, and CBS’s next moves will be scrutinized. The network’s attempt to brush this off as business as usual isn’t fooling anyone.
Trump’s lawsuit is more than a legal spat -- it’s a warning shot to media outlets he views as hostile. The First Amendment might protect CBS in court, but public perception is another battlefield. And Trump’s base is eating it up.
For now, CBS is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Paramount’s merger dreams, Redstone’s billions, and 60 Minutes’ reputation all hang in the balance. If they thought a quick settlement would make Trump go away, they miscalculated badly.
