The Democrat Party is fracturing. There’s no telling where this all will end.

Now a former Biden official jumped ship to team up with the Trump administration.

Trump Administration’s Antisemitism Push Gains Support, Sparks Debate

Deborah Lipstadt, a prominent figure in combating antisemitism during the Biden administration, has expressed cautious optimism about the Trump administration’s efforts to address the issue.

Speaking to the New Yorker, Lipstadt, who recently returned to Emory University, highlighted the urgency of tackling antisemitism while raising concerns about the approach’s intensity and potential repercussions.

A Continued Fight Against Antisemitism

Lipstadt, who served as the Biden administration’s special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, welcomed the Trump administration’s focus on the issue.

“I’m pleased that they’re addressing it, because that’s what I did for the past three years, which was to really push the Biden Administration to seriously address it. So I am very, very pleased that it’s on their agenda,” she told the New Yorker. Her comments reflect a hope that the momentum she helped build will persist, even as she transitions back to academia at Emory University, as announced in December.

The Trump administration’s actions, particularly its scrutiny of universities, have resonated with some communities. “I also think there are many Jews, and some non-Jews, too, but many Jews who are disappointed by how universities have behaved since October 7th, and they see a strong – to use Passover terminology – a strong hand being used,” Lipstadt said.

She acknowledged the relief felt by many at this forceful stance but cautioned, “Now, whether that hand is being used properly or not raises certain questions about what’s happening,” adding, “a lot of people were relieved to see this forceful approach. I think, in many respects, it’s going too far.”

Universities Under Fire

Lipstadt pointed to a systemic failure among higher education institutions in addressing antisemitism, particularly since the events of October 7th. “Look, the universities failed to address this seriously. And by failing to address this seriously, they failed the Jewish students on campus.

They dismissed their grievances. They created an inhospitable atmosphere. We’re now seeing the fruits of that failure,” she told the New Yorker. She expressed concern that the current debate risks weaponizing antisemitism.

“What disturbs me so much is that the debate will now become over whether antisemitism is being used as a weapon to fight against people we don’t like. Antisemitism should not be a cudgel,” she noted.

Lipstadt emphasized that the focus should remain on combating antisemitism itself, not targeting institutions broadly.

“The fight should be against antisemitism and not against the institutions. The institutions opened the door. Most universities failed miserably to address this, and we’re seeing the consequences of that now,” she said. Her remarks underscore the need for a balanced approach that prioritizes student safety without escalating into broader conflicts.

Navigating a Complex Path Forward

As the Trump administration presses universities to act, Lipstadt’s insights highlight both the necessity and the challenges of addressing antisemitism effectively. Her call for a focused, non-partisan effort reflects a desire to protect Jewish students while avoiding the politicization of a critical issue.

The ongoing debate, she warns, will test whether these efforts can unify rather than divide, as campuses grapple with the consequences of past inaction and the implications of a newly assertive approach.

Rumors have been circulating for years. But now the evidence is in.

And a picture of Michelle Obama proves what everyone already knew.

Obamas Appear Together at DC Restaurant Amid Divorce Rumors

On April 19, 2025, former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama dined together at Osteria Mozza, a high-end Washington, DC, restaurant, marking a joint appearance at the same venue where Barack was spotted alone in January amid swirling divorce rumors.

The couple’s dinner at the upscale Italian eatery, known for its $175 dry-aged bistecca alla Fiorentina and “California-style” pasta, drew attention from diners who clapped and cheered as they descended a central stairway, per a clip posted on the Washingtonian Problems Instagram account on April 21, 2025. Barack Obama, 63, briefly waved to the crowd as they exited, a moment that contrasted with earlier speculation about their 30-year marriage.

Solo Visit Fueled Marriage Gossip

Barack Obama’s solo dinner at Osteria Mozza in January 2025, days before President Donald Trump’s inauguration, intensified rumors of marital strife.

His casual entrance without Michelle, 61, who skipped both former President Jimmy Carter’s funeral and Trump’s inauguration, prompted widespread chatter on social media and in tabloids about the couple’s relationship.

That visit, which also drew a loud welcome from diners, came at a peak of speculation, with some questioning whether the Obamas were headed for a split. The couple’s recent joint appearance at the same restaurant appeared to counter those narratives, though it did little to fully quell ongoing public curiosity about their personal lives.

Michelle Obama Responds to Speculation

In an April 2025 interview on Sophia Bush’s “Work in Progress” podcast, Michelle Obama addressed the divorce rumors, attributing them to her decisions to decline high-profile event invitations. “The interesting thing is that, when I say ‘no,’ for the most part people are like, ‘I get it, and I’m OK,’” she said, adding:

“And that’s the thing that we as women struggle with — disappointing people. So much so that people, they couldn’t even fathom that I was making a choice for myself, that they had to assume that my husband and I are divorcing.” Her comments framed her absences as personal choices, though they did not directly address the public’s perception of tension in the marriage.

Public Reaction Draws Attention

The crowd’s enthusiastic response at Osteria Mozza, with diners applauding the Obamas’ entrance, highlighted their continued visibility in public life. The Instagram video captured the moment, showing Barack acknowledging the crowd as they left the restaurant.

This reaction, similar to the one during his January solo visit, underscores the couple’s ability to command attention, whether together or apart. However, the warm reception also amplified scrutiny of their appearance, as observers noted the deliberate choice to dine at a location previously tied to divorce rumors, raising questions about the intent behind the outing.

Appearance Stirs Ongoing Debate

The Obamas’ decision to dine at Osteria Mozza together, revisiting a restaurant linked to one of the most intense periods of divorce speculation, has kept their personal lives in the spotlight. While their joint presence contrasted with Barack’s earlier solo outing, it has not fully silenced questions about their marriage.

Michelle’s podcast remarks aimed to reframe her absences as independent decisions, but the couple’s high-profile dinner has fueled further discussion about whether the appearance was a calculated move to address gossip. As the Obamas remain prominent figures, their actions—whether dining together or skipping events—continue to spark public debate about their relationship and motivations.

The Left’s crimes are getting exposed. And there’s nowhere left to hide.

Now the House GOP moved to put one top Democrat behind bars for a terrible crime.

House Republicans Push for Cuomo Prosecution Over Nursing Home Cover-Up

House Republicans, led by Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), have renewed their call for Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for allegedly making “criminally false statements” to Congress.

The accusations stem from a July 6, 2020, New York State Department of Health report that undercounted nursing home deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic by 46%.

Comer, in a statement, described Cuomo as “a man with a history of corruption and deceit, now caught red-handed lying to Congress during the Select Subcommittee’s investigation into the COVID-19 nursing home tragedy in New York.”

The referral, originally sent to then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in October 2024 and ignored by the Biden administration, alleges Cuomo deliberately misled lawmakers to shield himself from accountability for the deaths of thousands of elderly New Yorkers.

Evidence Contradicts Cuomo’s Testimony

During a June 11, 2024, transcribed interview with the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, Cuomo claimed he had no role in drafting, reviewing, or discussing the July 2020 report, stating, “I did not. Maybe it was in the inbox, but I did not,” and later adding he did not “recall” seeing it before its release. However, emails and documents obtained by the subcommittee reveal Cuomo’s direct involvement, including handwritten edits on report drafts.

Former staffer Farrah Kennedy confirmed to the Moseley in October 2024 that she frequently deciphered Cuomo’s handwriting, identifying his notes on the report.

These edits included a claim that “the disease was already in the nursing homes” by the time the mandate was rescinded and a marginal note citing 6,600 deaths, despite over 9,000 actual fatalities when including hospital deaths. The final report listed only 6,432 deaths, a 46% undercount.

Controversial Nursing Home Policy Fuels Outrage

The controversy centers on a March 25, 2020, Cuomo administration directive that required nursing homes to admit or readmit COVID-positive patients, a policy critics, including Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), called “deadly.”

By May 10, 2020, when Cuomo revoked the order, thousands of infected patients had entered nursing homes, contributing to approximately 15,000 deaths among long-term care residents, far exceeding initial reports. A January 2021 report by New York Attorney General Letitia James found the state underreported nursing home deaths by up to 50%, excluding deaths after hospital transfers.

Comer accused Cuomo of a “calculated cover-up” to deflect blame, noting that the July 2020 report falsely attributed excess deaths to nursing home staff rather than the state’s policy. “This wasn’t a slip-up—it was a calculated cover-up by a man seeking to shield himself from responsibility for the devastating loss of life,” Comer said.

Cuomo’s Defense and Counteraccusations

Cuomo’s team has vehemently denied the allegations, with spokesman Rich Azzopardi calling the referral “a meritless press release” and “transparent election interference.” On October 30, 2024, Cuomo’s attorneys filed their own referral against former subcommittee chairman Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), accusing him of abusing power and colluding with private litigants, including the husband of Fox News meteorologist Janice Dean, a vocal critic of Cuomo’s policies.

“This interrogation far exceeded the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction and appears to have been an improper effort to advantage the interests of private litigants against Governor Cuomo,” wrote attorney Sarah A. Sulkowski to Garland. Azzopardi dismissed the GOP’s evidence, stating, “This is a joke—the Governor said he didn’t recall because he didn’t recall,” and argued the referral was a politically motivated attack, likening it to others against figures like Hillary Clinton and Anthony Fauci.

Political Stakes and Legal Implications

The renewed referral, now directed to Attorney General Pam Bondi under the Trump administration, alleges three counts of false statements, each carrying a potential five-year prison sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Comer vowed full cooperation with any DOJ probe, stating, “Cuomo must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” The push comes as Cuomo, who resigned in 2021 amid unrelated sexual harassment allegations, campaigns for New York City mayor, making the timing politically charged.

Emails from aides, including a June 7, 2020, chain likely dictated by Cuomo warning of a “great debacle in the history books,” and testimony from former staff like Melissa DeRosa and Jim Malatras, further implicate Cuomo. The House probe aligns with a 2021 New York State Assembly Judiciary Committee report that found evidence of Cuomo meddling in the report to “combat criticism.” As the DOJ considers action, the case could significantly impact Cuomo’s political future and the broader reckoning over New York’s pandemic response.

The Courts have been notoriously hostile to Trump. But all of that could change.

Because Supreme Court teed up a landmark decision that could change everything.

Supreme Court to Weigh Parental Rights in LGBTQ Curriculum Dispute

On April 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case that pits parental religious freedoms against school policies mandating exposure to LGBTQ-themed books.

Parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, are challenging the local school district’s decision to prohibit opt-outs from lessons featuring books with LGBTQ storylines, claiming the policy infringes on their First Amendment rights. The case, which has drawn national attention, underscores a broader clash between public education’s inclusivity efforts and the rights of parents to guide their children’s moral and religious upbringing.

Montgomery County’s Policy Sparks Controversy

The dispute began in November 2022 when Montgomery County Public Schools introduced LGBTQ-inclusive books as part of its “inclusivity” initiative. According to Becket, the religious freedom legal group representing the parents, these books “champion pride parades, gender transitioning and pronoun preferences for children.”

Initially, parents were allowed to opt their children out of these lessons, but in March 2023, the school district reversed course, eliminating the opt-out option and ceasing notifications about when the books would be used.

This shift prompted outrage from parents like Grace Morrison, a mother of seven, who told Fox News Digital, “We felt as parents that we would present these things to our children like we always have, when they’re ready to receive them.” Morrison, whose youngest child has Down’s Syndrome, added that the books’ themes, including gender ideology, could confuse her daughter and conflict with their family’s faith.

Religious Freedom at the Heart of the Case

The plaintiffs, representing Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox families, argue that the school’s policy violates their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. Becket attorney William Haun told Fox News Digital that the case hinges on the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, which he says protects parents’ authority to opt their children out of instruction that undermines their religious values, even in public schools.

The parents contend that the books’ content contradicts their faith-based beliefs about gender and s*xuality, and the lack of an opt-out forces their children to engage with material they find objectionable. Montgomery County’s school board is among the few nationwide to explicitly ban both opt-outs and prior notifications for lessons on s*xuality and gender, making this case a potential precedent-setter.

Legal Journey and Broader Implications

The parents’ challenge faced a setback in May 2024 when a federal appeals court ruled that Montgomery County schools could mandate the use of LGBTQ-inclusive books without offering opt-outs.

Undeterred, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed in January 2025 to hear the case. The upcoming arguments will explore whether schools can compel students to engage with materials that conflict with their families’ religious convictions, or if parents retain the right to exempt their children from such instruction.

Morrison emphasized the personal stakes, noting that for her daughter with special needs, the material is “even more difficult for her to understand.” The diverse religious backgrounds of the plaintiffs highlight the case’s potential to resonate with families across various faith communities.

National Debate Over Education and Parental Rights

Mahmoud v. Taylor arrives at a time of heightened tension over the role of public schools in addressing issues of gender and s*xuality. As school districts nationwide adopt inclusive curricula, some parents argue that such policies sideline their values and erode their authority. Montgomery County’s stance has drawn particular scrutiny for its uncompromising approach, with Becket noting that few other districts impose similar bans on opt-outs.

The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by mid-2025, could clarify the balance between fostering inclusive education and safeguarding religious liberties, potentially reshaping how schools navigate these contentious issues. For parents like Morrison, the case is about ensuring their children’s education aligns with their family’s deeply held beliefs.

The Vice President has been working hard for months. But no one was expecting this to happen.

Now he’s made a tragic announcement that is sending shockwaves around the world.

Vance Shares Heartfelt Tribute to Pope Francis

U.S. Vice President JD Vance expressed profound grief over the death of Pope Francis, who passed away at 88 on April 21, 2025, just hours after their brief Easter Sunday meeting at the Vatican. In an emotional post on X, Vance extended his condolences to the global Christian community, writing, “I just learned of the passing of Pope Francis.

My heart goes out to the millions of Christians all over the world who loved him.” He reflected on the pontiff’s frail condition during their encounter, noting, “I was happy to see him yesterday, though he was obviously very ill.”

Vance highlighted a sermon Francis delivered in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, sharing a link and calling it “really quite beautiful,” while concluding, “May God rest his soul.”

Brief Vatican Meeting Amid Frail Health

The meeting between Vance, a Catholic convert since 2019, and Pope Francis was described by the Vatican as a short exchange of Easter greetings at the Casa Santa Marta, lasting only a few minutes. Francis, visibly weakened by a 38-day hospitalization for double pneumonia, still managed to engage with Vance, gifting him three large chocolate Easter eggs for his children, along with a Vatican tie and rosaries.

Vance expressed concern for the pope’s health, saying, “I know you have not been feeling great, but it’s good to see you in better health,” and added, “I pray for you every day. God bless you.” The encounter, though fleeting, marked a moment of personal connection despite their differing views on key issues.

Tensions Over Immigration Policies

The backdrop to their meeting was a history of public disagreement, particularly over the Trump administration’s immigration policies, which Vance has supported. Pope Francis had been a vocal critic, most notably in a February 2025 letter to U.S. bishops, where he described mass deportations as a “major crisis.”

He wrote, “The act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness.”

This stance likely influenced the brevity of their meeting, with Vance spending more time discussing religious freedom and global conflicts with Vatican officials like Cardinal Pietro Parolin and Archbishop Paul Gallagher.

A Gesture of Goodwill Amid Divide

Despite their ideological differences, the Easter Sunday exchange was marked by mutual respect. The chocolate eggs and other gifts from Francis underscored his characteristic warmth, even toward political figures with opposing views. Vance’s tribute on X focused on the pope’s spiritual legacy, emphasizing his ability to inspire millions through sermons like the one from 2020.

The vice president’s choice to highlight this moment, rather than their policy disputes, suggests an effort to honor Francis’s broader impact as a religious leader. The meeting also included an “exchange of opinions” on migration with Vatican officials, hinting at ongoing diplomatic efforts to navigate these tensions.

Pope Francis’s Legacy and Vance’s Reflection

Pope Francis’s death, following a prolonged battle with double pneumonia, marks the end of a papacy defined by compassion for the marginalized and outspoken advocacy on global issues like poverty and migration. Vance’s tribute aligns with the sentiments of millions mourning the pontiff, reflecting on his ability to connect with people across divides.

By sharing the COVID-era homily, Vance underscored Francis’s gift for offering hope during crises, a quality that resonated even with those who disagreed with his political stances. As the Catholic Church prepares for a conclave to elect a new pope, Vance’s words serve as a reminder of Francis’s enduring influence on faith and global discourse.

The Democrats can’t get their footing. They keep getting hit upside the head by reality.

And now the U.S. Supreme Court has smacked the Democrat party with a devastating loss in dramatic fashion.

Supreme Court Upholds Trump Admin’s Tough Immigration Stance

In a decisive move that strengthens the Trump administration’s commitment to enforcing immigration laws, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan on Wednesday rejected an emergency appeal from four Mexican nationals facing deportation. The petitioners, a family from Guerrero, Mexico, sought to block their removal, claiming they faced threats from the Los Rojos drug cartel. Kagan’s swift denial of their request without comment sends a clear message: the United States will not waver in upholding its sovereignty and protecting its borders.

The family—Fabian Lagunas Espinoza, Maria Angelica Flores Ulloa, and their two sons—was ordered to report to immigration officials on Thursday. Their legal team argued that returning to Mexico would expose them to cartel violence, citing a 2021 incident where cartel members demanded they abandon their home within 24 hours or face death. Despite these claims, Kagan, acting as the justice overseeing the Ninth Circuit, dismissed the appeal without referring it to the full court, reinforcing the administration’s stance that immigration laws must be enforced consistently.

The Trump administration has long prioritized border security, emphasizing that illegal entry into the United States cannot be rewarded with leniency. The family’s asylum claims were rejected by an immigration judge, a decision upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals in November 2023 and later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2025. A temporary stay of removal was lifted on April 7, paving the way for their deportation. This chain of rulings demonstrates the judiciary’s alignment with the administration’s firm immigration policies.

According to the family’s court filing, they fled Mexico after enduring threats from the Los Rojos cartel, which also targeted extended family members with beatings and intimidation for refusing to comply with extortion demands. While these details paint a grim picture, the Trump administration argues that the U.S. cannot serve as a sanctuary for every individual facing hardship abroad. The government’s position is clear: lawful processes must govern immigration, and those who enter illegally must face the consequences.

The petitioners’ attorney, LeRoy George Siddell, argued in the filing, “Petitioners face imminent removal and have been directed to report to immigration office on 4/17/2025, despite credible and detailed testimony and documentary evidence showing they are targets of cartel violence due to their family ties and refusal to comply with extortion demands.” Yet, the administration contends that such claims, while serious, do not automatically grant the right to remain in the U.S. The immigration system, under Trump’s leadership, prioritizes national security and the rule of law over emotional appeals.

Liberal Justice Kagan Breaks From The Left To Give Trump Major Win

Kagan’s decision to act alone, without involving her colleagues, just goes to show the strength of the legal framework supporting the administration’s policies. As the justice assigned to handle emergency appeals from the Ninth Circuit, she had the authority to make a unilateral ruling. Her choice to do so without further deliberation signals confidence in the lower courts’ rulings and the immigration authorities’ processes. This move aligns with the Trump administration’s push for a judiciary that respects the executive branch’s authority on immigration matters.

The Department of Justice, which did not respond to the application before Kagan’s ruling, has consistently supported the administration’s efforts to streamline deportations and deter illegal immigration. The DOJ’s silence in this case speaks volumes, suggesting that the government views the matter as a straightforward application of existing law. The Trump administration has worked to restore order to an immigration system it views as previously plagued by loopholes and leniency, and Kagan’s ruling advances that mission.

As of Thursday morning, the family was required to report to U.S. immigration authorities, with their fate hanging in the balance. The Trump administration’s supporters see this as a necessary step in maintaining the integrity of the nation’s borders. Critics may argue that the decision lacks compassion, but the administration counters that compassion cannot come at the expense of law and order. The U.S. immigration system, under Trump’s guidance, is designed to protect American citizens first while ensuring that legal pathways to entry are respected.

This case is emblematic of the broader immigration challenges the Trump administration has tackled since taking office. From strengthening border enforcement to reforming asylum policies, the administration has sought to create a system that deters illegal crossings and prioritizes those who follow legal processes. Kagan’s ruling is a victory for those who believe that immigration laws must be enforced without exception, reinforcing the administration’s commitment to its America First agenda.

In the eyes of the Trump administration and its supporters, Justice Kagan’s decision is a step toward reclaiming control over the nation’s borders and ensuring that the United States remains a nation of laws. As the administration continues to push for stricter immigration measures, this ruling serves as a reminder that the judiciary plays a critical role in upholding the will of the American people. The fight for secure borders and lawful immigration, as championed by President Trump, moves forward with unwavering resolve.

Prudent Politics will bring you any further updates in major immigration litigation.

Politicians thrive on public opinion. But when it turns against them, it’s over.

Now an unsettling photo of this Democrat Senator could completely destroy his career.

High-Stakes Diplomatic Encounter in El Salvador

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) finally met with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an undocumented immigrant deported from the U.S. to a mega-prison in El Salvador, after persistent efforts to verify his well-being.

The meeting, which took place on Thursday, was publicized by El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, who shared images of Van Hollen, Abrego Garcia, and another individual conversing over drinks.

In a sarcastic post on X, Bukele mocked claims of Abrego Garcia’s mistreatment, stating, “Kilmar Abrego Garcia, miraculously risen from the ‘death camps’ & ‘torture’, now sipping margaritas with Sen. Van Hollen in the tropical paradise of El Salvador!” Van Hollen shared his own photo of the encounter, confirming the meeting and noting, “I said my main goal of this trip was to meet with Kilmar.

Tonight I had that chance. I have called his wife, Jennifer, to pass along his message of love. I look forward to providing a full update upon my return.”

Tensions Over Deportation and Due Process

Van Hollen’s trip to El Salvador earlier this week was driven by his determination to check on Abrego Garcia, whom he described as a “constituent” subjected to an “abduction and unlawful deportation.”

The 29-year-old, who had been living in Maryland after receiving permission to stay in the U.S. in 2019, was deported last month amid the Trump administration’s intensified immigration crackdown. Van Hollen faced obstacles, including a denied request to visit Abrego Garcia and being blocked by soldiers at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).

Undeterred, he vowed to “keep at this” to ensure Abrego Garcia’s “rights to due process.”

The case has sparked a legal battle, with a recent Supreme Court ruling mandating that the government “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, though not necessarily ensure it.

A U.S. appeals court panel reinforced this, stating, “The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process.”

Allegations and International Standoff

The Trump administration has labeled Abrego Garcia a member of the MS-13 gang, designated as a foreign terror organization, and released documents to support this claim, though his attorneys deny the affiliation.

The deportation, initially called an “administrative error” in court, was later attributed by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to a “saboteur” in the Justice Department.

Further scrutiny revealed a restraining order accusing Abrego Garcia of domestic violence against his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, though she now says they resolved the issue. During a White House meeting, Bukele firmly rejected calls to return Abrego Garcia, declaring, “How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?” and adding, “I don’t have the power to return him.”

After the Van Hollen meeting, Bukele posted on X, “Now that he’s been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador’s custody,” signaling an ongoing international impasse.

The assault on our rights by the government has been almost too much to bear. Now a decision has finally been made.

Because a federal judge made a landmark ruling that changes the First Amendment for good.

Victory for Religious Freedom in North Dakota Ruling

In a landmark decision, a federal judge in North Dakota has delivered a resounding rebuke to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), shielding Catholic employers from Biden-era mandates that clashed with their faith.

The ruling, issued by Judge Daniel M. Traynor, halts the EEOC’s efforts to force Catholic organizations to comply with regulations under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that would require accommodating abortion, in vitro fertilization (IVF), and surrogacy. It also blocks enforcement of controversial LGBT “anti-discrimination” rules, including pronoun mandates and access to single-s*x spaces.

The lawsuit, brought by the Diocese of Bismarck and the Catholic Benefits Association (CBA), challenged the EEOC’s overreach as a direct violation of religious liberty.

“The US District Court for the District of North Dakota entered judgment Wednesday,” Bloomberg Law reported, noting Traynor’s finding that the EEOC’s rules “would cause the Catholic Benefits Association and the Bismarck Diocese to violate their ‘sincerely held religious beliefs without satisfying strict scrutiny under the’ Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

For Catholic groups, the decision is a critical safeguard against federal overreach that threatened their core values.

Catholic Employers Celebrate Protection of Faith-Based Mission

The Catholic Benefits Association, representing over 9,000 members, hailed the ruling as a decisive triumph. “The court granted permanent protection from the EEOC’s efforts to force Catholic employers and others to accommodate abortion, IVF, or surrogacy, and to eliminate single-s*x spaces and adopt preferred pronouns,” the CBA declared in a Wednesday press release.

The decision ensures that Catholic ministries can continue their work without being coerced into practices that contradict their beliefs.

Doug Wilson, CEO of CBA, underscored the significance of the victory, pointing to the group’s persistent legal battles against government overreach. “The fact that we have had to sue the government five times and won every single time clearly illustrates both the strength of our legal strategy and the misguided ideological nature of the efforts to undermine our faith-driven ministries,” Wilson said.

He emphasized that the ruling empowers CBA members to pursue their mission unhindered. “Guided by their Catholic faith, our members contribute innumerable hours and resources in service to society every year, out of love for Jesus Christ and our fellow man,” he added. “This ruling lets us continue to serve without the threat of the EEOC persecuting us for following our faith.”

Free Speech and Pro-Life Values Upheld

The ruling also delivers a significant win for free speech, striking down EEOC guidance that sought to regulate workplace speech and behavior. “Going beyond the medical procedure aspects of the case, yesterday’s permanent injunction also addressed the speech aspects of the Enforcement Guidance that the EEOC issued on hostile work environments,” the CBA stated.

The court ruled that Catholic employers cannot be compelled to “refrain from speaking or communicating against the same [immoral matters] when such is contrary to the Catholic faith, use pronouns inconsistent with a person’s biological s*x; or allow persons to use private spaces reserved for the opposite s*x.” This protection ensures that Catholic organizations can maintain their commitment to both free expression and their doctrinal stance.

The CBA highlighted the irony of the EEOC’s interpretation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which was initially supported by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for its pro-worker and pro-life intent.

“The US Conference of Catholic Bishops supported the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act as it made its way through Congress because it was ‘pro-worker, pro-family and pro-life,’ according to a statement from Bishop Michael Burbidge,” the CBA noted. However, the EEOC’s rules “turned its intentions on its head by including accommodation for abortion and the other immoral aspects that CBA sued over,” transforming a well-meaning law into a tool for ideological enforcement.

A Stand Against Federal Overreach

The ruling marks a broader pushback against federal agencies accused of imposing progressive mandates at the expense of religious liberty. For the Diocese of Bismarck and the CBA, the lawsuit was a necessary stand to protect their ability to operate in alignment with Catholic teachings.

The court’s decision reinforces the principle that religious organizations cannot be forced to abandon their beliefs to comply with government edicts that fail to meet the stringent requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

As Catholic employers breathe a sigh of relief, the ruling serves as a reminder of the ongoing tension between faith-based organizations and federal policies that critics argue prioritize ideology over constitutional protections. For now, the CBA and its members can continue their charitable work, confident that their religious convictions are shielded from what they see as bureaucratic overreach.

Americans around the country don’t have any great love for the IRS. Now the agency is feeling the brunt of it.

And they are shredding documents after a Republican introduced this consequential bill.

House Republicans Challenge IRS Overreach with Bold Firearm Ban

As millions of Americans begrudgingly navigate the annual tax-filing ordeal, a group of House Republicans is taking aim at the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) bloated power, proposing a bill to strip the agency of its firearms and ammunition.

The move signals growing frustration with an agency critics say has grown too comfortable flexing muscle against hardworking taxpayers.

The “Why Does the IRS Need Guns Act,” spearheaded by Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., would slam the brakes on the IRS’s ability to purchase, store, or receive guns and ammo.

Instead, the agency’s existing stockpile would be handed over to the Administrator of General Services for public auction. Firearms would go to licensed dealers, while ammunition would be sold directly to citizens.

Every penny from these sales, the bill mandates, would flow into “the general fund of the Treasury for the sole purpose of deficit reduction.”

Moore, joined by Reps. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Mary Miller of Illinois, and Clay Higgins of Louisiana, argues the IRS has no business wielding weapons while squeezing Americans for their earnings.

“The IRS has consistently been weaponized against American citizens, targeted religious organizations, journalists, gun owners, and everyday Americans,” Moore asserted, according to a press release. “Arming these agents does not make the American public safer. My legislation, the Why Does the IRS Need Guns Act, would disarm these agents, auction off their guns to Federal Firearms License Owners, and sell their ammunition to the public. The only thing IRS agents should be armed with are calculators.”

Shifting IRS Enforcement to the Justice Department

Beyond disarming the IRS, the bill takes a scalpel to the agency’s enforcement arm. It transfers the Criminal Investigation Division—along with its personnel, assets, and authority—to the Department of Justice, where it would operate as a distinct unit within the Criminal Division.

This move, proponents say, would curb the IRS’s ability to act as judge, jury, and tax collector, reining in what many see as unchecked power.

The IRS, for its part, claims its “mission is to provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and to enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all.”

Yet, critics like Moore argue this rhetoric masks a pattern of overreach, with armed agents intimidating citizens rather than serving them.

A Tax Day Call to Rein in IRS Excess

The proposal comes as taxpayers feel the sting of Tax Day, a yearly reminder of the IRS’s deep reach into their wallets. In an April 15 post on X, Moore drove the point home: “Tax Day is a great reminder that it’s time for the IRS to stop wasting our taxpayer dollars stockpiling guns and ammo.”

For many Americans fed up with bureaucratic bloat, the bill offers a chance to clip the wings of an agency they view as more bully than public servant.

The US border should never had gotten as bad as it was. But thanks to the Democrats, it did.

And now a Border Patrol official came clean about an uncomfortable truth.

Border Patrol Morale Soars Under New Leadership

U.S. Border Patrol Chief Mike Banks, speaking on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” on Wednesday, expressed unprecedented enthusiasm among agents, stating that morale is “going through the roof” under the Trump administration.

Banks, a former Border Patrol agent and Texas’ border czar since 2023, credited the shift to a renewed focus on law enforcement.

“We’ve had the handcuffs taken off,” he said, emphasizing that agents are now empowered to fulfill their core mission. “Under this administration, they have literally taken the handcuffs off and allowed us to enforce law instead of policies that were created to contradict the law and so our morale has continued to rise.”

This surge in morale follows a challenging period under the Biden administration, during which Banks noted a “mass exodus” from the agency due to restrictive policies.

The newfound optimism is also reflected in social media sentiment, with posts on X echoing Banks’ sentiments, noting agents reversing retirement plans due to improved conditions.

Dramatic Decline in Southern Border Apprehensions

A recent U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) report underscores the impact of Trump’s border policies, revealing that March 2025 saw fewer apprehensions along the southern border than the first two days of March 2024 under Biden.

Eagle Pass, Texas, once a hotspot with 3,000 to 4,000 daily apprehensions, now averages just 18 per day, with “very few gotaways, little to none. Some days zero gotaways,” Banks reported. This aligns with broader CBP data showing a 95% drop in apprehensions from 137,473 in March 2024 to 7,181 in March 2025.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt hailed the transformation, stating, “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, Border Patrol agents are now back to doing the jobs they signed up for: securing the border, rather than serving as travel agents for illegal aliens.”

She cited a Los Angeles Times article highlighting the stark change, with its headline noting a “nearly empty” California-Mexico border and closed migrant shelters. These outcomes stem from Trump’s executive actions, including ending birthright citizenship, suspending refugee admissions, halting humanitarian parole apps, and resuming border wall construction.

Recruitment and Retention Rebound

Banks also highlighted a remarkable turnaround in Border Patrol recruitment and retention. “Recruiting is looking great,” he told Fox News, with the agency “seeing some of our highest numbers ever.” This contrasts sharply with the Biden era, which saw record-low recruitment and high attrition.

“We’re seeing agents pull retirement paperwork in order to continue staying in and serve, and we’re seeing our recruiting numbers go through the roof,” Banks added, signaling a revitalized workforce eager to support the administration’s stringent border security measures.

The collaboration with Texas’ Operation Lone Star, where Banks previously served under Gov. Greg Abbott, has also bolstered efforts. The operation, which includes deploying Texas National Guard soldiers deputized by Banks to assist Border Patrol, has contributed to over 531,400 apprehensions and significant fentanyl seizures, further enhancing border security.

These developments paint a picture of a reinvigorated Border Patrol, aligned with Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda, though longer-term trends will determine the sustainability of these gains.

No one ever accused politicians of being the brightest. They let their ignorance shine through more often than not.

And now a top US Congresswoman is utterly embarrassed after making this idiotic claim on live TV.

AOC’s Rally Stirs Division Debate

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., took the stage at a “Fighting Oligarchy” rally in Idaho alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., urging supporters not to fall for what she called Republican attempts to divide Americans by race and culture.

Her remarks, part of a nationwide tour, come as President Donald Trump pushes to eliminate identity politics from public and private sectors.

“The only chance they have to get away with such an unpopular and hurtful agenda is to stoke deep divisions along race, identity and culture to keep us fighting and distracted. It’s not going to work anymore,” AOC declared.

“Don’t let them trick us into thinking we are enemies. Don’t let them trick us into being weak and being into thinking we can be separated into rural and urban, black and white and Latino.”

The rally targeted “billionaire oligarchs,” including Trump, framing them as threats to working-class interests, despite Trump’s focus on policies aimed at unifying the nation through merit-based systems.

Trump’s Bold Anti-DEI Agenda

President Trump has made dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives a hallmark of his administration, arguing they foster division rather than unity. His executive actions target what he describes as harmful policies introduced by prior administrations.

“Prior to harmful changes introduced by the Obama and Biden administrations, the United States military offered equality of opportunity to every American capable of and interested in serving their country,” Trump stated in an early Executive Order. “Yet these two administrations exploited the military in favor of identity politics—harming our national defense, undermining the non-political nature of our military, and eroding morale and recruitment.”

Trump’s reforms extend to federal hiring, universities, and private businesses, aiming to root out what he calls discriminatory practices.

A March White House fact sheet proudly noted, “President Trump is restoring fairness and accountability in federal hiring, and terminating DEI across the federal government,” criticizing Biden-era programs that tied outcomes to race, sex, or ethnicity as “illegal and immoral.”

Identity Politics Under Scrutiny

The 2024 election underscored the pitfalls of identity politics, with some pointing to it as a factor in Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss to Trump.

Political analyst Eddie Glaude, speaking on NPR, observed, “The only thing that was woke or representational about [Kamala Harris’] campaign was her, her body, the fact that she was a woman of color. So I think that the concern, the so-called backlash, to tending to the diversity of the nation actually proves the point.”

While AOC and Sanders rally against what they see as divisive tactics, Republicans argue their approach risks perpetuating the very divisions they claim to oppose.

Trump’s administration, by contrast, champions a vision of fairness and equal opportunity, seeking to move beyond identity-based policies to strengthen national unity and restore trust in institutions.

We all know Joe and his administration were inept. But we’re finally learning the scale of it.

Because Biden’s blunders just came back to bite Donald Trump.

Clearing a Massive Grant Backlog

The Department of Transportation (DOT), under Secretary Sean Duffy, is tackling a staggering backlog of approximately 3,200 unsigned grant agreements, a legacy issue from former Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s tenure.

This pile-up, totaling $43 billion, includes $9 billion in grants selected by the Biden administration in the window between Donald Trump’s election victory and President Joe Biden’s departure, according to a DOT spokesperson speaking to Fox News Digital.

“Since coming into office, my team has discovered an unprecedented backlog of grants leftover from the previous administration,” Duffy announced recently.

The department emphasized that “nothing was done to actually get these grant agreements signed and sent to projects,” leaving critical infrastructure projects in limbo.

Cutting Red Tape for Real Results

Among the delayed projects is Rhode Island’s Washington Bridge, closed westbound since 2023 pending repairs, as noted by the state government. Duffy’s team has now secured $221 million for this vital artery, which serves thousands of vehicles daily.

“This backlog, along with ridiculous DEI and Green New Deal requirements, prevented real infrastructure from being built and funded,” Duffy stated.

“Under the Trump Administration, we’ve ripped out this red tape and are getting back to what matters.”

The DOT is fast-tracking reviews of these grants, prioritizing “executive grant agreements” for major infrastructure like roads and bridges.

Duffy, in an April 10 Cabinet meeting, acknowledged that “most of them are good” but highlighted that many lacked finalized agreements, often tangled in what he called “green and social justice requirements.”

Shifting Focus to Infrastructure Over Ideology

President Trump has pushed for a sharp pivot away from such stipulations. “Take it out,” he directed during the Cabinet meeting.

Duffy responded, “We’re pulling all that out and putting the money toward the infrastructure and not the social movement from the last administration.” Trump, with a quip, added, “Good steel, as opposed to green paper mache,” drawing chuckles from the room.

This approach reflects the administration’s broader commitment to scrutinizing federal grants, particularly those tied to ideological goals. Since Duffy’s confirmation, he has dismantled the DOT Equity Council and other “environmental justice” initiatives.

The California high-speed rail project, plagued by escalating costs and minimal progress, is now under federal investigation for its funding, signaling a no-nonsense stance on ensuring taxpayer dollars deliver tangible results.