The media falsely accused Donald Trump of breaking a promise to get “food for everyone” at a Cuban restaurant, and had to quietly correct their reports on the subject.
Journalists were quick to claim Trump skipped out on a promise to buy supporters food at the Versailles restaurant in Miami shortly after he appeared in court to face federal charges.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
“It turns out no one got anything. Not even a cafecito to-go,” claimed the Miami New Times, citing a “knowledgeable source”. Business Insider, Salon, and others were quick to repeat the accusation. The claim has since been debunked by Trump’s team, indicating the outlets never even bothered to check with the Trump team before running their hit pieces.
The “update” quietly added to the pieces.
“A spokesperson for Trump [said] the former president had ‘offered to buy food’ for his supporters but they ‘followed him outside’ when he was leaving ‘and did not place orders themselves,'” admitted Insider in an amended version of their article, adding that Trump’s advance team “paid for any to-go meals ordered.”
Nevertheless, the headline of Insider’s report still suggests Trump “left without paying for anything” as of the time of publication.
Editor’s Notes
Behind-the-scenes political intrigue exclusively for Pulse+ subscribers.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Vice President J.D. Vance defended immigration enforcement agents after reports surfaced about a five-year-old boy being taken into federal custody with his illegal alien father.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Vice President Vance, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos, and his father.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The incident occurred Tuesday afternoon in Columbia Heights, with Vance addressing it publicly on Thursday.
💬KEY QUOTE: “I do a little bit more follow-up research, and what I find is that the five-year-old was not arrested, that his dad was an illegal alien, and when they went to arrest his illegal alien father, the father ran… Are they supposed to let a five-year-old child freeze to death?” – J.D. Vance
🎯IMPACT: The incident has raised further questions about the media’s credibility when covering immigration enforcement actions.
IN FULL
Vice President J.D. Vance defended U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Thursday after a five-year-old boy, Liam Conejo Ramos, was taken into federal custody with his illegal alien father, saying that, contrary to reports, the child “was not arrested” and that agents were enforcing laws while ensuring safety. Vance, who said he was alarmed by the story at first as a parent of young children, explained: “I do a little bit more follow-up research, and what I find is that the five-year-old was not arrested, that his dad was an illegal alien, and when they went to arrest his illegal alien father, the father ran… Are they supposed to let a five-year-old child freeze to death?”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in a post on X, defended the agents involved, saying Conejo Arias abandoned his child when approached and that officers took care of the boy for his own safety.
“Our officer[s] made multiple attempts to get the mother inside the house to take custody of her child. Officers even assured her that they would NOT take her into custody. She refused to accept custody of the child. The father told officers he wanted the child to remain with him,” DHS said, adding, “Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children, or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates. This is consistent with past administrations’ immigration enforcement.”
Local educators and the family’s lawyer had claimed officers removed the child from a running car after school and later took him and his father to a Texas detention facility.
The standoff over ICE comes amid widespread far-left agitation against federal immigration operations. Several hotels in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area reportedly canceled bookings for ICE personnel, alleging “heightened public safety concerns” after protests and threats tied to enforcement actions.
On Capitol Hill, Democratic lawmakers have been attempting to block or restrict funding for the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, with senior Democrats such as Minnesota Governor Tim Walz inflamming the public by comparing immigration enforcement agents to Adolf Hitler’s Gestapo.
WATCH HERE:
.@VP: “I do a little bit more follow-up research, and what I find is that the 5-year-old was not arrested, that his dad was an illegal alien, and when they went to arrest his illegal alien father, the father RAN… Are they supposed to let a 5-year-old child freeze to death?” https://t.co/wyOXeMhWItpic.twitter.com/b9xQtmgFtR
❓WHAT HAPPENED: A Chicago man is on trial for allegedly offering a bounty to kill Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino. Prosecutors argue it was a murder-for-hire plot, while the defense claims the defendant merely shared a social media post.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Gregory Bovino, defendant Juan Espinoza Martinez, and federal prosecutors.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The trial took place in Chicago, Illinois, with the jury beginning deliberations on Thursday.
💬KEY QUOTE: Messages included statements that “offered $2,000 for information on [Bovino’s] whereabouts and $10,000 if you take him down.”
🎯IMPACT: The trial is a test for the Justice Department, which has struggled with similar prosecutions.
IN FULL
A federal jury in Chicago, Illinois, is weighing the case of Juan Espinoza Martinez, who is charged with offering a bounty for the killing of Gregory Bovino, a senior tactical commander with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Prosecutors allege that Espinoza Martinez sent a series of Snapchat messages in October that amounted to a solicitation for murder.
According to testimony, the messages included statements that “offered $2,000 for information on [Bovino’s] whereabouts and $10,000 if you take him down,” along with an image of the Border Patrol commander. The government argues the messages were intentional and aimed at inciting violence against a federal official.
Defense attorneys counter that the messages were not original threats but forwarded social media posts reflecting anger over immigration raids. Defense lawyer Jonathan Bedi told jurors that “repeating neighborhood gossip is not a crime,” arguing there was no proof his client intended real-world harm. Espinoza Martinez’s brother testified that the messages were expressions of outrage circulating online after enforcement operations in Chicago and were not meant as an actual call to violence.
Bovino has been a visible figure in immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. Federal officials have warned in recent years that criminal organizations and extremist activists have circulated bounties and threats against ICE and Border Patrol agents, including senior commanders. Bovino himself has been targeted during protests, and video has circulated showing an agitator attempting to confront and attack him during a tense standoff involving federal agents.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ordered federal agencies to compile reports on funding provided to Democrat-controlled states in what appears to be a broader federal effort to investigate widespread social services fraud.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Trump White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OMB Director Russell Vought, federal agencies, and a number of Democrat-controlled states.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The memo was issued on January 20, with a deadline for agencies to submit data by January 28.
💬KEY QUOTE: “This is a data-gathering exercise only. It does not involve withholding funds, and therefore does not violate any court order.” – OMB memo
🎯IMPACT: The states slated for the data collection include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington—along with Washington, D.C.
IN FULL
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)—under the direction of the agency’s director, Russell Vought—has instructed nearly all federal agencies to compile detailed reports on federal funding directed to Democratic-led states. According to documents that surfaced on Thursday, the directive excludes the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notably, the January 20 memo emphasizes that this is a “data-gathering exercise only” and states that it “does not involve withholding funds, and therefore does not violate any court order.” While the memo does not outright state the intent of the data-gathering, it is likely tied to ongoing investigations into widespread allegations of social services fraud and the misuse of federal funds in Democrat-controlled states.
The states slated for the data collection include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington state, along with Washington, D.C. The reports are expected to detail federal funding to states and localities, universities, and nonprofit organizations operating within these jurisdictions. Importantly, the funds in question are appropriated by Congress, and the deadline for agencies to submit the requested data is January 28.
Allegations of the criminal misuse and fraudulent disbursement of taxpayer dollars have continued to mount after numerous social services fraud schemes were exposed in Minnesota, most of which have been linked to the state’s large Somali immigrant community. Similar accusations have arisen in Maine and California as well.
The National Pulse reported earlier this month that U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent deployed his department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to begin a geographic targeting operation for the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, applying extra scrutiny to all businesses engaging in overseas money transfers. In addition to the FinCEN geographic targeting order, Sec. Bessent announced that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will soon launch a task force charged with investigating instances of COVID-19 pandemic relief fraud and violations of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status by nonprofits tied to the numerous Somali community-linked social services fraud schemes.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Sinclair Broadcast Group has urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to approve the merger between Nexstar Media Group and TEGNA, criticizing opposition to the deal—especially those opposed to reforms to ownership caps.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Sinclair Broadcast Group, Nexstar Media Group, TEGNA, National Religious Broadcasters, Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy, and the FCC.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The FCC filing was recently submitted as part of ongoing discussions regarding the merger.
💬KEY QUOTE: “We respectfully submit that many of the Petitioners are wolves in sheep’s clothing,” Sinclair stated in its filing.
🎯IMPACT: Critics of the ownership cap have consistently argued that the restrictions limit a competitive media marketplace and only serve to empower a handful of networks that wish to maintain the status quo of broadcast in America.
IN FULL
Sinclair Broadcast Group has filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) supporting the proposed merger between Nexstar Media Group and TEGNA. The company criticized opponents of the deal, such as Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy, arguing that the FCC has the legal authority to remove ownership cap limitations that have hindered the merger’s completion.
“We respectfully submit that many of the Petitioners are wolves in sheep’s clothing,” Sinclair stated in its filing, continuing, “They lecture the Commission about competition and the importance of local journalism despite their complete lack of involvement in promoting, preserving, or expanding local news.”
Sinclair, which competes with both Nexstar and TEGNA in 15 markets, emphasized that it supports the merger because it recognizes the broader competitive landscape. “The issues at stake are larger than any single broadcaster or transaction. If the Commission wants to preserve local news, it must modernize its regulations and its conception of the relevant market before it is too late,” the company added.
The comments come in response to opposition from groups such as the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) and Newsmax, whose CEO Chris Ruddy has called the merger “unprecedented and dangerous consolidation within the broadcast TV industry.”
However, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has also weighed in, stating that opponents of the merger rely on “mischaracterized data and legal arguments that ignore today’s competitive landscape.” NAB further criticized Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy’s comments as “transparently insincere.”
Other critics of the caps argue that the ownership restrictions actually cause the very inverse of what Ruddy contends. The National Pulse’s Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam recently noted, “Ruddy keeps telling President Trump that easing television ownership caps, as I discussed with Daniel Suhr on my War Room Boxing Day special, is a bad idea.”
“It is. But only if you want to maintain the status quo of broadcast in America,” Kassam continued, adding that said status quo is, “Dominance by a handful of networks in the face of what should be a reasonably competitive marketplace.”
❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Donald J. Trump hinted at a “fourth term” after his appearance at the World Economic Forum (WEF) summit in Davos, Switzerland.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Donald J. Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and European leaders.
📍WHEN & WHERE: January 22, 2026, on Trump’s Truth Social platform.
💬KEY QUOTE: “RECORD NUMBERS ALL OVER THE PLACE! SHOULD I TRY FOR A FOURTH TERM?” – Donald Trump
🎯IMPACT: Trump’s comments will spark discussions about potential constitutional amendments to continue his presidency.
IN FULL
President Donald J. Trump has teased the possibility of a “fourth term” following his appearance at the World Economic Forum (WEF) summit in Davos, Switzerland. During the summit, he underscored his determination to acquire Greenland from Denmark, and called out Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney for threatening “boots on the ice” in support of the territory. He also advised European leaders opposing the U.S. on Greenland, including Britain’s Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and France’s President Emmanuel Macron, to focus on their energy and mass migration crises rather than on U.S. foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere. Ultimately, NATO chief Mark Rutte announced that the “framework” of an agreement with the President on Greenland had been reached at the summit.
Writing on his Truth Social platform following Davos, Trump wrote, “RECORD NUMBERS ALL OVER THE PLACE! SHOULD I TRY FOR A FOURTH TERM?” This remark has generated significant attention and debate about his intentions.
As only the second American president in history to serve two non-consecutive terms, Trump often alluded to a third term. His mention of a fourth term likely references his belief that he was the rightful President during Joe Biden’s tenure, due to the 2020 election being rigged.
While Trump has dismissed the idea of running for vice presidency in 2028 as part of a novel attempt to bypass term limits, he has expressed enthusiasm for another term if it becomes permissible. MAGA stalwarts such as WarRoom host Stephen K. Bannon continue to advocate for Trump’s candidacy in 2028.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: A Democrat lawmaker introduced a bill to prohibit Washington state law enforcement from hiring people recruited as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents since January 2025.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: State Rep. Tarra Simmons, a felon and advocate for weaker criminal justice policies, introduced the bill.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The bill was introduced this week in Washington state and would take effect on October 1, 2026, if passed.
💬KEY QUOTE: “This shows the stunning hypocrisy of Democrats. Simmons is a convicted felon who has repeatedly pushed to force people to hire felons or offer them housing. Yet when it comes to law enforcement—hardworking Americans who don’t break the law—they should be shamed and discriminated against? It’s absolutely shameful.” – Radio host Jason Rantz.
🎯IMPACT: Critics argue the bill unfairly targets federal law enforcement, while Simmons defends it as a measure to maintain so-called community trust.
IN FULL
Washington state Rep. Tarra Simmons (D) introduced legislation this week that would prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from hiring people who previously served as sworn officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The proposal, known as the ICE Out Act of 2026 or House Bill 2641, would apply to anyone recruited by ICE after President Donald J. Trump’s return to office in January 2025, and would take effect on October 1, 2026, if enacted.
Simmons, a Democrat and convicted felon who was re-elected in 2024, is a prominent advocate for criminal justice reform—i.e., weaker sanctions for criminals—and has publicly discussed her own past incarceration for drug, firearm, and theft offenses. Announcing the bill, Simmons claimed, “In this Washington, we have worked incredibly hard to build trust between law enforcement and community,” adding, “The last thing we need is infiltration of ICE agents trained during the Trump Administration to send us backwards.”
The press release accompanying the bill accused ICE agents of engaging in “inhumane and violent tactics,” including detaining individuals without cause, breaking into vehicles, accessing state data systems to locate people, and targeting not only illegal immigrants but also visa holders, green-card holders, and U.S. citizens.
Critics have strongly objected to the proposal. Local radio host Jason Rantz said, “This shows the stunning hypocrisy of Democrats. Simmons is a convicted felon who has repeatedly pushed to force people to hire felons or offer them housing. Yet when it comes to law enforcement—hardworking Americans who don’t break the law—they should be shamed and discriminated against? It’s absolutely shameful.”
The legislation comes amid broader Democrat attacks on ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In recent months, Democrat leaders in Congress have moved to block or restrict funding for ICE as part of negotiations over DHS appropriations, while pushing legislation aimed at eroding the privacy of ICE personnel, drawing warnings from the administration that such measures could expose thousands of agents to doxxing, harassment, and worse.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Former Biden government special counsel Jack Smith publicly testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday regarding his politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of President Donald J. Trump.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Former special counsel Jack Smith; Representatives Brandon Gill (R-TX), Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Tom Tiffany (R-WI); House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and President Donald J. Trump.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The hearing was held on Capitol Hill on Thursday, January 22, 2026.
💬KEY QUOTE: ” Mr. Smith, at the time you secured those nondisclosure orders, was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk?” — Rep. Brandon Gill
🎯IMPACT: The hearing is being billed by House Republicans as an essential step in transparency—and possible criminal charges—surrounding Smith and the former Biden government’s Arctic Frost investigation
IN FULL
Former Biden government special counsel Jack Smith publicly testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday regarding his politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of President Donald J. Trump. Among the more explosive moments from the hearing were exchanges between Smith and Representatives Brandon Gill (R-TX) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) regarding the former special counsel’s methods in subpoenaing the phone toll records of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). In addition, Smith admitted he expects to be indicted by President Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ).
The National Pulse reported last November that Smith, as part of the Biden government’s Arctic Frost probe targeting President Trump, requested the personal cellphone records of then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and then-Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) during his probe into the January 6, 2021, Capitol protests. On May 25, 2023, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Criminal Investigative Division prepared a “Significant Case Notification” outlining Smith’s subpoena for toll records from AT&T and Verizon.
On Thursday, Rep. Darrell Issa revealed that the subpoena request submitted to a federal judge never actually named the individual for whom Smith was seeking the toll records. “Did you—whether you think it was legal or not, whether you think it was right or not—did you withhold the name of Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the House, when you were seeking records on Kevin McCarthy, the Speaker of the House, or Jim Jordan, the Chairman of this committee?” Issa pressed, with Smith responding, “We did not provide that information to the judge when we requested a nondisclosure order, consistent with the law and consistent with department policy at the time.”
🚨 HOLY SMOKES. CHAOS erupts after Rep. Issa confirms Jack Smith WITHHELD INFO from a judge when he spied on Republicans
“We have an ADMISSION! How many times are you gonna interrupt me?!”
“An Article 1 rep. WITHHELD INFORMATION! I yield in DISGUST of this witness!” pic.twitter.com/3QXFj37ENU
Moments later, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) returned to Smith’s subpoena of McCarthy’s toll records and the nondisclosure order preventing AT&T and Verizon from notifying the former House Speaker that his records were to be given to the special counsel. “How many days after Kevin McCarthy was sworn in as Speaker did you subpoena his records?” Rep. Gill asked, with Smith stammering that he did not recall but insisting that the two events were unrelated. The Texas Congressman noted that the request was made just 16 days after McCarthy was handed the Speaker’s gavel.
Rep. Gill continued, pressing Smith on whether he had ever considered that the subpoena might violate the Speech and Debate Clause, to which the former special counsel never gave a firm answer. Notably, the Biden DOJ’s Public Integrity Unit raised concerns about the legality of actions taken during Arctic Frost, both before and after Smith assumed control of the investigation—including potential litigation over the toll record subpoenas.
Typically, the nondisclosure orders sought and secured by Smith are only issued in investigations where the subject is considered a flight risk, a point not lost on Rep. Gill. “Mr. Smith, at the time you secured those nondisclosure orders, was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk?” the Texas lawmaker asked, with a frazzled Smith attempting obfuscate but eventually acknowledging that the sitting Speaker of the House at the time was not a flight risk.
As the several-hour-long hearing progressed, Smith’s prosecutorial record—which Democrats on the Judiciary Committee repeatedly claimed was the “Gold Standard”—was exposed as anything but by Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) in what was likely one of the most embarrassing moments for the former special counsel. “You prosecuted Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, you prosecuted him, correct?” Tiffany asked. Smith waffled, claiming he was only part of the prosecution, despite numerous public descriptions of him as the leading force behind the indictment and temporary conviction of the former governor. McDonnell’s conviction was ultimately overturned in a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, with several justices excoriating Smith and his team for overcharging.
Rep. Tiffany went on to note Smith’s other high-profile prosecutions, including cases against former Senators John Edwards (D-NC) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), both of which ended in mistrials. Smith acknowledged his role as the prosecutor in the Edwards case, but insisted that the mistrial against Menendez was not his fault since he had left the DOJ’s Public Integrity Unit and the prosecution before the mistrial was declared. Unrelated charges saw Menendez convicted of bribery and acting as an unregistered foreign agent, for which sentenced last year.
Jack Smith’s entire career is one long list of failed witch hunts and mistrials.
He’s attacked 2A rights, attacked political opponents, attacked President Trump, and yes, even attacked Wisconsinites.
The hearing is being billed by House Republicans as an essential step in transparency—and possible criminal charges—surrounding Smith and the former Biden government’s Arctic Frost investigation. Whistleblower documents obtained by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) show that Arctic Frost targeted not only President Trump but also over 430 individuals and organizations, including prominent conservative entities such as the late Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). Taken on its face, the probe appears to have been a sprawling conspiracy to interfere in the American election process and cripple the Republican Party’s ability to compete at the ballot box.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Several politicians in Europe have suggested their countries boycott the FIFA World Cup 2026 due to President Donald J. Trump’s Greenland policy.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: European politicians, Donald Trump, and FIFA.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Recent days, internationally.
💬KEY QUOTE: “I wonder whether we should call for a boycott of the 2026 World Cup… given Donald Trump’s behaviour towards the continent, with a FIFA president, Gianni Infantino, who prides himself on being at his side.” – Former French soccer manager Claude Le Roy.
🎯IMPACT: The calls do not seem to be gaining much traction, with France publicly stating it has no intention to boycott the event.
IN FULL
Several politicians in Europe have publicly raised the idea of a boycott of the FIFA World Cup 2026, which is being hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, in response to escalating tensions over President Donald J. Trump’s push to acquire Greenland, a largely autonomous Danish territory.
In France, left-wing lawmaker Éric Coquerel said the question of a boycott should be examined if Trump’s policies continue to escalate. On social media, he wrote, “Seriously, can we really imagine going to play the World Cup in a country that attacks its neighbours, threatens to invade Greenland, undermines international law…”
French veteran coach Claude Le Roy went further, saying, “I wonder whether we should call for a boycott of the 2026 World Cup… given Donald Trump’s behaviour towards the continent, with a FIFA president, Gianni Infantino, who prides himself on being at his side.”
In Germany, a member of the ruling, notionally center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Jürgen Hardt, who serves as a foreign policy spokesman, described a boycott as something that could be considered. Speaking to German press, Hardt said a boycott might serve “as a last resort in order to get [President Donald] Trump to see sense on the Greenland issue.” He stressed that the German Football Federation would make the actual decision, however.
In Britain, some lawmakers have also mentioned the idea. Simon Hoarea, Member of Parliament (MP) for the formerly governing Conservative Party, suggested during a debate that a boycott could be a response to Trump’s Arctic policy, while Luke Taylor of the Liberal Democrats said such a move could signal that “the only thing [Trump] responds to is his own pride.”
Former Scottish National Party (SNP) MP Hannah Kennedy-Bardell drew controversy by urging that Scotland consider a boycott in protest, describing the idea of using sport as a tool against Trump as “radical action.” This would likely be highly unpopular in Scotland, which last qualified for a World Cup in 1998.
Some politicians seem more reluctant to pursue a boycott; however, France’s sports minister, Marina Ferrari, said her country has “no desire” to do so and stressed the importance of keeping sport separate from politics.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The sale of the Chinese-owned social media app TikTok to a consortium of U.S.-led investors appears to have been completed.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Trump administration, ByteDance, TikTok, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Chinese regulators, Oracle, Silver Lake, MGX, and other investors.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The deadline to close the TikTok sale was set for Thursday, January 22, 2026.
🎯IMPACT: TikTok’s U.S. entity is now owned by predominantly U.S.-based organizations, cutting the Chinese Communist Party and its affiliates out of much of the ownership structure.
IN FULL
TikTok announced that its Chinese owner, ByteDance, has sold a majority stake in its U.S. operations to a group of non-Chinese investors. This marks the end of a prolonged legal battle that saw the app banned by Congress and drawn into international politics. The news comes after years of original reporting by The National Pulse on the subject.
The new ownership structure includes Oracle, MGX, Silver Lake, and Michael Dell’s personal investment entity, among others. These investors will hold over 80 percent of the new company, aiming to reduce TikTok’s connections to China and alleviate national security concerns.
The deal, finalized after over a year of negotiations, addresses critical questions about TikTok’s presence in the American market. Without this separation from ByteDance, TikTok faced the possibility of exiting the U.S. market entirely.
Since 2019, various U.S. entities, including universities, military branches, and both the Trump and Biden administrations, have attempted to restrict TikTok’s operations, with the Supreme Court also supporting such efforts. Influencers rallied to defend their platforms, highlighting the app’s role in the tech trade tensions between the U.S. and China.
This agreement not only secures TikTok’s future in the U.S. but also aims to address longstanding security concerns about potential Chinese government interference through the app.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: A federal magistrate judge in Minnesota declined to sign a complaint charging disgraced journalist Don Lemon for his involvement in a protest inside a St. Paul church.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Don Lemon, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, and anti-ICE agitators Chauntyll Louisa Allen and Nekima Levy Armstrong.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota was invaded on Sunday.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Being a journalist is not a badge or a shield that protects you from criminal consequences.” — Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon
🎯IMPACT: The Justice Department may explore other avenues to charge Lemon, while two other anti-ICE activists face federal charges under civil rights laws.
IN FULL
Disgraced former CNN host Don Lemon appears to have escaped federal charges for the moment for his role in the storming of a Christian worship service at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, by anti-ICE protestors last Sunday. On Thursday, a Minnesota federal magistrate judge refused to sign a criminal complaint charging Lemon, while still signing other charging documents against two of the protest’s organizers.
On Monday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation into the storming of Cities Church, in which anti-ICE extremists entered the sanctuary and halted the service for roughly 30 minutes, eventually causing worshipers to flee the building. Lemon accompanied the group, embedded with the protesters, and conducted hostile interviews during the disruption. Subsequent video clips suggest the ex-CNN anchor may have been more involved in the incident than he has publicly said.
Earlier on Thursday, Nekima Levy Armstrong—who runs the Black Lives Matter-affiliated Racial Justice Network (RJN)—was arrested and federally charged for her role in organizing the demonstration. Armstrong faces federal charges under 18 USC 241, a civil rights statute prohibiting conspiracies to interfere with constitutionally protected rights, such as religious freedom, according to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem.
In addition, Chauntyll Louisa Allen—a member of the St. Paul School board—was also arrested and charged. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who arrived in Minnesota earlier this week to oversee the mobilization of DOJ resources to address ongoing violent protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, announced the charges against both Armstrong and Allen.
Meanwhile, Lemon may still face federal charges despite the magistrate judge’s rejection of the DOJ filing. “Being a journalist is not a badge or a shield that protects you from criminal consequences,” Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon said in response to the decision.
NEW: Don Lemon tries lecturing a pastor on the First Amendment after a mob of far leftists stormed a church in Minneapolis.
Pastor: “This is unacceptable. It’s shameful to interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship…”
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Share Story
FacebookTwitterWhatsappTruthTelegramGettrCopy Link
Real News Fan? Show It!
Many people are shocked to learn that because of active censorship, we currently have to spend more time making sure you can even see The National Pulse, than on producing the news itself. Which sucks. Because we do this for the truth, and for you.
But the regime doesn’t want you being informed. That’s why they want us to go away. And that will happen if more people don’t sign up to support our work. It’s basic supply and demand. So demand you get to read The National Pulse, unrestricted. Sign up, today.
We don’t sell ads, and refuse corporate or political cash. It all comes down to you, the reader. I hope you can help.
