GET THE APP
Thursday, September 4, 2025
bryan metzger

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

August 29, 2023
Jake Welch
Culture
News
Politics

Blacks Who Back Trump Are Racist Against Themselves, Says Lefty ‘Journo’.

A senior political reporter for Insider has suggested that black voters are being racist against themselves for increasing their support for Donald J. Trump after the former President’s mugshot was released last week.

Bryan Metzger – a former Democrat political staffer turned Capitol Hill hack – posted on Monday, “[I]’m sorry but the argument that The Mugshot will increasing [sic] Black voters’ support for Trump is so insanely racist that i can’t believe people are saying it out loud.”

The post was viewed just under 600,000 times on X yet received just 284 reposts and under 3,500 likes. Metzger swiftly locked the replies to his post after being ratioed by just about everyone.

The Washington D.C. Young Republicans responded to the post with a video of a black voter declaring his support for the 45th President, arguing, “Ya’ll know what time it is, ya’ll know who were rocking with, man.”

Another black Donald Trump supporter, wearing a “N*ggas for Trump” T-shirt outside the Fulton County jail last week, told the media last week, “You wanna know why I’m here to support President Trump? Because they done did a black man like this for decades. Making up charges. I know Trump is innocent.”

Metzger’s comments echo those made by Joe Biden, who told Charlemagne Tha God, “You ain’t black,” if you don’t vote Democrat.

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.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad
More From The Pulse

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

30 minutes ago
News

Activists Rally in Support of Transgenderism at Catholic School Targeted by Shooter.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Pro-transgenderism activists gathered outside Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis to demonstrate against a visit by Vice President J.D. Vance after a shooting that left two children dead and 17 others injured. The shooter, a transgender, targeted the church during a back-to-school Mass.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The shooter, identified as 23-year-old Robin Westman, formerly Robert, along with victims, church attendees, and Vice President Vance, who visited the site to meet with families.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The shooting occurred at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis during a back-to-school Mass. Demonstrations followed in the days after the tragedy.

🎯IMPACT: The incident has reignited debates on gun violence, mental health, and the role of transgender ideology in mass shootings.

IN FULL

Pro-transgenderism protestors gathered outside the Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, demonstrating against a visit by Vice President J.D. Vance following a mass shooting that claimed the lives of two children and left 17 others injured. The shooter, identified as 23-year-old Robin Westman, formerly Robert, fired through the church’s stained-glass windows during a back-to-school Mass.

Westman, who was a transgender, had a documented history of mental health struggles and fascination with mass killings. He died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound at the scene.

Pro-trans activists gathered outside the church on Wednesday as Vance and his wife, Usha, arrived to meet with victims’ families. The group’s actions, which included displaying a transgender flag near the site of the attack, were widely criticized as provocative and insensitive.

On Thursday, The National Pulse reported that the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is considering imposing restrictions that would prevent those undergoing gender transition or diagnosed with gender dysphoria from purchasing firearms. Additionally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is investigating the attack as an act of domestic terrorism and a hate crime targeting Catholics.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (D) has called for avoiding the “villainization” of the transgender community.

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.

1 hour ago
Lawfare

Biden Judge Orders Trump to Disburse Withheld Foreign Aid.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to release $11.5 billion in foreign aid, ruling the administration’s decision to withhold the funds was likely illegal.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: U.S. District Court Judge Amir Ali, the Trump administration, and Congress.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The ruling was issued late Wednesday in Washington, D.C., with funds set to expire at the end of the month.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Defendants do not have any discretion as to whether to spend the funds.” – Judge Amir Ali

🎯IMPACT: The ruling could set a precedent on executive authority over congressionally approved funds, with the administration filing an appeal.

IN FULL

U.S. District Court Judge Amir Ali ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration’s withholding of $11.5 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid was likely illegal, issuing a preliminary injunction to release the funds before they expire at the end of the month.

“To be clear, no one disputes that Defendants have significant discretion in how to spend the funds at issue, and the Court is not directing Defendants to make payments to any particular recipients,” Judge Ali wrote. “But Defendants do not have any discretion as to whether to spend the funds.” Ali, a Biden appointee, insisted that Congress—not the executive branch—has the authority to rescind appropriated funds.

The ruling challenges the administration’s use of a “pocket rescission,” a tactic where a president submits a late request to Congress to not spend approved funds, effectively bypassing the legislative branch. President Donald J. Trump had previously informed House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) that he would not spend $4.9 billion of the aid, citing it as wasteful and misaligned with his foreign policy goals.

The administration filed an appeal following the ruling, and Ali acknowledged that his decision is unlikely to be the final word on the matter. “This case raises questions of immense legal and practical importance, including whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds,” Ali wrote.

The case also marks the first use of pocket rescission in nearly 50 years, a move that could set a significant precedent on the limits of executive authority. Ali stated that Congress would need to approve any rescission proposal for the funds to remain unspent, as outlined by existing law.

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.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

2 hours ago
Economy
Lawfare

Trump Takes Tariff Fight to the Supreme Court.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to swiftly review a lower court ruling that invalidated the President’s tariffs.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump, the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals, and attorney Jeffrey Schwab, representing the plaintiffs.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The appeals court ruling was issued last week, with the Supreme Court asked to hear the case as soon as November.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Few cases have so clearly called out for this Court’s swift resolution.” – Trump administration filing.

🎯IMPACT: If the ruling stands, President Trump’s tariffs would be rescinded, significantly affecting his trade policies and negotiations.

IN FULL

The Trump administration is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to quickly review a lower court decision that found the President’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact certain tariffs was unconstitutional. According to the filing, the Trump White House is requesting that the high court hear arguments as soon as November. Notably, the lower court ruling is currently stayed from taking effect until October 14, 2025.

In the filing, the administration argues the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling “gravely undermines the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.” The filing further states, “That decision casts a pall of uncertainty upon ongoing foreign negotiations that the President has been pursuing through tariffs over the past five months, jeopardizing both already-negotiated framework deals and ongoing negotiations.”

On August 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that President Trump exceeded his authority under the IEEPA to impose tariffs. The court stated, “Absent a valid delegation by Congress, the President has no authority to impose taxes. Given these considerations, we conclude Congress, in enacting IEEPA, did not give the President wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs simply by the use of the term ‘regulate … importation.’”

Under the IEEPA—enacted in 1977—the President is empowered to impose tariffs after declaring a national emergency. Earlier this year, President Trump declared a national emergency over foreign trade practices, stating that reciprocal tariffs were necessary to protect American workers and strengthen the U.S. economy. Subsequently, the Trump White House has reached bilateral trade agreements with a number of U.S. trade partners, while the tariffs have brought in record revenue for the federal government.

Jeffrey Schwab, representing the plaintiffs, expressed confidence in the legal arguments against the tariffs, saying, “Both federal courts that considered the issue agreed that IEEPA does not give the President unchecked tariff authority.” Meanwhile, President Trump criticized the “Highly Partisan Appeals Court” and warned, “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”

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.

2 hours ago
Education
Lawfare

Harvard Wins Legal Battle Against Trump Administration… For Now.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: A Barack Obama-appointed federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse over $2.6 billion in funding cuts to Harvard University, citing retaliation for the university’s rejection of governance and policy demands.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, the Trump administration, and Harvard University.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The ruling was issued on Wednesday; the events involve federal funding cuts tied to Harvard’s campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

💬KEY QUOTE: “In fact, a review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that [the government] used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.” – Judge Burroughs

🎯IMPACT: The ruling restores funding to Harvard and bars further retaliatory actions.

IN FULL

U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs, appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, has ordered that the Trump administration must reverse over $2.6 billion in funding cuts to Harvard University. According to Judge Burroughs, the funding freeze was an act of retaliation against Harvard for rejecting changes the administration sought in the university’s governance and policies.

Notably, Burroughs has made rulings on a number of cases involving the Trump White House and Harvard, including the issuance of a temporary restraining order in May blocking the administration from revoking Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification, which would have barred them from enrolling foreign students. The judge’s latest determination follows a lawsuit filed by Harvard, which argued that the cuts violated its free speech rights under the First Amendment. Burroughs stated that the administration’s justification for the cuts, citing Harvard’s handling of anti-Semitism, was a “smokescreen” for an ideologically motivated attack.

The District Court Judge acknowledged that Harvard had been “plagued by antisemitism in recent years” and criticized the university for its slow response to the issue. However, she also insisted that Harvard has taken steps to address the problem and appears willing to continue improving its efforts.

Burroughs’s decision ensures that Harvard’s federal grants cannot be terminated for the time being, pending a possible appeal by the Trump administration. The ruling also bars President Donald J. Trump from withholding future funding in retaliation.

Image by Adam Fagen.

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.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

3 hours ago
Crime
NatSec

FBI Confiscated Phones, Computers in Raid on Bolton’s Residence.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Documents reveal the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seized phones, computer equipment, and documents from John Bolton’s home during an investigation into potential mishandling of classified information.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: John Bolton, the neoconservative former White House national security adviser, and the FBI.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The search occurred last month at Bolton’s home in Bethesda, Maryland, and his office in Washington, D.C.

🎯IMPACT: The investigation highlights concerns over the mishandling of classified information by former officials with a grudge against President Trump, and has drawn public interest due to Bolton’s high-profile role during the first Trump administration.

IN FULL

Court records unsealed Thursday reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seized phones, computer equipment, and various documents from the home of John Bolton, a former White House national security adviser in the first Trump administration. The investigation, which surfaced publicly last month when federal law enforcement raided Bolton’s home and office, revolves around allegations of mishandling classified information.

The search took place at Bolton’s Bethesda, Maryland, residence and his office in Washington, D.C. Documents made public include a search warrant inventory detailing the confiscation of multiple phones, computer equipment, four boxes of daily printed activities, a white box labeled “statements and reflections to allied strikes,” and typed documents labeled “Trump I-IV.”

The court filings cite two criminal statutes related to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, as well as the transmission or loss of defense information. Despite the investigation, no charges had been filed against Bolton as of the time of publication.

A coalition of news organizations successfully lobbied a judge to unseal the records, arguing that the public interest in the case outweighed the need for continued secrecy. However, the documents do remain partially redacted.

Bolton, who served as national security adviser in President Donald J. Trump‘s first administration for 17 months before being dismissed in 2019, has not commented publicly on the investigation. Known for his criticism of Trump’s foreign policy, the longtime war hawk detailed his disagreements with the America First leader in a book titled The Room Where It Happened.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

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.

4 hours ago
William Upton
Breaking

BREAKING: Federal Appeals Court Reverses ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ Closure.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has moved to block an order by U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams that would have closed a Florida illegal immigration detention facility dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz.”

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams, the State of Florida, and the Trump administration.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Thursday, September 4, 2025.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The 11th Circuit not only blocked Judge Williams’ order to close Alligator Alcatraz, but they blocked her from proceeding with the case until the appeal is complete.” — Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier

🎯IMPACT: The administration may restart operations at “Alligator Alcatraz” in light of the ruling.

IN FULL

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has moved to block an order by Barack Obama-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams that would have closed a Florida illegal immigration detention facility dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz.” In addition to staying Judge Williams’s preliminary injunction that would have closed the Everglades-based facility, the appellate court further barred the District Court from proceeding further with the case, as its initial ruling is being appealed.

“The State and Federal Defendants have filed motions to stay that injunction pending appeal. After careful consideration, we GRANT the Defendants’ motions, and we STAY the preliminary injunction and the underlying case itself pending appeal,” Judge Barbara Lagoa wrote for the three-judge appellate panel.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, responding to the ruling, stated: “The 11th Circuit not only blocked Judge Williams’ order to close Alligator Alcatraz, but they blocked her from proceeding with the case until the appeal is complete.”

Following Judge Williams’s initial ruling and injunction, the Trump White House had signalled it would wind down operations at “Alligator Alcatraz” and instead move detainees to other facilities, including another located in northern Florida, along with detention centers in Indiana, Nebraska, and Louisiana. It is unclear whether the administration will now restart operations at “Alligator Alcatraz” in light of the Eleventh Circuit ruling.

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.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

4 hours ago
Crime

Governor Welcomes Trump’s Plan for Troops in Crime-Ridden Dem City.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Governor Jeff Landry (R) welcomed President Donald J. Trump’s suggestion of deploying the National Guard to Democrat-run New Orleans, Louisiana, to crush crime.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Trump, Governor Landry, the City of New Orleans, and the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD).

📍WHEN & WHERE: Trump’s comments were made on Wednesday during a White House press conference, with responses from Landry and others following.

💬KEY QUOTE: “We will take President Donald Trump’s help from New Orleans to Shreveport!” – Governor Jeff Landry.

🎯IMPACT: A federal crackdown in New Orleans, similar to the one in Washington, D.C., could substantially reduce crime.

IN FULL

Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry (R) is expressing support for President Donald J. Trump’s proposal to send the National Guard to Democrat-run New Orleans to crush crime. “We will take President Donald Trump’s help from New Orleans to Shreveport!” Landry said in response to Trump’s comments during a White House press conference on Wednesday.

Trump mentioned New Orleans as one of the cities under consideration for federal assistance, saying, “We’re making a determination now. Do we go to Chicago or do we go to a place like New Orleans, where we have a great governor, Jeff Landry, who wants us to straighten out a very nice section of this country?”

New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell, a Democrat who was indicted by a federal grand jury on corruption charges last month, shared a muted statement from the city, which did not explicitly endorse or reject Trump’s suggestion but acknowledged that federal and state partnerships are important for ensuring public safety, particularly during major events.

While federal law enforcement assistance appears to face little resistance in New Orleans, the same cannot be said for other Democrat-controlled localities. Democrats in Chicago, Illinois, and Los Angeles, California, have vowed to oppose federal interventions in their cities. Meanwhile, the Portland Police Department in Oregon appears to have entirely abdicated its law enforcement duties in about a four-block radius around a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility, failing to dispatch officers even in instances of assault by anti-ICE rioters in the area.

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.

5 hours ago
Breaking
UK

BREAKING: Ex-Cabinet Member Defects to Farage’s Party.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Former Conservative minister Nadine Dorries has announced her defection to Reform UK.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Nadine Dorries, former MP for Mid-Bedfordshire and ex-culture secretary, along with other defectors like David Jones and Sir Jake Berry.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The announcement was made in an interview with the Daily Mail.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The Tory Party is dead. Its members now need to think the unthinkable and look to the future.” – Nadine Dorries

🎯IMPACT: This marks another high-profile defection to Reform UK, signaling potential shifts in the British political landscape.

IN FULL

Nadine Dorries, a former Conservative (Tory) Party member of the Cabinet and close ally of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, has officially defected to Nigel Farage’s Reform Party. “The Tory Party is dead,” she told the British press, adding: “Its members now need to think the unthinkable and look to the future.”

Dorries previously served as Culture Secretary and as a health minister during Boris Johnson’s administration. She also represented the Mid-Bedfordshire constituency in the House of Commons before stepping down as a Member of Parliament (MP) months after Johnson’s ouster.

Her departure is part of a growing trend of Conservative politicians defecting to Reform. Other notable figures include former Welsh Secretary David Jones and ex-Tory Party Chairman Sir Jake Berry.

The notionally right-wing party governed from 2010 to mid-2024, winning its biggest parliamentary majority since Margaret Thatcher in the 2019 general election. However, after botching Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic, and increasing immigration to record-breaking levels despite repeated promises to reduce it substantially, support for the Tories collapsed, with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party winning a large majority in 2024 despite earning fewer votes than it did in 2019.

In conversation with Farage in 2023, while the Conservatives were still in office, U.S. President Donald J. Trump noted that the party “really weren’t staying conservative… they were literally going far left,” adding: “It never made sense.”

Farage’s party is now consistently outpolling Labour, with the Conservatives falling into a distant third or even fourth place.

This story is developing…

Image by Gage Skidmore.

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.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

5 hours ago
William Upton
Crime
NatSec

Trump DOJ Considering Gun Restrictions for Transgenders: Report.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Department of Justice (DOJ) is considering imposing restrictions that would prevent those undergoing gender transition or diagnosed with gender dysphoria from purchasing firearms.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The DOJ, gun owners, and transgenders.

📍WHEN & WHERE:  DOJ discussions were revealed on Thursday, September 4, 2025, after a mass shooting at a Catholic mass in Minnesota, carried out by a transgender gunman.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Individuals within the DOJ are reviewing ways to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell.” — DOJ Official

🎯IMPACT: The DOJ could move to extend restrictions on gun ownership for the mentally ill to include those who identify as transgender or who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

IN FULL

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is considering imposing restrictions that would prevent those undergoing gender transition or diagnosed with gender dysphoria from purchasing firearms. Notably, the potential legal restrictions come in the wake of anti-Trump transgender Robin Westman’s deadly attack on a back-to-school Mass at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, last week.

Reportedly, the DOJ is discussing internally whether to extend restrictions that bar certain mentally ill people from owning firearms to those with gender dysphoria, which is itself classified as a mental disorder. A DOJ source, speaking with the media, explained: “Individuals within the DOJ are reviewing ways to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell.”

Officially, the DOJ is not commenting on the deliberations, with a spokesman only saying that the agency is considering a “range of options.” However, the deadly church shooting in Minnesota last week has sparked a public debate about new restrictions, especially in light of the fact that a number of recent mass shootings were perpetrated by individuals with gender dysphoria or who identified as transgender.

Meanwhile, the Trump White House is believed to be updating its national security strategy to include guidance regarding transgender violence. In January this year, A U.S. Border Patrol officer in Vermont was murdered by two people with ties to a militant transgender extremist group called the “Zizians.” In February, the leader of the “Zizians”— Jack LaSota, a 34-year-old man who identifies as a transgender woman under the alias Andrea Phelps—was arrested in Maryland’s western backcountry.

LaSota had been on the run since he skipped a December trial. Previously, he faked his death to duck prosecution and was even declared deceased in San Mateo County, California.

President Donald J. Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was also the target of an assassination plot in January, with the suspect revealed to identify as transgender. Ryan Michael English, also known as Riley Jane, admitted to police that he wanted to kill Treasury Secretary Bessent.

The National Pulse reported last Thursday that Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had announced an investigation into whether psychiatric medication is contributing to the rise in mass shootings, especially those perpetrated by transgender individuals. “I certainly consider mass shootings a health crisis, and we are doing for the first time real studies to find out what the ideology of that is. And we’re looking for the first time at psychiatric drugs,” Kennedy stated.

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.

6 hours ago
William Upton
Health
Politics

RFK: CDC Director Was Fired for Admitting She Could Not Be Trusted.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Susan Monarez was fired as Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after she admitted she was untrustworthy, according to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., former CDC Director Susan Monarez, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

📍WHEN & WHERE: Thursday, September 4, 2025.

💬KEY QUOTE: “I told her she had to resign because I asked her, ‘Are you a trustworthy person?’ and she said, ‘No.'”— Sec. Kennedy on the reason for Monarez’s firing from the CDC.

🎯IMPACT: Monarez has publicly claimed her removal was because of her opposition to new COVID-19 vaccine recommendations; however, Sec. Kennedy has now publicly countered, stating Monarez had lied to him and is lying about the circumstances of her firing.

IN FULL

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealed former U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Susan Monarez was fired after he confronted her about whether she was trustworthy, and Monarez replied, “No.” The circumstances of Monarez’s removal came to light during a heated exchange between Sec. Kennedy and Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), in which Warren accused the HHS Secretary of having fired the former CDC Director over her refusal to approve new COVID-19 vaccine recommendations.

“Did you tell the head of the CDC that if she refused to sign off on your changes to the childhood vaccine schedule, that she had to resign?” Sen. Warren indignantly demanded during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Thursday. Without missing a beat, Sec. Kennedy responded, “No. I told her she had to resign because I asked her, ‘Are you a trustworthy person?’ and she said, ‘No.'”

The response stunned Sen. Warren, leading her to exclaim, “What?!” However, Kennedy continued, asking, “If you had an employee who told you they weren’t trustworthy, would you ask them to resign, Senator?”

A flustered Warren pointed to public statements from Monarez contrary to Sec. Kennedy’s recollection of events, to which the HHS Secretary, nonplused, rebutted: “Well, I’m not surprised about that.” Kennedy went on to tell Sen. Warren that Monarez was lying about the circumstances of her removal, adding, “Every conversation I had with her, there were witnesses.”


When Sen. Sanders retraced the exchange, Kennedy again explained that Monarez had given an emphatic “No” when asked if she was trustworthy.

The National Pulse previously reported that Monarez attempted to fight her removal from the CDC, claiming that only President Donald J. Trump could remove her. Subsequently, President Trump tapped Jim O’Neill, the Deputy Secretary of HHS, to serve as the acting CDC director, effectively removing Monarez and her technical objection.

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.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad