President Biden is planning to deliver a major speech on what he claims are the ongoing threats to democracy later this month, with the address scheduled the day after the next Republican presidential primary debate. The McCain Institute is being considered as a potential venue for the speech, after Biden creepily kissed a statue to former Senator John McCain in Vietnam earlier this month.
Anita Dunn, a top White House adviser, disclosed details about the upcoming speech to Democratic donors on Wednesday in Chicago, the chosen location for the party’s 2024 convention. The White House and Biden campaign have not yet responded to requests for comment. In addition to the speech, major contributors to the Democratic National Committee were invited to a preview of the party’s convention in Chicago this week. The Biden Victory Fund, which encompasses the Biden campaign, national party, and all state parties, has the ability to accept contributions as large as $929,600 from big donors.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
Last September, Biden delivered a Hitlerian speech in Philadelphia framing the midterm elections as a “battle for the soul of this nation,” echoing his 2020 campaign slogan.
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.
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.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Donald J. Trump’s Solicitor General is asking the Supreme Court to override restrictions on ICE operations imposed by judges in Los Angeles and California.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Central District of California, with an appeal filed with the Supreme Court late Thursday.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Every day that the district court’s order remains in effect, law-enforcement officers throughout the most populous district in the country are laboring under the threat of judicial contempt.” – D. John Sauer
🎯IMPACT: The case highlights a clash between enforcing federal immigration laws and judicial curbs that critics argue hinder ICE operations.
IN FULL
President Donald J. Trump’s legal team has taken its case to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to overturn judicial limitations on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities in California. These limitations were put in place by Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong in the Central District of California and have sparked ongoing conflict between federal immigration officials and the courts.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer criticized the restrictions, claiming they have significantly disrupted federal immigration enforcement in an area that includes approximately two million illegal immigrants. He defended ICE’s discretion and decision-making during operations, remarking, “Needless to say, no one thinks that speaking Spanish or working in construction always creates reasonable suspicion.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Frimpong’s ruling, agreeing that characteristics such as language, ethnicity, occupation, or race do not amount to reasonable grounds for initiating stops. According to the court, these elements form a generalized profile rather than pointing to particular unlawful behavior.
Sauer cautioned that the order continues to hamper law enforcement efforts in the most densely populated federal district in the nation, stating, “Every day that the district court’s order remains in effect, law-enforcement officers throughout the most populous district in the country are laboring under the threat of judicial contempt.” He further argued that such legal constraints hinder agents’ ability to fulfill their duties under federal law.
Supporters of the court-imposed limits, including Democratic lawmakers and some business sectors, argue that these measures benefit the economy by enabling access to lower-cost immigrant labor, rather than pushing companies toward higher wages or automation. In contrast, the Trump administration has maintained its commitment to fostering a high-wage, high-tech economy and opposing a system that relies on mass migration and lower wages.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Poland’s new conservative President Karol Nawrocki assumed office this week, using his inaugural speech to rail against illegal immigration and his opposition to Poland joining the euro.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Polish President Karol Nawrocki, European Union (EU).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: President Nawrocki made his comments after assuming office on August 6.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Traditional values and legitimate authority prevail when citizens defend their identity and future.” — Karol Nawrocki.
🎯IMPACT: The election marks a shift back to the conservative right in Poland, which split over the Ukraine conflict and lost the last national elections in 2023.
IN FULL
Conservative Karol Nawrocki was officially sworn in as President of Poland on August 6. In his inaugural address, he stressed his administration’s focus on national sovereignty, security, and the defense of traditional values.
At the center of his speech were firm positions on illegal immigration and monetary policy. Nawrocki reaffirmed his opposition to illegal immigration and to Poland joining the eurozone, stating that these stances are aligned with principles that “prioritize social stability and order.”
Nawrocki, a historian and former head of the Institute of National Remembrance, won the presidency with 50.89 percent of the vote in the second round of elections held on June 1, 2025. His candidacy was backed by the conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, the former governing party of Poland prior to the 2023 national elections.
His inauguration marks a significant political shift in Poland. Nawrocki has presented his victory as a rejection of policies emanating from Brussels, calling out what he described as the “impositions of European bureaucracy” and defending what he views as Poland’s cultural and political autonomy.
According to official statements from his campaign, the election outcome is interpreted as a “strong message against globalist policies that threaten the traditional social fabric.”
In his address, Nawrocki pledged to implement several domestic reforms, including reducing the value-added tax (VAT) from 23 percent to 22 percent and instituting tax exemptions for families with two or more children. He described these initiatives as a means of reinforcing “the family as a fundamental pillar of society.”
On economic policy, Nawrocki signaled opposition to “excessive regulation of cryptocurrencies” and committed to addressing “unfair competition” within the Polish economy. His campaign has framed these efforts as part of a broader “pragmatic and patriotic approach.”
The new president’s remarks also conveyed a message to the European Union, asserting that “sovereign peoples will not yield to agendas that undermine their traditions and security.” His administration is expected to take a more confrontational stance toward EU institutions than his predecessor.
Supporters argue that the election result reaffirms Poland’s commitment to conservative principles and national self-determination. “Traditional values and legitimate authority prevail when citizens defend their identity and future,” Nawrocki said in closing.
Meanwhile, political analysts say the result represents a significant setback for Poland’s left-leaning and pro-European parties, which Nawrocki’s allies have accused of promoting a “globalist agenda and disdain for traditions.”
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: President Donald J. Trump has reportedly ordered the Pentagon to prepare military options for targeting drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump, the Pentagon, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and former Department of State lawyer Brian Finucane.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The possible military operations were revealed on Friday, August 8, 2025, involving border operations and actions targeting cartels in Venezuela and Mexico.
💬KEY QUOTE: “President Trump’s top priority is protecting the homeland, which is why he took the bold step to designate several cartels and gangs as foreign terrorist organizations.” – White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly
🎯IMPACT: The designation of cartels as terrorist organizations enables the use of military and intelligence resources to target these groups, raising questions about legality and operational scope.
IN FULL
President Donald J. Trump has directed the Pentagon to devise military strategies to target international drug cartels that his administration has labeled as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs). According to individuals familiar with the decision, U.S. defense officials are actively evaluating possible missions to either capture or eliminate high-value individuals involved in global narcotics trafficking.
The move marks a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s approach to transnational crime. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly explained the administration’s rationale, stating, “President Trump’s top priority is protecting the homeland, which is why he took the bold step to designate several cartels and gangs as foreign terrorist organizations.”
Among the groups recently classified under this new designation are MS-13, Tren de Aragua, and the Venezuelan Cartel of the Suns. Officials argue that treating these organizations as terrorist threats will allow a broader use of U.S. power beyond law enforcement.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized the strategic benefits of the designation: “Labeling cartels as terrorist groups allows the U.S. to use other elements of American power, intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense, whatever, to target these groups if we have an opportunity to do it. We have to start treating them as armed terrorist organizations, not simply drug-dealing organizations.”
In conjunction with the policy shift, the administration also unveiled a major bounty targeting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. A reward of $50 million is being offered for information leading to his arrest, as part of a broader crackdown on what U.S. officials allege is a criminal narco-state network.
Attorney General Pam Bondi tied Maduro directly to the narcotics crisis, saying, “Maduro uses foreign terrorist organizations like Tren de Aragua, Sinaloa, and Cartel of the Suns that bring deadly drugs and violence into our country. Today, the DEA has seized 30 tons of cocaine linked to Maduro, and his associates, with nearly 7 tons linked to Maduro himself, which represents a primary source of income for the deadly cartels based in Venezuela and Mexico.”
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: President Donald J. Trump warned U.S. courts against blocking his tariff policy, citing its positive economic impact and potential consequences of a judicial reversal.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald Trump, U.S. courts, former House Speaker Paul Ryan, and Alan Wolff of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: August 8, 2025, on Truth Social.
💬KEY QUOTE: “If a Radical Left Court ruled against us at this late date… it would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION.” – Donald Trump
🎯IMPACT: Markets have responded relatively positively to tariff policy shifts, with much of the impact now priced in to long-term projections. An abrupt change initiated by the federal courts could spark a return of market volatility.
IN FULL
President Donald J. Trump took to Truth Social on Friday to warn of the economic risks of potential judicial actions against his tariff policy. He declared that a court ruling against his administration could lead to a severe economic downturn, likening it to the Great Depression of 1929.
“Tariffs are having a huge positive impact on the Stock Market. Almost every day, new records are set. In addition, Hundreds of Billions of Dollars are pouring into our Country’s coffers. If a Radical Left Court ruled against us at this late date, in an attempt to bring down or disturb the largest amount of money, wealth creation and influence the U.S.A. has ever seen, it would be impossible to ever recover, or pay back, these massive sums of money and honor. It would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!” Trump wrote.
The America First leader continued: “If they were going to rule against the wealth, strength, and power of America, they should have done so LONG AGO, at the beginning of the case, where our entire Country, while never having a chance at this kind of GREATNESS again, would not have been put in 1929 style jeopardy.”
“Our Country deserves SUCCESS AND GREATNESS, NOT TURMOIL, FAILURE, AND DISGRACE,” Trump added.
The comments come as a federal appeals court deliberates on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). Specifically, President Trump’s global reciprocal tariffs are under review by the full 11-judge bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C.
The court will determine whether Trump exceeded his authority by imposing reciprocal tariffs on various U.S. trading partners. The appeal follows a May ruling by a three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade, which blocked the tariffs. That decision has been stayed pending the outcome of this new hearing.
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: Paul Dans calls for unity among conservatives to challenge Republican Senator Lindsey Graham in the South Carolina Senate race.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Paul Dans, Andre Bauer, Mark Lynch, and Sen. Graham.
📍WHEN & WHERE: August 8, 2025, in Charleston, South Carolina.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Andre Bauer’s decision to step aside reflects the humility and integrity that South Carolina conservatives cherish.” – Paul Dans
🎯IMPACT: Dans seeks to consolidate the anti-Graham vote and build a coalition to retire Lindsey Graham.
IN FULL
Paul Dans, a leading conservative candidate for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina, has extended an invitation for unity to his former rivals, Andre Bauer and Mark Lynch. Bauer, the state’s former Lieutenant Governor, recently suspended his campaign, while Lynch continues his efforts in the Republican primary against incumbent Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
Dans praised Bauer’s decision to step aside, highlighting it as a reflection of the humility and integrity valued by South Carolina conservatives. “Andre Bauer’s decision to step aside reflects the humility and integrity that South Carolina conservatives cherish,” Dans said, while also commending Lynch for challenging the status quo and emphasizing the need to consolidate the anti-Graham vote.
Dans, architect of Project 2025 and a former Trump administration official, underscored the urgency of uniting against Graham’s record on issues like endless wars and open borders. He called for a coalition to retire Graham and secure a Senator aligned with South Carolina’s values.
The campaign has gained momentum with national media attention and polls indicating Graham’s vulnerability. Dans’s leadership in Project 2025 has already achieved significant policy victories, making him a formidable candidate in the race.
Dans invited all South Carolinians who reject Graham’s policies to join his movement, aiming to make South Carolina a beacon of conservative leadership. He emphasized truth, unity, and a commitment to putting America first.
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 Trump administration has directed federal agencies to erase employees’ COVID-19 vaccine status from their records, including noncompliance with mandates and exemption requests.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), federal agencies, and Feds For Freedom, a nonprofit representing 9,000 federal employees.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The directive is expected to be issued Friday, following a settlement announced Wednesday involving the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Feds For Freedom.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Things got out of hand during the pandemic, and federal workers were fired, punished, or sidelined for simply making a personal medical decision. That should never have happened.” – OPM Director Scott Kupor
🎯IMPACT: Federal agencies will no longer consider COVID-19 vaccine status in hiring, promotion, or disciplinary decisions, ensuring no lingering effects from prior mandates.
IN FULL
According to a federal government memo, the Trump administration is finalizing the removal of a Biden government-era policy by directing federal agencies to scrub employees’ COVID-19 vaccine status from their records. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is set to issue a directive instructing agencies to delete any data related to vaccine compliance, exemption requests, or noncompliance with mandates.
The guidance also prohibits agencies from considering an individual’s COVID-19 vaccine status in hiring or employment decisions. “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, we’re making sure the excesses of that era do not have lingering effects on federal workers,” OPM Director Scott Kupor stated.
The announcement follows a settlement reached Wednesday between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the nonprofit Feds For Freedom, which sued over the Biden government’s vaccine mandate for federal workers. The group, representing 9,000 federal employees, had successfully obtained an injunction in 2022 that paused the federal vaccine mandate, which President Biden formally revoked in May 2023.
Biden’s original Executive Order, issued shortly after he took office in 2021, required federal workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Following the revocation, OPM issued guidance advising agencies to ensure that job postings no longer included compliance with the rescinded mandate as a requirement.
The new OPM memo reiterates and expands upon prior guidance, stating that federal agencies “may not use an individual’s COVID-19 vaccine status, history of noncompliance with prior COVID-19 vaccine mandates, or requests for exemptions from such mandates in any employment-related decisions, including but not limited to hiring, promotion, discipline, or termination.”
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 federal appeals court overturned a district judge’s contempt order against federal officials involved in the transport of Venezuelan migrants.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Judges Gregory Katsas, Neomi Rao, and Cornelia Pillard, along with U.S. District Judge James Boasberg and Trump administration officials.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: August 8, 2025, at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
💬KEY QUOTE: “The government is plainly correct about the merits of the criminal contempt, and our saying so now would prevent long disputes between the Executive and the Judiciary over difficult, contentious issues,” wrote Judge Gregory Katsas.
🎯IMPACT: The decision represents a significant victory for the Trump administration, underscoring judicial restraint in matters involving executive authority.
IN FULL
A federal appeals court has overturned a district judge’s decision to pursue criminal contempt proceedings against federal officials. The case stemmed from an incident in March involving the transport of Venezuelan illegal immigrants to El Salvador, which U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg argued violated his prior order barring the move.
Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both appointed by President Trump, ruled in favor of the Trump administration by setting aside the contempt order. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented, arguing that the contempt findings were justified.
In his concurring opinion, Katsas noted that the case highlights an “extraordinary, ongoing confrontation between the Executive and Judicial Branches.” He added that the decision would prevent prolonged disputes over contentious issues like judicial control of foreign policy and prosecution.
Judge Pillard, however, criticized the ruling, stating, “Our system of courts cannot long endure if disappointed litigants defy court orders with impunity rather than legally challenge them.” She emphasized the importance of accountability when court orders are disobeyed.
The ruling is seen as a major victory for the Trump White House, reinforcing constitutional executive authority in areas such as foreign policy and immigration enforcement.
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: Presidents Donald J. Trump and Vladimir Putin are set to hold their first face-to-face summit in the coming days, with discussions anticipated to address the Ukraine conflict. Prior to the summit, China’s Xi Jinping spoke with the Russian leader, suggesting pressure for a peace deal may be building.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The meeting between the American and Russian leaders could take place within days, following a phone call between Putin and Xi Jinping on Friday.
💬KEY QUOTE: “China welcomes Russia-US contacts, improving relations and advancing political settlement of Ukrainian crisis.” – Xi Jinping via CCTV
🎯IMPACT: The summit could potentially lead to progress in resolving the Ukraine crisis and impact ongoing sanctions and economic tensions.
IN FULL
A possible face-to-face bilateral summit with U.S. President Donald J. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be gaining momentum toward realization. Putin discussed the matter with Chinese President Xi Jinping on a phone call today, suggesting the Russian overture could be more than a tactic to delay American secondary sanctions on Russia’s shadow oil fleet.
During their conversation, Putin updated Xi on recent communications between the U.S. and Russia. According to Chinese state broadcaster CCTV, Putin expressed a desire to maintain close coordination with China. Russian media echoed these sentiments. Xi, in turn, welcomed the dialogue between Russia and the U.S. and reiterated China’s support for efforts aimed at a political resolution to the Ukraine conflict.
“China welcomes Russia-US contacts, improving relations and advancing political settlement of Ukrainian crisis,” Xi Jinping was quoted as saying by CCTV. He further emphasized the importance of nuanced solutions to complex problems and reaffirmed China’s commitment to fostering dialogue to resolve regional disputes.
This call followed the Kremlin’s announcement on Thursday that Putin had reached out to Trump and requested to meet soon to discuss a potential end to the Ukraine war. Trump had previously set a Friday deadline for Russia to agree to a ceasefire, warning of expanded sanctions if no progress was made. It remains to be seen whether the summit will influence these plans or alter the U.S. approach to sanctions.
The Russian move follows President Trump’s announcement that the U.S. will increasetariffs on India to a total rate of 50 percent over the country’s continued purchase of Russian oil. While India and China remain regional rivals, China—facing economic strain at home—is likely seeking its own offramp from aiding Russia’s conflict in Ukraine.
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 far-left advocacy group filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department (DOJ) and FBI for records related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Democracy Forward, the Justice Department, the FBI, and Jeffrey Epstein. President Trump and U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg are also mentioned.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The lawsuit was filed on Friday in federal court in Washington, D.C.
💬KEY QUOTE: “The court should intervene urgently to ensure the public has access to the information they need about this extraordinary situation,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward.
🎯IMPACT: The case continues to draw public attention, with calls for transparency and questions about government handling of Epstein-related records.
IN FULL
A far-left, progressive advocacy group, Democracy Forward, has filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department (DOJ) and the FBI, seeking records related to their handling of the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., is reportedly the first of its kind.
The group is requesting documents about communications between senior administration officials regarding Epstein, as well as any correspondence between Epstein and President Donald J. Trump. Democracy Forward claims their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted in late July have not been fulfilled.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement, “The court should intervene urgently to ensure the public has access to the information they need about this extraordinary situation.”
The Justice Department’s decision not to release additional documents related to the Epstein case last month has drawn significant public attention, particularly among online communities and conspiracy theorists. The Trump administration previously sought to unseal grand jury transcripts, but these efforts were denied by U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg, who ruled they did not meet federal law’s extraordinary exceptions for public release.
The House Oversight Committee has also subpoenaed the Justice Department for files on the investigation, as part of a broader probe into potential links between Epstein, Trump, and other officials. President Trump has denied prior knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and has stated he ended their relationship long ago.
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 Department of Justice convened a grand jury to investigate New York Attorney General Letitia James, focusing on possible deprivation of rights allegations.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The DOJ, Letitia James, President Donald Trump, and the Trump Organization.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The investigation is being run out of Albany, New York, and subpoenas were issued this week.
🎯IMPACT: The investigation marks an escalation in Trump’s legal battles with James, who has previously secured a $454 million judgment against him.
IN FULL
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has convened a grand jury to investigate New York Attorney General Letitia James (D). The investigation centers on whether James’ office caused a deprivation of legal rights under the color of law through its civil suits against President Donald J. Trump, his businesses, and the National Rifle Association (NRA). In addition, filings reveal the inquiry is being conducted out of Albany, New York, and subpoenas for documents, including information related to James’s civil fraud lawsuit against President Trump, were issued this week.
Letitia James, a Democrat who has been in office since 2018, has been a prominent figure in Democratic lawfare efforts against Trump. She successfully brought civil charges against him for business fraud in 2022, securing a $454 million judgment against the former president and his company. James has also been involved in lawfare challenging Trump administration policies and executive actions.
James’s office has not commented on the DOJ investigation. However, James’s past comments about seeking legal action against Trump, including a campaign pledge to pursue the America First leader legally, could prove damaging to the New York Democrat.
Tensions between Trump and James have been ongoing. Trump has criticized her on social media, calling her a “wacky crook” and demanding her resignation. In April, the Trump Federal Housing Finance Agency requested an investigation into James over mortgage fraud, which the DOJ also began investigating. James has denied the allegations.
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.
