The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has alleged that Paramount+ public relations officers cut short an interview with Frasier star Kelsey Grammer after the award-winning actor reiterated his support for President Donald J. Trump.
Early in the interview – in which Grammer also discussed the murder of his sister and his friendship with co-star Nicholas Lyndhurst – the Cheers and associated spin-off star said Roseanne Barr inspired the Frasier relaunch. Noting Barr was also a Trump supporter, interviewer Justin Webb later asked if Grammer is still a backer of the 45th President.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
“I am, and I’ll let that be the end of it,” Grammer replied with a slight chuckle, before the interview came to an abrupt halt.
Webb explained, afterwards: “I have to say actually Kelsey Grammer himself was perfectly happy to go on talking about it. The Paramount+ PR people, less happy that he talked about it at some length,” said Webb after the pre-recorded interview, suggesting part of their discussion was not aired.
“But I should stress that he was perfectly happy to talk about why he supports Donald Trump and still does in the forthcoming election,” Webb added.
Grammer explained in 2019 that he welcomed Trump as a disruptor, saying did not “think Washington did us any favors for the last 50, 60 years. I think they’ve all been sort of the same party, the same bunch of clowns, the same bunch of really unpleasant people, and I don’t think they’ve been helping anybody but themselves.”
LISTEN:
Editor’s Notes
Behind-the-scenes political intrigue exclusively for Pulse+ subscribers.
Let me tell you a little story about a time I was sitting in one of my favorite restaurants in London, Boisdale of Belgravia, and I turn to my right and none other than Kelsey Grammer is sitting next to me, at a table with the owner, Ranald
Let me tell you a little story about a time I was sitting in one of my favorite restaurants in London, Boisdale of Belgravia, and I turn to my right and none other than Kelsey Grammer is sitting next to me, at a table with the owner, Ranald show more
❓What Happened: Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is set to evaluate the House-passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” for compliance with Senate rules under the Byrd Rule.
👥 Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: U.S. Senate, June 2025.
⚠️ Impact: Key provisions of Trump’s bill, including those limiting federal court powers and restricting Medicaid funds for abortion clinics, could be struck down, potentially weakening the legislation.
IN FULL:
President Donald J. Trump‘s budgetreconciliation bill, which implements and funds a large part of the America First leader’s second-term agenda, is beginning to work its way through the United States Senate. However, the legislation, also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” will face its most perilous test from one of the Senate’s non-elected officials—Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough.
Serving as the Senate Parliamentarian since 2o12, MacDonough will be tasked with evaluating a bevy of points-of-order raised by Senate Democrats and other opponents of the bill, including Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). These points of order will challenge the legislation’s key provisions on several factors that could disqualify their inclusion, including whether the provision reduces non-discretionary (mandatory) spending, increases the deficit after the 10-year budget window, or if a policy provision is nongermine to the budget change.
The budget reconciliation process gives the Senate Parliamentarian tremendous power over legislation, despite being an unelected official. While the presiding officer of the Senate—technically the Vice President, but in practice usually the Senate Majority Leader—can override any ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian, such instances are beyond rare. The most notable occurrence was in 1975, when Vice President Nelson Rockefeller attempted to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian regarding Senate procedural rules. This led both the Republican and Democrat leaders in the Senate to hold an emergency meeting, create a compromise ruling, and circumvent Rockefeller so as to avoid setting any concrete precedent of the presiding officer actually overruling the Senate Parliamentarian.
WHO IS MACDONOUGH?
Senate Parliamentarians are almost always selected from the Office of the Parliamentarian to ensure continuity. The office itself was only created in 1935. The current Senator, Elizabeth MacDonough, has served since 2012, when she was elevated to the role by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
Despite being appointed by Reid, MacDonough has been critical of the late Nevada Democrat’s 2013 decision to use a procedural maneuver to alter Senate rules and use the so-called “nuclear option” to abolish the filibuster for lower federal court nominations. MacDonough, along with Republican Senators at the time, warned that setting the precedent could later be used to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations—a prediction which came to pass in 2017.
MacDonough has received high praise from Senators on both sides of the aisle but has repeatedly drawn the ire of progressive Democrats by ruling against some of their more far-reaching policy changes that they’ve tried to include in past reconciliation bills. The Senate Parliamentarian’s rulings on former President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan—a reconciliation bill—saw House progressives, including Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), demand that MacDonough be fired. Notably, MacDonough ruled against the inclusion of a $15 an hour minimum wage provision, and most significantly, determined that the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the legislation violated the Byrd Rule, stating, “changing the law to clear the way to (Legal Permanent Resident) status is tremendous and enduring policy change that dwarfs its budgetary impact.”
OVERRULE OR FIRE?
While Senate Republicans currently insist they will not resort to extreme measures should McDonough rule against provisions in the reconciliation bill, they’ve already used a procedural move last month to prevent the Senate Parliamentarian from ruling on a separate piece of legislation. In May, the Senate overturned California’s electric vehicle mandates using a series of procedural votes and then an expedited final vote under the Congressional Review Act, effectively ending the debate and holding a final vote before the Senate Parliamentarian could rule on the matter. While this end-around maneuver worked for a single subject and relatively uncomplicated measure, such a procedural move will not work with the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.”
Regarding the reconciliation bill, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has insisted, “We’re not going there,” when asked whether he or any other Republican acting as the presiding chair would overrule determinations made by the Senate Parliamentarian under the Byrd Rule. In essence, the Senate Republicans appear to be signaling that they will not overturn past precedent nor use any controversial procedural measures to reduce McDonough’s role in the process.
However, two wrinkles could change the current state of affairs. Namely, the constitutional presiding officer of the United States Senate is actually Vice President J.D. Vance. Should Vance decide to arrive at the Senate and assume his constitutional role, there is not much Sen. Thune or other members can do to prevent him from overruling the Senate Parliamentarian, outside of holding a vote to override the Vice President’s decision. This scenario would be similar to the 1975 legislative involving then-Vice President Rockefeller.
Secondly, if MacDonough’s rulings are seen by Sen. Thune or the Senate Republicans as a whole as being too far afield, we could see a situation like 2001 when then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) fired then-Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove over a series of rulings against Republicans on reconciliation and other budget measures. While Thune might not be willing to overrule MacDonough directly, should the Senate Parliamentarian act too partisan with her Byrd Rule determinations, the Senate Majority Leader is well within his right to fire her.
❓What Happened: Alan Dershowitz has released a new book, The Preventive State, which he calls his “magnum opus,” addressing the balance between liberty and security in preventive actions by the state.
👥 Who’s Involved: Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, known for defending high-profile clients and controversial cases.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Released in 2025, the book reflects his 60-year career and lifetime of legal scholarship.
💬 Key Quote: “There’s no free lunch, and every time we act to prevent great harms, we take away a little liberty. The key is to make the trade-off based on principles,” Dershowitz said.
⚠️ Impact: Dershowitz hopes the book will influence legislators and courts but fears it may face neglect due to his defense of Donald J. Trump, which he says has led to professional and social ostracism.
IN FULL:
Alan Dershowitz, one of America’s most renowned legal scholars, has released what he describes as his career-defining work, The Preventive State: The Challenge of Preventing Serious Harms While Preserving Essential Liberties. The book, which he calls his “magnum opus,” seeks to address the complex trade-offs between liberty and security in preventive state actions.
Dershowitz, who became the youngest tenured professor at Harvard Law School at age 28, has spent decades exploring the concept of prevention in law, a term he says he first coined in the 1960s. Speaking with the New York Post, Dershowitz stated, “There’s no free lunch, and every time we act to prevent great harms, we take away a little liberty. The key is to make the trade-off based on principles.”
The book delves into contentious issues, such as pretrial detentions, deportations, and public health mandates, aiming to establish a jurisprudence that errs on the side of liberty while giving due weight to security concerns. “Why do we deport people? To prevent them from committing crimes. Why do we lock people up pending trial? To prevent them from fleeing or committing crimes,” Dershowitz explained.
Despite the book’s significance, Dershowitz fears it may be overlooked due to his defense of President Donald J. Trump during his first impeachment trial. Once a celebrated figure in liberal circles, Dershowitz has faced professional and social ostracism since taking on Trump’s case. Institutions like The New York Times, which previously reviewed many of his 57 books, have declined to cover his latest work.
Dershowitz’s defense of Trump has also led to personal fallout, including strained relationships with former colleagues and friends. He revealed that venues such as the 92nd Street Y and his synagogue on Martha’s Vineyard have barred him from speaking, prompting him to establish a new congregation.
At 86, Dershowitz hopes The Preventive State will influence lawmakers and courts, stating, “If I’m going to be remembered 50 years from now, it’s going to be because of this book.”
show less
PULSE POINTS:
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: Jaguar reported selling just 49 total vehicles in Europe in the month of April, a record low. Some see the sales collapse as a consumer rejection of the company’s rebrand.
👥 Who’s Involved: Jaguar Land Rover, Jaguar, and European Union (EU) and United Kingdom consumers.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: The EU and the United Kingdom in April 2025.
⚠️ Impact: While it appears the low sales numbers are likely the result of Jaguar drawing down its entire vehicle inventory before it rolls out its new line of cars next year, the shockingly low number of cars sold could portend long-term consumer rejection of the company over its new all-electric, woke brand.
IN FULL:
Jaguar sales in Europe have seen one of the most catastrophic April sales numbers on record. Just 49 cars were sold in the entirety of the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom, the latter being the company’s home market. This marks a nearly 98 percent decline from the company’s sales in April just one year ago, and a continued slide in popularity since Jaguar rolled out a rebrand that ditches the iconic “leaper” logo, uses a lower-case monogram, and focuses on electric vehicles. The rebrand has received stiff backlash, with automobile enthusiasts accusing Jaguar of becoming more of a fashion or luxury brand rather than a car company after its widely-panned inaugural commercial, which featured a series of bizarrely dressed, androgynous models and zero cars.
While the shockingly low sales numbers could portend long-term problems for Jaguar, some details suggest the concerns about the rebrand and the company’s sales position are overblown. The 49 total cars sold in April appear to be the result of Jaguar merely liquidating its remaining inventory before its redesigned vehicles, as part of its rebrand, begin production later this year and hit dealership showrooms in 2026. In essence, this means that consumers didn’t simply buy fewer Jaguar cars, but rather that there were far fewer Jaguar cars even available than in April 2024.
Jaguar’s parent company, Jaguar Land Rover, posted $3.39 billion in profits for the fiscal year 2025. The high profit margin of the company’s popular Land Rover brand gives it the cash stability to draw down its Jaguar inventory ahead of officially shifting to its rebranded vehicle line.
Still, it is inconceivable that Jaguar would have let its inventory become so low that it only had several dozen models available for sale before it rolls its new line of vehicles. This suggests that the company’s rebrand is likely having an adverse effect on sales, though to what degree remains to be seen.
Jaguar is set to reveal its first rebranded vehicle, an all-electric four-door GT, at the end of this year. It will hit showrooms in 2026.
WATCH:
show less
PULSE POINTS:
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 spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin about recent attacks in Russia and Crimea, cautioning that peace in Ukraine is not imminent, while also discussing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
👥 Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, Vladimir Putin, Ukraine, Russia, and Iran.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: A phone call lasting one hour and 15 minutes, announced by Trump on Wednesday, May 28, 2025.
💬Key Quote: “It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace,” Trump stated.
⚠️ Impact: Trump’s engagement with Putin signals his America First approach to global conflicts, addressing Ukraine and Iran while prioritizing U.S. security interests against nuclear proliferation.
IN FULL:
President Donald J. Trump has confirmed he has spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin following a series of high-profile attacks in Russia and Russian-annexed Crimea in recent days, and that, based on their conversation, he does not see peace in Ukraine as imminent.
“I just finished speaking, by telephone, with President Vladimir Putin, of Russia. The call lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes,” President Trump announced Wednesday.
“We discussed the attack on Russia’s docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides. It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace,” Trump cautioned, adding: “President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.”
A recent Ukrainian raid on Russian Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft and strategic bombers may have resulted in significant damage to the air portion of Russia’s air, sea, and land-based triad of nuclear weaponry. However, there are conflicting reports as to how much of the Russian air fleet was destroyed. Technically speaking, Russian military doctrine regards attempts to destroy its nuclear armaments as grounds for a nuclear first response, although this would be an extreme reaction.
“We also discussed Iran, and the fact that time is running out on Iran’s decision pertaining to nuclear weapons, which must be made quickly!” Trump continued. “I stated to President Putin that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and, on this, I believe that we were in agreement.”
“President Putin suggested that he will participate in the discussions with Iran and that he could, perhaps, be helpful in getting this brought to a rapid conclusion. It is my opinion that Iran has been slowwalking their decision on this very important matter, and we will need a definitive answer in a very short period of time!”
show less
PULSE POINTS:
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: Jon Stewart hosted Carole Cadwalladr on The Daily Show, where she fearmongered about a “techno-authoritarian surveillance state” while promoting her Substack and nonprofit, while glossing over her history of discredited, Russiagate-style anti-Brexit conspiracy theories.
👥 Who’s Involved: Jon Stewart, Carole Cadwalladr, and Brexit campaign organizer and donor Arron Banks.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When:The Daily Show, with the interview airing on June 3, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “There should be no reward for knowingly lying in journalism. In fact, quite the opposite. There should be harsh and punitive measures to discourage activists masquerading as reporters and leading the public astray, especially at their financial cost.” — The National Pulse Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam, after Cadwalladr lost a defamation case over her Brexit allegations in 2023.
⚠️ Impact: Stewart’s uncritical platforming of Cadwalladr amplifies her discredited narrative, undermining tech reforms while glossing over her established history of peddling anti-Brexit misinformation.
IN FULL:
On June 3, 2025, Jon Stewart hosted British journalist Carole Cadwalladr on The Daily Show, giving her a platform to warn of a “techno-authoritarian surveillance state” driven by tech firms. Stewart helped Cadwalladr promote her Substack, “How to Survive the Broligarchy,” and her nonprofit, The Citizens—but failed to address Cadwalladr’s history of discredited anti-Brexit conspiracy theories.
Stewart briefly referenced a defamation lawsuit brought against Cadwalladr by Arron Banks, an ally of Nigel Farage and key organizer and donor for the Leave.EU campaign during the 2016 Brexit referendum, over a 2019 TED Talk, and a social media post implying ties to Russia.
“They really tried to destroy you,” Stewart said of the case—failing to mention the courts ruled comprehensively in Banks’s favor. Cadwalladr had falsely alleged Kremlin involvement in and even illicit Russian funding of Banks’s Leave.EU campaign, swaying the Brexit vote through dark money. As with similar Russia-based conspiracies levelled against President Donald J. Trump, Cadwalladr earned journalistic accolades such as the Specialist Journalist of the Year 2017 award and an Orwell Prize for Political Journalism, lending credence to her outlandish reporting, only for it to crumble under legal scrutiny.
Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA) found no evidence of Russian money or collusion. In 2022, the High Court ruled her false statements caused “serious harm” to Banks’s reputation, ordering her to pay £1.24 million (~$1.7m) in costs and £35,000 (~$47,500) in damages.
“There should be no reward for knowingly lying in journalism. In fact, quite the opposite. There should be harsh and punitive measures to discourage activists masquerading as reporters and leading the public astray, especially at their financial cost,” commented Raheem Kassam, Editor-in-Chief of The National Pulse, following the ruling.
During the Stewart interview, Cadwalladr shifted focus to modern data practices, criticizing the lack of artificial intelligence (AI) regulation in the U.S., noting a proposed ten-year ban on state-level regulation of the technology in the “one big beautiful bill.” However, the purpose of this provision is not to prevent AI regulation, but to prevent far-left California, where many tech firms are based, from having de facto control over AI regulation nationwide and even worldwide.
show less
PULSE POINTS:
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: Gina Jones, a Democrat running for Mayor of San Antonio, is being accused of using her mother’s maiden name, Ortiz, to appeal to Hispanic voters. Jones’s mother is of Filipino origin, and her father is white.
👥 Who’s Involved: Gina Jones, her Republican opponent Rolando Pablos, and campaign representatives on both sides.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: San Antonio, Texas, during the mayoral race leading up to the June 7, 2025, election.
💬 Key Quote: “Gina Jones was Gina Jones until she wasn’t,” said Rolando Pablos in a campaign ad.
⚠️ Impact: The controversy has intensified the race, with Republicans alleging pandering and Democrats calling the criticisms racist.
IN FULL:
San Antonio’s mayoral race has taken a contentious turn as Reupublican candidate Rolando Pablos is accusing his Democratic rival, Gina Jones, of using her mother’s maiden name, Ortiz, to appeal to the city’s Hispanic voters. Jones, who is of Filipino descent, began using the name in 2017 during her first congressional campaign, a move seen by many as politically motivated and an inappropriate attempt to appeal to racial affinity with a key voting demographic.
Pablos, born in Mexico and a former Texas Secretary of State, is currently airing a campaign ad ahead of the June 7 mayoral election, stating, “Gina Jones was Gina Jones until she wasn’t,” accusing Jones of adopting the Ortiz name strategically to garner Hispanic support. San Antonio, the seventh-largest city in the U.S., is home to nearly one million Hispanic residents, making the demographic a significant voting bloc.
Jones’s campaign has pushed back, asserting that “Ortiz” is her legal middle name and reflects her heritage. Campaign consultant Mary Kate Hull explained, “It’s tradition for Filipino children to take their mother’s maiden name as their middle name.” Hull also noted that Ortiz Jones has embraced her heritage more as an adult.
Despite the Jones campaign’s claims, her high school yearbook lists her name as Gina Maria Jones, as does the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where she served as a national security fellow from 2016 to 2017. Pablos’ campaign says Jones is just pandering, stating, “At home in Washington, D.C., she goes by Gina Jones. While pandering for votes in Texas, she’s Gina Ortiz Jones.”
Notably, Jones herself claims the allegations that she changed her middle name to Ortiz to appeal to Hispanic voters are motivated by racism. “Do you not think it’s racist?” she has said in response to the Pablos campaign’s claims. Jordan Abelson, Jones’ campaign manager, goes further, arguing: “Antagonizing someone on their race is the definition of racism.”
Jones has twice run unsuccessfully for Congress, losing races to Will Hurd in 2018 and Tony Gonzales in 2020.
show less
PULSE POINTS:
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 plans to shift Greenland from U.S. European Command to U.S. Northern Command, which is tasked with homeland defense, signaling President Donald J. Trump’s intention to acquire the Danish territory.
👥 Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, U.S. military officials, and Greenland’s population.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
💬 Key Quote: “We have to have Greenland,” President Trump stated during Vice President Vance’s visit to the island earlier this year.
⚠️ Impact: The move underscores Greenland’s strategic importance to U.S. national security and ambition to bring it under U.S. control.
IN FULL:
The Trump administration is reportedly preparing to reassign Greenland from the U.S. European Command to the U.S. Northern Command, a move seen as emphasizing both its role in homeland defense and President Donald J. Trump’s ambition to acquire it. The U.S. Northern Command oversees defense operations for the continental United States, Alaska, and neighboring nations such as Canada and Mexico.
U.S. officials say the change reflects a strategic shift in viewing Greenland as critical to American security. Acquiring Greenland, currently under the Kingdom of Denmark, has been a focal point for the Trump administration.
During a March visit to Greenland’s Pituffik Space Base, Vice President J.D. Vance criticized Denmark for inadequate investment in the island’s infrastructure and security. The base, equipped with missile detection systems, is considered vital to U.S. defense interests.
President Donald J. Trump has maintained his interest in acquiring Greenland due to its value for national security and its rare earth mineral resources. During Vance’s March visit, Trump remarked, “We have to have Greenland.” In a speech to Congress, Trump pledged significant development opportunities for Greenland, stating, “We will make you rich, and together, we will take Greenland to heights like you have never thought possible before.”
Greenland lies at the entrance to the Northwest Passage, which passes through the northern islands of Canada. It could become a majorstrategic searoute if temperatures rise in the northern hemisphere.
❓What Happened: President Donald J. Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, blasted the former Biden government’s open borders policies for jeopardizing U.S. national security by allowing dangerous illegal immigrants into the country. Homan contends Biden’s importation of millions of illegal immigrants makes incidents like the recent terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, more challenging to prevent.
👥 Who’s Involved: Tom Homan, Mohamed Sabry Soliman (Egyptian national and illegal immigrant), the former Biden government, and Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Homan’s remarks were made during a media appearance following the terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, on June 1, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “What concerned me the most was they created the biggest national security vulnerability this country has ever seen,” said Homan, referring to the Biden government’s lack of border security enforcement.
⚠️ Impact: Homan warned of ongoing threats for the next decade due to Biden-era border policies, including terrorism risks and other criminal activities.
IN FULL:
President Donald J. Trump‘s border czar, Tom Homan, has warned that the former Biden government’s open borders policies have created a significant national security threat, citing the recent anti-Semitic terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado. Speaking with Sean Hannity following the Boulder attack, Homan expressed concerns over the danger posed by “two million known gotaways” who crossed the U.S. border under Biden, warning, “We don’t know who they are, where they came from, or where they are.”
Homan pointed to the attack in Boulder, where Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national and illegal immigrant who overstayed his tourist visa and was subsequently given a work permit by the Biden government, injured multiple people at a pro-Israel event using Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower. Soliman, who reportedly shouted “Free Palestine” during the attack, had planned a mass shooting but was unable to acquire a firearm. Two individuals were hospitalized with severe burns.
Homan criticized Biden and the Democratic Party for allowing unvetted migrants into the country and granting them work permits, claiming such policies enable bad actors to “sit here and plan something bad.” He warned that the U.S. would face the consequences of these decisions for the next decade.
The former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) chief also took aim at congressional Democrats for protesting at detention centers, mentioning an incident involving Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), who was charged with assaulting law enforcement at a New Jersey facility. Homan described these actions as part of a broader attack on ICE and the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
Homan emphasized the broader implications of Biden’s failed border policies and the monumental task of undoing the damage, pointing to issues such as sex trafficking, fentanyl smuggling, and terrorism. “This is the biggest national security vulnerability this country has ever seen,” he warned.
WATCH:
Tom Homan on Biden’s border crisis: “We are going to be dealing with this for the next 10 years because of the chaos they created in 4 years.” pic.twitter.com/vFlQ0JgAHO
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 3, 2025
show less
PULSE POINTS:
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: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the U.S. Navy to rename the oiler ship USNS Harvey Milk, originally named after gay rights activist Harvey Milk, who had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old runaway boy while he was in his thirties.
👥 Who’s Involved: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and the late Harvey Milk.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: The renaming order was issued at the start of Pride Month in June of 2025, affecting a ship named in 2016 during a San Francisco ceremony.
⚠️ Impact: The decision has sparked criticism from Democratic leaders, but draws attention to Milk’s controversial relationship with underage boy JackGalenMcKinley.
IN FULL:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has directed the U.S. Navy to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, a ship named in honor of the late gay rights activist and politician. The order, issued at the start of Pride Month, was revealed through a memorandum issued by the Department of Defense (DoD).
The USNS Harvey Milk was named in 2016 during a ceremony in San Francisco. Milk, a Navy veteran, became the first openly gay elected official in California in 1977, serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors before being assassinated in 1978. However, Milk also had a sexual relationship with an underage runaway, Jack Galen McKinley, while he was in his thirties, which has led many conservatives to challenge the status he has been awarded as a civil rights hero.
This renaming initiative is reportedly part of Hegseth’s broader efforts to “reestablish the warrior culture” within the military. Since assuming his role, Hegseth has worked to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, aiming to restore what he refers to as the “warrior ethos.”
In addition to the USNS Harvey Milk, other ships on a Navy renaming recommendation list include the USNS Thurgood Marshall, USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg, USNS Harriet Tubman, USNS Dolores Huerta, USNS Lucy Stone, USNS Cesar Chavez, and USNS Medgar Evers.
The decision has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic leaders. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) condemned the move, stating, “The reported decision by the Trump Administration to change the names of the USNS Harvey Milk and other ships in the John Lewis-class is a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also expressed outrage, calling the renaming “disgusting, blatant discrimination—and during Pride Month to boot.” He added that Milk “served the U.S. Navy and his country honorably, and he was assassinated while serving the public and fighting for LGBTQ+ rights.”
Schumer did not reference Milk’s unlawful relations with McKinley.
Jack Montgomery contributed to this report.
show less
PULSE POINTS:
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 United Kingdom has been excluded from a U.S. executive order that doubles steel and aluminum tariffs from 25 percent to 50 percent.
👥 Who’s Involved: U.S. President Donald Trump, the British government, and U.S. firms importing steel and aluminum.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: President Trump’s executive order was signed in the U.S. on Tuesday evening, impacting international trade.
💬 Key Quote: A British government spokesman stated it remains “committed to protecting British business and jobs across key sectors, including steel as part of our plan for change.”
⚠️ Impact: British exporters avoid the immediate tariff hike, showcasing a benefit of Britain leaving the European Union (EU) and regaining control over its international trade policy. However, it faces potential increases if the terms of the U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal are not met by July 9.
IN FULL:
The United Kingdom has avoided a tariff increase under a new executive order signed by U.S. President Donald J. Trump that doubles steel and aluminum import taxes for many countries. While the order raises tariffs on these materials from 25 percent to 50 percent for most nations, Britain, which regained control over international trade policy on exiting the European Union (EU), will maintain a lower rate—at least for now.
The exemption hinges on compliance with the U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal (EPD), agreed between the Trump administration and the British government on May 8. According to the order, if the United Kingdom fails to meet the terms of the EPD by July 9, the tariff rate could rise to 50 percent.
The executive order, signed on Tuesday evening, aims to increase costs for U.S. firms importing steel and aluminum from abroad, bolstering the American steel industry.
The exemption for Britain provides relief for British exporters, who would otherwise face significant financial strain under the heightened tariffs.
show less
PULSE POINTS:
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.
