Just under one-quarter of young people in the United Kingdom (UK) would support banning the bible if certain passages conflict with modern “hate speech” laws, according to a recent survey from Whitestone Insights.
Pollsters asked 2,088 Britons to respond to the question: “Unless the offending parts can be edited out, books containing what some perceive as hate speech should be banned from general sale, including if necessary religious texts such as the Bible.”
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
They found that 23 percent of respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 said the Bible should be banned if it potentially causes offense. Hardly much better were those between ages 35 and 54, with 17 percent concurring. Another 13 percent of those aged 55 and above also agreed.
“We may no longer be a majority Christian population here in Britain. That’s even more reason to protect freedom of speech and belief for all,” said Lois McLatchie, the communications officer at Alliance Defending Freedom.
“We need a robust defense of religious freedom from those who craft our legislation, and we need to educate the ‘be kind’ generation on the truly hateful consequences of censorship before this type of thinking creeps further into reality,” she added.
Britain has seen a steady rise in hostility towards Christians over the past several decades. As of this year, it is illegal for Christians to silently pray outside abortion clinics.
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: European leaders agreed to meet President Donald J. Trump’s five percent defense spending demand, with much of the funds going to U.S. arms, to ease trade tensions.
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 of the European Council António Costa, Donald Trump, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, EU member states
📍WHEN & WHERE: NATO summit in Brussels, late June 2025
💬KEY QUOTE: “Of course, a large part of this 5% will be spent for sure buying American, and it helps to rebalance the trade relations.” – António Costa
🎯IMPACT: The defense pledge could avert a trade war, but has triggered internal EU disputes over debt, subsidies, and where defense money should go.
IN FULL
Europe’s need to meet President Donald J. Trump’s defense spending demands is being used as a bargaining chip to de-escalate a looming trade war with the U.S., according to European Council chief António Costa. The newly adopted five percent of GDP military expenditure goal—up from two percent, which most European NATO members were already failing to meet—will reportedly funnel billions toward the U.S. defense industry, helping rebalance the long-standing goods-trade deficit.
“This agreement in NATO paved the way to have an agreement as soon as possible on trade,” Costa said. Trump has threatened to jack up tariffs on EU imports to 50 percent unless a deal is secured by July 9. The U.S. currently runs a $236 billion goods-trade deficit with the European Union—an imbalance Trump frequently highlights in speeches.
The EU has attempted to calm tensions by proposing reduced tariffs on U.S. products and easing regulatory barriers. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is pressuring Brussels to strike a deal quickly, citing the need for relief for key sectors like automotive manufacturing. But there’s no consensus on what concessions the EU will make—or how much defense cash should stay within Europe.
French President Emmanuel Macron has taken a protectionist line, insisting that increased military outlays must benefit European industries. Costa, in contrast, suggests appeasing the Trump administration by buying American may be necessary. Meanwhile, the EU is loosening fiscal rules and creating a new €150 billion ($176B) defense fund to help member states keep up with NATO expectations.
Debate is raging among member states over how the defense pot should be spent. Wealthier nations like Germany and the Netherlands balk at the idea of subsidizing poorer, debt-laden members like Italy and Greece. The question of EU-wide defense grants will be revisited at an October summit, after leaders papered over divisions in Brussels last week.
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: Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed into law a bill restricting property purchases by individuals or entities from adversarial nations.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Governor Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton, and entities from nations like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Signed on June 20, effective September 1, in the state of Texas.
💬KEY QUOTE: “I signed SB 17 which is the toughest ban in America on preventing the sale of our land and other property to individuals and companies from China, Iran, North Korea & Russia.” – Gov. Greg Abbott
🎯IMPACT: The law aims to enhance national security by restricting property acquisitions from nations deemed adversarial.
IN FULL
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed Senate Bill 17 into law, which prohibits individuals or entities from nations deemed adversarial from purchasing land or property in the state. The law, signed on June 20, will go into effect on September 1. It specifically targets nations identified by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) as posing national security risks in recent Annual Threat Assessments.
“I signed SB 17 which is the toughest ban in America on preventing the sale of our land and other property to individuals and companies from China, Iran, North Korea & Russia,” Gov. Abbott announced in a post on X (formerly Twitter).
The legislation highlights China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea as examples of adversarial nations listed in the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment. Under the law, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is authorized to investigate potential violations, which would be classified as felonies.
The bill applies to various types of property, including agricultural land, groundwater, mines or quarries, commercial and industrial properties, and residential properties. However, exemptions are made for U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and individuals legally residing in the U.S. who intend to purchase a primary residence.
Criticism has come primarily from immigrant interest groups—including Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), which has lobbied against federal programs like the China Initiative cracking down on individuals tied to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—who have expressed concern over potential racial profiling. The group stated that the bill “creates an overly broad net that places innocent foreign nationals at risk of racial profiling.”
Meanwhile, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (D) vetoed a similar bill earlier in June, arguing that the legislation lacked clear implementation criteria and opened the door to arbitrary enforcement. “Today, I vetoed Senate Bill 1109. Improvements to systems that protect our infrastructure are important. However, this legislation is ineffective at counter-espionage and does not directly protect our military assets,” Hobbs said.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles, alleging that its sanctuary policies interfere with federal immigration enforcement.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Department of Justice (DOJ), Attorney General Pam Bondi, President Donald J. Trump, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The lawsuit was filed on Monday, June 30, 2025, following recent pro-illegal immigrant riots in Los Angeles targeting ICE operations.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Sanctuary policies were the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi.
🎯IMPACT: The lawsuit seeks to block Los Angeles’s sanctuary policies, citing constitutional violations under the Supremacy Clause.
IN FULL
The Trump administration is suing the city of Los Angeles, alleging that its sanctuary policies obstruct federal immigration authorities from performing their duties. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated, “Sanctuary policies were the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles.”
The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that Los Angeles’s policies intentionally discriminate against federal authorities, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), by treating them differently from other law enforcement agencies. The lawsuit claims that these policies violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits state and local jurisdictions from interfering with federal law.
“The Los Angeles Ordinance and other policies intentionally discriminate against the Federal Government by treating federal immigration authorities differently than other law enforcement agents through access restrictions both to property and to individual detainees,” the lawsuit reads. It further accuses the city of prohibiting contractors from cooperating with federal authorities and disfavoring federal criminal laws.
Los Angeles recently experienced violent demonstrations and riots in response to ICE operations in the region. Mayor Karen Bass criticized the presence of federal law enforcement, stating, “Last Thursday, ICE entered our city and provoked the city by chasing people through Home Depots and car washes and showing up at schools and, today, showing up at emergency rooms and homeless shelters.” Bass further claimed that the deployment of the National Guard was used as a pretext to escalate federal involvement.
Notably, the illegal aliens detained by ICE ahead of the riots included mass shooters and pedophiles. The DOJ is seeking a judicial order to block the enforcement of Los Angeles’s sanctuary policies.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Nearly 300 current and former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees issued a declaration of dissent, claiming the Trump White House has politicized science and arguing federal workforce reductions have harmed the agency. Notably, EPA career employees have faced scrutiny over their role in aiding a Biden government plot to direct taxpayer dollars to external bank accounts to ensure funding of Democrat-aligned nonprofits.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: 278 EPA employees, including 174 who signed their full names, addressed their complaints to Administrator Lee Zeldin.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The declaration was sent on Monday, June 30, 2025, as the EPA faces another round of staff reductions and a major reorganization.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration’s focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise,” the group stated.
🎯IMPACT: The reorganization is aimed at sidelining far-left environmental justice programs not based in science but rather in progressive social policy.
IN FULL
Nearly 300 current and recently terminated employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are rebelling against President Donald J. Trump, issuing a letter of dissent that declares concerns over the agency’s direction and alleges risks to public health and safety. The declaration, sent to Administrator Lee Zeldin, outlined five key issues, including the dismantling of the research office and the abandonment of far-left progressive environmental justice initiatives.
The letter, signed by 278 employees—174 of whom used their full names—criticized the administration’s approach to deregulation, alleging that it is harmful and dismissive of supposed scientific expertise. “Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration’s focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise,” the group stated.
The agency’s reorganization includes consolidating several offices, dissolving the research division, and canceling billions of dollars in grants. Notably, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) uncovered a $14 billion scheme that saw taxpayer dollars funneled by the Biden-era EPA to an external account with Citibank, which disbursed the funds to three Democrat-aligned environmental nonprofits. The National Pulse previously reported that one of the nonprofit groups, which received $2 billion in grants, is affiliated with Georgia election denier Stacy Abrams.
While the EPA, in recent years, has become singularly focused on the promotion and subsidization of so-called “green energy,” which is heavily reliant on materials sourced from China, the Trump White House has rolled out an all-of-the-above energy policy aimed at deregulation, streamlined drilling and mining permitting, and allowing power providers to use market forces to source the cheapest energy available.
The declaration also raises claims regarding partisan rhetoric, alleged “misinformation” in EPA communications, and a culture of fear within the agency. Employees warned that such decisions would have long-term repercussions, stating, “Your decisions and actions will reverberate for generations to come. EPA under your leadership will not protect communities from hazardous chemicals and unsafe drinking water, but instead will increase risks to public health and safety.”
Despite couching the grievances in appeals to scientific authority, most environmental justice initiatives are ideologically driven social engineering and not actually based in scientific fact.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: An 82-year-old woman, Karen Diamond, has died following a Molotov cocktail attack by an illegal alien against a peaceful demonstration in Boulder, Colorado.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Karen Diamond, suspect Mohamed Soliman, and 28 other victims of the attack.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The attack took place on June 1, 2023, during a demonstration urging the release of Israeli hostages in front of the Boulder County Courthouse.
💬KEY QUOTE: “This horrific attack has now claimed the life of an innocent person who was beloved by her family and friends. Our hearts are with the Diamond family during this incredibly difficult time.” – Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty
🎯IMPACT: Mohamed Soliman now faces multiple charges, including two counts of first-degree murder, federal hate crimes, and over 100 state criminal charges.
IN FULL
Karen Diamond, 82, has died from the severe injuries she sustained during a Molotov cocktail attack at a peaceful demonstration in Boulder, Colorado. The Boulder County District Attorney’s Office announced her death on Monday, along with additional charges against the suspect, Egyptian illegal alien Mohamed Soliman.
Soliman now faces two counts of first-degree murder related to Diamond’s death, in addition to 12 federal hate crimes and over 100 state criminal charges. “This horrific attack has now claimed the life of an innocent person who was beloved by her family and friends. Our hearts are with the Diamond family during this incredibly difficult time,” Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty said in a statement. “Our office will fight for justice for the victims, their loved ones, and the community.”
The attack, described by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as an “act of terror,” occurred on June 1, 2023, in front of the Boulder County Courthouse, where Soliman allegedly disguised himself as a gardener and threw Molotov cocktails at a group called Run for Their Lives. The group had been peacefully walking weekly for nearly two years to raise awareness about hostages taken during the Hamas terror raid against Israel on October 7, 2023.
According to authorities, Soliman shouted “Free Palestine!” during the attack, which he admitted to planning for over a year. The victims, ranging in age from 25 to 88, included 13 people who were physically injured. Diamond’s death brings the number of fatalities to two. The Boulder Jewish Community described Diamond as “a cherished member of our community, someone whose warmth and generosity left a lasting impact on all who knew her.”
Soliman faces charges including 52 counts of attempted first-degree murder, eight counts of first-degree assault, and 18 counts of attempted first-degree murder, among others. He pleaded not guilty to federal hate crimes on Friday and is scheduled to appear in state court on July 15.
Following the incident, President Donald J. Trump said, “Acts of Terrorism will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law. This is yet another example of why we must keep our Borders SECURE, and deport Illegal, Anti-American Radicals from our Homeland.”
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 group of underage girls was sexually assaulted by four Syrian migrant men at the Barbarossabad swimming pool in Gelnhausen, Germany.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Four Syrian men, aged 18 to 28, were arrested, and at least nine girls, aged 11 to 17, came forward as victims. A fifth suspect is still at large.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The incidents occurred at the Barbarossabad swimming pool in Gelnhausen, Germany, during a hot summer day.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Of course, it’s always high temperatures, and sometimes tempers are frayed,” said Mayor Christian Litzinger, of the notionally right-wing Christian Democratic Union (CDU) formerly led by Angela Merkel.
🎯IMPACT: The suspects were arrested and banned from the pool. The incident highlights ongoing issues of violence and sexual assaults in German swimming pools linked to migrants.
IN FULL
In Gelnhausen, Germany, a group of underage girls was sexually assaulted at the Barbarossabad swimming pool by four Syrian nationals. The victims, aged between 11 and 17, reported being groped and molested in the lazy river area. Despite complaints to a lifeguard, no immediate action was taken, and the police were only called after multiple incidents were reported.
The suspects, aged 18 to 28, are reportedly from the same family in the Main-Kinzig district. They were arrested, charged, and banned from the pool. Mayor Christian Litzinger of the notionally center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), formerly led by Angela Merkel, downplayed the assaults with reference to hot weather, saying, “Of course, it’s always high temperatures, and sometimes tempers are frayed.”
Alice Weidel, co-leader of the anti-mass migration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, called for immediate deportations of the suspects. “Sexual harassment of girls cannot be tolerated. Immediate deportations of the perpetrators must be initiated,” she wrote on social media in response to the incident.
This incident is part of a broader trend in Germany and neighboring European countries, which have seen an influx of Syrians. Swimming pools have increasingly become hotspots for violence and sexual assaults, and have now been an ongoing issue for years. Employees and officials have cited the involvement of migrant groups in many of these cases, leading to increased security measures, including the deployment of police at some facilities.
Previous years have seen swimming pool incidents, including mass brawls and attacks on lifeguards. Some pools have even been shut down indefinitely due to safety concerns. Critics have accused the media and officials of downplaying these incidents, with some attributing the violence to external factors such as hot weather or cultural differences.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has said he is willing to deport gang members and illegal aliens incarcerated in his country’s Center for the Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT) super-prison to France, after a Paris Fashion Week show paid tribute to its inmates.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Bukele, designer Willy Chavarria, models at the Paris Fashion Week.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: June 2025, during Paris Fashion Week in France.
💬KEY QUOTE: “We’re ready to ship them all to Paris whenever we get the green light from the French government.” – Nayib Bukele
🎯IMPACT: The controversy highlights the growing focus on and disdain for Bukele, who has bucked the increasingly soft Western approach to criminal justice in favor of mass incarceration—and taken El Salvador from being one of the most dangerous countries in the western hemisphere to one of the safest in the process.
IN FULL
El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele issued a sharp response after a Paris Fashion Week show appeared to criticize his administration’s treatment of inmates at the Center for the Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT) super-prison, which recently began accepting illegal aliens from the U.S. Bukele accused the show of “glorifying criminals” and said he was ready to send CECOT inmates to France.
The controversy began when designer Willy Chavarria showcased a collection featuring models wearing white T-shirts and shorts resembling prison uniforms. The models reenacted scenes reminiscent of images from CECOT, where inmates are often shown kneeling with their heads bowed. Chavarria’s show, in collaboration with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), also featured political messaging, including invitations styled like immigration summons.
Bukele responded on X, saying, “We’re ready to ship them all to Paris whenever we get the green light from the French government.” In a follow-up post, he shared a video of an American woman crying after being constantly harassed in Paris, captioning it, “This is the result of glorifying criminals in Paris. He who spares the wolf sacrifices the sheep.”
CECOT houses thousands of gang members, including those from MS-13 and the 18th Street Gang. Bukele often promotes the facility as part of his successful crackdown on the gang violence that has plagued El Salvador for years, while liberals who favor a soft-on-crime “restorative justice” approach have long railed against it. This antipathy increased in the West after Bukele offered to host illegal aliens in the U.S. and potentially even U.S. criminals at the facility.
We’re are ready to ship them all to Paris whenever we get the green light from the French government. https://t.co/nN54hHgEd9
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Representative Don Bacon (R-NE), an outspoken proponent of U.S. military assistance for Ukraine, announced he will not seek re-election in 2026.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Rep. Don Bacon, President Donald J. Trump, and other congressional Republicans.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Announcement made Monday; Bacon represents Nebraska’s second congressional district.
💬KEY QUOTE: “After 30 years in the Air Force and 10 years in Congress, it’s time to spend my future with the love of my life, our four kids, and our wonderful grandchildren. Thank you, Nebraska!” – Don Bacon
🎯IMPACT: Bacon’s retirement opens up a key battleground district for Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterms. The Nebraska Republican’s exit from Congress also marks a significant blow for the coalition of Democrats and Republicans who continually insist on propping up Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in his ongoing conflict with Russia.
IN FULL
Representative Don Bacon (R-NE), a key House Republican ally of Ukraine who has continually pushed for increased American military assistance for the Eastern European country, announced Monday that he will not seek re-election in 2026. Bacon, who has represented Nebraska‘s second congressional district since 2017, stated his intention to focus on his family. “After 30 years in the Air Force and 10 years in Congress, it’s time to spend my future with the love of my life, our four kids, and our wonderful grandchildren. Thank you, Nebraska!” Bacon said.
The Nebraska Republican has been one of just a handful of GOP lawmakers who have often worked to undermine President Donald J. Trump‘s America First agenda in Congress. While Bacon ultimately voted for President Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill‘ last month, he has often expressed concerns about specific provisions. Currently, Bacon is among a group of House Republicans who could potentially derail the legislation’s final passage in the lower chamber later this week.
A so-called ‘moderate’ Republican, Bacon has on occasion served as a foil to Trump’s agenda in the House. Most recently, he indicated opposition to a White House rescission proposal if it included cuts to an AIDS program. Additionally, Bacon was the only Republican to vote against a House bill that would make Trump’s name change for the Gulf of America permanent.
Bacon has criticized Trump’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, both taking umbrage with Trump’s pursuit of an end to the conflict and mounting Republican opposition to further supplying military aid.
In a March post on X (formerly Twitter), Bacon declared, “real Republicans know that Putin’s Russia hates the West and freedom. We also know that Ukraine wants democracy, free markets and rule of law. We stand with right vs evil. Reagan, Churchill, Eisenhower… that is our legacy. I won’t walk away from it.” Notably, Bacon announced his retirement just over three months after the post.
Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, which former Vice President Kamala Harris won by nearly five percentage points in 2024, remains a key target for Democrats in the upcoming 2026 midterms. The state is one of two that splits its Electoral College votes by congressional district. Bacon narrowly won re-election in 2024 by less than two percentage points.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Supreme Court has agreed to review federal limits on coordinated spending by political parties in support of their candidates, questioning whether these restrictions violate the First Amendment.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Republican Party political committees, Vice President J.D. Vance, former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and the Justice Department (DOJ).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The Supreme Court will hear the case during its next term, with a decision expected before the 2026 midterm elections.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Congress has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them.” – GOP appeal filing
🎯IMPACT: The case could reshape campaign finance rules and affect the role of political parties in U.S. elections.
IN FULL
The Supreme Court announced it will review federal limits on coordinated spending by political parties in support of their candidates, raising questions about whether such restrictions violate the First Amendment. The case will be heard in the court’s next term, with a decision anticipated just months before the 2026 midterm elections.
The case was brought by Republican political committees, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), along with Vice President J.D. Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH). The Department of Justice (DOJ) has joined the GOP in arguing that the limits are unconstitutional. Democratic Party committees have been allowed to intervene to defend the law, as the government has declined to do so in this instance.
Notably, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Republican challenge, the legal changes would likely empower campaign committees directly under the control of political parties and actually reduce the influence of SuperPACs and dark money groups like the far-left Sixteen Thirty Fund. Since the high court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, outside political spending in elections has been taken over by well-financed consulting operations like the politically progressive Arabella Advisors, which controls a network of nonprofits—like the Sixteen Thirty Fund and New Venture Fund—and political PACs.
The limits in question stem from a 50-year-old provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act. For the 2024 election cycle, coordinated spending limits range from $123,600 to $3.7 million for Senate candidates and $61,800 to $123,600 for House candidates. A U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit decision upheld these limits, citing a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that supported an earlier version of the restrictions.
In their appeal, Republicans argued that the spending limits violate the First Amendment by restricting political parties’ ability to coordinate with candidates. They asked the Supreme Court to either clarify or overturn its 2001 decision, describing it as “plainly wrong the day it was decided.”
“Congress has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them,” the GOP filing contends, adding: “The result is a more polarized process in which political parties—an institutional force almost as old as ‘the formation of the Republic itself’—have been supplanted by less-restricted speakers.”
The DOJ, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, stated that the expenditure limits burden the rights of political parties and candidates, calling the restrictions a significant impediment to political speech. Democratic Party committees stepped in to defend the law after the government sided with the Republicans. Noel Francisco and Don McGahn are representing the Republican campaign committees.
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: Canada has paused its digital services tax following President Donald J. Trump’s decision to end trade negotiations over the levy.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, President Donald J. Trump, and former U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The announcement was made on Sunday evening following a G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Rescinding the digital services tax will allow the negotiations of a new economic and security relationship with the United States to make vital progress,” said François-Philippe Champagne.
🎯IMPACT: The decision aims to facilitate trade negotiations and address concerns over the tax’s compliance with international agreements.
IN FULL
Canada has decided to pause the implementation of its digital services tax, which imposes a three percent levy on revenue generated in the country by large tech companies, including America’s Google, Meta, and Amazon. The tax, enacted last year, was set to take effect at the end of this month.
The decision follows President Donald J. Trump’s announcement on Friday that the United States would end trade negotiations with Canada over the levy. Trump described the tax as “a direct and blatant attack on our country” and threatened new tariffs in response.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated, “Today’s announcement will support a resumption of negotiations toward the July 21, 2025, timeline set out at this month’s G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis.”
The former Biden regime also opposed the tax, with former U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai calling it “discriminatory” and suggesting it may violate the USMCA trade agreement. Carney’s government has now announced plans to introduce legislation to rescind the tax, noting their preference for a multilateral agreement to address tax issues with tech firms.
François-Philippe Champagne, Canada’s minister of finance and national revenue, emphasized that removing the tax would allow progress in negotiations with the United States, create jobs, and boost Canadian prosperity. “Rescinding the digital services tax will allow the negotiations of a new economic and security relationship with the United States to make vital progress,” he said.
The move would be just the latest undoing of some of the taxes former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau created. Carney, shortly after becoming Prime Minister earlier this year, scrapped Trudeau’s unpopular carbon tax, something conservatives had demanded for years.
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.
