Virginia Democrats are pushing legislation extending “state-funded comprehensive health care coverage” to illegal aliens under 19 years of age who are not already covered by a health plan or insurance.
The so-called ‘Cover All Kids’ bill, complains Republican State Senator Glen Sturtevant, will “undermine legal immigration and incentivize illegal immigration,” coming alongside similar proposals to “grant illegal immigrants driver’s licenses.” He estimated the cost to Virginia taxpayers from the healthcare bill at over $100 million.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
“These bad policies jeopardize not just Virginia’s healthcare system but create perverse incentives that illegal immigrants will see as a green light to travel to Virginia for free schooling, driver’s licenses, and now, free healthcare,” Sturtevant warned, comparing the Democrat agenda to the “sanctuary” policies which have seen cities like New York and Chicago become magnets for illegal aliens, incurring huge costs.
Similar “perverse incentives” have been seen in Massachusetts, where state ‘right to shelter’ laws have seen migrants crowd into hotels across the country at taxpayers’ expense. Whistleblowers say the scheme is running up enormous costs, with the migrants given “free diapers, wipes, toiletries, free tablets and phones, free English lessons, state caseworkers making sure all entitlements are taken, free Uber and Lyft rides, [and] free bus passes,” among a host of other benefits.
They are also said to be eating up first responder resources, with police and firefighters attending migrant hotels to deal with “fights, guns, drugs, [and] overdoses” on a daily basis.
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: Former President Donald Trump spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping amid ongoing trade negotiations.
👥 Who’s Involved: Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, and their respective administrations.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: The conversation reportedly took place Thursday morning, per Chinese state media.
💬 Key Quote: “I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!” – Donald Trump on Truth Social.
⚠️ Impact: The call may indicate some limited progress in U.S.-China trade talks.
IN FULL:
According to Chinese state media, President Donald J. Trump spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday morning. The conversation comes as Trump continues to promote his tariff-driven approach to trade, which is pressuring foreign nations to engage in negotiations.
On Wednesday, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to comment on his Chinese counterpart, writing, “I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!”
The call comes amid continued tensions between the United States and China over trade. President Trump and his administration have accused China of unfair trade practices and initially subjected the country to punishing tariffs. Last month, however, President Trump agreed to ease tariffs on China in a temporary truce.
However, just weeks later, President Trump accused China of violating the deal, despite the fact that many Chinese factories were on he verge of collapse before he offered the deal to assist Beijing. “So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!” Trump stated.
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: A transgender pedophile has managed to avoid prison twice despite violating the initial terms of his release because he is transgender.
👥 Who’s Involved: Convicted pedophile Peter Selby, Judge Robert Adams.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Selby was initially convicted for child abuse material in 2022, was arrested for violating the terms of his release in 2023, and was let go yet again on June 3.
💬 Key Quote: Selby would “undoubtedly be at risk of physical or sexual assault in custody because of [his] presentation in a male prison,” claimed Judge Adams.
⚠️ Impact: The case is just the latest to see a transgender pedophile avoid prison in England, while people who posted “hate” on social media remain behind bars.
IN FULL:
A convicted pedophile has managed to escape imprisonment twice despite possessing over 125,000 child sex abuse images and videos and breaching a sexual harm prevention order, because of his transgender identity. A Britishjudge initially convicted 71-year-old Peter Selby in 2022, sentencing him to just 14 months in prison, despite the maximum sentence being up to 10 years, suspended for two years.
According to the judge in the case, Selby risked harm behind bars and would be safer living in his local community with some restrictions placed on his behaviour. Selby was placed on the sex offenders register, according to the news website Reduxx, and was restricted from downloading VPN software, which could hide his Internet usage. These restrictions were to last at least 10 years.
However, just months later, in 2023, Selby was visited by local police, who found that he had already violated the restrictions placed on him as a condition for his release by downloading VPN software. During an appearance at Newcastle Crown Court on June 3, Selby claimed to have been unaware of downloading the software.
While the police found no additional child sex abuse material (CSAM), the downloading of the VPN was a clear breach of the terms of his release. Judge Robert Adams acknowledged that Selby had violated the agreement, saying it was in place to make it more difficult for Selby to re-offend.
Judge Adams did not activate Selby’s suspended sentence and put him in prison, however, saying that Selby would “undoubtedly be at risk of physical or sexual assault in custody because of [his] presentation in a male prison.” Instead, Selby was given another 10-month suspended sentence and a paltry fine equivalent to $135.
Transgender pedophiles have avoided jail in the United Kingdom before, including a case in 2023 in which a man who dresses as a woman was caught with dozens of CSAM images. Due to his transgender identity, the court could not decide to put him in a men’s or women’s prison and eventually let him go with an order to attend 30 days of rehabilitation, pay victim surcharges, and be added to the sex offender register.
The two cases are a stark contrast to that of Lucy Connolly, a woman sentenced to over two years in prison for a social media post during the Southport anti-mass migration riots last year, merely for saying she would not care if migrant hotels were set on fire.
❓What Happened: Nathan Simington, a Federal Communications Commissioner, is leaving his position, as revealed in an internal memo. The vacancy could clear the way for Siminton’s chief of staff, Gavin Wax, to be nominated to fill the seat. Wax has been a long-standing contributor to The National Pulse, advocating on behalf of President Donald J. Trump’s America First agenda.
👥 Who’s Involved: Nathan Simington, Gavin Wax, President Donald J. Trump, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Simington’s resignation is effective Friday, June 6; Wax’s potential nomination could occur soon after.
💬 Key Quote: “Gavin Wax is being seriously considered by the White House to fill the vacancy that Commissioner Simington’s departure will leave,” a source close to the FCC stated, adding: “He’s seen as a strong conservative voice on tech and media policy, with close ties to key figures in both the policy and political arenas.”
⚠️ Impact: If nominated and confirmed, Wax would become the youngest FCC commissioner and the youngest presidential nominee confirmed by the Senate in U.S. history, filling the GOP seat on the five-member commission.
IN FULL:
Nathan Simington’s announcement that he will be resigning as a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at the end of this week leaves a vacancy that could soon be filled by Gavin Wax, who currently serves as Simington’s chief of staff. The 31-year-old Wax, a New York native, has been a long-time contributor to The National Pulse and a staunch ally of President Donald J. Trump.
“Gavin Wax is being seriously considered by the White House to fill the vacancy that Commissioner Simington’s departure will leave,” a source with knowledge of the plans to replace Simington at the FCC said on Thursday, adding: “He’s seen as a strong conservative voice on tech and media policy, with close ties to key figures in both the policy and political arenas.”
If nominated and confirmed by the Senate, Wax would become both the youngest commissioner in FCC history and the youngest Senate-confirmed nominee in U.S. history. As Siminton’s chief of staff, the 31-year-old New Yorker has already worked to lay out a bold agenda at the commission. Last month, writing in The National Pulse, Wax and Simington laid out a bold plan to bring the fight to the corporate media, pushing to cap the reverse retransmission fees that major networks like CBS, NBC, and ABC use to funnel money out of local media markets to fund their woke agenda.
Before joining Simington’s staff at the FCC, Wax served as President of the New York Young Republican Club, an organization that has hosted a number of America First figures at its annual holiday galas. The 2023 gala, of which The National Pulse was a sponsor, was the largest in decades, with President Donald J. Trump headlining what was dubbed a “black tie rally” for the 2024 Republican presidential nominee.
Wax will not be the first friend of The National Pulse to join the Trump administration, however. Last month, Kingsley Wilson, née Cortes, was announced as the Department of Defense’s new Press Secretary. Wilson had previously served as a writing fellow at The National Pulse.
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: Far-left U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, a new but frequent foe of President Donald J. Trump, has ruled that illegal immigrants—alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua—who were deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison must be granted habeas relief by the U.S. government to challenge their removals.
👥 Who’s Involved: Judge James Boasberg, illegal immigrant members of Tren de Aragua, President Donald J. Trump, the U.S government, the government of El Salvador, and El Salvador’s CECOT prison.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: The ruling was made late Wednesday, June 5, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “Fortunately for the American people, Judge Boasberg does not have the last word,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson in a statement on Thursday responding to the ruling.
⚠️ Impact: Boasberg’s ruling could lay the groundwork for activist judges to extend deportation appeals rights to other individuals who have already been removed from the United States. According to the ruling, the Trump White House has one week to formulate a plan for allowing several hundred illegal immigrants held at CECOT to seek habeas relief.
IN FULL:
In a ruling late Wednesday evening, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg once again intervened in President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to remove criminal illegal immigrants from the United States. The far-left judge found in favor of a group believed to be several hundred illegal immigrant members of the violent Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, who were deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison in March and are now demanding habeas relief to challenge their removal.
The ruling applies only to illegal immigrants deported to El Salvador and held at the country’s CECOT facility who were removed under President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act targeting Tren de Aragua members. “Defendants plainly deprived these individuals of their right to seek habeas relief before their summary removal from the United States—a right that need not itself be vindicated through a habeas petition,” Judge Boasberg wrote. He continued: “Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members. But—and this is the critical point—there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government’s say-so.”
In May, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower courtruling that blocks the Trump administration from deporting illegal immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act pending further proceedings by an appeals court. Boasberg explicitly cites the Supreme Court order in his ruling, noting that the high court agreed “that those subject to removal under the Act must be allowed to challenge their removability in federal court before being deported.”
The Trump administration will have one week to formulate a way for several hundred illegal immigrants in CECOT, and under the jurisdiction of the Salvadoran government, to seek habeas relief appealing their deportation per the ruling. Notably, Kilmar Abrego Garcia—an illegal immigrant and member of MS-13—who has drawn significant attention from Democrats and the media for his deportation to CECOT—is unaffected by the ruling.
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 U.S. Supreme Court unanimously blocked Mexico’s lawsuit against American gun manufacturers, citing federal protections under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
👥 Who’s Involved: The Mexican government, major U.S. gunmakers including Smith & Wesson, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: The ruling was issued in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, June 5, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: Justice Elena Kagan wrote that Mexico’s complaint “does not plausibly allege” that gunmakers aided unlawful sales to traffickers.
⚠️ Impact: The decision reinforces legal protections for U.S. firearms manufacturers, shielding them from liability for crimes committed using their products.
IN FULL:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled against a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government seeking to hold American gun manufacturers accountable for firearm trafficking and cartel violence. The decision marks a significant victory for the U.S. firearms industry, affirming the protections offered under the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
In the case Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico alleged that U.S. gunmakers knowingly facilitated the illegal sale of firearms to straw purchasers, who then trafficked the weapons into Mexico for use by drug cartels. The Mexican government sought $10 billion in damages, arguing that the gunmakers’ actions fell under the “predicate exception” to PLCAA, which allows lawsuits if manufacturers knowingly break the law.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, stated that Mexico’s complaint “does not plausibly allege” that the gunmakers aided or abetted illegal firearm sales, thereby barring the case under PLCAA. The law, passed with bipartisan support in 2005, broadly shields gun manufacturers from liability for crimes committed with their products.
The lawsuit, filed in 2021, targeted seven major gunmakers and one wholesaler. While a federal district court in Massachusetts dismissed the case in 2022, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived it in early 2024, ruling that the allegations of aiding illegal sales warranted further consideration. The Supreme Court’s decision halts Mexico’s legal efforts.
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), between 200,000 and 500,000 U.S.-made firearms are trafficked into Mexico annually, a phenomenon often referred to as the “iron river.” Nearly half of the guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes are American-made.
❓What Happened:WarRoom host and former White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon is calling on federal officials to launch an investigation into Elon Musk’s immigration status and whether he concealed material facts or made false statements on his naturalization application. If it is found that Musk did obtain his citizenship through illegal means, Bannon says the billionaire tech mogul should be deported from the United States.
👥 Who’s Involved: Stephen K. Bannon, Elon Musk, Kimbal Musk, and President Donald J. Trump.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Bannon’s comments were made on Thursday, June 5, after Musk ramped up social media attacks on President Trump and his legislative agenda.
💬 Key Quote: “They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,” Bannon said.
⚠️ Impact: As a naturalized citizen of the United States, Musk can have his citizenship stripped through denaturalization if it is found that he obtained the status through illegal means.
IN FULL:
WarRoom host and former White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon says federal officials should launch a formal investigation into billionaire technology mogul Elon Musk‘s immigration status. If it is found that Musk had resided in the U.S. illegally before attaining citizenship in 2002, Bannon believes that the South Africa-born billionaire should be deported.
“They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,” Bannon said in an interview with the New York Times on Thursday. The former White House Chief Strategist went on to argue that Musk’s alleged drug use and business relations with China should also be the targets of a federal investigation, which could result in his security clearance being revoked along with his ability to bid for government contracts.
The comments about potential investigations come as Musk swiftly turned against President Donald J. Trump over the latter’s budget reconciliation bill, which eliminates an electric vehicle mandate and tax credits that made Musk’s Tesla automobiles more financially attractive to consumers. On Thursday, Musk took to his social platform X (formerly Twitter) to attack Trump and Republican lawmakers, baselessly suggesting the Epstein files have not been released in full because they include America First Leader.
While Musk is a United States citizen, having been naturalized over two decades ago, the billionaire could be denaturalized by the federal government if it is found that he attained the status through illegal means, such as concealing material facts or making false statements on his application.
Notably, Musk’s younger brother, Kimbal, is on film at the 2013 Milken Institute Global Conference saying of investors in a startup he founded with his brother Elon, “When they did fund us, they realized that we were illegal immigrants.” Musk quickly corrects Kimbal: “I’d say it was a gray area.”
It remains unclear what visa, if any, Musk held when he and his brother founded their startup, nor is it known what legal pathway he used to attain U.S. citizenship.
WATCH:
Washington Post, trying to woo back viewers after refusing to endorse VP Harris, reported that Elon Musk, enemy of “open borders,” launched his career working here illegally.
What Happened: President Donald J. Trump suggested terminating billions in government contracts and subsidies to Elon Musk’s companies as a way to save budget funds, following Musk’s criticism of Trump’s “one big beautiful bill.” Musk responded by saying the President is “in the Epstein files”—but this is already a matter of public record, as previously reported by The National Pulse.
Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, Elon Musk, SpaceX, and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
Where & When: Trump announced his stance on Truth Social on June 5, 2025, Musk responded on X (formerly Twitter) the same day.
Key Quote: “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” Trump wrote.
Impact: Musk’s Tesla firm is already substantially down in the stock market, and his SpaceX company would be badly damaged if it lost its government contracts.
IN FULL:
President Donald J. Trump suggested the most straightforward way to save billions of dollars from the government’s budget is to terminate the billions of dollars in contracts and subsidies awarded to former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) frontman Elon Musk’s companies. Musk lashed out by saying he is “in the Epstein files” in response.
“Time to drop the really big bomb: [Donald Trump] is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public,” Musk wrote on his X (formerly Twitter) platform, adding, “Have a nice day, DJT!”
He later doubled down, telling his followers, “Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.” However, it is already a matter of public record that President Trump is referenced in the Epstein files that the administration has already released. The National Pulse reported in February that the released files, comprised of Epstein’s flight and phone call logs, include Trump’s name, which Epstein listed in his phone book.
It seems unlikely that Musk has knowledge of anything more nefarious than this, declaring, “I love [Donald Trump] as much as a straight man can love another man” in February, and regularly bringing his children to spend time with the President at the White House and his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Subsequent to his Epstein insinuations, Musk agreed with a social media user that Trump should be impeached and replaced with Vice President J.D. Vance.
Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.
Musk stepped down as the face of DOGE at the end of May, having achieved a reported—but questionable—$175 billion in savings out of an initially promised $2 trillion. Shortly afterwards, he began attacking the pending “one big beautiful bill” championed by President Trump, on the grounds that it will increase the deficit.
Writing on his Truth Social platform, President Trump said he had asked Musk to leave government because he was “wearing thin,” and that the true source of the electric carmaker’s anger with the bill is that it “took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted.”
He added that the “easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” adding: “I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”
Musk’s SpaceX company, in particular, relies heavily on contracts with NASA, the Department of Defense, and other government agencies.
Trump’s team says the bill fulfills key campaign promises, including increased funding for border security and defense and new cuts to taxes on tips, overtime, and social security. The administration argues it will not increase but actually reduce the deficit by around $6.6 trillion over the next decade via spending cuts coupled with Trump’s tariffs and deregulation agenda.
Notably, much of the spending Musk is concerned with cannot be addressed in the “one big beautiful bill” because it is a reconciliation bill, and reconciliation bills deal only with nondiscretionary spending, excepting Social Security, rather than the discretionary spending which has been DOGE’s focus.
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: Tesla saw its shares fall eight percent on Thursday after Elon Musk authored a series of erratic posts on X critical of President Donald J. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” working its way through Congress, while claiming credit for Republican victories in the 2024 election.
👥 Who’s Involved: Elon Musk, President Trump, and Tesla.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Musk made the posts on Thursday, June 5, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote on X, adding: “Such ingratitude.”
⚠️ Impact: A political falling out between Trump and Musk could pose significant problems for the Tesla chief’s business interests, with his prior support for the America First leader having already alienated many liberals.
IN FULL:
Tesla shares plunged eight percent Thursday afternoon as the electric vehicle company’s CEO, Elon Musk, authored a series of erratic posts on his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), attacking President Donald J. Trump and taking credit for his 2024 election victory. “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote, adding: “Such ingratitude.”
In another bizarre post, Musk appears to assert that he should have reviewed the reconciliation bill before it was voted on. Responding to Trump’s assertion that the former DOGE leader was keyed in on the critical details of the bill, Musk wrote: “False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!”
After leaving his role as an advisor in the Trump White House and frontman for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) at the end of May, Musk almost immediately began attacking the budget reconciliation bill enacting much of Trump’s agenda that is currently moving through Congress. The attacks drew a response from President Trump on Thursday, with the America First leader telling press in the Oval Office, “I’m very disappointed in Elon; I’ve helped Elon a lot.” Trump noted Musk has not “said [anything] bad about me, personally,” but predicted, accurately, that he was “sure that’ll be next.”
Musk has repeatedly claimed the bill will drastically increase deficits, plunging the federal government further into debt. However, the Trump White House argues that it actually achieves substantial spending cuts, which, when combined with Trump’s tariffs and deregulation agenda, will reduce the deficit by $6.6 trillion over the next decade.
In one of his posts, Musk, 53, threatened Republicans, “Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years…”
❓What Happened: Federal judges have blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to deport foreign students accused of supporting Hamas.
👥 Who’s Involved: Four foreign students, including Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Badar Khan Suri, and Mohsen Mahdawi; Trump administration officials; federal judges; ACLU representatives.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Detentions occurred across the U.S. in 2023; recent court rulings have halted deportations and detentions.
💬 Key Quote: “These rulings delay justice and seek to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers,” said Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.
⚠️ Impact: Courts have ruled against the administration’s use of a 1952 law to justify deportations, citing constitutional concerns and an alleged lack of evidence.
IN FULL:
Efforts by the Trump administration to deport foreign students accused of supporting Hamas or engaging in anti-Semitic behavior have been halted by federal judges, citing constitutional issues and supposedly insufficient evidence. Four students—Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Badar Khan Suri, and Mohsen Mahdawi—were arrested by federal agents under claims that their actions posed foreign policy risks.
The students, who deny any links to Hamas or anti-Semitism despite taking part in anti-Semitic protests, were detained under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. This law allows deportation of noncitizens whose presence could adversely affect U.S. foreign policy. However, federal judges have rejected the administration’s arguments, freeing Öztürk, Mahdawi, and Suri, while Khalil’s case remains pending.
In one notable ruling, Judge Michael Farbiarz stated that deporting Khalil based on his beliefs and speech would be “unprecedented” and unconstitutional.
Assistant Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Tricia McLaughlin defended the administration’s actions, claiming the rulings “delay justice” and undermine presidential authority. Meanwhile, Esha Bhandari of the ACLU described the courts’ decisions as a necessary check on executive overreach.
The legal battles have highlighted tensions between executive power, immigration law, and free speech. Judges like federal Judge Fernando Rodriguez have previously rejected the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrant gang members. This comes despite gangs like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua being designated a foreign terrorist organization by the administration.
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: Zia Yusuf resigned as chairman of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, after callings its newest Member of Parliament (MP) “dumb” for advocating a burka ban.
👥 Who’s Involved: Zia Yusuf, Reform Party, Nigel Farage, and Sarah Pochin.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Announced via X (formerly Twitter) on June 5, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time,” Yusuf said.
⚠️ Impact: Yusuf’s exit paves the way for significant changes to Farage’s top team.
IN FULL:
Zia Yusuf has announced his resignation as chairman of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, hours after publicly criticizing the party’s newest Member of Parliament (MP) for pushing for a burka ban.
“[Eleven] months ago I became Chairman of Reform. I’ve worked full time as a volunteer to take the party from 14 to 30 percent, quadrupled its membership and delivered historic electoral results,” Yusuf said in a post on X (formerly Twitter). “I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office,” he added.
Yusuf, a Muslim businessman, had criticized Sarah Pochin MP, after she had grilled Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on introducing a ban on the Islamic burka in the House of Commons.
Yusuf said on Wednesday that banning the burka was not party policy and Pochin was stupid for asking Starmer the question, writing that it was “dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn’t do.”
The National Pulse Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam, a former advisor to Nigel Farage, suggested in March that the Reform leader should consider replacing Yusuf, who was previously at the center of a spat with now-former Reform MP Rupert Lowe.
“Farage isn’t a dictator. He’s one of the most reasonable people in politics. He’s moved aside when it made sense, and he’s returned when asked,” Kassam said of Farage’s leadership style in comments to the British press.
“He’s also a meritocrat. If someone comes along who can run the party better than its current chairman, or if a deputy could help augment the work, he’d be all over it,” he continued, adding: “The problem is everyone has his number and any time anyone has a problem in the party they immediately call Nigel, and drag him into their fights. If he doesn’t side with them, or tries to stay neutral, they lash out. I’ve seen it a thousand times.”
“If anything, he needs a militant chief of staff to police his time and keep him above the fray. This is the next Prime Minister we’re talking about now… They need to get his team right and support him wholeheartedly. No one has put more into this movement than him,” Kassam concluded.
Farage has offered a magnanimous response to Yusuf’s departure, writing that he is “genuinely sorry that Zia Yusuf has decided to stand down as Reform UK Chairman” as he was “a huge factor” in the party’s recent triumph in England’s local elections.
“Politics can be a highly pressured and difficult game and Zia has clearly had enough. He is a loss to us and public life,” he added.
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.
