Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) has proposed an amendment to the Ukraine aid bill that stipulates funds repaid by Ukraine under the agreement be utilized to construct the wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. The amendment comes as the House prepares to vote on three separate financial aid packages on Saturday, namely $26.4 billion in funding for Israel, $8.1 billion for Taiwan, and an additional $61 billion in aid for Ukraine.
“Funds repaid by Ukraine pursuant to an agreement under this section shall be made available to the Secretary of Homeland Security, without limitation as to fiscal year, for the construction of a physical barrier along the southern border of the United States,” the amendment reads.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
“If Ukraine pays back any part of the money we are gifting them in this bill, that money should be spent on our nation’s largest domestic problem: the construction of a border wall with Mexico,” Gaetz said in an interview. “Time and again, Republicans have shown that they have no appetite to vote for what the American people demand, but if we have random billions laying around for a war halfway across the world, we should be able to get some table scraps for our own country,” he added.
House Speaker Mike Johnson announced his decision to permit members a span of 72 hours to review the respective legislation in anticipation of Saturday’s vote. The individual aid bills mark a u-turn for Johnson, who had earlier supported Ukraine aid only on the condition that it was linked with a border security package. While acknowledging the U.S.’ global commitments, he underlined the necessity of domestic security saying, “we have to take care of our own house first.”
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: The United States Senate has passed the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ after embarking on the longest amendment vote-a-rama in American history. Vice President J.D. Vance, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate, cast the tiebreaking vote, following two previous tiebreaking votes on amendments to the bill.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, Donald J. Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and the House of Representatives.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The Senate version of the reconciliation bill was adopted on Tuesday, July 1, 2025.
🎯IMPACT: The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ now heads back to the House for final approval, though the version passed by the Senate could face headwinds among House Republicans.
IN FULL
The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ passed the United States Senate on Tuesday, July 1, after an over 24-hour period of amendments being offered on the legislation, called a ‘vote-a-rama’—the longest to occur in American history. Senate Republicans were able to adopt the budget reconciliation bill, which implements most of President Donald J. Trump’s domestic policy agenda, after Vice President J.D. Vance, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate, cast three tiebreaking votes, on the bill as a whole and two amendments to it. Notably, the budget reconciliation process circumvents the Senate filibuster, meaning only 51 votes were needed.
Three Senate Republicans—Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Susan Collins (R-ME)—voted against the bill. The three joined all 47 Senate Democrats in opposition.
Now that the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ has passed the Senate, it will head back to the House of Representatives, where lawmakers will need to consider the changes made to the legislation by the upper chamber. Already, some House conservatives are voicing concerns over changes made by the Senate, although House Republican leadership has expressed confidence that they will be able to secure a vote on final passage and have the bill on President Donald J. Trump’s desk for the July 4 holiday.
It is expected that the House Rules Committee will move to take up the budget reconciliation bill immediately, with House leaders indicating a final vote could be held as soon as Wednesday. However, with the vote for adoption having taken longer than anticipated in the Senate, this could push the House vote back to Thursday.
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: Synthetic dyes will be removed from all Hershey’s snacks by the end of 2027, amid a push by the Trump administration and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to ‘Make America Healthy Again.’
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Hershey Co., Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX), state lawmakers in Texas and West Virginia.
📍WHEN & WHERE: United States, changes take effect between 2027 and 2028.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Removing these colors is a natural next step in our program to ensure consumers have options to fit their lifestyle while maintaining trust and confidence in our products.” – Hershey spokesman
🎯IMPACT: The removal of synthetic dyes by major food companies reflects growing pressure from the Trump administration, state governments, and consumers.
IN FULL
Hershey Co. will remove synthetic dyes from its snack products by the end of 2027, citing growing legislative pressure at the state level. The company said it aims to preempt regulations and ensure customer trust by voluntarily shifting away from artificial colorants in its chocolate, candy, and popcorn brands.
“There is a patchwork of state regulations emerging that is creating confusion and will ultimately increase consumer costs,” a Hershey spokesman said. “Removing these colors is a natural next step in our program to ensure consumers have options to fit their lifestyle while maintaining trust and confidence in our products.”
Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has prioritized the removal of “poisonous” artificial dyes from U.S. foods, with an initial focus on encouraging voluntary removal and supporting state-level action. This includes a West Virginialaw that will ban the sale of dyed foods starting in 2028 and a Texas law signed by Governor Greg Abbott (R) requiring warning labels on synthetic dye products beginning in 2027.
Hershey joins other major food corporations, such as Nestlé SA, Conagra Brands Inc., Kraft Heinz Co., and General Mills Inc., which have committed to removing dyes from their American product lines.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a directive urging U.S. Attorneys to prioritize the denaturalization of foreign-born criminals to address crime and national security threats.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, and U.S. Attorneys.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The memo was issued in June 2025 and applies nationwide.
💬KEY QUOTE: “The Department of Justice may institute civil proceedings to revoke a person’s United States citizenship if an individual either ‘illegally procured’ naturalization or procured naturalization by ‘concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.’” – Brett Shumate
🎯IMPACT: The directive aims to deport migrants who pose a threat to national security, combat financial fraud, and target those involved in crimes such as human trafficking and gang activity, even if they have acquired U.S. citizenship.
IN FULL
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued a memo directing U.S. Attorneys to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings” as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to combat crime and protect national security. The memo, signed by Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, outlines categories of individuals who should be targeted for denaturalization, including those tied to terrorism, espionage, or the unlawful export of sensitive goods and technology.
Shumate emphasized the importance of these proceedings in a written statement, noting, “The benefits of civil denaturalization include the government’s ability to revoke the citizenship of individuals who engaged in the commission of war crimes, extrajudicial killings, or other serious human rights abuses; to remove naturalized criminals, gang members, or, indeed, any individuals convicted of crimes who pose an ongoing threat to the United States; and to prevent convicted terrorists from returning to U.S. soil or traveling internationally on a U.S. passport.”
The memo also directs U.S. Attorneys to pursue cases against migrants who committed financial fraud against the United States, including Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan fraud and Medicare/Medicaid fraud, as well as those involved in violent crimes, human trafficking, and sex offenses. It further calls for action against migrants with criminal gangs, transnational criminal organizations, and drug cartels.
Two days after the memo was issued, the Justice Department announced it had successfully secured the denaturalization of a convicted distributor of child sexual abuse material.
Shumate has instructed the Civil Division of the Justice Department to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.”
❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Donald J. Trump criticized far-left New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani (D) for refusing to condemn the term “globalize the intifada.”
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED:Donald Trump, Zohran Mamdani, New York City residents.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Frankly, I’ve heard he’s a total nut job. I think the people in New York are crazy because they go this route.” – Donald Trump
🎯IMPACT: Trump’s remarks highlight concerns about Mamdani’s political ideology and its implications for New York City.
IN FULL
President Donald J. Trump blasted New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani (D) after the Queens assemblyman refused to condemn the term “globalize the intifada.” The phrase is often used to support violent Palestinian action against Israelis and Jews generally, including terrorism.
“Frankly, I’ve heard he’s a total nut job,” Trump told reporters Tuesday morning. “I think the people in New York are crazy because they go this route. I think they’re crazy. We will have a communist in the for the first time, really a pure, true communist. He wants to operate the grocery stores. The department stores. What about the people that are there? I think it’s crazy.”
Mamdani, a Ugandan-born Muslim from the extreme “Twelver” sect of Shia Islam, won the Democratic Party’s primary for New York City mayor in June. During an interview on Sunday, Mamdani stated he didn’t want to condemn the term “globalize the intifada” because he didn’t want to “police language.”
“I think he’s terrible. He’s a communist,” Trump reiterated on Tuesday. The native New Yorker added that the “last thing we need is a communist. I said, there will never be socialism in the United States… I think it’s bad news.”
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Senate Republicans failed to restore a provision barring illegal immigrants from accessing Medicaid to the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ after it was thrown out by the Senate Parliamentarian.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Senate Republicans, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, 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.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The ‘vote-a-rama’ on amendments to the budget reconciliation bill began on June 30 and was ongoing on the morning of July 1.
🎯IMPACT: The removal of key provisions found in the House of the legislation could push lawmakers in the lower chamber to either outright oppose or demand amendments to the Senate bill once it is passed. This could jeopardize the chances of passage or delay adoption of the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ beyond President Trump’s July 4 deadline.
IN FULL
Senate Republicans failed to re-add a measure preventing illegal immigrants from accessing Medicaid to the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ during the longest ‘vote-a-rama’ in American political history. The measure was rejected with 56 Senators in favor and 44 opposed. Typically, the amendment would have needed only 51 votes to be adopted. However, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that the provision violated the Byrd Rule, which raises the vote threshold to 60 votes to break a filibuster.
The removal of the measure has angered conservatives who saw the provision as a key component of the budget reconciliation legislation. Notably, a number of policies that were adopted in the House version of the bill have been stripped in the Senate by the Parliamentarian.
While the core of the legislation remains intact, including the implementation of President Donald J. Trump‘s campaign promises of no tax on tips, no tax on social security income, no tax on overtime income, and making permanent the 2017 Trump tax cuts—other provisions that prevented Medicaid funds from being used for the gender transition of minors and the clawback of funding for Planned Parenthood were stripped by the Parliamenarian. Consequently, the more watered-down Senate legislation could be seen as unpalatable in the House.
Some “moderate” House Republicans are already balking at the Senate bill’s larger direct cuts to Medicaid. If they’re joined in opposition by conservative House Republicans, it may be difficult to find a path to bring both sides back to supporting the legislation, jeopardizing its final passage.
President Trump has said he wants to sign the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ into law on July 4, though as of the time of publication, the reconciliation legislation is still stuck in the Senate, so lawmakers on Capitol Hill are running quickly out of time.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Elon Musk publicly claimed that Stephen K. Bannon is returning to prison “for a long time.”
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Elon Musk and Stephen K. Bannon.
📍WHEN & WHERE: July 1, 2025, on Musk’s official X (Twitter) account.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Bannon is going back to prison. This time for a long time.” – Elon Musk
🎯IMPACT: The tweet reignited tensions between America First allies and Musk, with supporters accusing him of cheerleading political persecution.
IN FULL
Elon Musk took to his X account Monday morning with a terse statement: “Bannon is going back to prison. This time for a long time.” The post, viewed over 90,000 times within an hour, marks one of Musk’s most politically loaded comments to date, immediately following a very public humiliation by President Donald J. Trump on Monday night.
The statement was unprompted and offered no legal citations or context, leading many to speculate whether Musk had inside knowledge or was merely amplifying baseless rumors. Bannon, a longtime Trump advisor and WarRoom host, previously served months at FCI Danbury following the unconstitutional, partisan committee investigation into January 6, 2021.
Supporters of Bannon and the broader MAGA movement quickly fired back at Musk online, accusing him of weaponizing his platform to mock political prisoners.
Expect the only crime he's ever committed was offending the Deep State…and I guess you're now offending too.
While Musk has often aligned himself with anti-establishment rhetoric, his post signals a growing rift between him and prominent America First figures. The timing also raises questions, given Musk’s recent interactions with federal agencies over Tesla and SpaceX operations.
Join Pulse+ to comment below and receive exclusive email analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Trump slammed Elon Musk over electric vehicle subsidies in a Truth Social post.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump and Elon Musk.
📍WHEN & WHERE: July 2025, on Trump’s Truth Social account.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa.” – Donald Trump
🎯IMPACT: The post revives Trump’s criticism of EV mandates and questions Musk’s business sustainability without federal support.
IN FULL
President Donald J. Trump posted a fiery message on Truth Social targeting tech mogul Elon Musk and the Biden government’s electric vehicle mandates. Trump emphasized that opposition to the EV push has been a longstanding component of his political platform, describing the federal mandate as “ridiculous.”
“Electric cars are fine,” Trump said, “but not everyone should be forced to own one.” He accused Musk of benefiting from what may be the largest subsidies ever awarded to a private individual and suggested the SpaceX and Tesla CEO’s ventures would collapse without government handouts.
The former president even said Musk might have to “close up shop and head back home to South Africa” in the absence of subsidies, calling into question the viability of Musk’s business empire without taxpayer backing.
Trump sarcastically proposed, “Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard look at this?”—a reference that likely alludes to either the Department of Government Efficiency, set up under Musk, which delivered almost no savings in comparison to Musk’s original promise of $2 trillion.
In reality, DOGE likely saved around two days of taxpayer spending a year, with some estimates claiming the department and its actions have actually cost the taxpayer due to severances involved with termination packages.
Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Trump even went so far as to say “we’ll have to look at” deporting the South African billionaire, adding, “DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn’t that be terrible?”
🔥🔥 Reporter: Are you going to deport Elon Musk?
Trump: We'll have to take a look. We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is, the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon, wouldn't that be terrible. He gets a lot of subsidies. pic.twitter.com/CwIHLykUab
The backhander from Trump came less than a day after Musk appeared to endorse a critic of Trump ally and potential next UK Prime Minister, Nigel Farage.
Musk, who once called for Farage to be deposed as head of the Reform UK party, backed a new movement by British Member of Parliament Rupert Lowe, another anti-Farage figure who tried to have the Brexit champion removed as party leader. Musk and Lowe’s efforts inevitably failed.
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: Nearly half of likely voters support President Trump’s call for a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election, according to a new Rasmussen poll.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald Trump, Rasmussen Reports, and 1,134 likely U.S. voters surveyed nationwide.
📍WHEN & WHERE: June 22–24, 2025; United States (nationwide survey).
💬KEY QUOTE: “The 2020 election was a total fraud! The evidence is massive and overwhelming!” – Donald Trump
🎯IMPACT: Public opinion remains deeply divided, with support for a special prosecutor tracking along party, gender, age, and income lines.
IN FULL
President Donald J. Trump’s demand for a special prosecutor to probe the 2020 election fraud claims is receiving strong public backing. Rasmussen Reports found that 48 percent of likely U.S. voters favor such an investigation, including 32 percent who “strongly support” the idea. Meanwhile, 47 percent remain opposed—36 percent “strongly.”
The former president posted to Truth Social on June 20, declaring, “The 2020 election was a total fraud! The evidence is massive and overwhelming!” Forty-three percent of voters agreed with Trump’s statement, while 51 percent disagreed. Among the supporters of Trump’s fraud claim, support for appointing a special prosecutor jumped to 86 percent.
As always, the partisan divide is stark. Two-thirds of Republicans agree the 2020 contest was fraudulent, while 67 percent of Democrats reject that characterization. Among unaffiliated voters, 34 percent agree and 61 percent disagree. Support for appointing a special prosecutor includes 71 percent of Republicans, 35 percent of Democrats, and 38 percent of independents.
The survey, conducted June 22–24 with 1,134 likely voters, carries a 3-point margin of error and a 95 percent confidence level. The poll also found that 48 percent believe cheating likely influenced the outcome of the 2020 election, with 32 percent saying it is “very likely.” Forty-four percent say cheating was unlikely, including 33 percent who say it was “not at all likely.”
Demographic breakdowns showed notable trends: men are more supportive of an investigation than women; younger voters lean in favor of a special prosecutor, while those over 50 strongly disagree with Trump’s fraud accusation. Hispanics show the strongest support among minorities, and mid-income earners ($50K–$100K) are most skeptical of the election results.
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: New York Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani has proposed socialist grocery stores, claiming they can be funded by redirecting city subsidies from private grocery stores.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Zohran Mamdani, New York City’s Economic Development Corporation, and private grocery stores participating in the FRESH program.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: New York City, during Mamdani’s mayoral campaign.
💬KEY QUOTE: “We will redirect city funds from corporate supermarkets to city-owned grocery stores whose mission is lower prices, not price-gouging.” – Zohran Mamdani
🎯IMPACT: Mamdani’s proposal is based on a misunderstanding of city subsidies, which would lead to mass fiscal mismanagement if implemented.
IN FULL
Zohran Mamdani, the New York Democratic mayoral nominee, has defended his proposal for socialist grocery stores by stating that they could be funded by cutting city subsidies to private grocery stores. However, his claim is based on a misinterpretation of the city’s current grocery subsidy program, as first revealed by reporter Tim Carney.
Mamdani has repeatedly cited a figure of $140 million, claiming it represents the amount the city spends on subsidizing private grocery stores under the Food Retail Expansion to Support Health (FRESH) program. He has proposed redirecting half of this amount to fund his socialist grocery store initiative, which he estimates would cost $60 million.
The FRESH program, however, does not involve direct city spending of $140 million. Instead, it provides tax breaks and regulatory relief to grocery stores that invest in underserved areas, known as “food deserts.” Over the last six years, the program has cost the city approximately $20 million in waived tax revenue, rather than expenditure, averaging just $3.3 million per year. Furthermore, the $140 million figure cited by Mamdani refers to private investments made by grocery stores participating in the program, not government spending.
In a video, Mamdani argued, “We will redirect city funds from corporate supermarkets to city-owned grocery stores whose mission is lower prices, not price-gouging.” However, his misunderstanding of the FRESH program’s structure raises humiliating questions about the plan. Carney explains, “So, this program would take 42 years to cost the city the $140 million that Mamdani says “the city is set to spend” on it.”
This misrepresentation underscores a broader concern with Mamdani’s proposal: it appears to rely on a socialist framework that assumes private investment can be treated as public funds. Critics argue that such an approach would lead to fiscal mismanagement and actually undermine the city’s efforts to address food accessibility through public-private partnerships. This scenario would not just see government grocery stores with empty shelves, like North Korea, but also skew the market against private companies no longer incentivized to supply groceries to certain areas, leaving entire communities in new food deserts.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Social Democratic Party (SPD) in Germany has launched an effort to ban the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party—the second-most popular party in the country—citing alleged extremism.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: SPD leader Lars Klingbeil, the Federal Constitutional Court, and the AfD.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The SPD’s resolution was adopted during their three-day party congress in Berlin, Germany.
💬KEY QUOTE: “The moment at which domestic intelligence says this is a confirmed right-wing extremist party, there is no more room for tactics.” – Lars Klingbeil
🎯IMPACT: A ban would dissolve the AfD, confiscate its assets, and prohibit its re-establishment.
IN FULL
Germany’s leftist Social Democratic Party (SPD), which led the federal government until May, has officially launched an effort to ban the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. SPD delegates voted unanimously on June 29 to establish a “federal working group” to collect and present evidence of the anti-mass migration party’s alleged extremism, which they claim is already “overwhelming.”
The SPD accused the AfD, which placed second in this year’s federal elections, of undermining Germany’s constitution and eroding democracy, citing the party’s advocacy for “remigration” as a violation of human dignity. SPD leader Lars Klingbeil stated, “Based on historical experience, we have a constitution that provides the necessary instruments.” He added, “The moment at which domestic intelligence says this is a confirmed right-wing extremist party, there is no more room for tactics.”
In Germany, the European Union’s most populous country and top economy, only the Federal Constitutional Court can ban a political party, requiring a two-thirds majority of its Justices. If successful, a ban would dissolve the party, confiscate its assets, and outlaw its symbols and logos. Efforts to re-establish a banned party under a similar name would also be prohibited.
The legal push comes amid growing support for the AfD, particularly in eastern Germany, where recent elections have shown the party gaining significant traction. A recent survey placed the AfD at 32 percent, ahead of the SPD by nine points. Critics argue that the SPD is attempting to ban its political rival rather than compete with it democratically.
The move follows the designation of the AfD as an extremist group by Germany’s intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungschutz (BfV), which enabled increased surveillance of the party. Critics, including X CEO Elon Musk, have condemned the proposed ban, labeling it “an extreme attack on democracy.” Newly elected Chancellor Friedrich Merz, of the notionally conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), formerly led by Angela Merkel, conceded, “Ten million AfD voters—you can’t ban them. You have to engage with them factually and on substance.”
The BfV decided to pause the classification after the AfD launched a lawsuit to appeal the move. Germany also came under pressure from the Trump administration, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating, “That’s not democracy—it’s tyranny in disguise. What is truly extremist is not the popular AfD—which took second in the recent election—but rather the establishment’s deadly open border immigration policies that the AfD opposes.”
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.
