Ron Klain, the former White House Chief of Staff for JoeBiden, confirmed the Democrat incumbent will debate his challenger, former President DonaldTrump. However, Klain added the stipulation that the debates would only happen under certain “rules” to prevent a “shouting match.” Last Friday, Biden committed to participating in at least one presidential debate before the November election, stating: “I don’t know when, I’m happy to debate him.”
During Sunday’s edition of MSNBC’s Inside With Jen Psaki, Klain told the host and former Biden press sectary that the Democrat’s presidential campaign would need guarantees that “rules are going to have to be enforced.” Paski pressed her former White House boss on what rule changes the Bidencampaign wanted to see, with Klain mostly focusing on complaints about Trump‘s debate style in response.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
“I think what we have to see is something different than we saw in 2016 and 2020, where the debate commission lost control of the debates, Trump didn’t follow the rules at all, he talked over his opponents, there wasn’t a fair division of time, it was more a spectacle than a debate,” Klain said. He added: “But we need to have debates where the candidates get equal time, where there is an orderly way of proceeding, where they can be heard, where it’s not a shouting match, where the American people can compare the two people who are the leading candidates for president.”
Former President Trump, responding to Biden committing to debate on Friday, posted on Truth Social an invitation to debate “anytime he wants.” The former President even suggested a nationally televised debate at the Manhattancourthouse where he’s currently fighting the Biden government’s lawfare campaign against him.
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: Dr. Kevin O’Connor, former White House physician to Joe Biden, will testify before the House Oversight Committee after being subpoenaed.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Rep. James Comer (R-KY), Neera Tanden, Anthony Bernal, Ashley Williams, Annie Tomasini, and the House Oversight Committee.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Scheduled for July 9 before the House Oversight Committee.
🎯IMPACT: The investigation seeks to determine whether Biden’s cognitive decline influenced decision-making in his administration.
IN FULL
Dr. Kevin O’Connor, the former White House physician who treated then-President Joe Biden, is set to appear for a deposition before the House Oversight Committee on July 9. This was confirmed by a source familiar with the committee’s schedule. O’Connor agreed to testify following a subpoena issued by Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the committee’s chairman.
Comer is leading an investigation into allegations that Democrat staffers in the White House worked to cover up Biden’s cognitive decline while in office. The inquiry also focuses on Biden’s use of an autopen for official government business.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) previously ruled in 2005 that autopen use is legal, and a federal appeals court upheld this in 2024. However, questions have arisen as to whether Biden was aware of certain orders being signed via autopen in his name. Notably, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has publicly spoken about an incident where the octogenarian Democrat appeared unaware that he had issued an executive order halting liquid natural gas exports.
In addition to O’Connor, the Oversight Committee has scheduled interviews with former Biden White House aides Neera Tanden, Anthony Bernal, Ashley Williams, and Annie Tomasini. Unlike O’Connor, these aides agreed to interviews without being subpoenaed.
A former Biden official, speaking anonymously with the media, denied allegations that decisions were made without Biden’s involvement, stating: “Any accusation that President Biden was not making decisions is false. President Biden made the decisions about the pardons and the executive orders he issued, and the legislation he signed into law.”
The Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee has also shown interest in Biden’s mental fitness. Its first public hearing on the matter did not include witnesses with direct knowledge of Biden’s decision-making process.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Donald J. Trump’s Justice Department secured a landmark criminal antitrust conviction against a home healthcare staffing executive for orchestrating a wage-fixing scheme aimed at suppressing the wages of home healthcare nurses in the Las Vegas area.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, Assistant Attorney General Abigail A. Slater, federal prosecutors, defendant Eduardo “Eddie” Lopez, Las Vegas area home healthcare companies, and home healthcare nurses.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The criminal conviction was issued in April 2025.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Wage-fixing agreements are nakedly unlawful attempts at unjustly profiting off American workers.” — Assistant Attorney General Abigail A. Slater.
🎯IMPACT: The jury verdict marks the first successful criminal conviction against individuals accused of wage-fixing and labor market collusion.
IN FULL
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) secured a historic antitrust jury verdict against a home healthcare executive over a wage-fixing scheme in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In April this year, federal prosecutors secured the criminal conviction of Eduardo “Eddie” Lopez—a home healthcare staffing executive who served with three separate home healthcare agencies—for conspiring with a number of healthcare staffing agencies to suppress the wages of home health nurses in the Las Vegas area and defrauding buyers of his staffing services by concealing the ongoing federal antitrust investigation against him.
Notably, the case marks a significant legal landmark for the DOJ, affirming its legal authority to pursue criminal charges against individuals accused of wage-fixing and labor market collusion. Prior attempts at criminal prosecution on similar charges had failed to secure a conviction.
At trial, DOJ prosecutors revealed that Lopez had orchestrated, between 2016 and 2019, a wage-fixing conspiracy aimed at artificially suppressing the wages of home health nurses in the Las Vegas area. The scheme saw Lopez and several other home healthcare executives enter into a covert agreement to set the hourly wages for nurses, insulating their companies from labor market forces. Federal prosecutors successfully argued that the wage-fixing scheme was akin to price-fixing in labor markets and that each incidence of wage suppression should be treated as per se violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Lopez’s communications with the executives of other area home healthcare agencies proved pivotal. In one message shown to jurors, Lopez wrote to an executive at an ostensibly competing agency, “We all have a mutual agreement that with the pay increase, all 3 companies will stay within the same hourly rate.” The April verdict saw Lopez convicted on five criminal counts, including one antitrust charge and four wire fraud charges.
Assistant Attorney General Abigail A. Slater, who leads the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, praised the conviction: “Wage-fixing agreements are nakedly unlawful attempts at unjustly profiting off American workers.” She added that the “verdict highlights what should be a clear message with antitrust crimes: the agreement is the crime. The Antitrust Division will zealously prosecute those who seek to unjustly profit off their employees. The nurses here deserved better and, under President Trump’s leadership, they will be protected.”
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: Britain’s Home Secretary, roughly equivalent to the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary, announced plans to proscribe the group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, Palestine Action, and its members.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The announcement followed an incident on June 20 at the Royal Air Force’s Brize Norton base in Oxfordshire.
💬KEY QUOTE: “The disgraceful attack on Brize Norton in the early hours of the morning on Friday 20 June is the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action.” – Yvette Cooper
🎯IMPACT: Membership and support for Palestine Action will be made illegal under the Terrorism Act 2000.
IN FULL
Britain’s Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, has announced plans to proscribe the far-left extremist group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization. This decision follows an incident on June 20, where members of the group broke into the Royal Air Force (RAF) base RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire to sabotage two RAF Voyager aircraft.
In a written statement, Cooper said, “The disgraceful attack on Brize Norton in the early hours of the morning on Friday 20 June is the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action.” She added, “The UK’s defence enterprise is vital to the nation’s national security and this Government will not tolerate those that put that security at risk.”
The Home Secretary plans to lay an order before Parliament next week that will make membership and support for the group illegal under the Terrorism Act of 2000. Cooper emphasized that this decision is specific to Palestine Action and does not affect lawful protest groups or other organizations campaigning on Palestinian-related issues.
BREAKING: Palestine Action break into RAF Brize Norton and damage two military aircrafts.
Flights depart daily from the base to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus.
From Cyprus, British planes collect intelligence, refuel fighter jets and transport weapons to commit genocide in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/zzmFqGKW8N
Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for the incident, stating that they used red paint to symbolize Palestinian blood and caused additional damage with crowbars. The group alleges that the planes are used to “collect intelligence, refuel fighter jets, and transport weapons to commit genocide in Gaza.”
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer condemned the incident, stating, “The act of vandalism committed at RAF Brize Norton is disgraceful. Our Armed Forces represent the very best of Britain and put their lives on the line for us every day. It is our responsibility to support those who defend us.”
Palestine Action has previously engaged in other acts of sabotage, targeting a defence firm facility in August of last year and smashing it up with sledgehammers. The group also violently attacked security staff on site, as well as two police officers, with their sledgehammers.
Video of heavily armed Palestine Action saboteurs using a (stolen?) prison van to smash their way into the headquarters of a firm supplying the British military and destroy equipment. They later injured two cops with a sledgehammer. Clearly terrorism but no Keir press conference? https://t.co/bQwvq8bN3Lpic.twitter.com/0wdwxNUl0r
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Senate Parliamentarian blocked several Republican provisions in the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” including the removal of SNAP eligibility for immigrants, a mandate that states with high SNAP payment error rates cover a larger portion of the costs, and granting President Donald J. Trump greater authority over the hiring and firing of federal workers.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Senate Republicans, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, and Senate Democrats, including Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The ruling was announced late Sunday in Washington, D.C.
🎯IMPACT: Key provisions of the GOP bill, including changes to federal hiring and firing, face significant procedural hurdles in the Senate.
IN FULL
The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled against Republican efforts to include provisions on federal hiring and firing in their budget reconciliation bill, championed by President Donald J. Trump and popularly known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” The decision, announced late Sunday, is the latest in a series of rulings dismantling key provisions of the GOP’s sweeping domestic policy plan.
The blocked provisions included a proposal to require new federal workers to pay higher retirement contributions unless they agreed to be “at-will” employees, effectively waiving traditional civil service protections. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that most workers would likely forgo protections rather than pay the increased contributions.
Other provisions being blocked by the Parliamentarian include the ending of SNAP benefits for immigrants, a requirement that states with high SNAP payment error rates cover a greater share of the program’s cost, a requirement for unions to pay for the use of government resources, and expanded authority for the President to implement federal reorganization plans without congressional approval. The Parliamentarian also blocked a proposal to give Congress greater oversight of agency regulations.
Democrats, predictably, are praising these moves by the Parliamentarian—though Senate Republicans have remained silent on whether they will seek to rework the provisions, drop them altogether, or move to overrule the Parliamentarian. Without changes, provisions deemed ineligible under the Byrd Rule would require a 60-vote threshold to pass, making bipartisan support necessary.
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 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved a $13.5 billion merger between Omnicom and IPG, two majoradvertising firms, with conditions to prevent viewpoint discrimination and political bias.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Federal Trade Commission, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, Omnicom, IPG, and the now-disbanded Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The decision was announced on Monday, during the Cannes Lions Festival of Creativity, where industry leaders were gathered.
💬KEY QUOTE: “This consent agreement will help mitigate the dangers inherent in a consolidated national advertising market.” – FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson
🎯IMPACT: The merger, along with the imposed conditions, aims to curb political bias and collusion in the advertising industry, potentially setting a precedent for other firms.
IN FULL
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has approved a $13.5 billion merger between Omnicom and IPG, two of the world’s largest advertising firms. The decision comes with strict conditions aimed at curbing political bias and preventing future coordination against publishers based on political viewpoints.
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson announced that the firms have agreed to cease all coordination that steers ad dollars away from publishers based on political views. They will also cooperate with the FTC’s investigation into past collusion and submit to compliance reviews. “This consent agreement will help mitigate the dangers inherent in a consolidated national advertising market,” Ferguson said.
“Today, Omnicom and IPG have committed themselves to help stop that sort of coordination in their industry,” Ferguson continues, stating: “This consent agreement will help mitigate the dangers inherent in a consolidated national advertising market.”
The FTC had considered blocking the merger due to evidence of past coordination against conservative news outlets. Ferguson highlighted the role of the now-disbanded Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), which was accused of directing ad dollars away from right-of-center publishers. “GARM was neither the beginning nor the end of harmful and potentially unlawful collusion in this industry,” Ferguson stated, adding: “Numerous other industry groups and private organizations have publicly sought to use the chokepoint of the advertising industry to effect political or ideological goals.”
GARM faced scrutiny after a congressional investigation revealed it had blacklisted conservative outlets, labeling them as “High Risk” or “Conspiracy Theories.” Internal emails showed disdain for freedom of speech advocates and the Constitution.
Under the FTC’s consent decree, Omnicom and IPG will submit annual compliance reports for five years and cooperate fully with investigations into past collusion. The agreement is seen as a significant shift in the advertising industry, which has long relied on coordinated exclusion lists to target disfavored publishers. Whether other major firms like Publicis and WPP will follow suit remains to be seen. The public has 30 days to submit comments on the merger decision to the FTC.
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: Iran targeted the U.S. military base in Qatar with six missiles of unknown type. However, Qatar air defenses appear to have successfully intercepted all six before they were able to reach the U.S. base.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Iran, Qatar, and the U.S. military.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The missiles were launched on Monday, June 23, 2025.
🎯IMPACT: The attack, according to the Iranian military, is in retaliation for U.S. strikes over the weekend on Iranian nuclear facilities.
IN FULL
Iran appears to have launched a limited retaliatory strike against the U.S. military base in Qatar. Six missiles were launched targeting the U.S. base; however, Qatari air defenses appear to have successfully intercepted all six.
“Qatar strongly condemns the attack on Al Udeid Air Base by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The attack on Al Udeid Air Base is a blatant violation of Qatar’s sovereignty, airspace, and international law,” the Qatari Foreign Ministry said in a statement following the attack. “Qatar reserves the right to respond directly in a manner proportional to the nature and extent of the blatant attack and in accordance with international law,” he added.
According to Qatari officials, there were no injuries on the U.S. base. Additionally, both Qatar and the United States were given advance notice by Iran of the attack, suggesting the move was mostly symbolic—and may even pave the way for deescalation, with President Donald J. Trump urging the Iranians to come to the negotiating table following the U.S. strikes.
The National Pulse reported earlier on Monday that the United States Embassy in Qatar had issued a shelter-in-place warning for U.S. citizens in the country, citing an increased threat to Americans worldwide.
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: Rudy Giuliani slammed Democrats calling for President Trump’s impeachment after his bombing of Iranian nuclear sites.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Sean Casten, and Rep. Thomas Massie.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Trump announced the strikes on Saturday; Giuliani reacted Sunday on Newsmax.
💬KEY QUOTE: “They want an impeachment? They should be tried for treason.” – Rudy Giuliani
🎯IMPACT: The strikes have intensified partisan tensions, drawn legal scrutiny, and sparked fears of a wider Middle East conflict.
IN FULL
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani unloaded on Democrats after President Donald Trump bombed three Iranian nuclear sites this weekend. Democrats swiftly accused the president of violating the Constitution, and some, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Sean Casten, called for impeachment proceedings.
The sudden military action announced by Trump on Saturday bypassed Congress, as is the President’s prerogative, prompting backlash from long-standing opponents. House Democrats said the strikes could drag the U.S. into another costly and long-term Middle East war, especially given Iran’s vow to retaliate.
Giuliani, speaking on Newsmax, claimed that Democrats opposing the strikes were guilty of treason.
“American military personnel are right now in harm’s way… and they are condemning the president,” he said, arguing their dissent undermined national security.
“I find what the Democrats are doing—they want an impeachment? They should be tried for treason,” he said.
Ocasio-Cortez wrote that Trump’s action was a “grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers,” warning of long-term consequences. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie also criticized the administration, stating there was no imminent threat justifying bypassing Congress.
“They’ve wanted to annihilate us for 40 years,” Giuliani added, insisting Trump’s actions were justified.
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 new poll shows Zohran Mamdani and Andrew Cuomo neck-and-neck in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary. However, that city’s ranked-choice voting system would give Mamdani a slight lead over the former Democrat governor.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Zohran Mamdani, Andrew Cuomo, and other candidates, including Brad Lander, Adrienne Adams, and Scott Stringer.
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, with the voting period beginning on June 14 and ending on June 24.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Donald Trump ran for President promising to end wars, not start new ones,” said the political progressive, Zohran Mamdani, over the weekend, attempting to nationalize further the mayoral race.
🎯IMPACT: The race highlights the tension between centrist and progressive factions within the Democratic Party.
IN FULL
Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old far-left New York assemblyman, is now statistically tied with former governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, according to a new poll conducted by Emerson College Polling/PIX11/The Hill. While the poll shows Cuomo leading Mamdani 35 percent to 32 percent in first-choice votes, within the margin of error, under the ranked-choice voting system, Mamdani emerged with 52 percent of the vote after the final round, compared to Cuomo’s 48 percent. Ranked-choice voting allows voters to select up to five candidates in order of preference, redistributing votes from eliminated candidates until one surpasses 50 percent.
Notably, the race does not include current Democratic mayor Eric Adams, who is running as an independent following a fundraising scandal. Other candidates in the primary include comptroller Brad Lander, city council speaker Adrienne Adams, and former comptroller Scott Stringer. Meanwhile, Anthony Weiner, a former Democrat congressman who resigned after sending sexually explicit photos of himself to several people—including a minor—is running for city council.
Cuomo, backed by high-profile figures such as Mike Bloomberg, Bill Clinton, and Jim Clyburn, has faced criticism for past sexual harassment allegations and his management of the coronavirus pandemic as state governor. Mamdani, endorsed by political far-left progressives like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has faced accusations of anti-Semitism over his use of the phrase “globalize the intifada.” Mamdani has dismissed these accusations as deliberate misinterpretations of his stance on Palestinians.
The race has also been influenced by international events, with Mamdani criticizing recent U.S. military action in Iran, calling it a “dark new chapter” and declaring, “Donald Trump ran for president promising to end wars, not start new ones.”
Cuomo, in contrast, emphasized the importance of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear capability, stating, “It’s dangerous, not only for the region, it’s dangerous internationally. It’s dangerous for the United States.”
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Government data shows a steep decline in the illegal immigrant population, down by roughly one million since January 2025.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), President Donald Trump, and the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey team.
📍WHEN & WHERE: January–May 2025, United States (nationwide BLS/Census survey data).
💬KEY QUOTE: “We believe there is good evidence the illegal immigrant population has fallen considerably since January.” – Camarota & Zeigler, CIS.
🎯IMPACT: A shrinking illegal population could tighten the labor market, potentially raising wages and drawing more U.S.-born workers back into the workforce.
IN FULL
New analysis of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey reveals one of the sharpest four-month declines in the foreign-born population in decades. Between January and May 2025, the foreign-born population—particularly non-citizens from Latin America—dropped sharply. The data points to a potential exodus of illegal immigrants amid Donald Trump’s return to power and increased immigration enforcement.
Researchers from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimate that the illegal immigrant population fell by about one million during this time frame, from 15.8 million in January to 14.8 million in May. The drop was entirely among non-citizens; the number of naturalized citizens rose slightly. Notably, a statistically significant decline occurred among Latin American non-citizens who arrived post-1980—a demographic that heavily overlaps with illegal immigrants.
This shift reverses a years-long trend of rising immigration under Joe Biden’s policies, including the CHNV program and border surges. Analysts credit the drop to the effect of Trump’s re-election, rhetoric, and swift action on enforcement. Nonetheless, they caution that some of the decline may be attributable to immigrants refusing to respond to government surveys or declining to identify as foreign-born.
The Center used CPS data and estimates of legal immigrant totals to isolate the likely illegal population. Though administrative data for May 2025 aren’t complete, their model shows a drop of roughly one million illegal immigrants. Before this, the illegal population had grown steadily since 2021, tracking the surge in border encounters, 84 percent of which were from Latin America.
The consequences could be profound: fewer illegal immigrants may boost wages for low-skilled American and legal workers, reduce labor competition, and motivate more U.S.-born men back into the workforce. While the report emphasizes the data’s limitations and preliminary nature, the decline in this population segment starkly contrasts with the Biden years, a tangible indicator of the Trump administration’s renewed approach.
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: The U.S. House has officially banned WhatsApp from all government-issued devices over security concerns.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The House Chief Administrative Officer, congressional staffers, and the Office of Cybersecurity.
📍WHEN & WHERE: June 2025, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington D.C.
💬KEY QUOTE: “The Office of Cybersecurity has deemed WhatsApp a high-risk to users due to the lack of transparency in how it protects user data.” – CAO Office Email
🎯IMPACT: Staffers must immediately uninstall WhatsApp and switch to approved apps like Microsoft Teams and Signal.
IN FULL
The U.S. House’s chief administrative officer has notified staffers that the Meta-owned WhatsApp messaging platform is now banned from all government-issued devices. The decision, revealed in an internal email and first reported by Axios, underscores rising concern in Congress about digital security vulnerabilities posed by popular communication tools.
The ban follows similar actions taken against other technologies deemed risky, including Microsoft Copilot, DeepSeek, and apps linked to ByteDance. Staff use of ChatGPT has also been restricted, with only the premium ‘ChatGPT Plus’ version permitted for official use.
Citing serious data protection issues, the CAO’s Office of Cybersecurity stated: “The Office of Cybersecurity has deemed WhatsApp a high-risk to users due to the lack of transparency in how it protects user data, absence of stored data encryption, and potential security risks involved with its use.” The memo instructed staffers to delete WhatsApp from any House-managed devices immediately.
The directive applies across all device formats—mobile, desktop, and web browser—and warned that staffers with the app still installed will be contacted for removal. The office recommended alternatives such as Microsoft Teams, Wickr, Signal, iMessage, and FaceTime.
House officials also urged staff to be alert to phishing attempts and suspicious messages from unknown numbers. WhatsApp, which is owned by Meta, has not yet commented on the policy.
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.
