Friday, April 18, 2025

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

Trump Trial Day 14: Michael Cohen, The MeidasTouchers, And a 14-Year-Old!?

The 14th day of former President Donald J. Trump‘s Manhattan-based trial was exclusively dedicated to the defense’s cross-examination of the disbarred serial perjurer Michael Cohen. On Wednesday, Cohen’s former criminal defense attorney, Robert Costello, testified before Congress that his old client had repeatedly claimed to him that he had no evidence against Donald Trump. With most of his Tuesday testimony now in question, Trump’s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, zeroed in on more of Cohen’s lies and hammered the prosecution’s star witness over the shifting details of the disgraced lawyer’s testimony.

COHEN GETS MEIDAS TOUCHED.

The morning started with a muddled exchange about when Cohen found out about Bragg’s indictment against former President Trump. Judge Juan Merchan later sidelined much of the questioning and testimony surrounding this as attorneys on both sides struggled to clarify the timeline of events.

Next, however, Blanche entered into the evidence record a recording of the serial perjurer’s Mea Culpa podcast hosted by the far-left website MeidasTouch. Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger objected to the move but was overruled by Judge Merchan.

Cohen can be heard on the podcast recording congratulating Bragg on the Trump indictment. Additionally, Cohen states that he spent countless hours with Bragg. “You never met Alvin Bragg, right?” Blanche asked Cohen.

“Correct,” responded the disgraced lawyer. Again, Blanche, with tightly controlled questioning, elicits another instance where Cohen lied—in this case, to his audience regarding his interactions with the Manhattan District Attorney.

MOTIVATED BY REVENGE. 

The next stage of the Trump defense team’s cross-examination of Michael Cohen focused on the serial perjurer’s possible motivations for testifying against his former boss. Blanche hammered Cohen on the latter’s public statements, celebrating the chance Trump could be sent to prison.

“I truly f**king hope that this man ends up in prison,” Cohen could be heard on a podcast recording played for the jury. The disgraced attorney went on to say: “But revenge is a dish best served cold, and you better believe I want this man to go down and rot inside for what he did to my family.”

Blanche asked Cohen if he had ever said his work with prosecutors had helped get the former President indicted. “I took some credit, yes,” he replied. Trump‘s lead counsel repeated his question. “Yes, that’s what I believe,” responded Cohen.

COHEN CAN’T HELP HIMSELF.

“You continued to call President Trump various names on your podcasts and when you’re even doing CNN interviews, correct?” Blanche asked next, and Cohen admitted he did. Cohen was then presented with his April 21, 2024, TikTok post just before the trial began. In the video, Cohen states he has “mental excitement about the fact that this trial was starting.”

Blanche asked Cohen if he knew a paralegal was monitoring his social media. “That didn’t stop you, did it?” Blanche pressed Cohen. “No, sir,” he replied.

Trump’s defense team hit Cohen hard on both Tuesday and Thursday for his lack of self-control and inability to follow instructions. Blanche’s strategy appears to be to illustrate to jurors that Cohen is motivated only by his own self-perception and selfish desires. Beyond his simply profiting from the trial, Blanche is underscoring that Cohen often acts on his own with disregard for how his actions affect others.

LIES, LIES, AND MORE LIES.

Again taking aim at Cohen’s credibility, Blanche walked the disbarred attorney through multiple past instances where he was proven to have lied before courts, lawyers, and Congress. “Was that oath that you took every single time, so going back to all the depositions, the same oath that you took Monday morning in this courtroom?” Blanche asked, with Cohen responding: “Yes, sir.”

“And each time you met with a federal agent you were told that if you made a false statement that that was a felony, a federal crime, correct?” Blanche continued. Again, Cohen responded: “Yes, sir.”

Blanche next focused on Cohen’s lies before the House Intelligence Committee in 2017. “There were a couple of different lies?” he asked Cohen, the latter responding: “That’s correct.”

Cohen admitted to Blanche that he had lied under oath to the Congressional committee and lied again when he met with the special counsel in April 2018.

WHOSE FAULT IS IT?

Trump’s lead defense counsel pressed further, again trapping Cohen into admitting that he lied because of what he perceived he should do. “You said you were accepting responsibility for those lies, for lying to Congress. But in fact, you repeatedly said — and even said this morning, and even this week — that the reason why you lied was because of your loyalty to President Trump,” Blanche asked.

“I worked with a joint defense agreement, and we crafted the two-page document in order to stay on message — the message we all knew Mr. Trump wanted, including Mr. Trump’s attorney at the time,” Cohen replied. Blanche followed up, asking the disgraced attorney: “So are you saying you’re accepting responsibility or blaming the joint defense agreement?”

Cohen begrudgingly admitted on the stand, “I accepted responsibility, I read it, and I submitted it to the committee.”

UNTRUE VERSUS A LIE.

Blanche grilled Cohen about whether federal prosecutors threatened him or tried to induce him to plead guilty to a series of 2018 tax evasion charges. “Nobody induced you or threatened you to plead guilty, correct?” Blanche asked Cohen.

“As I stated previously, I was provided 48 hours within which to accept the plea, or the Southern District of New York was going to file an 80-page indictment that included my wife. And I elected to protect my family,” the disgraced lawyer responded. Blanche pressed Cohen again about his characterization of interactions with federal prosecutors.

Cohen responded the second time, “I never denied the underlying facts; I just did not believe that I should have been criminally charged for either of those six offenses.”

Blanche pushed back, asking Cohen if there was a difference between him saying something untrue and stating a lie. “I was using just different terminology,” Cohen replied.

“So it was a lie?” Blanche asked. Cohen responded: “Correct.”

WHAT ABOUT BOB?

Much of Blanche’s cross-examination of Cohen seems to be setting up Robert Costello as — possibly — the singular defense witness. Costello is Cohen’s former criminal defense attorney who has, in recent days, told both Congress and several media outlets that his former client is lying on the stand.

The questioning regarding Cohen’s interactions with federal prosecutors is especially pertinent as Costello testified before Congress directly on conversations he had with his client about the federal tax charges. On Wednesday, The National Pulse reported that Costello said: “I explained that if Cohen had truthful information that would implicate Donald Trump, I could get him out of his legal troubles by the end of the week.” He added: “I emphasized that any information Cohen could give would have to be truthful, otherwise it was useless.”

“Each time Cohen said to me: ‘I swear to God, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump,’” Costello recalled. He continued: “Cohen must have said this at least ten times because I kept coming back to it from different approaches.”

LYING TO A FEDERAL JUDGE.

Trump’s lead defense counsel next addressed Cohen and the fact that the disbarred lawyer had lied to a federal judge. “You testified under oath at a different trial that you did not commit the crimes that you pled guilty to before Judge Pauley, correct?” Blanche asked Cohen, referring to the latter’s perjury before the late U.S. District Court Judge William H. Pauley III.

“Correct,” answered Cohen.

Blanche, citing Cohen’s own words, asked the serial perjurer if it was true that he lied to Judge Pauley because “the stakes affected you personally?” Cohen confirmed to Blanche this was true. Pushing further, Blanche pressed Cohen as to why—during his 2019 testimony before Congress—the disgraced lawyer didn’t tell lawmakers he had lied to the federal judge.

“By not telling Congress or the Senate that you had lied under oath, do you believe that you were omitting important information?” Trump’s lead counsel asked Cohen, and Judge Merchan again overruled the prosecution‘s objection.

“I don’t believe I was asked the question,” Cohen said.

BLAME GAME. 

As the morning’s cross-examination began its final stretch, Blanche focused on Cohen‘s refusal to take responsibility for his actions. “You blame a lot of people over the years for the conduct that you were convicted of,” Blanche told Cohen. The disgraced lawyer responded: “I blame people, yes.”

Blanche proceeded to rattle off a list of people and institutions that Cohen has pointed the finger at for his crimes over the years. These included Cohen’s accountant, bank, federal prosecutors, federal judges, and Donald Trump. Cohen admitted he had blamed each one.

Observers in the courtroom described Cohen as appearing angry and annoyed as Blanche pressed him on every person he’s blamed and his prior convictions for tax evasion and perjury.

A JILTED LAWYER.

Blanche shifted gears again, focusing on the 2016 presidential transition and Cohen’s disappointment at being left behind in New York City. Blanche asked Cohen if it was true that he wanted to serve as the White House chief of staff. “I would have liked to have been considered for ego purpose,” Cohen responded.

After former President Trump tapped Reince Priebus to serve as his chief of staff, Cohen admitted to Blanche that he was disappointed. Blanche then presented Cohen with texts between the latter and his daughter. In the text, Cohen told his daughter that he was with Trump at that very moment and that “he wants me to go, just not sure the position,” insinuating that he’d be joining the President in Washington, D.C.

This line of question is important because, as others have testified, Cohen was not seriously considered for any role in the White House or approached about a role. Blanche likely intended this inquiry to reinforce Cohen’s penchant for lying, even to his own daughter. Additionally, the moment further proved that Cohen has an almost delusional opinion of himself and his actions.

“Did you express disappointment to Pastor Scott repeatedly that President Trump hadn’t brought you into the administration?” Trump’s lead counsel asked Cohen. The prosecution’s witness responded annoyedly: “Not into the administration — I knew the role I wanted… I may have expressed frustration.”

When Blanche pressed Cohen as to why he needed someone to put in a good word for a role in the White House when Cohen claimed he talked to Trump almost every day, the disgraced lawyer said, “It’s always good to have somebody else advocate.”

PRANKED BY A TEENAGER.

Just before the lunch break, Trump‘s defense team took aim at one of the prosecution and Cohen’s key claims. Blanche presented Cohen with a series of text and call logs that Cohen had claimed were him reaching out to Trump regarding the resolution of the Stormy Daniels hush money payment. Trump’s lead counsel contended that rather than reaching out to Trump, Cohen was actually calling Trump’s bodyguard, Keith Schiller, for help dealing with a series of harassing phone calls he was receiving from a 14-year-old prankster. The texts between Cohen and Schiller appear to indicate that the latter was indeed the case.

However, Cohen insisted to Blanche that the prankster wasn’t all that he discussed on the calls, stating: “I know that Keith was with Mr. Trump at the time and there was more potentially than this.” A skeptical Blanche, noting the short amount of time over which the texts and calls took place, asked Cohen if he really “had enough time to update Schiller about all the [harassment] problems you were having and also update President Trump about the status of the Stormy Daniels situation because you had to keep him informed?”

“I always ran everything by the boss immediately, and in this case, it would have been saying, ‘Everything has been taken care of — it’s been resolved,'” Cohen responded.

LAWYER OR PR GUY?

The post-lunch cross-examination continued with Blanche pressing Cohen on whether he frequently worked to drive positive stories for Donald Trump. Cohen testified that he would often work place positive stories and that Trump would “blow up” if he failed. At this point, former President Trump visibly shook his head “no” as Cohen spoke.

“It was my routine to always advise Mr. Trump because the story that I was going to put out is not the way he would want it. One, it would cause him to blow up at me, and two, it would probably be the end of my job,” Cohen told Blanche. Again, it appears Blanche’s strategy was to portray Cohen as someone who viewed their role as something more ‘connected‘ than it was.

A CAMPAIGN SURROGATE?

In the next series of questions, Cohen was pressed on whether he ever had a role in the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. Former Trump campaign aide Hope Hicks testified earlier in the trial that Cohen was not a part of the campaign but would often try and interfere with the campaign staff.

Cohen testified that while he wasn’t a campaign staff member, he was a “surrogate.” The serial perjurer, however, has not produced any documentation or evidence of this role being in any official capacity.

“Your testimony is the frustration toward you that didn’t come from President Trump; it came from the campaign staffers?” Blanche asked Cohen. He replied, “Correct.”

COHEN FALLS APART.

As the fourteenth day of trial testimony neared its end, Cohen inadvertently may have crushed District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s case. Prosecutors have maintained that the hush money payments were campaign expenditures and not legal fees, as Trump’s only concern was about the Stormy Daniels story’s impact on the 2016 election.

However, when discussing the 2011 blog post marking the first public allegations regarding an affair with Stormy Daniels, Cohen admitted Trump was worried about the impact the story would have on his family. “Fair to say that the first time you heard about that and the story by Ms. Daniels, when you talked to President Trump about it, he said he was worried about what his family would think, correct?” Blanche asked.

“Yes, as well as, of course, for the brand,” Cohen admitted. Blanched continued to press Cohen, addressing his 2021 conversation with law enforcement: “The first thing that President Trump said to you was that his family wouldn’t like that very much?”

“That’s true,” Cohen replied.

After Blanche rehashed additional details of conversations Cohen allegedly had with Trump and other associates, the court adjourned at 4PM with Cohen’s cross-examination set to continue on Monday.

You can read The National Pulse’s Day Thirteen trial coverage here, and if you find our work worthwhile, consider joining as a supporter.

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.

A Federal Labor Arbitrator Says IRS Employees Can Continue Working from Home Four Days a Week.

PULSE POINTS:

What Happened: The government union representing  IRS employees successfully defended a telework policy allowing employees to work remotely up to eight days per biweekly pay period. A federal labor arbitrator dismissed the Trump White House and IRS officials’ concerns regarding performance and service to taxpayers under this arrangement.

👥 Who’s Involved: The IRS, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), an arbitrator, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), and President Donald Trump.

📍 Where & When: The agreement was finalized last October, with ongoing arbitration over several policies.

💬 Key Quote: Sen. Ernst critiqued, “While the American people are working hard, the tax collectors are trying to hardly work.”

⚠️ Impact: The ruling allows for substantial remote work at the IRS, leading to criticism regarding taxpayer-funded unions and concerns over IRS employee performance. There is ongoing tension over telework policies in federal agencies.

IN FULL:

Prior to President Donald J. Trump’s second term in office, employees at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) secured a lucrative policy allowing them to work remotely all but one day a week through an agreement between the agency and the National Treasury Employees Union. The policy received significant pushback from IRS senior leadership, who contend that excessive teleworking could hinder the agency’s ability to serve taxpayers effectively.

Consequently, the Trump White House and the IRS have attempted to roll back the telework agreement and cap telework to just six days per pay period—a modest change that would essentially require workers to be in the office twice a week. However, a federal labor arbitrator has intervened and rejected the telework changes. “To hold telework solely responsible for such issues is inappropriate. Given the need for supervisors to assess the portability of an individual employee’s work, I am not convinced there should be an arbitrary six-day cap,” the arbitrator said regarding their decision to reject the six-day telework policy.

Notably, the National Treasury Employees Union, representing career IRS and Treasury Department employees, uses taxpayer dollars to fund labor negotiations and arbitration cases with the federal government. The most recent available public data shows that around $160 million in taxpayer dollars were spent on government union activities in 2019.

While efforts to rein in the tax collection agency’s absurdly lax telework policy have thus far proven unsuccessful, the arbitrator did agree with the Trump White House that the IRS’s employee bonus structure was too generous. Instead, the arbitrator determines that employee bonuses will be more limited in size and scope, with individual units under the agency determining the qualifying standards.

In a recent media interview, Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA)—who chairs the Senate DOGE Caucus—blasted the telework policy and taxpayer funding of government union collective bargaining negotiations. “While the American people are working hard, the tax collectors are trying to hardly work,” the Iowa Senator said, adding: “It is infuriating that our tax dollars are footing the bill for union bosses to negotiate for IRS bureaucrats to get cushy telework agreements and bloated bonus structures.”

Image by Alpha Photo.

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.

Chris Cuomo Cautions James Carville Against Defending Alleged MS-13 Member.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: NewsNation host Chris Cuomo discussed with Democratic strategist James Carville the political consequences of advocating for the return of deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an alleged MS-13 gang member, whose deportation order sparked controversy.

👥 Who’s Involved: Chris Cuomo, James Carville, Democratic Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

📍 Where & When: The discussion took place on the “CUOMO” show on Wednesday. The events are linked to Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador.

💬 Key Quote: Chris Cuomo commented, “… it does look, with Van Hollen running down to El Salvador, like you guys are pleading the case of a gang banger and trying to bring him back into this country.”

⚠️ Impact: The situation highlights tensions around deportation policies and Democratic strategies.

IN FULL:

NewsNation host Chris Cuomo engaged Democratic strategist James Carville in a debate over the political challenges surrounding the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man deported due to alleged ties with the notorious MS-13 gang. This conversation took place on Wednesday on Cuomo’s show, drawing attention to broader contentious immigration policy issues.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) revealed earlier that day Garcia’s alleged association with the gang, spotlighting a fierce political struggle as Democratic Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen continues efforts to have Garcia returned to the United States from El Salvador. Van Hollen has reportedly faced hurdles in his attempts to meet Garcia and local officials in El Salvador.

Cuomo, addressing potential political fallout, suggested that Van Hollen’s actions might project an image of the Democrats siding with a figure perceived as a criminal by the public. “Politically, if you want to argue due process, that’s high ground. But it does look… like you guys are pleading the case of a gang banger,” Cuomo stated. Carville, however, firmly believes in the judicial imperative to return Garcia to the U.S., citing an obligation to uphold constitutional rights and judicial decisions.

Records show Garcia entered the United States illegally in 2011, leading to his detainment and subsequent deportation. Controversy grew as Carville claimed that Garcia was innocent, despite the Department of Homeland Security court filings that also mention a request for a domestic violence restraining order against him.

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.

Musk’s SpaceX is Favored for ‘Golden Dome’ Contract – REPORT.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: SpaceX proposed launching 400 to over 1,000 satellites to track missiles as part of a potential “Golden Dome” missile defense system.

👥 Who’s Involved: SpaceX, President Donald Trump, Palantir, Anduril, and Elon Musk.

📍 Where & When: News reported on April 18, 2025, related to U.S. missile defense initiatives.

💬 Key Quote: Elon Musk stated on X that SpaceX has not attempted to bid for any contract, and he mentioned, “If the President asks us, we will do so, but I hope that other companies can do this.”

⚠️ Impact: The potential project could involve a multi-billion-dollar investment and require government funding for continued use.

IN FULL:

SpaceX has expressed interest in contributing to a proposed missile defense system in the United States that could involve launching hundreds of satellites. Reports indicate that SpaceX, alongside Palantir and Anduril, is participating in efforts to develop a missile defense network similar to Israel’s Iron Dome. The project, referred to as the “Golden Dome,” aims to sense and intercept incoming missiles.

The proposal includes deploying between 400 and over 1,000 satellites for missile tracking. Additionally, a separate fleet of approximately 200 satellites equipped with either missiles or lasers has been suggested for destroying threats. This plan aligns with an executive order signed by President Donald J. Trump earlier in the year.

SpaceX’s role is expected to center on providing satellite infrastructure rather than weaponizing satellites. The projected expenditure for SpaceX’s portion ranges from $6 billion to $10 billion. Funding the initiative might involve a subscription-based model in which the government would pay for continuous satellite use.

Elon Musk has clarified SpaceX’s current position, stating the company has not placed bids for any contracts related to this system. Musk emphasized that SpaceX would participate if requested by national authorities, but he urged other entities to take up the endeavor.

If realized, the initiative would require significant investment and time to materialize. Analysts and observers suggest years of development could be needed to fully implement such a system and ensure its effectiveness in missile interception.

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.

Rubio Signals He May Have Failed in Russia-Ukraine Ceasefire Talks.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the US might halt efforts for a comprehensive ceasefire in Ukraine if there’s no significant progress soon.

👥 Who’s Involved: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, President Donald Trump, President Volodymyr Zelensky, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal.

📍 Where & When: Statements were made in Paris on Friday during diplomatic talks; ceasefire determination timeline is described as “a matter of days.”

💬 Key Quote: “We need to determine very quickly now, and I’m talking about a matter of days, whether or not this is doable,” Rubio said.

⚠️ Impact: Failure to reach a ceasefire may lead the US to refocus its efforts; meanwhile, a US-Ukraine mineral deal is pending finalization.

IN FULL:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio signaled this week that his State Department is failing to secure any resolution to the Ukraine-Russia conflict as the administration nears its 100th day in office.

As a result, the United States may abandon its attempts to secure a comprehensive ceasefire in Ukraine if no substantial progress is seen within a matter of days, Rubio announced Friday. Speaking in Paris after diplomatic discussions, Rubio emphasized the urgency of assessing the feasibility of ending the conflict soon. Without sufficient headway, he indicated that the US government could discontinue peace efforts.

The conflict in Ukraine, which dates back over a decade to the U.S and EU-backed overthrow of an elected leader in the once buffer nation, has seen limited resolution, despite various diplomatic engagements and talks with both Russian and Ukrainian leaders. President Donald Trump has shown a desire to conclude the hostilities promptly, though efforts have so far been marked by minimal concessions from either side.

Rubio has engaged with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov multiple times to facilitate a truce, labeling a recent phone exchange as “constructive.” However, a 30-day moratorium intended to reduce attacks on energy facilities lapsed without significant effect, with both countries exchanging accusations of violations.

While a ceasefire appears elusive, the US and Ukraine are progressing towards a resource agreement anticipated by April 26. A memorandum, whose details emerged on Friday, hints at US access to Ukrainian rare earth minerals essential for advanced technology. This prospective deal aims to bolster US-Ukraine relations and ensure enduring support.

Discussions continue, and Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal is scheduled to meet US Treasury officials in Washington. This meeting aims to finalize the arrangement, which proponents believe could aid Ukraine’s reconstruction financing efforts. The memorandum underlines existing US aid to Ukraine, addressing potential repayment through crucial mineral resources.

Simultaneously, hostilities persist, with Russian strikes hitting several areas in Ukraine, reportedly causing mass casualties and damage.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more

Editor’s Notes

Behind-the-scenes political intrigue exclusively for Pulse+ subscribers.

RAHEEM J. KASSAM Editor-in-Chief
My alternative headline on this piece was, “SHOCK: Warmonger fails to end war
My alternative headline on this piece was, “SHOCK: Warmonger fails to end war show more
for exclusive members-only insights
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.

Trump Imposes New Port Fees on Chinese Vessels.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: The Trump administration announced plans to impose new fees at U.S. ports on Chinese-made vessels as part of its trade strategy with China.

👥 Who’s Involved: The U.S. government, through the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), has taken these measures, primarily affecting Chinese shipping companies.

📍 Where & When: The announcement was made on Thursday evening. These changes will influence port operations across the United States.

💬 Key Quote: Captain John Konrad, founder and CEO of gCaptain, expressed concern: “Nothing in my 18 years since founding Captain has caused more panic than [the USTR’s] recent proposal…”

⚠️ Impact: The decision may influence U.S.-China trade relations and U.S. port operations. The trade community has raised concerns over the immediate effects and structural capacity in the shipping industry.

IN FULL:

The Trump administration has continued its pursuit against Communist China by implementing new port fees on vessels built in the hostile nation. These fees are part of a broader strategy to present a firmer stance in line with Trump’s campaign pledges on trade. Despite halting a broader reciprocal tariff plan, Trump has intensified specific levies on China due to intense retaliatory moves from Beijing. In reaction to this, the U.S. is currently considering a 245 percent duty on imports from China.

Chinese authorities have dismissed the U.S. threats as inconsequential. Following a detailed inquiry lasting nine months, the USTR announced plans for additional charges on Chinese-made ships, referring to undiscriminating fees that will also cover certain maritime service activities. It was found that China’s policies have compromised U.S. business engagements within the maritime industry and posed risks to economic security by increasing dependency on Chinese imports.

This policy adjustment follows a troublesome period during the Biden administration when supply chains heavily reliant on China faced severe disruption. This led numerous countries to seek reduced dependence on Chinese freight services. As a result, the U.S. adapted by increasing imports from countries like Mexico and Canada.

However, several industry figures raised alarms owing to the comprehensive application of these fees. The USTR responded by instituting phased implementation, initially setting the fee at zero dollars for 180 days, increasing gradually each year. There are exemptions for certain U.S. Maritime Administration programs, vessels arriving empty, and others based on specific criteria, aiming to mitigate undue economic strain on U.S. businesses.

Fees will be assessed based on cargo weight, not the number of ports visited, with calculations occurring up to five times annually. Exemptions include operations in the Great Lakes, the Caribbean, and U.S. territories.

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.

EU Prez Von der Leyen Hits Out at Trump’s Inner Circle.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen addressed the state of transatlantic relations, criticizing the unpredictability of the US administration under President Donald Trump and likening key figures to oligarchs.

👥 Who’s Involved: Ursula von der Leyen, Donald Trump, Italian PM Giorgia Meloni, US Vice-President JD Vance.

📍 Where & When: Comments were published in German newspaper Die Zeit, ongoing developments with trade talks involving the EU and US.

💬 Key Quote: “We don’t have bros or oligarchs making the rules.”

⚠️ Impact: The statement reflects tensions in US-EU relations, with discussions ongoing about tariffs and trade agreements. Trump has recently been noted for easing tariffs on European imports.

IN FULL:

In a candid evaluation of European and American relations, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, voiced concerns about the current dynamics, noting that traditional alliances are shifting. In an interview with Die Zeit, she criticized the US administration’s approach and compared influential figures to Russian oligarchs. This marks a significant moment in transatlantic discussions as von der Leyen emphasized Europe’s commitment to global trade principles, contrasting it with tactics she attributes to Washington.

Her comments come at a time when trade agreements between the US and EU are a point of contention. Trump recently retracted tariffs impacting European imports valued at £328 billion, a move following financial market instability. Nonetheless, Vice-President JD Vance has been critical of the EU, labeling it as undemocratic and suppressive towards right-wing populism.

“We don’t have bros or oligarchs making the rules,” von der Leyen said, adding, “[t]he West as we knew it no longer exists.”

Despite these challenges, von der Leyen claims Europe as a model of stability and predictability, stressing the region’s position in global economics. She highlighted that only a small portion of Europe’s trade is with the US, causing concern that as with prior decades, the European Union is inclined to move further towards the Chinese Communist Party and its brutal regime.

“In Europe, children can go to good schools however wealthy their parents are. We have lower CO2 emissions and higher life expectancy,’ she said, adding that “controversial debates are allowed at our universities,” in a clear dig at Trump’s policy of removing anti-American and anti-Israel students from college campuses.

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.

NY Times Editor Tearfully Grovels to Sarah Palin in Court Testimony.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: James Bennet, a former opinion editor for the New York Times, apologized to Sarah Palin during a federal court hearing about a 2017 editorial that falsely linked her political action committee to a 2011 shooting incident.

👥 Who’s Involved: James Bennet, Sarah Palin, Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, and Steve Scalise (R-LA).

📍 Where & When: The event took place in federal court on Thursday during a revived defamation trial.

💬 Key Quote: “I did, and I do apologize to Gov. Palin for this mistake,” said James Bennet during his testimony.

⚠️ Impact: Bennet’s apology did not move Palin, who is scheduled to testify next week. The case has been reopened due to procedural errors acknowledged by an appeals court.

IN FULL:

During testimony in a federal libel case, former New York Times opinion editor James Bennet expressed remorse to Sarah Palin for a 2017 editorial that inaccurately linked her political action committee to a 2011 shooting. Bennet, tearful and emotional on the stand, admitted to having “blew it” by erroneously connecting a graphic from Palin’s Political Action Committee (PAC) to the attack that severely injured Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six individuals. He openly apologized to Palin, acknowledging the error publicly.

The case centers around an editorial penned after a shooting incident at a congressional baseball game practice in 2017, where then-House GOP Whip Steve Scalise was badly injured. The editorial referenced a map from Palin’s PAC that displayed Democratic districts under crosshairs, incorrectly suggesting that it incited the earlier 2011 violence. The New York Times subsequently issued a correction to clarify that there was no such link.

Judge Jed Rakoff praised Bennet’s apology as both “heartfelt” and “moving.” Despite the sincerity expressed in court, Palin remained unaffected, indicating outside the courthouse that the lapse in truth had occurred years prior. She expressed skepticism over the timing of the acknowledgment, referring to it as “untruth,” and dismissed the emotional tone of the apology. Palin is expected to take the stand next week to present her testimony in the case.

The New York Times initially successfully navigated the legal challenges in 2022, with Bennet’s assertion that the misinformation was unintentional proving substantial in that case. However, procedural errors identified by an appeals court have paved the way for a second trial, granting Palin another opportunity to present her defamation contention against the newspaper.

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.

$1 Billion in Savings Claimed by DOGE Disappears From Website.

PULSE POINTS:

What Happened: Almost $1 billion in reported savings was removed from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) website. The figures disappeared overnight on Tuesday, including a significant $367 million cut related to a contract with the Acacia Center for Justice.

👥 Who’s Involved: The Department of Government Efficiency, fronted by Elon Musk.

📍 Where & When: The removal occurred online from the DOGE website on Tuesday.

💬 Key Quote: Elon Musk described the efforts at DOGE as “a revolution,” emphasizing the role of the department in identifying inefficiencies.

⚠️ Impact: This incident contributes to a pattern of altering and removing savings figures on DOGE’s part. It raises questions about the accuracy of the savings reported and the reliability of projected savings, which have been reduced from $1 trillion to $150 billion.

IN FULL:

Elon Musk is at the center of an incident involving the disappearance of nearly $1 billion in declared savings by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Overnight on Tuesday, these savings figures were removed from DOGE’s website, including a significant $367 million cut dealing with services for unaccompanied illegal immigrant minors by the Acacia Center for Justice.

This revelation continues a pattern where DOGE’s previously claimed savings undergo adjustments or removal due to inaccuracies. The National Pulse previously reported that Musk, in his role with DOGE, informed the Trump White House during a cabinet meeting that the projected savings figures have been decreased from an estimated $1 trillion to a new figure of $150 billion. Musk’s responsibility includes identifying inefficiencies within federal agencies and departments to help reduce overall government spending.

The technology billionaire and CEO of SpaceX and Tesla has said his approach to DOGE’s efforts is akin to “a revolution,” giving the appearance that the agency is seeking significant cuts and radical reform to address the bloated government bureaucracy However, the recent adjustments point to discrepancies that challenge DOGE’s reporting credibility and necessitate scrutiny regarding the accuracy of declared savings.

Reports indicate that over 600 grants that were allegedly reduced or cut by DOGE have been removed from the agency website over the last month, with a bulk of the removals occurring Tuesday night. Even more troubling, a number of the cuts claimed by DOGE appear to have been to programs that had their funding reduced or zeroed out prior to 2025, with some having been ended during Trump’s first term in office. DOGE’s data issues raise concerns about whether Musk and his agency are giving President Trump and the American people the most accurate picture of their efforts to reduce government waste, fraud, and abuse.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

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.

Republicans Press Proof of Citizenship and Voter ID.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Republican lawmakers in numerous state legislatures across the United States have put forward proposals aimed at requiring documentary proof of citizenship and voter identification to register to vote and obtain a ballot.

👥 Who’s Involved: Republican legislators, President Donald J. Trump, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Voting Rights Lab, and other advocacy groups are involved in the ongoing discussions and actions regarding these voter regulations.

📍 Where & When: Proposed in various states across the U.S., these legislative actions have followed Trump’s influence in the aftermath of the 2024 elections.

IN FULL:

Amid ongoing debates about election security, Republican lawmakers across nearly half of U.S. state legislatures have introduced bills targeting stricter voting requirements. These efforts focus on requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and mandating photo identification to cast ballots. Conservative groups in states like California are pushing for ballot measures alongside these legislative efforts.

In Pennsylvania, a Republican legislator has proposed a voter ID law in the swing state, drawing parallels to voter decisions in Wisconsin favoring stricter identification laws. These legislative moves resonate with President Donald Trump’s emphasis on election integrity.

The legislative efforts coincide with the U.S. House’s approval of the Save Act, a bill requiring voter citizenship proof and limiting registration methods. This bill reflects a broader push for tighter regulations nationwide. Trump has further backed these measures through an executive order emphasizing the need for citizenship documentation.

States such as New Hampshire and Louisiana have enacted laws requiring proof of citizenship for voting, with other states like Texas considering similar proposals. Alongside these laws, some states have enacted or proposed additional restrictions, including limiting who may assist voters with ballots and measures affecting absentee ballot processes.

Critics, such as Andrew Garber of the far-left Brennan Center, argue these initiatives are based on unfounded allegations of voter fraud that risk disenfranchising eligible voters. But left-leaning groups have yet to show anyone who has been disenfranchised besides those who are not eligible to vote in the first instance.

Besides legislative actions, state-level initiatives have seen challenges to direct democracy processes, as exemplified by moves in Arkansas and South Dakota. A judicial challenge in North Carolina by Jefferson Griffin, a judge contesting his election loss, has underscored the contentious nature of voting rights debates. The state appellate court temporarily sided with Griffin’s call for voter eligibility proof pending further consideration by the state’s Supreme Court.

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.
immigration

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

Anti-Open Borders Philosopher Denied Entry to UK Sparks Fresh Free Speech Debate.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: French philosopher Renaud Camus was denied entry into the UK to speak about immigration, as his presence was deemed against the “public good” by the Home Office.

👥 Who’s Involved: Renaud Camus, the UK Home Office, and Vauban Books, the publisher of Camus’ work in English.

📍 Where & When: The ban was reported by the Telegraph, with Camus planning to speak in the UK later in the month.

💬 Key Quote: Camus stated that “of all the European governments guilty” of allowing unchecked migration, “the British government is one of the guiltiest.”

⚠️ Impact: The decision raises debates over free speech in the UK, especially on immigration issues; the Government emphasizes tackling harmful beliefs.

IN FULL:

French philosopher Renaud Camus has been prohibited from entering the United Kingdom, the nation’s Home Office confirmed. The 78-year-old was scheduled to deliver a speech on immigration, but his electronic travel authorisation (ETA) application was denied. According to an email obtained by the Telegraph, the Home Office stated that Camus’ entry was “not considered to be conducive to the public good.”

Camus, known for his stance against mass immigration and its potential impact on European demography, maintains that unchecked immigration could result in the demographic “replacement” of Europe’s indigenous populations. Upon learning about the travel restriction, Camus described the UK government as “one of the guiltiest” in Europe for its open borders, mass migration policies.

Vauban Books, the English publisher of Camus’s work, criticized the decision, suggesting it signifies a departure from the core values of liberal democracy and free speech. They emphasized the importance of Camus’s voice, juxtaposing it against what they describe as the current UK Government’s “serial betrayals.”

Camus was expected to speak at an event organized by the small and fringe Homeland Party, known for its nationalist stances and its links to Neo-Nazis.

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.