Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) is crossing the aisle and supporting President-elect Donald J. Trump‘s rumored Secretary of State nominee, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Although Trump has yet to make a formal announcement, Rubio is the subject of a whisper campaign to be his choice for the top diplomatic position.
Fetterman’s endorsement could pave the way for a smoother confirmation process for Rubio. With the recent election results, Republicans have secured a majority in the Senate, holding 52 seats (less one as Senator J.D. Vance will serve as Vice President). This gives Rubio a favorable outlook for confirmation, as he will only require a simple majority of 51 senators. Fetterman’s support indicates potential bipartisan backing, even if limited.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
In a public statement, Fetterman addressed his decision on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). He acknowledged the inherent political differences expected from nominees selected by the opposing party. Nonetheless, Fetterman expressed confidence in Rubio’s capabilities, stating, “my colleague [Marco Rubio] is a strong choice and I look forward to voting for his confirmation.”
Unsurprisingly, the other team’s pick will have political differences than my own.
Fetterman has emerged as a quasi-heterodox Democrat, often bucking the party line on foreign policy—especially regarding his support for Israel.
During the 2024 presidential election, as Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign struggled in Pennsylvania, it leaned heavily on Fetterman in an effort to win over working-class voters. Despite Fetterman entering the fray, Trump won the critical swing state.
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: Far-left U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, a new but frequent foe of President Donald J. Trump, has ruled that illegal immigrants—alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua—who were deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison must be granted habeas relief by the U.S. government to challenge their removals.
👥 Who’s Involved: Judge James Boasberg, illegal immigrant members of Tren de Aragua, President Donald J. Trump, the U.S government, the government of El Salvador, and El Salvador’s CECOT prison.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: The ruling was made late Wednesday, June 5, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “Fortunately for the American people, Judge Boasberg does not have the last word,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson in a statement on Thursday responding to the ruling.
⚠️ Impact: Boasberg’s ruling could lay the groundwork for activist judges to extend deportation appeals rights to other individuals who have already been removed from the United States. According to the ruling, the Trump White House has one week to formulate a plan for allowing several hundred illegal immigrants held at CECOT to seek habeas relief.
IN FULL:
In a ruling late Wednesday evening, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg once again intervened in President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to remove criminal illegal immigrants from the United States. The far-left judge found in favor of a group believed to be several hundred illegal immigrant members of the violent Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, who were deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison in March and are now demanding habeas relief to challenge their removal.
The ruling applies only to illegal immigrants deported to El Salvador and held at the country’s CECOT facility who were removed under President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act targeting Tren de Aragua members. “Defendants plainly deprived these individuals of their right to seek habeas relief before their summary removal from the United States—a right that need not itself be vindicated through a habeas petition,” Judge Boasberg wrote. He continued: “Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members. But—and this is the critical point—there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government’s say-so.”
In May, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower courtruling that blocks the Trump administration from deporting illegal immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act pending further proceedings by an appeals court. Boasberg explicitly cites the Supreme Court order in his ruling, noting that the high court agreed “that those subject to removal under the Act must be allowed to challenge their removability in federal court before being deported.”
The Trump administration will have one week to formulate a way for several hundred illegal immigrants in CECOT, and under the jurisdiction of the Salvadoran government, to seek habeas relief appealing their deportation per the ruling. Notably, Kilmar Abrego Garcia—an illegal immigrant and member of MS-13—who has drawn significant attention from Democrats and the media for his deportation to CECOT—is unaffected by the ruling.
show less
PULSE POINTS:
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓What Happened: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously blocked Mexico’s lawsuit against American gun manufacturers, citing federal protections under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
👥 Who’s Involved: The Mexican government, major U.S. gunmakers including Smith & Wesson, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: The ruling was issued in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, June 5, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: Justice Elena Kagan wrote that Mexico’s complaint “does not plausibly allege” that gunmakers aided unlawful sales to traffickers.
⚠️ Impact: The decision reinforces legal protections for U.S. firearms manufacturers, shielding them from liability for crimes committed using their products.
IN FULL:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled against a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government seeking to hold American gun manufacturers accountable for firearm trafficking and cartel violence. The decision marks a significant victory for the U.S. firearms industry, affirming the protections offered under the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
In the case Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico alleged that U.S. gunmakers knowingly facilitated the illegal sale of firearms to straw purchasers, who then trafficked the weapons into Mexico for use by drug cartels. The Mexican government sought $10 billion in damages, arguing that the gunmakers’ actions fell under the “predicate exception” to PLCAA, which allows lawsuits if manufacturers knowingly break the law.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, stated that Mexico’s complaint “does not plausibly allege” that the gunmakers aided or abetted illegal firearm sales, thereby barring the case under PLCAA. The law, passed with bipartisan support in 2005, broadly shields gun manufacturers from liability for crimes committed with their products.
The lawsuit, filed in 2021, targeted seven major gunmakers and one wholesaler. While a federal district court in Massachusetts dismissed the case in 2022, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived it in early 2024, ruling that the allegations of aiding illegal sales warranted further consideration. The Supreme Court’s decision halts Mexico’s legal efforts.
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), between 200,000 and 500,000 U.S.-made firearms are trafficked into Mexico annually, a phenomenon often referred to as the “iron river.” Nearly half of the guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes are American-made.
❓What Happened:WarRoom host and former White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon is calling on federal officials to launch an investigation into Elon Musk’s immigration status and whether he concealed material facts or made false statements on his naturalization application. If it is found that Musk did obtain his citizenship through illegal means, Bannon says the billionaire tech mogul should be deported from the United States.
👥 Who’s Involved: Stephen K. Bannon, Elon Musk, Kimbal Musk, and President Donald J. Trump.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Bannon’s comments were made on Thursday, June 5, after Musk ramped up social media attacks on President Trump and his legislative agenda.
💬 Key Quote: “They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,” Bannon said.
⚠️ Impact: As a naturalized citizen of the United States, Musk can have his citizenship stripped through denaturalization if it is found that he obtained the status through illegal means.
IN FULL:
WarRoom host and former White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon says federal officials should launch a formal investigation into billionaire technology mogul Elon Musk‘s immigration status. If it is found that Musk had resided in the U.S. illegally before attaining citizenship in 2002, Bannon believes that the South Africa-born billionaire should be deported.
“They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,” Bannon said in an interview with the New York Times on Thursday. The former White House Chief Strategist went on to argue that Musk’s alleged drug use and business relations with China should also be the targets of a federal investigation, which could result in his security clearance being revoked along with his ability to bid for government contracts.
The comments about potential investigations come as Musk swiftly turned against President Donald J. Trump over the latter’s budget reconciliation bill, which eliminates an electric vehicle mandate and tax credits that made Musk’s Tesla automobiles more financially attractive to consumers. On Thursday, Musk took to his social platform X (formerly Twitter) to attack Trump and Republican lawmakers, baselessly suggesting the Epstein files have not been released in full because they include America First Leader.
While Musk is a United States citizen, having been naturalized over two decades ago, the billionaire could be denaturalized by the federal government if it is found that he attained the status through illegal means, such as concealing material facts or making false statements on his application.
Notably, Musk’s younger brother, Kimbal, is on film at the 2013 Milken Institute Global Conference saying of investors in a startup he founded with his brother Elon, “When they did fund us, they realized that we were illegal immigrants.” Musk quickly corrects Kimbal: “I’d say it was a gray area.”
It remains unclear what visa, if any, Musk held when he and his brother founded their startup, nor is it known what legal pathway he used to attain U.S. citizenship.
WATCH:
Washington Post, trying to woo back viewers after refusing to endorse VP Harris, reported that Elon Musk, enemy of “open borders,” launched his career working here illegally.
What Happened: President Donald J. Trump suggested terminating billions in government contracts and subsidies to Elon Musk’s companies as a way to save budget funds, following Musk’s criticism of Trump’s “one big beautiful bill.” Musk responded by saying the President is “in the Epstein files”—but this is already a matter of public record, as previously reported by The National Pulse.
Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, Elon Musk, SpaceX, and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
Where & When: Trump announced his stance on Truth Social on June 5, 2025, Musk responded on X (formerly Twitter) the same day.
Key Quote: “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” Trump wrote.
Impact: Musk’s Tesla firm is already substantially down in the stock market, and his SpaceX company would be badly damaged if it lost its government contracts.
IN FULL:
President Donald J. Trump suggested the most straightforward way to save billions of dollars from the government’s budget is to terminate the billions of dollars in contracts and subsidies awarded to former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) frontman Elon Musk’s companies. Musk lashed out by saying he is “in the Epstein files” in response.
“Time to drop the really big bomb: [Donald Trump] is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public,” Musk wrote on his X (formerly Twitter) platform, adding, “Have a nice day, DJT!”
He later doubled down, telling his followers, “Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.” However, it is already a matter of public record that President Trump is referenced in the Epstein files that the administration has already released. The National Pulse reported in February that the released files, comprised of Epstein’s flight and phone call logs, include Trump’s name, which Epstein listed in his phone book.
It seems unlikely that Musk has knowledge of anything more nefarious than this, declaring, “I love [Donald Trump] as much as a straight man can love another man” in February, and regularly bringing his children to spend time with the President at the White House and his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Subsequent to his Epstein insinuations, Musk agreed with a social media user that Trump should be impeached and replaced with Vice President J.D. Vance.
Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.
Musk stepped down as the face of DOGE at the end of May, having achieved a reported—but questionable—$175 billion in savings out of an initially promised $2 trillion. Shortly afterwards, he began attacking the pending “one big beautiful bill” championed by President Trump, on the grounds that it will increase the deficit.
Writing on his Truth Social platform, President Trump said he had asked Musk to leave government because he was “wearing thin,” and that the true source of the electric carmaker’s anger with the bill is that it “took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted.”
He added that the “easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” adding: “I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”
Musk’s SpaceX company, in particular, relies heavily on contracts with NASA, the Department of Defense, and other government agencies.
Trump’s team says the bill fulfills key campaign promises, including increased funding for border security and defense and new cuts to taxes on tips, overtime, and social security. The administration argues it will not increase but actually reduce the deficit by around $6.6 trillion over the next decade via spending cuts coupled with Trump’s tariffs and deregulation agenda.
Notably, much of the spending Musk is concerned with cannot be addressed in the “one big beautiful bill” because it is a reconciliation bill, and reconciliation bills deal only with nondiscretionary spending, excepting Social Security, rather than the discretionary spending which has been DOGE’s focus.
show less
PULSE POINTS:
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓What Happened: Tesla saw its shares fall eight percent on Thursday after Elon Musk authored a series of erratic posts on X critical of President Donald J. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” working its way through Congress, while claiming credit for Republican victories in the 2024 election.
👥 Who’s Involved: Elon Musk, President Trump, and Tesla.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Musk made the posts on Thursday, June 5, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote on X, adding: “Such ingratitude.”
⚠️ Impact: A political falling out between Trump and Musk could pose significant problems for the Tesla chief’s business interests, with his prior support for the America First leader having already alienated many liberals.
IN FULL:
Tesla shares plunged eight percent Thursday afternoon as the electric vehicle company’s CEO, Elon Musk, authored a series of erratic posts on his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), attacking President Donald J. Trump and taking credit for his 2024 election victory. “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote, adding: “Such ingratitude.”
In another bizarre post, Musk appears to assert that he should have reviewed the reconciliation bill before it was voted on. Responding to Trump’s assertion that the former DOGE leader was keyed in on the critical details of the bill, Musk wrote: “False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!”
After leaving his role as an advisor in the Trump White House and frontman for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) at the end of May, Musk almost immediately began attacking the budget reconciliation bill enacting much of Trump’s agenda that is currently moving through Congress. The attacks drew a response from President Trump on Thursday, with the America First leader telling press in the Oval Office, “I’m very disappointed in Elon; I’ve helped Elon a lot.” Trump noted Musk has not “said [anything] bad about me, personally,” but predicted, accurately, that he was “sure that’ll be next.”
Musk has repeatedly claimed the bill will drastically increase deficits, plunging the federal government further into debt. However, the Trump White House argues that it actually achieves substantial spending cuts, which, when combined with Trump’s tariffs and deregulation agenda, will reduce the deficit by $6.6 trillion over the next decade.
In one of his posts, Musk, 53, threatened Republicans, “Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years…”
❓What Happened: Federal judges have blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to deport foreign students accused of supporting Hamas.
👥 Who’s Involved: Four foreign students, including Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Badar Khan Suri, and Mohsen Mahdawi; Trump administration officials; federal judges; ACLU representatives.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Detentions occurred across the U.S. in 2023; recent court rulings have halted deportations and detentions.
💬 Key Quote: “These rulings delay justice and seek to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers,” said Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.
⚠️ Impact: Courts have ruled against the administration’s use of a 1952 law to justify deportations, citing constitutional concerns and an alleged lack of evidence.
IN FULL:
Efforts by the Trump administration to deport foreign students accused of supporting Hamas or engaging in anti-Semitic behavior have been halted by federal judges, citing constitutional issues and supposedly insufficient evidence. Four students—Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Badar Khan Suri, and Mohsen Mahdawi—were arrested by federal agents under claims that their actions posed foreign policy risks.
The students, who deny any links to Hamas or anti-Semitism despite taking part in anti-Semitic protests, were detained under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. This law allows deportation of noncitizens whose presence could adversely affect U.S. foreign policy. However, federal judges have rejected the administration’s arguments, freeing Öztürk, Mahdawi, and Suri, while Khalil’s case remains pending.
In one notable ruling, Judge Michael Farbiarz stated that deporting Khalil based on his beliefs and speech would be “unprecedented” and unconstitutional.
Assistant Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Tricia McLaughlin defended the administration’s actions, claiming the rulings “delay justice” and undermine presidential authority. Meanwhile, Esha Bhandari of the ACLU described the courts’ decisions as a necessary check on executive overreach.
The legal battles have highlighted tensions between executive power, immigration law, and free speech. Judges like federal Judge Fernando Rodriguez have previously rejected the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrant gang members. This comes despite gangs like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua being designated a foreign terrorist organization by the administration.
show less
PULSE POINTS:
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓What Happened: Zia Yusuf resigned as chairman of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, after callings its newest Member of Parliament (MP) “dumb” for advocating a burka ban.
👥 Who’s Involved: Zia Yusuf, Reform Party, Nigel Farage, and Sarah Pochin.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Announced via X (formerly Twitter) on June 5, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time,” Yusuf said.
⚠️ Impact: Yusuf’s exit paves the way for significant changes to Farage’s top team.
IN FULL:
Zia Yusuf has announced his resignation as chairman of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, hours after publicly criticizing the party’s newest Member of Parliament (MP) for pushing for a burka ban.
“[Eleven] months ago I became Chairman of Reform. I’ve worked full time as a volunteer to take the party from 14 to 30 percent, quadrupled its membership and delivered historic electoral results,” Yusuf said in a post on X (formerly Twitter). “I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office,” he added.
Yusuf, a Muslim businessman, had criticized Sarah Pochin MP, after she had grilled Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on introducing a ban on the Islamic burka in the House of Commons.
Yusuf said on Wednesday that banning the burka was not party policy and Pochin was stupid for asking Starmer the question, writing that it was “dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn’t do.”
The National Pulse Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam, a former advisor to Nigel Farage, suggested in March that the Reform leader should consider replacing Yusuf, who was previously at the center of a spat with now-former Reform MP Rupert Lowe.
“Farage isn’t a dictator. He’s one of the most reasonable people in politics. He’s moved aside when it made sense, and he’s returned when asked,” Kassam said of Farage’s leadership style in comments to the British press.
“He’s also a meritocrat. If someone comes along who can run the party better than its current chairman, or if a deputy could help augment the work, he’d be all over it,” he continued, adding: “The problem is everyone has his number and any time anyone has a problem in the party they immediately call Nigel, and drag him into their fights. If he doesn’t side with them, or tries to stay neutral, they lash out. I’ve seen it a thousand times.”
“If anything, he needs a militant chief of staff to police his time and keep him above the fray. This is the next Prime Minister we’re talking about now… They need to get his team right and support him wholeheartedly. No one has put more into this movement than him,” Kassam concluded.
Farage has offered a magnanimous response to Yusuf’s departure, writing that he is “genuinely sorry that Zia Yusuf has decided to stand down as Reform UK Chairman” as he was “a huge factor” in the party’s recent triumph in England’s local elections.
“Politics can be a highly pressured and difficult game and Zia has clearly had enough. He is a loss to us and public life,” he added.
President Donald J. Trump has said he is “very disappointed” in Elon Musk, the former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) frontman, who has been attacking the Trump-backed “one big beautiful bill.”
“I’m very disappointed in Elon; I’ve helped Elon a lot,” President Trump told the press on Thursday. The America First leader noted Musk has not “said [anything] bad about me, personally,” but said he was “sure that’ll be next.”
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
So far, Musk has attacked the “one big beautiful bill” only as a “Congressional” spending bill. Still, it is inextricably linked to the President, fulfilling many of his key campaign pledges, including the extension of his 2017 tax cuts, new cuts to taxes on tips, overtime, and social security, and increased spending on defense and border security.
Musk believes it increases spending unacceptably, but the administration argues it actually achieves substantial spending cuts. Moreover, because it is a reconciliation bill, there is a great deal of spending it cannot touch, and further, separate legislation to cut spending is pending.
During his remarks to the press, Trump suggested Musk “is upset because we took the EV mandate which was a lot of money for electric vehicles,” such as those produced by Musk’s Tesla firm.
“Whatever,” Musk irately responded on his X (formerly Twitter) platform, complaining: “Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill.”
President Donald J. Trump has said he is "very disappointed" in Elon Musk, the former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) frontman, who has been attacking the Trump-backed "one big beautiful bill."
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: Former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre faced harsh criticism from anonymous Biden government insiders following her announcement of leaving the Democratic Party to register as an independent.
👥 Who’s Involved: Karine Jean-Pierre and anonymous Biden staffers.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Washington, D.C.; the backlash followed Jean-Pierre’s announcement on Wednesday and new book release in June 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “She was one of the most ineffectual and unprepared people I’ve ever worked with,” said an anonymous former Biden official.
⚠️ Impact: The public fallout highlights internal tensions within the Biden government and raises questions about loyalty and competence among senior officials.
IN FULL:
Former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre became the target of sharp criticism from anonymous Biden government insiders just one day after announcing her departure from the Democratic Party. Jean-Pierre, who served as the public face of the Biden White House for over two years, revealed in her new book, Independent, that she had registered as an independent, citing a need for Americans to “free ourselves of boxes” and think more strategically about the nation’s challenges.
However, the former Biden White House Press Secretary’s decision to ditch the Democratic Party is already drawing ire from her former colleagues, with some viewing the move as a betrayal. A number of former Biden government staffers are anonymously slamming Jean-Pierre in the media, with one former official describing her as “one of the most ineffectual and unprepared people I’ve ever worked with,” adding that she struggled to manage her team and deliver coherent policy messages.
Another former communications official criticized Jean-Pierre’s decision to position herself as an outsider despite enjoying the perks of close proximity to power during her time in the administration. “The hubris of thinking you can position yourself as an outsider… is as breathtaking as it is desperate,” the unnamed official said, suggesting the move was primarily a “cash grab” tied to her book release.
Additional anonymous sources revealed frustrations within the White House about the amount of effort spent “coddling” Jean-Pierre compared to focusing on substantive issues. Critics claimed she frequently experienced “meltdowns” when confronted with unexpected questions during interviews. The swift and public nature of the criticism underscores ongoing tensions among the former Biden government staff, as no significant voices have come forward to defend Jean-Pierre amid the backlash.
Notably, Jean-Pierre played a key role in defending President Biden’s cognitive fitness, despite internal concerns about his performance during public appearances, including a debate with President Donald J. Trump. Jean-Pierre had publicly vouched for Biden’s mental acuity, calling him “as sharp as ever” at the time.
show less
PULSE POINTS:
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓What Happened: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is being urged to relax its export restrictions on rare earth materials, which are essential for various industries. Implemented in response to U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s imposition of tariffs on China, the controls have disrupted production in the U.S. and Europe.
👥 Who’s Involved: Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao, U.S. officials, European Union (EU) Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic, European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Discussions took place on the sidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) conference in Paris on Tuesday. Restrictions were initially imposed by China in April.
💬 Key Quote: “I informed my Chinese counterpart about the alarming situation in the European car industry… rare earths and permanent magnets are absolutely essential for industrial production,” said Maros Sefcovic, the EU Trade Commissioner, underlining the impact of the CCP export restrictions across the West.
⚠️ Impact: Industries in the U.S. and Europe, including automotive and defense, face potential shutdowns due to rare earth shortages. Prices for restricted materials have skyrocketed, with some increasing four to ten times their previous cost.
IN FULL:
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has not lifted restrictions on rare earth minerals exports despite agreeing to do so during a tariff truce deal with President Donald J. Trump. U.S. officials are accusing Beijing of violating a trade agreement reached in Geneva, Switzerland. U.S. manufacturers have reported significant delays in securing rare earth shipments, with some suppliers demanding sensitive information, such as photos of end-user facilities, to complete applications. A U.S.-based rare earth trader noted that materials are now being sold at up to ten times their previous prices due to shortages.
The impact extends beyond the U.S., with the European Union (EU) urging China to ease export controls amid severe disruptions to industrial production across Europe. EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic raised the issue during a meeting with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao on the sidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) conference in Paris. “I informed my Chinese counterpart about the alarming situation in the European car industry… rare earths and permanent magnets are absolutely essential for industrial production,” Sefcovic told reporters on Wednesday.
China, which processes 90 percent of the world’s rare earth materials, introduced stricter export licensing requirements earlier this year in response to tariff measures imposed by President Trump, covering seven types of rare earth minerals and several types of magnets. Since then, only about a quarter of the submitted export license applications have been approved, according to the European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA). The group warned that the restrictions are already causing production shutdowns in Europe’s supplier sectors.
Sefcovic proposed a streamlined, annual licensing system to reduce delays and alleviate the strain on industries. However, no immediate resolution was reached, with both sides planning to meet again to reconcile discrepancies in export data.
China’s foreign ministry defended the restrictions, stating they are “in line with common international practices” and not targeted at specific nations. Meanwhile, industries reliant on these materials continue to face mounting challenges as they scramble to secure alternative supplies.
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.
