Wednesday, June 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.

GOP Demands Investigation Into FEMA Ignoring Trump-Supporting Areas.

House Republicans are urging an immediate inquiry by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Inspector General into the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) over reports of anti-Trump discrimination. According to reports, FEMA relief workers ignored the homes of Trump supporters in Florida and North Carolina.

Representative Sam Graves (R-MO), chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, along with Representative Scott Perry (R-PA), addressed Inspector General Joseph Cuffari in a letter. They called for a thorough investigation into reports that fired FEMA supervisor Marn’i Washington instructed workers to bypass residences displaying Trump campaign signs in Lake Placid, Florida. Concerns were raised that these actions might indicate a broader pattern within the agency.

In addition, lawmakers cited reports suggesting FEMA employees in North Carolina deliberately avoided neighborhoods marked with signs such as “Make America Great Again” and “Drain the Swamp.” The allegations describe instructions to abandon entire areas without notifying residents of hurricane aid if three or more such signs were present.

The House Committee emphasized their growing worry that this avoidance could be more extensive than initially reported, potentially leaving victims unaware of available federal assistance. FEMA Director Deanne Criswell, testifying on Capitol Hill last month, maintained that the incident in Florida was isolated and asserted that FEMA does not engage in any policies leading to systematic avoidance. However, during her testimony, Criswell agreed to request an investigation into the matter. Subsequently, she confirmed to the House Oversight Committee that she had sought a review from the Inspector General’s office.

Marn’i Washington has said she is being made a scapegoat, and that FEMA teams across Florida and North Carolina undertook similar avoidance actions.

Image by Bill Koplitz.

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.

Islands Reject Secession After 2-Year Study.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Orkney Islands Council decided to remain part of the United Kingdom after exploring options for greater autonomy, and possibly joining Norway.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Orkney Islands Council, former council leader James Stockan, and current council leader Heather Woodbridge.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Orkney, Scotland, with discussions spanning the last two years.

💬KEY QUOTE: “This is just the start of a more detailed appraisal.” – Council leader Heather Woodbridge.

🎯IMPACT: The council will now focus on reforming public services through a single authority model.

IN FULL

After two years of exploring potential governance changes, Orkney Islands Council has concluded that remaining part of the United Kingdom is the most viable option for the islands. The council had considered alternative governance models, including a self-governing territory status under Norway, which ceded the islands to Scotland in 1472.

A report presented to the council determined that pursuing greater autonomy would be too costly and complex. Instead, members agreed to explore a “single authority model” aimed at reforming how public services are delivered.

Orkney’s former council leader, James Stockan, had initially proposed exploring constitutional changes, including the possibility of rejoining Norway. His frustrations stemmed from perceived insufficient financial support from both Britain’s central government and Scotland’s devolved government—roughly equivalent to a U.S. state government. In 2021, the council voted 15-6 in favor of investigating governance alternatives. Stockan stepped down from his leadership role in January 2022.

Current council leader Heather Woodbridge emphasized during a recent meeting that discussions on the single authority model are still in the early stages. “This is just the start of a more detailed appraisal,” she said, signaling that implementation is not guaranteed.

The Scottish government has expressed interest in applying the single authority model to other council areas, including the Western Isles, where U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s mother, Mary, was born. Details and timelines for implementation are expected to be published before the end of the current parliamentary session.

Scotland has a longstanding separatist movement, but in a 2014 referendum, the Scots voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom was founded by the Acts of Union in 1707, following the earlier Union of the Crowns in 1603, which saw the King of Scots ascend the English throne and establish a dual monarchy.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Image by Dave Sutherland.

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.

European Union Admits ‘Donald Is Right.’

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen acknowledged President Donald J. Trump’s stance on China’s trade policies during the G7 summit, stating, “Donald is right.”

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Ursula von der Leyen, President Trump, and other G7 leaders.

📍WHEN & WHERE: During the G7 Summit in Alberta, Canada, which began Monday and runs through Tuesday.

💬KEY QUOTE: “On this point, Donald is right—there is a serious problem,” von der Leyen said regarding China’s trade practices.

🎯IMPACT: The remarks highlight growing concerns over China’s trade policies and the potential for further international action against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

IN FULL

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen expressed agreement with President Donald J. Trump on China’s trade practices during the G7 summit, stating, “Donald is right.” She emphasized the need to focus on the real challenges posed by China’s abusive trade policies rather than disputes over tariffs among allies.

Von der Leyen pointed to China’s restrictions on raw material exports, which are critical for industries like automotive and renewable energy, accusing Beijing of “weaponizing” its control over these resources. She highlighted China’s April restrictions on permanent magnet exports, coinciding with Trump’s reciprocal tariff plan to address the U.S. trade deficit.

“This is not market competition—it is distortion with intent,” von der Leyen said, criticizing China’s approach to intellectual property, subsidies, and global market dominance. She warned of a “new China shock” as the country continues to flood Western and other international markets with state-subsidized, low-cost products.

The G7 summit, held in Alberta, Canada, focused on trade, the Russia-Ukraine war, and tensions in the Middle East, particularly the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. President Trump departed the summit early to return to Washington, D.C., citing the need to address the Iran situation directly. “I don’t believe in telephones,” Trump told reporters, emphasizing the importance of being on the scene.

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.

FEMA’s Coordination Chief Has Resigned. Here’s Why:

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Response Coordination Center, Jeremy Greenberg, has resigned from the agency. President Donald J. Trump is moving to close FEMA entirely.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Jeremy Greenberg, David Richardson, FEMA leadership, and President Trump.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Greenberg’s resignation was confirmed last week, as the U.S. enters peak disaster season.

💬KEY QUOTE: “FEMA has the right leadership in place to continue to be laser focused on our mission and are fully prepared for Hurricane season.” — FEMA.

🎯IMPACT: The resignation raises concerns about FEMA’s readiness during a critical period for disaster response.

IN FULL

Jeremy Greenberg, who has led the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Response Coordination Center since 2020, confirmed his resignation last week. His departure comes as FEMA faces a wave of high-level resignations, with interim leader David Richardson currently at the helm.

Greenberg’s resignation comes during the height of the U.S. natural disaster season, which includes hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. The National Response Coordination Center is critical for managing federal disaster response efforts, coordinating resources and personnel from multiple agencies and governments. For instance, during Hurricane Helene last year, the center managed evacuation orders across multiple states, tracked FEMA resources, and coordinated with agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Transportation.

Greenberg’s team was activated three days before Helene’s landfall to ensure a coordinated response. However, some accused FEMA of blocking supplies, including tech billionaire Elon Musk, who was trying to hand out Starlink devices to locals to ensure they had Internet access.

Greenberg stated he will remain at FEMA for two more weeks but referred additional questions to agency leadership. FEMA has not disclosed who will lead the disaster coordination office after his departure.

FEMA confirmed that Greenberg would be leaving his position and stated, “FEMA has the right leadership in place to continue to be laser focused on our mission and are fully prepared for Hurricane season.”

President Donald J. Trump has announced plans to eliminate FEMA by December, with a council of governors, cabinet members, and emergency management experts tasked with recommending changes to the agency by mid-November. This follows scandals under the former Joe Biden government in which FEMA personnel were found to be withholding aid from Trump supporters in the wake of disasters.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Image by Bill Koplitz.

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.

This Bill Would Pay Back Troops Fired by Biden for Refusing Vax Mandate.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT) has introduced a bill to provide back pay to troops impacted by former President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Sen. Tim Sheehy, former President Joe Biden, and affected U.S. service members.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The legislation was announced on Tuesday, June 17, 2025.

💬KEY QUOTE: “This unacceptable action by the last administration robbed servicemembers of the pay and benefits they rightfully earned in service to our country,” said Sen. Sheehy.

🎯IMPACT: The bill aims to restore pay and benefits to nearly 100,000 service members and their families affected by the mandate.

IN FULL

Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT) will introduce legislation on Tuesday that would, if passed and signed into law, provide back pay to the thousands of troops negatively affected by former President Joe Biden’s COVID military vaccine mandate. The legislation is designed to restore pay and benefits to thousands of U.S. service members discharged for noncompliance with the vaccination requirement under the former Biden government.

“This unacceptable action by the last administration robbed servicemembers of the pay and benefits they rightfully earned in service to our country,” Sheehy said in a statement. He added: “My legislation will right this wrong by building on President Trump’s Executive Order to reinstate those servicemembers, ensuring we fulfill our government’s sacred obligations to the men and women who put their lives on the line in defense of our freedoms.”

According to the Montana Republican, nearly 8,500 active-duty troops were dismissed for noncompliance with Biden’s mandate, while the Army Reserve and National Guard lost over 60,000 more. In total, around 100,000 servicemembers and their families were impacted, with many losing pay, benefits, and retirement credit.

Although Congress repealed the mandate in the fiscal year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and courts later ruled the mandate unconstitutional, many former troops are still struggling to reclaim lost compensation and recognition. Sheehy’s bill would allow those affected to opt into a claims process for back pay and entitlements under the Military Pay Act, with eligibility contingent on meeting specified criteria. The relief would be in addition to benefits granted under President Donald J. Trump’s executive order reinstating servicemembers discharged over the mandate.

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.
musk

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

‘X’ Is Suing New York. Here’s Why:

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Elon Musk’s X Corp. has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a New York law requiring social media companies to disclose how they define and moderate politically sensitive content categories.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: X Corp., New York Attorney General Letitia James, and New York lawmakers.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York following the law’s enactment.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The First Amendment protects both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all,” the complaint emphasizes.

🎯IMPACT: The lawsuit seeks to prevent enforcement of the law, citing allegedly unconstitutional compelled speech and government overreach.

IN FULL

X Corp., the company behind Elon Musk’s social media platform X, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a New York law that mandates social media companies publicly disclose how they define and moderate politically sensitive content categories such as “hate speech,” “misinformation,” and “extremism.”

The complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, targets Senate Bill S895B, which X Corp. argues is an unconstitutional intrusion into editorial freedom. The law, the company contends, is “an impermissible attempt by the State to inject itself into the content-moderation editorial process.”

Key to the lawsuit is the “Content Category Report Provisions,” which compel platforms to disclose whether, and how, they moderate categories of speech. Non-compliance could result in daily fines of up to $15,000 and lawsuits from the New York Attorney General, Letitia James (D). X Corp. asserts that the law violates both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8, of the New York Constitution.

The lawsuit also highlights a similar California statute that X successfully challenged, where the Ninth Circuit ruled that such disclosure mandates likely compel non-commercial speech and fail strict scrutiny. “The government cannot do indirectly what [it] is barred from doing directly,” the complaint states, referencing U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

X Corp. is asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional, enjoin its enforcement, and award legal fees. “The Content Category Report provisions compel every covered social media company to reveal its policy opinion about contentious issues, such as what constitutes hate speech or misinformation and whether to moderate such expression,” the company complains.

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.

The Senate GOP Is Making Big Changes to Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill.’

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Senate Republicans unveiled a new proposal for Medicaid reforms within President Donald J. Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” aiming to implement stricter eligibility and work requirements while limiting states’ use of health care provider taxes to qualify for additional funding.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Senate Finance Committee members, and President Donald Trump.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The Senate Finance Committee revealed the proposal on Monday evening.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The things that we’re doing are going to strengthen it, improve it, and make it available to people for whom it was intended.” – John Thune.

🎯IMPACT: The reforms aim to reduce federal Medicaid spending by over $700 billion, with Senate Republicans arguing it will curb unnecessary spending while preserving benefits for vulnerable Americans.

IN FULL

Senate Republicans are pushing to enact more expansive Medicaid reforms in President Donald J. Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” surpassing the changes implemented in the House-passed version with further tightened eligibility and stricter work requirements. The Senate Finance Committee unveiled its proposed changes Monday evening, including measures to limit states’ use of health care provider taxes to secure additional federal funding.

The Senate’s proposal is projected to exceed the $700 billion in federal Medicaid spending reductions included in the House version of the reconciliation bill. Republican leaders have touted these reforms as the most significant reduction to mandatory spending in a budget bill in U.S. history.

“[T]his is a program that’s ripe for reform. The things that we’re doing are going to strengthen it, improve it, and make it available to people for whom it was intended,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said in a recent interview, adding: “It shouldn’t be available for illegal immigrants. There are people who are ineligible. There are people, able-bodied males who are of working age; there ought to be a work requirement attached to it. These are all reforms to a program that was desperately in need of reform.”

The Senate plan targets provider taxes, reducing the cap states can impose on health care providers to receive federal Medicaid funding. Starting in 2027, the cap will gradually decrease to 3.5 percent by 2031. Additionally, the Senate proposal expands work requirements to include adults with children aged 14 or older, a step beyond the House version, which exempted adults with dependent children entirely.

However, not all Senate Republicans support the far-reaching reforms. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) panned the proposal, arguing that the provider tax changes would essentially “defund rural hospitals” to pay for “Biden ‘Green New Deal’ subsidies.”

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

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.
Purchased by The National Pulse

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

Antifa Sharpshooter Charged Over Trump Assassination Threat.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: A former Coast Guard officer and self-described Antifa member, Peter Stinson, was arrested for allegedly threatening to assassinate President Donald J. Trump.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Peter Stinson, President Trump, and investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) counter-terrorism task force.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Stinson was arrested on Monday, June 16, 2025, in Virginia following an FBI investigation.

💬KEY QUOTE: Stinson “self-identified as a member of Antifa”, investigators said.

🎯IMPACT: If convicted, Stinson could face up to five years in prison, adding to a series of recent threats against the president and other officials.

IN FULL

Peter Stinson, a former Coast Guard officer and self-identified Antifa member, has been arrested for allegedly threatening to assassinate President Donald J. Trump. According to a 19-page Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) affidavit, Stinson made multiple threats online involving firearms, knives, and poisoning.

Stinson, who served in the Coast Guard for 33 years until 2021, was trained as a sharpshooter and worked as an instructor at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). He is also listed as a coordinator for the MayDay Movement, a group advocating for the impeachment and removal of President Trump as the 47th president. Investigators noted that Stinson posted graphic threats on social media and referenced “8647,” a phrase shared online by former FBI Director James Comey, which was interpreted as a threat against Trump.

The affidavit also highlighted Stinson’s online comments following the July 2024 attempted assassination of Trump by Thomas Matthew Crooks. Stinson allegedly described the failed attempt as “a missed opportunity.” He also wrote that he lacked the “necessary skills” for such an act, but later contradicted himself, implying he did have the ability.

Convictions for threatening a president can carry up to five years in prison, though some sentences have been lighter. Stinson’s case is the latest in a string of incidents involving threats against President Trump, including the foiled assassination attempt by Crooks and another attempt by pro-Ukraine activist Ryan Routh.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images.

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.

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell Declares ‘Big Win’ Despite Jury Finding He Defamed Coomer.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: A federal jury found MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell personally guilty of defaming Eric Coomer, a former Dominion Voting Systems employee, and ordered him to pay $2.3 million in damages. However, MyPillow was found not liable.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Mike Lindell, Eric Coomer, MyPillow, FrankSpeech, and Dominion Voting Systems.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The verdict was delivered on Monday, June 16, 2025, in Denver, Colorado.

💬KEY QUOTE: “This is a huge victory for our country,” said Lindell, referring to the jury not holding MyPillow liable. He added: “The big win is, you cannot attack USA companies and expect it’s going to work.”

🎯IMPACT: Lindell says he plans to appeal the verdict and damages awarded, which fell well short of the $62.7 million that Coomer had sought.

IN FULL

A federal jury has ordered Mike Lindell to pay $2.3 million in damages for defaming Eric Coomer, a former Dominion Voting Systems employee. The amount is significantly less than the $62.7 million Coomer sought, as the jury did not find Lindell’s companies, MyPillow and FrankSpeech, liable for the claims made by others online.

“This is a huge victory for our country,” Lindell said after the verdict was issued on Monday. Emphasizing that his companies were not held liable, he added: “The big win is, you cannot attack USA companies and expect it’s going to work.” Still, the MyPillow CEO said he plans to appeal the verdict and the damages awarded, insisting he will continue to discuss allegations of election irregularities publicly.

According to the verdict, the jury found three statements, two made by Lindell and one broadcast on FrankSpeech, to be defamatory. In one instance, Lindell called Coomer “disgusting, treasonous, and a traitor.” Another statement accused Coomer of being part of “the biggest crime this world has ever seen.”

Coomer’s legal team argued Lindell ignored opportunities to reconsider his claims. Meanwhile, Lindell maintained his belief in Coomer’s alleged wrongdoing and criticized the trial as an attack on free speech. Notably, the sincere belief that a claim is valid can be a legal defense in a defamation case, meaning Lindell may have at least one viable legal avenue for appeal.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

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.

Britain Just Voted to Decriminalize Abortion Up to Birth.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Members of Parliament (MPs) in the United Kingdom voted in favor of decriminalizing abortion for the full term of a pregnancy.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Labour MPs Tonia Antoniazzi and Stella Creasy, along with 176 MPs backing Antoniazzi’s amendment and 108 MPs supporting Creasy’s proposal.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The debate and vote took place in the UK Parliament on June 17.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment of any woman who ends their own pregnancy.” – Tonia Antoniazzi

🎯IMPACT: The amendments significantly alter the legal framework surrounding abortion in England and Wales, impacting women, healthcare providers, and the justice system.

IN FULL

Members of Parliament (MPs) in the United Kingdom voted 379 to 137 to decriminalize abortion up to birth. Leftist Labour MPs Tonia Antoniazzi and Stella Creasy each proposed amendments with differing approaches to the issue.

Antoniazzi’s amendment, which passed, seeks to remove the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment for women who kill their unborn babies after 24 weeks, which is the current effective limit. She stated that her proposal would not technically alter the time limit for abortion, but with mothers no longer liable for prosecution if they break it, it will be largely meaningless.

“The 24 limit remains. Abortions still require the approval of signatures of two doctors, and women would still have to meet the grounds laid out in the Act,” Antoniazzi claimed, but noted that women who do get an abortion after 24 weeks will face no criminal prosecution. Medical professionals or abusive partners who terminate a pregnancy could still face criminal charges.

Creasy’s amendment, which was not voted on, went further by aiming to enshrine abortion access as a human right.

Under current law in England and Wales, abortion is technically illegal, but permitted up to 24 weeks of pregnancy for effectively any reason provided two doctors approve it, in a process that has become essentially a formality. Beyond this period, abortions are allowed only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the woman’s life is in danger or there are severe fetal abnormalities. The most recent data shows that 252,122 abortions were reported in 2022, the highest number recorded.

If Creasy’s amendment had passed, it could have essentially legalised abortion for all nine months of a pregnancy. Canada, a fellow Commonwealth country, has similar rules around abortion, where there is no criminal law against it during any period of a pregnancy, though there are rules within the medical profession itself.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Image by Melimama.

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.

Fed Chief Powell Likely Making ANOTHER Terrible Decision…

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: The Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee is expected to keep interest rates at their current levels when the central bank’s leadership meets on Wednesday, despite continued indicators that inflation has subsided.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Federal Reserve, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, the Federal Open Market Committee, President Donald J. Trump, and American borrowers and consumers.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Chairman Powell will announce the central bank’s policy on the federal funds rate on Wednesday, June 18, 2025.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Some members have been expressing concerns about slowing growth, although very slightly, and that should be debated heavily as a driver to cut rates sooner rather than continuing to pause,” contends financial analyst Brian Mulberry, a client portfolio manager at Zacks Investment Management.

🎯IMPACT: President Donald J. Trump has repeatedly called on Powell and the Fed to begin reducing interest rates to energize the United States economy. However, since December of last year, the central bank has opted to hold rates at their current range of 4.25 percent to 4.5 percent.

IN FULL

The Federal Reserve Bank’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is widely expected to hold the federal funds rate steady, currently between 4.25 and 4.5 percent, following its June meeting, which ends on Wednesday. Currently, the CME Group’s FedWatch Tool indicates a 99.9 percent likelihood that the central bank will maintain current interest rates, despite mounting pressure from President Donald J. Trump to begin enacting cuts to borrowing costs.

Interest rates have remained unchanged since December last year, with the central bank claiming economic uncertainty related to the impact of President Trump’s tariff policies has forced them to hold off on a rate cut. However, thus far, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell’s concern that the tariffs could restart inflation has been largely unfounded. In fact, recent economic data has shown inflation significantly cooling, with the current rate hovering very close to the central bank’s two percent target. Additionally, some recent economic data suggests the American economy could even be facing deflationary pressures, which would generally push the Federal Reserve to cut rates.

In recent months, President Trump has blasted Chairman Powell, calling him a “loser” and arguing that the central bank chief “has always been ‘Too Late'” on adjusting rates to changing economic conditions. Notably, in April, Trump indicated he may soon move to dismiss Powell as Federal Reserve chairman, though that will likely be contingent on a pending court case.

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.