Former European Commissioner Thierry Breton has suggested the European Union may move to nullify the results of Germany’s upcoming general election if the populist-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD) prevails. Breton made the comments during an interview released Thursday, referencing external influence by Elon Musk as a cause for concern.
Breton highlighted a recent online conversation between Musk and AfD leader Alice Weidel on X as a potential “interference” in the electoral process. He drew parallels with a situation in Romania last year involving right-wing candidate Calin Georgescu, suggesting the EU could respond similarly if necessary.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
“If laws are circumvented, it is imperative to take action,” he said, adding that platforms like X, owned by Musk, must adhere to European regulations.
Musk reacted forcefully to Breton’s assertions, describing them as authoritarian.
The controversy follows past tensions between Breton and Musk over content regulations. In the preceding summer, Breton had warned Musk about potentially harmful content on his platform under the EU’s Digital Services Act.
I don’t know how no one has managed to figured out that Elon Musk’s recent political actions are a direct response to his (and others’) long, ongoing regulatory war with Brussels.
It’s so obvious, yet everyone’s behaving like there’s no rhyme nor reason.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to swiftly review a lower court ruling that invalidated the President’s tariffs.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump, the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals, and attorney Jeffrey Schwab, representing the plaintiffs.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The appeals court ruling was issued last week, with the Supreme Court asked to hear the case as soon as November.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Few cases have so clearly called out for this Court’s swift resolution.” – Trump administration filing.
🎯IMPACT: If the ruling stands, President Trump’s tariffs would be rescinded, significantly affecting his trade policies and negotiations.
IN FULL
The Trump administration is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to quickly review a lower court decision that found the President’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact certain tariffs was unconstitutional. According to the filing, the Trump White House is requesting that the high court hear arguments as soon as November. Notably, the lower court ruling is currently stayed from taking effect until October 14, 2025.
In the filing, the administration argues the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling “gravely undermines the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.” The filing further states, “That decision casts a pall of uncertainty upon ongoing foreign negotiations that the President has been pursuing through tariffs over the past five months, jeopardizing both already-negotiated framework deals and ongoing negotiations.”
On August 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that President Trump exceeded his authority under the IEEPA to impose tariffs. The court stated, “Absent a valid delegation by Congress, the President has no authority to impose taxes. Given these considerations, we conclude Congress, in enacting IEEPA, did not give the President wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs simply by the use of the term ‘regulate … importation.’”
Under the IEEPA—enacted in 1977—the President is empowered to impose tariffs after declaring a national emergency. Earlier this year, President Trump declared a national emergency over foreign trade practices, stating that reciprocal tariffs were necessary to protect American workers and strengthen the U.S. economy. Subsequently, the Trump White House has reached bilateral trade agreements with a number of U.S. trade partners, while the tariffs have brought in record revenue for the federal government.
Jeffrey Schwab, representing the plaintiffs, expressed confidence in the legal arguments against the tariffs, saying, “Both federal courts that considered the issue agreed that IEEPA does not give the President unchecked tariff authority.” Meanwhile, President Trump criticized the “Highly Partisan Appeals Court” and warned, “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: A Barack Obama-appointed federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reverse over $2.6 billion in funding cuts to Harvard University, citing retaliation for the university’s rejection of governance and policy demands.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, the Trump administration, and Harvard University.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The ruling was issued on Wednesday; the events involve federal funding cuts tied to Harvard’s campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
💬KEY QUOTE: “In fact, a review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that [the government] used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.” – Judge Burroughs
🎯IMPACT: The ruling restores funding to Harvard and bars further retaliatory actions.
IN FULL
U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs, appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, has ordered that the Trump administration must reverse over $2.6 billion in funding cuts to Harvard University. According to Judge Burroughs, the funding freeze was an act of retaliation against Harvard for rejecting changes the administration sought in the university’s governance and policies.
Notably, Burroughs has made rulings on a number of cases involving the Trump White House and Harvard, including the issuance of a temporary restraining order in May blocking the administration from revoking Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification, which would have barred them from enrolling foreign students. The judge’s latest determination follows a lawsuit filed by Harvard, which argued that the cuts violated its free speech rights under the First Amendment. Burroughs stated that the administration’s justification for the cuts, citing Harvard’s handling of anti-Semitism, was a “smokescreen” for an ideologically motivated attack.
The District Court Judge acknowledged that Harvard had been “plagued by antisemitism in recent years” and criticized the university for its slow response to the issue. However, she also insisted that Harvard has taken steps to address the problem and appears willing to continue improving its efforts.
Burroughs’s decision ensures that Harvard’s federal grants cannot be terminated for the time being, pending a possible appeal by the Trump administration. The ruling also bars President Donald J. Trump from withholding future funding in retaliation.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Documents reveal the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seized phones, computer equipment, and documents from John Bolton’s home during an investigation into potential mishandling of classified information.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: John Bolton, the neoconservative former White House national security adviser, and the FBI.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The search occurred last month at Bolton’s home in Bethesda, Maryland, and his office in Washington, D.C.
🎯IMPACT: The investigation highlights concerns over the mishandling of classified information by former officials with a grudge against President Trump, and has drawn public interest due to Bolton’s high-profile role during the first Trump administration.
IN FULL
Court records unsealed Thursday reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seized phones, computer equipment, and various documents from the home of John Bolton, a former White House national security adviser in the first Trump administration. The investigation, which surfaced publicly last month when federal law enforcement raided Bolton’s home and office, revolves around allegations of mishandling classified information.
The search took place at Bolton’s Bethesda, Maryland, residence and his office in Washington, D.C. Documents made public include a search warrant inventory detailing the confiscation of multiple phones, computer equipment, four boxes of daily printed activities, a white box labeled “statements and reflections to allied strikes,” and typed documents labeled “Trump I-IV.”
The court filings cite two criminal statutes related to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, as well as the transmission or loss of defense information. Despite the investigation, no charges had been filed against Bolton as of the time of publication.
A coalition of news organizations successfully lobbied a judge to unseal the records, arguing that the public interest in the case outweighed the need for continued secrecy. However, the documents do remain partially redacted.
Bolton, who served as national security adviser in President Donald J. Trump‘s first administration for 17 months before being dismissed in 2019, has not commented publicly on the investigation. Known for his criticism of Trump’s foreign policy, the longtime war hawk detailed his disagreements with the America First leader in a book titled The Room Where It Happened.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has moved to block an order by U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams that would have closed a Florida illegal immigration detention facility dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz.”
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams, the State of Florida, and the Trump administration.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Thursday, September 4, 2025.
💬KEY QUOTE: “The 11th Circuit not only blocked Judge Williams’ order to close Alligator Alcatraz, but they blocked her from proceeding with the case until the appeal is complete.” — Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier
🎯IMPACT: The administration may restart operations at “Alligator Alcatraz” in light of the ruling.
IN FULL
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has moved to block an order by Barack Obama-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams that would have closed a Florida illegal immigration detention facility dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz.” In addition to staying Judge Williams’s preliminary injunction that would have closed the Everglades-based facility, the appellate court further barred the District Court from proceeding further with the case, as its initial ruling is being appealed.
“The State and Federal Defendants have filed motions to stay that injunction pending appeal. After careful consideration, we GRANT the Defendants’ motions, and we STAY the preliminary injunction and the underlying case itself pending appeal,” Judge Barbara Lagoa wrote for the three-judge appellate panel.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, responding to the ruling, stated: “The 11th Circuit not only blocked Judge Williams’ order to close Alligator Alcatraz, but they blocked her from proceeding with the case until the appeal is complete.”
Following Judge Williams’s initial ruling and injunction, the Trump White House had signalled it would wind down operations at “Alligator Alcatraz” and instead move detainees to other facilities, including another located in northern Florida, along with detention centers in Indiana, Nebraska, and Louisiana. It is unclear whether the administration will now restart operations at “Alligator Alcatraz” in light of the Eleventh Circuit ruling.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Governor Jeff Landry (R) welcomed President Donald J. Trump’s suggestion of deploying the National Guard to Democrat-run New Orleans, Louisiana, to crush crime.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Trump, Governor Landry, the City of New Orleans, and the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Trump’s comments were made on Wednesday during a White House press conference, with responses from Landry and others following.
💬KEY QUOTE: “We will take President Donald Trump’s help from New Orleans to Shreveport!” – Governor Jeff Landry.
🎯IMPACT: A federal crackdown in New Orleans, similar to the one in Washington, D.C., could substantially reduce crime.
IN FULL
Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry (R) is expressing support for President Donald J. Trump’s proposal to send the National Guard to Democrat-run New Orleans to crush crime. “We will take President Donald Trump’s help from New Orleans to Shreveport!” Landry said in response to Trump’s comments during a White House press conference on Wednesday.
Trump mentioned New Orleans as one of the cities under consideration for federal assistance, saying, “We’re making a determination now. Do we go to Chicago or do we go to a place like New Orleans, where we have a great governor, Jeff Landry, who wants us to straighten out a very nice section of this country?”
New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell, a Democrat who was indicted by a federal grand jury on corruption charges last month, shared a muted statement from the city, which did not explicitly endorse or reject Trump’s suggestion but acknowledged that federal and state partnerships are important for ensuring public safety, particularly during major events.
While federal law enforcement assistance appears to face little resistance in New Orleans, the same cannot be said for other Democrat-controlled localities. Democrats in Chicago, Illinois, and Los Angeles, California, have vowed to oppose federal interventions in their cities. Meanwhile, the Portland Police Department in Oregon appears to have entirely abdicated its law enforcement duties in about a four-block radius around a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility, failing to dispatch officers even in instances of assault by anti-ICE rioters in the area.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Former Conservative minister Nadine Dorries has announced her defection to Reform UK.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Nadine Dorries, former MP for Mid-Bedfordshire and ex-culture secretary, along with other defectors like David Jones and Sir Jake Berry.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The announcement was made in an interview with the Daily Mail.
💬KEY QUOTE: “The Tory Party is dead. Its members now need to think the unthinkable and look to the future.” – Nadine Dorries
🎯IMPACT: This marks another high-profile defection to Reform UK, signaling potential shifts in the British political landscape.
IN FULL
Nadine Dorries, a former Conservative (Tory) Party member of the Cabinet and close ally of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, has officially defected to Nigel Farage’s Reform Party. “The Tory Party is dead,” she told the British press, adding: “Its members now need to think the unthinkable and look to the future.”
Dorries previously served as Culture Secretary and as a health minister during Boris Johnson’s administration. She also represented the Mid-Bedfordshire constituency in the House of Commons before stepping down as a Member of Parliament (MP) months after Johnson’s ouster.
Her departure is part of a growing trend of Conservative politicians defecting to Reform. Other notable figures include former Welsh Secretary David Jones and ex-Tory Party Chairman Sir Jake Berry.
The notionally right-wing party governed from 2010 to mid-2024, winning its biggest parliamentary majority since Margaret Thatcher in the 2019 general election. However, after botching Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic, and increasing immigration to record-breaking levels despite repeated promises to reduce it substantially, support for the Tories collapsed, with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party winning a large majority in 2024 despite earning fewer votes than it did in 2019.
In conversation with Farage in 2023, while the Conservatives were still in office, U.S. President Donald J. Trump noted that the party “really weren’t staying conservative… they were literally going far left,” adding: “It never made sense.”
Farage’s party is now consistently outpolling Labour, with the Conservatives falling into a distant third or even fourth place.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Department of Justice (DOJ) is considering imposing restrictions that would prevent those undergoing gender transition or diagnosed with gender dysphoria from purchasing firearms.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The DOJ, gun owners, and transgenders.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: DOJ discussions were revealed on Thursday, September 4, 2025, after a mass shooting at a Catholic mass in Minnesota, carried out by a transgender gunman.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Individuals within the DOJ are reviewing ways to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell.” — DOJ Official
🎯IMPACT: The DOJ could move to extend restrictions on gun ownership for the mentally ill to include those who identify as transgender or who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
IN FULL
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is considering imposing restrictions that would prevent those undergoing gender transition or diagnosed with gender dysphoria from purchasing firearms. Notably, the potential legal restrictions come in the wake of anti-Trump transgender Robin Westman’s deadly attack on a back-to-school Mass at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, last week.
Reportedly, the DOJ is discussing internally whether to extend restrictions that bar certain mentally ill people from owning firearms to those with gender dysphoria, which is itself classified as a mental disorder. A DOJ source, speaking with the media, explained: “Individuals within the DOJ are reviewing ways to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell.”
Officially, the DOJ is not commenting on the deliberations, with a spokesman only saying that the agency is considering a “range of options.” However, the deadly church shooting in Minnesota last week has sparked a public debate about new restrictions, especially in light of the fact that a number of recent mass shootings were perpetrated by individuals with gender dysphoria or who identified as transgender.
Meanwhile, the Trump White House is believed to be updating its national security strategy to include guidance regarding transgender violence. In January this year, A U.S. Border Patrol officer in Vermont was murdered by two people with ties to a militant transgender extremist group called the “Zizians.” In February, the leader of the “Zizians”— Jack LaSota, a 34-year-old man who identifies as a transgender woman under the alias Andrea Phelps—was arrested in Maryland’s western backcountry.
LaSota had been on the run since he skipped a December trial. Previously, he faked his death to duck prosecution and was even declared deceased in San Mateo County, California.
President Donald J. Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was also the target of an assassination plot in January, with the suspect revealed to identify as transgender. Ryan Michael English, also known as Riley Jane, admitted to police that he wanted to kill Treasury Secretary Bessent.
The National Pulse reported last Thursday that Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had announced an investigation into whether psychiatric medication is contributing to the rise in mass shootings, especially those perpetrated by transgender individuals. “I certainly consider mass shootings a health crisis, and we are doing for the first time real studies to find out what the ideology of that is. And we’re looking for the first time at psychiatric drugs,” Kennedy stated.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Susan Monarez was fired as Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after she admitted she was untrustworthy, according to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., former CDC Director Susan Monarez, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Thursday, September 4, 2025.
💬KEY QUOTE: “I told her she had to resign because I asked her, ‘Are you a trustworthy person?’ and she said, ‘No.'”— Sec. Kennedy on the reason for Monarez’s firing from the CDC.
🎯IMPACT: Monarez has publicly claimed her removal was because of her opposition to new COVID-19 vaccine recommendations; however, Sec. Kennedy has now publicly countered, stating Monarez had lied to him and is lying about the circumstances of her firing.
IN FULL
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealed former U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Susan Monarez was fired after he confronted her about whether she was trustworthy, and Monarez replied, “No.” The circumstances of Monarez’s removal came to light during a heated exchange between Sec. Kennedy and Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), in which Warren accused the HHS Secretary of having fired the former CDC Director over her refusal to approve new COVID-19 vaccine recommendations.
“Did you tell the head of the CDC that if she refused to sign off on your changes to the childhood vaccine schedule, that she had to resign?” Sen. Warren indignantly demanded during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Thursday. Without missing a beat, Sec. Kennedy responded, “No. I told her she had to resign because I asked her, ‘Are you a trustworthy person?’ and she said, ‘No.'”
The response stunned Sen. Warren, leading her to exclaim, “What?!” However, Kennedy continued, asking, “If you had an employee who told you they weren’t trustworthy, would you ask them to resign, Senator?”
A flustered Warren pointed to public statements from Monarez contrary to Sec. Kennedy’s recollection of events, to which the HHS Secretary, nonplused, rebutted: “Well, I’m not surprised about that.” Kennedy went on to tell Sen. Warren that Monarez was lying about the circumstances of her removal, adding, “Every conversation I had with her, there were witnesses.”
Warren: “Did you tell the head of the CDC…that she had to resign?”
RFK: “No. She had to resign because I asked her ‘Are you a trustworthy person?’ and she said ‘No.'”
When Sen. Sanders retraced the exchange, Kennedy again explained that Monarez had given an emphatic “No” when asked if she was trustworthy.
The National Pulse previously reported that Monarez attempted to fight her removal from the CDC, claiming that only President Donald J. Trump could remove her. Subsequently, President Trump tapped Jim O’Neill, the Deputy Secretary of HHS, to serve as the acting CDC director, effectively removing Monarez and her technical objection.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Corporate filings have uncovered a campaign by George Conway and Barbara Comstock funding anti-ICE posters urging agents to reveal their identities.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: George Conway, Barbara Comstock, Home of the Brave USA, Inc., U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, and The National Pulse Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Recent weeks, at locations including bus stops in Washington, D.C.
💬KEY QUOTE: “It was just a couple of years ago, wasn’t it, that it was actually the political left screaming about putting masks on, and now there are signs saying take your masks off.” – Raheem Kassam
🎯IMPACT: The poster campaign increased safety concerns for ICE personnel, with potential for further violence against agents.
IN FULL
Corporate filings have revealed that George Conway and Barbara Comstock are key figures funding a far-left flyer campaign urging Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to “take off your masks” and face public scrutiny, despite the fact that this would open them to attacks.
The posters, funded by Home of the Brave USA, Inc., have appeared at bus stops and on buildings in Washington, D.C., with Raheem Kassam, Editor-in-Chief of The National Pulse, noting in a recent video report, “It’s funny, it was just a couple of years ago, wasn’t it, that it was actually the political left screaming about putting masks on, and now there are signs saying take your masks off,” Kassam remarked, noting that ICE “have to remain masked a lot of the time for fear of reprisals simply for doing their jobs.”
Conway is a vocal critic of President Donald J. Trump and co-founded the Lincoln Project, alongside other Republicans-in-name-only (RINOs), such as predator John Weaver. Notably, Conway persuaded writer E. Jean Carroll to pursue President Trump over an alleged sexual assault decades ago, one of many attacks she claims to have been subjected to by at least eight men.
Comstock is a former Republican congresswoman and current Baker Donelson lobbyist, known for establishing the American Consumer & Investor Institute in 2023. The aforementioned filing highlights their involvement in the organization behind the anti-ICE poster campaign.
In case anybody was wondering who has been plastering these flyers calling for the doxxing of ICE agents around DC, it’s George Conway and current Baker Donelson lobbyist Barbara Comstock. pic.twitter.com/NcmSllfIPm
The effort to unmask ICE agents raises safety concerns, with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) noting doxxing incidents in Portland, Oregon, where anarchist groups exposed ICE officers’ personal information. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has pledged to prosecute those involved, citing risks from gangs like MS-13 using such data to intimidate or even kill personnel involved in immigration enforcement efforts, as well as their families.
Notably, ICE and other federal law enforcement are already being targeted in increasingly violent attacks, with a sniper attack outside one ICE facility seeing a responding local police officer shot in the neck.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The chairman of the California State Student Association (CSSA) revealed that the California State University (CSU) system serves 10,000 illegal alien students.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: CSSA Chair Aaron Villarreal and representatives from the 23 CSU campuses.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: California, announcement made earlier this week.
💬KEY QUOTE: “The CSU is proud to serve nearly 10,000 undocumented [sic] students. The highest number at any university system in the country.” – Aaron Villarreal
🎯IMPACT: Villarreal’s boast raises questions about the use of taxpayer dollars and compliance with immigration laws within the CSU system.
IN FULL
Two out of every 100 students in the California State University (CSU) system are illegal immigrants, according to the California State Student Association (CSSA). The revelation, made on Wednesday, comes as students and administrators are vowing to resist the Trump White House’s immigration enforcement actions and efforts to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding tuition for illegal immigrants instead of American citizens.
“The CSU is proud to serve nearly 10,000 undocumented [sic] students. The highest number at any university system in the country, ” CSSA chairman Aaron Villarreal stated. “These students are our classmates, our colleagues, and our friends. They contribute in our classrooms, lead in our student government, and give back to our communities.”
“Yet they carry the extra burden that most of us never have to think about. The constant fear that immigration enforcement could interrupt their lives, their families’ lives, and their education,” Villarreal added.
The CSSA serves as a representative body for the 461,612 students across the CSU system’s 23 campuses in California. According to Villarreal, the student organization is pushing university administrations to enact policies ensuring affordable tuition, housing, and expanded access to financial aid—and that illegal immigrants must be provided the same access to these resources as U.S. citizens.
California State University campuses admit students regardless of their immigration status, sparking criticism that the Golden State is prioritizingnon-citizens over Americans. Notably, California’s large illegal immigrant population has already placed severe strains on other state resources.
The National Pulse reported in March that Governor Gavin Newsom (D) was forced to seek a multi-billion-dollar loan from his state’s general fund to cover Medicaid costs that have been sent soaring by the state’s expansion of healthcare coverage to illegal immigrants. The $2.8 billion general fund loan request followed on the heels of an initial $3.4 billion request to cover an earlier shortfall in state healthcare program Medi-Cal.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Share Story
FacebookTwitterWhatsappTruthTelegramGettrCopy Link
Real News Fan? Show It!
Many people are shocked to learn that because of active censorship, we currently have to spend more time making sure you can even see The National Pulse, than on producing the news itself. Which sucks. Because we do this for the truth, and for you.
But the regime doesn’t want you being informed. That’s why they want us to go away. And that will happen if more people don’t sign up to support our work. It’s basic supply and demand. So demand you get to read The National Pulse, unrestricted. Sign up, today.
We don’t sell ads, and refuse corporate or political cash. It all comes down to you, the reader. I hope you can help.
