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 notified Columbia University’s accreditor of violations of Title IV, threatening its accreditation status.
👥 Who’s Involved: The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (HHS OCR), and Columbia University.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Columbia University, violations cited since October 7, 2023; announcement made June 4, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “Columbia University acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students, thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” according to the Education Department.
⚠️ Impact: Columbia University’s accreditation is under threat, and the school faces scrutiny for its handling of alleged anti-Semitic harassment.
IN FULL:
The Trump administration announced on June 4 that Columbia University’s accreditation status is under review following alleged violations of federal civil rights laws. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the university may no longer meet standards set by its accrediting body due to its handling of harassment claims.
In a press release, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (HHS OCR) stated that Columbia University “acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students, thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
The agencies determined these actions violated Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal funding.
The violations reportedly date back to October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a terrorist attack on Israel, killing over a thousand and escalating tensions in the Middle East. The Education Department claims that since then, Columbia University has failed to address incidents of anti-Semitic harassment on its campus adequately.
The department further informed the university’s accreditor that Columbia “no longer appears to meet the Commission’s accreditation standards,” raising concerns about the institution’s compliance with Title IV, which governs federal student aid programs.
This development could have serious implications for Columbia University, including its ability to maintain accreditation and access federal funding. The case highlights growing attention on how universities handle issues of discrimination and harassment, particularly in the context of rising anti-Semitism.
Columbia has become infamous for allowing anti-Semitic protests on campus in the wake of Hamas’s terror attack on October 7 and the subsequent Israeli siege of Gaza that followed. In April of last year, an anti-Israel mob barricaded the university’s Dean’s office in support of the Palestinians. In March of the year, the administration of President Donald J. Trump moved to revoke the visas of two Columbia University attending Hamas supporters, including one found advocating for violence and terrorism.
The new move against Columbia mirrors similar actions the Trump White House has taken against Harvard University, which are now being litigated in federal court.
❓What Happened: NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has urged alliance members to increase defense spending, suggesting the current two percent GDP target is insufficient.
👥 Who’s Involved: NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, British Defence Secretary John Healey, and former U.S. 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: Press conference on Wednesday; NATO leaders to meet in The Hague later this month.
💬 Key Quote: “The expectation is that on the European side of NATO and the Canadian side of NATO, if we think that we can keep ourselves safe sticking with the two percent, forget it.” – Mark Rutte.
⚠️ Impact: NATO nations may face increased pressure to raise their defense budgets, with potential calls for spending as high as five percent of GDP.
IN FULL:
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has called on alliance members to significantly increase defense spending, arguing that the current two percent GDP target is inadequate for maintaining security. Speaking at a press conference on June 4, Rutte emphasized the need for European NATO members and Canada to contribute more, aligning their efforts with the United States, which currently spends around 3.4 percent of its GDP on defense.
“The expectation is that on the European side of NATO and the Canadian side of NATO, if we think that we can keep ourselves safe sticking with the two percent, forget it,” Rutte stated. He warned that sticking to the current target could leave member nations in “great difficulty” within the next three to five years.
The former Dutch prime minister is reportedly advocating for a new spending target of 3.5 percent of GDP on military expenditures, with an additional 1.5 percent allocated to defense-related measures. The issue is expected to be a central topic when NATO leaders convene in The Hague later this month, where a new “investment plan” will be discussed.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to raise British defense spending to 2.5 percent of GDP by April 2027, with a longer-term goal of reaching three percent in the next parliament, potentially extending to 2034. However, Starmer and Defence Secretary John Healey are under scrutiny over how this target will be achieved.
Healey defended the United Kingdom’s contributions to NATO, citing recent investments. “We’ve published a defense review that has NATO at its heart,” he claimed, highlighting £4 billion allocated for drone technology and £1 billion for laser weapons development. He also noted the United Kingdom’s unique role in contributing to nuclear deterrence for the alliance.
U.S. President Donald J. Trump and his NATO representative, Matthew Whitaker, have previously called for alliance members to commit to a five percent GDP defense spending target. This push underscores ongoing debates about equitable burden-sharing within NATO, where the U.S. pulls the lion’s share of the military weight.
Trump has long advocated for NATO members to spend more on their militaries. However, few countries even meet prior spending commitments, let alone potential new ones that may be even higher.
Image via the Ukrainian Presidency.
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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says its analysis of President Donald J. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” finds the legislation introduces historic fiscal reforms, achieving $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings and reducing the deficit by $1.407 trillion. This analysis contradicts a fiscal score released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that claims the bill would increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion.
👥 Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OMB Director Russ Vought, Elon Musk, and the U.S. Congress.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: The OMB’s top-line numbers were revealed by the agency’s director, Russ Vought, on Wednesday, June 4, after the CBO released its updated fiscal score earlier in the day.
💬 Key Quote: “Even the partisan CBO admits the deficit will be slashed by at least $500 billion over the next ten years,” the Trump White House said in a fact sheet.
⚠️ Impact: According to the Trump White House, the bill enacts permanent savings, extends tax cuts, allocates funds for border security, and sets the stage for further deficit reductions of $6.6 trillion over the next decade.
IN FULL:
President Donald J. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” has been revealed to deliver unprecedented fiscal reforms, achieving nearly $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings, according to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data acknowledged by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This figure marks the highest level of mandatory savings in U.S. history, surpassing reductions achieved by similar reconciliation bills in 2005, 1997, 1993, and 1990 when adjusted for inflation.
Russ Vought, the director of the OMB, notes that the budget reconciliation bill enacts permanent changes to the law, ensuring that these savings extend far into the future. While critics, including Elon Musk, have claimed the bill increases spending and adds to the deficit, Vought argues these assertions have been countered by the facts.
“OMB just reviewed the new CBO score of the One Big Beautiful bill. It confirms what we knew about the bill at House passage. The bill REDUCES deficits by $1.4 trillion over ten years when you adjust for CBO’s one big gimmick–not using a realistic current policy baseline,” Vought wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Wednesday, adding: “It includes $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings, the most in history. If you care about deficits and debt, this bill dramatically improves the fiscal picture.”
Vought and others in the Trump administration argue that the CBO’s projections of higher deficits are based on the assumption that President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts will expire. This assumption, they contend, creates a false policy baseline and warps the bill’s true fiscal impact. Additionally, the Trump White House notes that the CBO itself forecasts that President Trump’s tariffs will reduce the deficit by $2.8 trillion over the next decade.
Further, the White House officials state that when the legislation’s economic effects are factored in along with tariff revenue and deregulation, the overall impact will be a total deficit reduction of $6.6 trillion over the next ten years.
The analysis contradicts claims by former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) frontman, Elon Musk, who slammed the bill on Tuesday, calling it a “disgusting abomination” and accusing lawmakers of saddling Americans with unsustainable debt. Musk’s turn against the Trump White House has set Republicans on Capitol Hill on the defensive just as the reconciliation legislation begins to work its way through the Senate.
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. Army has announced it has already achieved its 2025 recruitment goals, four months ahead of schedule.
👥 Who’s Involved: The U.S. Army, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, 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: Driscoll announced the recruitment numbers through an article in the Wall Street Journal on June 3.
💬 Key Quote: “From the White House and Congress to the Pentagon, our soldiers are a priority. This is only the beginning. As more Americans learn about the Army’s mission and legacy, I hope more will choose to serve.” — Army Secretary Driscoll.
⚠️ Impact: The reversal comes after plummeting recruitment numbers under the former Biden regime and proves Hegseth and President Trump’s stances to be popular among those who want to serve.
IN FULL:
The U.S. Army has announced it has already achieved its recruitment goals for 2025, four months ahead of expectations, noting that 61,000 new recruits have joined. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll made the announcement on June 3, making it the first time in over ten years that the Army had met its recruitment goal by the start of June.
“From the White House and Congress to the Pentagon, our soldiers are a priority. This is only the beginning. As more Americans learn about the Army’s mission and legacy, I hope more will choose to serve,” Driscoll said.
Under the prior Biden regime and former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the Army struggled to recruit new troops, focusing instead on diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) policies. In 2022, the Army missed recruitment goals by 25 percent, while the Air Force missed recruitment goals in 2023 by 10 percent, the most in more than 20 years.
As early as April, however, recruitment was clearly surging under President Donald J. Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, with all branches noting 100 percent or more of their recruitment goals achieved. “These recruiting numbers don’t surprise me… one bit. They’re a reflection of a yearning from the American public, of young people to be proud of their country,” Hegseth said.
Hegseth has focused on revitalizing the “warrior ethos” among the Armed Forces and has already moved to scrap DEI policies, restore fitness standards, and reenlist those who refused to take the COVID-19 vaccines under the Biden regime.
“Everything starts and ends with warriors, from training to the battlefield. We are leaving wokeness and weakness behind. No more pronouns. No more climate change obsession. No more emergency vaccine mandates. No more dudes in dresses, we’re done with that shit,” Hegseth said.
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: Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is set to evaluate the House-passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” for compliance with Senate rules under the Byrd Rule.
👥 Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: U.S. Senate, June 2025.
⚠️ Impact: Key provisions of Trump’s bill, including those limiting federal court powers and restricting Medicaid funds for abortion clinics, could be struck down, potentially weakening the legislation.
IN FULL:
President Donald J. Trump‘s budgetreconciliation bill, which implements and funds a large part of the America First leader’s second-term agenda, is beginning to work its way through the United States Senate. However, the legislation, also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” will face its most perilous test from one of the Senate’s non-elected officials—Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough.
Serving as the Senate Parliamentarian since 2o12, MacDonough will be tasked with evaluating a bevy of points-of-order raised by Senate Democrats and other opponents of the bill, including Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). These points of order will challenge the legislation’s key provisions on several factors that could disqualify their inclusion, including whether the provision reduces non-discretionary (mandatory) spending, increases the deficit after the 10-year budget window, or if a policy provision is nongermine to the budget change.
The budget reconciliation process gives the Senate Parliamentarian tremendous power over legislation, despite being an unelected official. While the presiding officer of the Senate—technically the Vice President, but in practice usually the Senate Majority Leader—can override any ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian, such instances are beyond rare. The most notable occurrence was in 1975, when Vice President Nelson Rockefeller attempted to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian regarding Senate procedural rules. This led both the Republican and Democrat leaders in the Senate to hold an emergency meeting, create a compromise ruling, and circumvent Rockefeller so as to avoid setting any concrete precedent of the presiding officer actually overruling the Senate Parliamentarian.
WHO IS MACDONOUGH?
Senate Parliamentarians are almost always selected from the Office of the Parliamentarian to ensure continuity. The office itself was only created in 1935. The current Senator, Elizabeth MacDonough, has served since 2012, when she was elevated to the role by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
Despite being appointed by Reid, MacDonough has been critical of the late Nevada Democrat’s 2013 decision to use a procedural maneuver to alter Senate rules and use the so-called “nuclear option” to abolish the filibuster for lower federal court nominations. MacDonough, along with Republican Senators at the time, warned that setting the precedent could later be used to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations—a prediction which came to pass in 2017.
MacDonough has received high praise from Senators on both sides of the aisle but has repeatedly drawn the ire of progressive Democrats by ruling against some of their more far-reaching policy changes that they’ve tried to include in past reconciliation bills. The Senate Parliamentarian’s rulings on former President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan—a reconciliation bill—saw House progressives, including Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), demand that MacDonough be fired. Notably, MacDonough ruled against the inclusion of a $15 an hour minimum wage provision, and most significantly, determined that the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the legislation violated the Byrd Rule, stating, “changing the law to clear the way to (Legal Permanent Resident) status is tremendous and enduring policy change that dwarfs its budgetary impact.”
OVERRULE OR FIRE?
While Senate Republicans currently insist they will not resort to extreme measures should McDonough rule against provisions in the reconciliation bill, they’ve already used a procedural move last month to prevent the Senate Parliamentarian from ruling on a separate piece of legislation. In May, the Senate overturned California’s electric vehicle mandates using a series of procedural votes and then an expedited final vote under the Congressional Review Act, effectively ending the debate and holding a final vote before the Senate Parliamentarian could rule on the matter. While this end-around maneuver worked for a single subject and relatively uncomplicated measure, such a procedural move will not work with the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.”
Regarding the reconciliation bill, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has insisted, “We’re not going there,” when asked whether he or any other Republican acting as the presiding chair would overrule determinations made by the Senate Parliamentarian under the Byrd Rule. In essence, the Senate Republicans appear to be signaling that they will not overturn past precedent nor use any controversial procedural measures to reduce McDonough’s role in the process.
However, two wrinkles could change the current state of affairs. Namely, the constitutional presiding officer of the United States Senate is actually Vice President J.D. Vance. Should Vance decide to arrive at the Senate and assume his constitutional role, there is not much Sen. Thune or other members can do to prevent him from overruling the Senate Parliamentarian, outside of holding a vote to override the Vice President’s decision. This scenario would be similar to the 1975 legislative involving then-Vice President Rockefeller.
Secondly, if MacDonough’s rulings are seen by Sen. Thune or the Senate Republicans as a whole as being too far afield, we could see a situation like 2001 when then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) fired then-Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove over a series of rulings against Republicans on reconciliation and other budget measures. While Thune might not be willing to overrule MacDonough directly, should the Senate Parliamentarian act too partisan with her Byrd Rule determinations, the Senate Majority Leader is well within his right to fire her.
❓What Happened: Alan Dershowitz has released a new book, The Preventive State, which he calls his “magnum opus,” addressing the balance between liberty and security in preventive actions by the state.
👥 Who’s Involved: Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, known for defending high-profile clients and controversial cases.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: Released in 2025, the book reflects his 60-year career and lifetime of legal scholarship.
💬 Key Quote: “There’s no free lunch, and every time we act to prevent great harms, we take away a little liberty. The key is to make the trade-off based on principles,” Dershowitz said.
⚠️ Impact: Dershowitz hopes the book will influence legislators and courts but fears it may face neglect due to his defense of Donald J. Trump, which he says has led to professional and social ostracism.
IN FULL:
Alan Dershowitz, one of America’s most renowned legal scholars, has released what he describes as his career-defining work, The Preventive State: The Challenge of Preventing Serious Harms While Preserving Essential Liberties. The book, which he calls his “magnum opus,” seeks to address the complex trade-offs between liberty and security in preventive state actions.
Dershowitz, who became the youngest tenured professor at Harvard Law School at age 28, has spent decades exploring the concept of prevention in law, a term he says he first coined in the 1960s. Speaking with the New York Post, Dershowitz stated, “There’s no free lunch, and every time we act to prevent great harms, we take away a little liberty. The key is to make the trade-off based on principles.”
The book delves into contentious issues, such as pretrial detentions, deportations, and public health mandates, aiming to establish a jurisprudence that errs on the side of liberty while giving due weight to security concerns. “Why do we deport people? To prevent them from committing crimes. Why do we lock people up pending trial? To prevent them from fleeing or committing crimes,” Dershowitz explained.
Despite the book’s significance, Dershowitz fears it may be overlooked due to his defense of President Donald J. Trump during his first impeachment trial. Once a celebrated figure in liberal circles, Dershowitz has faced professional and social ostracism since taking on Trump’s case. Institutions like The New York Times, which previously reviewed many of his 57 books, have declined to cover his latest work.
Dershowitz’s defense of Trump has also led to personal fallout, including strained relationships with former colleagues and friends. He revealed that venues such as the 92nd Street Y and his synagogue on Martha’s Vineyard have barred him from speaking, prompting him to establish a new congregation.
At 86, Dershowitz hopes The Preventive State will influence lawmakers and courts, stating, “If I’m going to be remembered 50 years from now, it’s going to be because of this book.”
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: Jaguar reported selling just 49 total vehicles in Europe in the month of April, a record low. Some see the sales collapse as a consumer rejection of the company’s rebrand.
👥 Who’s Involved: Jaguar Land Rover, Jaguar, and European Union (EU) and United Kingdom consumers.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: The EU and the United Kingdom in April 2025.
⚠️ Impact: While it appears the low sales numbers are likely the result of Jaguar drawing down its entire vehicle inventory before it rolls out its new line of cars next year, the shockingly low number of cars sold could portend long-term consumer rejection of the company over its new all-electric, woke brand.
IN FULL:
Jaguar sales in Europe have seen one of the most catastrophic April sales numbers on record. Just 49 cars were sold in the entirety of the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom, the latter being the company’s home market. This marks a nearly 98 percent decline from the company’s sales in April just one year ago, and a continued slide in popularity since Jaguar rolled out a rebrand that ditches the iconic “leaper” logo, uses a lower-case monogram, and focuses on electric vehicles. The rebrand has received stiff backlash, with automobile enthusiasts accusing Jaguar of becoming more of a fashion or luxury brand rather than a car company after its widely-panned inaugural commercial, which featured a series of bizarrely dressed, androgynous models and zero cars.
While the shockingly low sales numbers could portend long-term problems for Jaguar, some details suggest the concerns about the rebrand and the company’s sales position are overblown. The 49 total cars sold in April appear to be the result of Jaguar merely liquidating its remaining inventory before its redesigned vehicles, as part of its rebrand, begin production later this year and hit dealership showrooms in 2026. In essence, this means that consumers didn’t simply buy fewer Jaguar cars, but rather that there were far fewer Jaguar cars even available than in April 2024.
Jaguar’s parent company, Jaguar Land Rover, posted $3.39 billion in profits for the fiscal year 2025. The high profit margin of the company’s popular Land Rover brand gives it the cash stability to draw down its Jaguar inventory ahead of officially shifting to its rebranded vehicle line.
Still, it is inconceivable that Jaguar would have let its inventory become so low that it only had several dozen models available for sale before it rolls its new line of vehicles. This suggests that the company’s rebrand is likely having an adverse effect on sales, though to what degree remains to be seen.
Jaguar is set to reveal its first rebranded vehicle, an all-electric four-door GT, at the end of this year. It will hit showrooms in 2026.
WATCH:
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: President Donald J. Trump spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin about recent attacks in Russia and Crimea, cautioning that peace in Ukraine is not imminent, while also discussing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
👥 Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, Vladimir Putin, Ukraine, Russia, and Iran.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: A phone call lasting one hour and 15 minutes, announced by Trump on Wednesday, May 28, 2025.
💬Key Quote: “It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace,” Trump stated.
⚠️ Impact: Trump’s engagement with Putin signals his America First approach to global conflicts, addressing Ukraine and Iran while prioritizing U.S. security interests against nuclear proliferation.
IN FULL:
President Donald J. Trump has confirmed he has spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin following a series of high-profile attacks in Russia and Russian-annexed Crimea in recent days, and that, based on their conversation, he does not see peace in Ukraine as imminent.
“I just finished speaking, by telephone, with President Vladimir Putin, of Russia. The call lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes,” President Trump announced Wednesday.
“We discussed the attack on Russia’s docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides. It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace,” Trump cautioned, adding: “President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.”
A recent Ukrainian raid on Russian Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft and strategic bombers may have resulted in significant damage to the air portion of Russia’s air, sea, and land-based triad of nuclear weaponry. However, there are conflicting reports as to how much of the Russian air fleet was destroyed. Technically speaking, Russian military doctrine regards attempts to destroy its nuclear armaments as grounds for a nuclear first response, although this would be an extreme reaction.
“We also discussed Iran, and the fact that time is running out on Iran’s decision pertaining to nuclear weapons, which must be made quickly!” Trump continued. “I stated to President Putin that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and, on this, I believe that we were in agreement.”
“President Putin suggested that he will participate in the discussions with Iran and that he could, perhaps, be helpful in getting this brought to a rapid conclusion. It is my opinion that Iran has been slowwalking their decision on this very important matter, and we will need a definitive answer in a very short period of 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: Jon Stewart hosted Carole Cadwalladr on The Daily Show, where she fearmongered about a “techno-authoritarian surveillance state” while promoting her Substack and nonprofit, while glossing over her history of discredited, Russiagate-style anti-Brexit conspiracy theories.
👥 Who’s Involved: Jon Stewart, Carole Cadwalladr, and Brexit campaign organizer and donor Arron Banks.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When:The Daily Show, with the interview airing on June 3, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “There should be no reward for knowingly lying in journalism. In fact, quite the opposite. There should be harsh and punitive measures to discourage activists masquerading as reporters and leading the public astray, especially at their financial cost.” — The National Pulse Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam, after Cadwalladr lost a defamation case over her Brexit allegations in 2023.
⚠️ Impact: Stewart’s uncritical platforming of Cadwalladr amplifies her discredited narrative, undermining tech reforms while glossing over her established history of peddling anti-Brexit misinformation.
IN FULL:
On June 3, 2025, Jon Stewart hosted British journalist Carole Cadwalladr on The Daily Show, giving her a platform to warn of a “techno-authoritarian surveillance state” driven by tech firms. Stewart helped Cadwalladr promote her Substack, “How to Survive the Broligarchy,” and her nonprofit, The Citizens—but failed to address Cadwalladr’s history of discredited anti-Brexit conspiracy theories.
Stewart briefly referenced a defamation lawsuit brought against Cadwalladr by Arron Banks, an ally of Nigel Farage and key organizer and donor for the Leave.EU campaign during the 2016 Brexit referendum, over a 2019 TED Talk, and a social media post implying ties to Russia.
“They really tried to destroy you,” Stewart said of the case—failing to mention the courts ruled comprehensively in Banks’s favor. Cadwalladr had falsely alleged Kremlin involvement in and even illicit Russian funding of Banks’s Leave.EU campaign, swaying the Brexit vote through dark money. As with similar Russia-based conspiracies levelled against President Donald J. Trump, Cadwalladr earned journalistic accolades such as the Specialist Journalist of the Year 2017 award and an Orwell Prize for Political Journalism, lending credence to her outlandish reporting, only for it to crumble under legal scrutiny.
Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA) found no evidence of Russian money or collusion. In 2022, the High Court ruled her false statements caused “serious harm” to Banks’s reputation, ordering her to pay £1.24 million (~$1.7m) in costs and £35,000 (~$47,500) in damages.
“There should be no reward for knowingly lying in journalism. In fact, quite the opposite. There should be harsh and punitive measures to discourage activists masquerading as reporters and leading the public astray, especially at their financial cost,” commented Raheem Kassam, Editor-in-Chief of The National Pulse, following the ruling.
During the Stewart interview, Cadwalladr shifted focus to modern data practices, criticizing the lack of artificial intelligence (AI) regulation in the U.S., noting a proposed ten-year ban on state-level regulation of the technology in the “one big beautiful bill.” However, the purpose of this provision is not to prevent AI regulation, but to prevent far-left California, where many tech firms are based, from having de facto control over AI regulation nationwide and even worldwide.
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: Gina Jones, a Democrat running for Mayor of San Antonio, is being accused of using her mother’s maiden name, Ortiz, to appeal to Hispanic voters. Jones’s mother is of Filipino origin, and her father is white.
👥 Who’s Involved: Gina Jones, her Republican opponent Rolando Pablos, and campaign representatives on both sides.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍 Where & When: San Antonio, Texas, during the mayoral race leading up to the June 7, 2025, election.
💬 Key Quote: “Gina Jones was Gina Jones until she wasn’t,” said Rolando Pablos in a campaign ad.
⚠️ Impact: The controversy has intensified the race, with Republicans alleging pandering and Democrats calling the criticisms racist.
IN FULL:
San Antonio’s mayoral race has taken a contentious turn as Reupublican candidate Rolando Pablos is accusing his Democratic rival, Gina Jones, of using her mother’s maiden name, Ortiz, to appeal to the city’s Hispanic voters. Jones, who is of Filipino descent, began using the name in 2017 during her first congressional campaign, a move seen by many as politically motivated and an inappropriate attempt to appeal to racial affinity with a key voting demographic.
Pablos, born in Mexico and a former Texas Secretary of State, is currently airing a campaign ad ahead of the June 7 mayoral election, stating, “Gina Jones was Gina Jones until she wasn’t,” accusing Jones of adopting the Ortiz name strategically to garner Hispanic support. San Antonio, the seventh-largest city in the U.S., is home to nearly one million Hispanic residents, making the demographic a significant voting bloc.
Jones’s campaign has pushed back, asserting that “Ortiz” is her legal middle name and reflects her heritage. Campaign consultant Mary Kate Hull explained, “It’s tradition for Filipino children to take their mother’s maiden name as their middle name.” Hull also noted that Ortiz Jones has embraced her heritage more as an adult.
Despite the Jones campaign’s claims, her high school yearbook lists her name as Gina Maria Jones, as does the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where she served as a national security fellow from 2016 to 2017. Pablos’ campaign says Jones is just pandering, stating, “At home in Washington, D.C., she goes by Gina Jones. While pandering for votes in Texas, she’s Gina Ortiz Jones.”
Notably, Jones herself claims the allegations that she changed her middle name to Ortiz to appeal to Hispanic voters are motivated by racism. “Do you not think it’s racist?” she has said in response to the Pablos campaign’s claims. Jordan Abelson, Jones’ campaign manager, goes further, arguing: “Antagonizing someone on their race is the definition of racism.”
Jones has twice run unsuccessfully for Congress, losing races to Will Hurd in 2018 and Tony Gonzales in 2020.
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.
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.
