GET THE APP
Friday, June 6, 2025

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

June 4, 2025
William Upton
Politics

EXPLAINED: The Fate of Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Now Rests With This Unelected Senate Official.

PULSE POINTS:

❓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).

📍 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 budget reconciliation 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.

Image by Ron Cogswell.

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.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad
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.

9 hours ago
Politics

Another National Pulse Contributor Lined Up for Top U.S. Govt Job.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Nathan Simington, a Federal Communications Commissioner, is leaving his position, as revealed in an internal memo. The vacancy could clear the way for Siminton’s chief of staff, Gavin Wax, to be nominated to fill the seat. Wax has been a long-standing contributor to The National Pulse, advocating on behalf of President Donald J. Trump’s America First agenda.

👥 Who’s Involved: Nathan Simington, Gavin Wax, President Donald J. Trump, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

📍 Where & When: Simington’s resignation is effective Friday, June 6; Wax’s potential nomination could occur soon after.

💬 Key Quote: “Gavin Wax is being seriously considered by the White House to fill the vacancy that Commissioner Simington’s departure will leave,” a source close to the FCC stated, adding: “He’s seen as a strong conservative voice on tech and media policy, with close ties to key figures in both the policy and political arenas.”

⚠️ Impact: If nominated and confirmed, Wax would become the youngest FCC commissioner and the youngest presidential nominee confirmed by the Senate in U.S. history, filling the GOP seat on the five-member commission.

IN FULL:

Nathan Simington’s announcement that he will be resigning as a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at the end of this week leaves a vacancy that could soon be filled by Gavin Wax, who currently serves as Simington’s chief of staff. The 31-year-old Wax, a New York native, has been a long-time contributor to The National Pulse and a staunch ally of President Donald J. Trump.

“Gavin Wax is being seriously considered by the White House to fill the vacancy that Commissioner Simington’s departure will leave,” a source with knowledge of the plans to replace Simington at the FCC said on Thursday, adding: “He’s seen as a strong conservative voice on tech and media policy, with close ties to key figures in both the policy and political arenas.”

If nominated and confirmed by the Senate, Wax would become both the youngest commissioner in FCC history and the youngest Senate-confirmed nominee in U.S. history. As Siminton’s chief of staff, the 31-year-old New Yorker has already worked to lay out a bold agenda at the commission. Last month, writing in The National Pulse, Wax and Simington laid out a bold plan to bring the fight to the corporate media, pushing to cap the reverse retransmission fees that major networks like CBS, NBC, and ABC use to funnel money out of local media markets to fund their woke agenda.

Before joining Simington’s staff at the FCC, Wax served as President of the New York Young Republican Club, an organization that has hosted a number of America First figures at its annual holiday galas. The 2023 gala, of which The National Pulse was a sponsor, was the largest in decades, with President Donald J. Trump headlining what was dubbed a “black tie rally” for the 2024 Republican presidential nominee.

Wax will not be the first friend of The National Pulse to join the Trump administration, however. Last month, Kingsley Wilson, née Cortes, was announced as the Department of Defense’s new Press Secretary. Wilson had previously served as a writing fellow at The National Pulse.

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.

10 hours ago
Immigration
Lawfare

Already Deported Illegals Can Challenge Their Removal, Rules Anti-Trump Judge.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Far-left U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, a new but frequent foe of President Donald J. Trump, has ruled that illegal immigrants—alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua—who were deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison must be granted habeas relief by the U.S. government to challenge their removals.

👥 Who’s Involved: Judge James Boasberg, illegal immigrant members of Tren de Aragua, President Donald J. Trump, the U.S government, the government of El Salvador, and El Salvador’s CECOT prison.

📍 Where & When: The ruling was made late Wednesday, June 5, 2025.

💬 Key Quote: “Fortunately for the American people, Judge Boasberg does not have the last word,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson in a statement on Thursday responding to the ruling.

⚠️ Impact: Boasberg’s ruling could lay the groundwork for activist judges to extend deportation appeals rights to other individuals who have already been removed from the United States. According to the ruling, the Trump White House has one week to formulate a plan for allowing several hundred illegal immigrants held at CECOT to seek habeas relief.

IN FULL:

In a ruling late Wednesday evening, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg once again intervened in President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to remove criminal illegal immigrants from the United States. The far-left judge found in favor of a group believed to be several hundred illegal immigrant members of the violent Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, who were deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison in March and are now demanding habeas relief to challenge their removal.

The ruling applies only to illegal immigrants deported to El Salvador and held at the country’s CECOT facility who were removed under President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act targeting Tren de Aragua members. “Defendants plainly deprived these individuals of their right to seek habeas relief before their summary removal from the United States—a right that need not itself be vindicated through a habeas petition,” Judge Boasberg wrote. He continued: “Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members. But—and this is the critical point—there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government’s say-so.”

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that blocks the Trump administration from deporting illegal immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act pending further proceedings by an appeals court. Boasberg explicitly cites the Supreme Court order in his ruling, noting that the high court agreed “that those subject to removal under the Act must be allowed to challenge their removability in federal court before being deported.”

The Trump administration will have one week to formulate a way for several hundred illegal immigrants in CECOT, and under the jurisdiction of the Salvadoran government, to seek habeas relief appealing their deportation per the ruling. Notably, Kilmar Abrego Garcia—an illegal immigrant and member of MS-13—who has drawn significant attention from Democrats and the media for his deportation to CECOT—is unaffected by the ruling.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad

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

10 hours ago
2A
SCOTUS

SCOTUS Dismisses Mexico’s Lawsuit Blaming U.S. Gunmakers for Cartel Violence.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously blocked Mexico’s lawsuit against American gun manufacturers, citing federal protections under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

👥 Who’s Involved: The Mexican government, major U.S. gunmakers including Smith & Wesson, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion.

📍 Where & When: The ruling was issued in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, June 5, 2025.

💬 Key Quote: Justice Elena Kagan wrote that Mexico’s complaint “does not plausibly allege” that gunmakers aided unlawful sales to traffickers.

⚠️ Impact: The decision reinforces legal protections for U.S. firearms manufacturers, shielding them from liability for crimes committed using their products.

IN FULL:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled against a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government seeking to hold American gun manufacturers accountable for firearm trafficking and cartel violence. The decision marks a significant victory for the U.S. firearms industry, affirming the protections offered under the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

In the case Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico alleged that U.S. gunmakers knowingly facilitated the illegal sale of firearms to straw purchasers, who then trafficked the weapons into Mexico for use by drug cartels. The Mexican government sought $10 billion in damages, arguing that the gunmakers’ actions fell under the “predicate exception” to PLCAA, which allows lawsuits if manufacturers knowingly break the law.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, stated that Mexico’s complaint “does not plausibly allege” that the gunmakers aided or abetted illegal firearm sales, thereby barring the case under PLCAA. The law, passed with bipartisan support in 2005, broadly shields gun manufacturers from liability for crimes committed with their products.

The lawsuit, filed in 2021, targeted seven major gunmakers and one wholesaler. While a federal district court in Massachusetts dismissed the case in 2022, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived it in early 2024, ruling that the allegations of aiding illegal sales warranted further consideration. The Supreme Court’s decision halts Mexico’s legal efforts.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), between 200,000 and 500,000 U.S.-made firearms are trafficked into Mexico annually, a phenomenon often referred to as the “iron river.” Nearly half of the guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes are American-made.

Image by Michael Saechang.

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.

11 hours ago
William Upton
Immigration
Politics

Bannon Calls for Musk to Be Deported… And He May Have a Good Reason.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: WarRoom host and former White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon is calling on federal officials to launch an investigation into Elon Musk’s immigration status and whether he concealed material facts or made false statements on his naturalization application. If it is found that Musk did obtain his citizenship through illegal means, Bannon says the billionaire tech mogul should be deported from the United States.

👥 Who’s Involved: Stephen K. Bannon, Elon Musk, Kimbal Musk, and President Donald J. Trump.

📍 Where & When: Bannon’s comments were made on Thursday, June 5, after Musk ramped up social media attacks on President Trump and his legislative agenda.

💬 Key Quote: “They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,” Bannon said.

⚠️ Impact: As a naturalized citizen of the United States, Musk can have his citizenship stripped through denaturalization if it is found that he obtained the status through illegal means.

IN FULL:

WarRoom host and former White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon says federal officials should launch a formal investigation into billionaire technology mogul Elon Musk‘s immigration status. If it is found that Musk had resided in the U.S. illegally before attaining citizenship in 2002, Bannon believes that the South Africa-born billionaire should be deported.

“They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,” Bannon said in an interview with the New York Times on Thursday. The former White House Chief Strategist went on to argue that Musk’s alleged drug use and business relations with China should also be the targets of a federal investigation, which could result in his security clearance being revoked along with his ability to bid for government contracts.

The comments about potential investigations come as Musk swiftly turned against President Donald J. Trump over the latter’s budget reconciliation bill, which eliminates an electric vehicle mandate and tax credits that made Musk’s Tesla automobiles more financially attractive to consumers. On Thursday, Musk took to his social platform X (formerly Twitter) to attack Trump and Republican lawmakers, baselessly suggesting the Epstein files have not been released in full because they include America First Leader.

While Musk is a United States citizen, having been naturalized over two decades ago, the billionaire could be denaturalized by the federal government if it is found that he attained the status through illegal means, such as concealing material facts or making false statements on his application.

Notably, Musk’s younger brother, Kimbal, is on film at the 2013 Milken Institute Global Conference saying of investors in a startup he founded with his brother Elon, “When they did fund us, they realized that we were illegal immigrants.” Musk quickly corrects Kimbal: “I’d say it was a gray area.”

It remains unclear what visa, if any, Musk held when he and his brother founded their startup, nor is it known what legal pathway he used to attain U.S. citizenship.

WATCH:

Image by Wcamp9.

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.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad

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

12 hours ago
News

Elon Lashes Out at Trump Over Epstein Logs… Except We Reported That In February.

PULSE POINTS:

What Happened: President Donald J. Trump suggested terminating billions in government contracts and subsidies to Elon Musk’s companies as a way to save budget funds, following Musk’s criticism of Trump’s “one big beautiful bill.” Musk responded by saying the President is “in the Epstein files”—but this is already a matter of public record, as previously reported by The National Pulse.

Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, Elon Musk, SpaceX, and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Where & When: Trump announced his stance on Truth Social on June 5, 2025, Musk responded on X (formerly Twitter) the same day.

Key Quote: “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” Trump wrote.

Impact: Musk’s Tesla firm is already substantially down in the stock market, and his SpaceX company would be badly damaged if it lost its government contracts.

IN FULL:

President Donald J. Trump suggested the most straightforward way to save billions of dollars from the government’s budget is to terminate the billions of dollars in contracts and subsidies awarded to former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) frontman Elon Musk’s companies. Musk lashed out by saying he is “in the Epstein files” in response.

“Time to drop the really big bomb: [Donald Trump] is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public,” Musk wrote on his X (formerly Twitter) platform, adding, “Have a nice day, DJT!”

He later doubled down, telling his followers, “Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.” However, it is already a matter of public record that President Trump is referenced in the Epstein files that the administration has already released. The National Pulse reported in February that the released files, comprised of Epstein’s flight and phone call logs, include Trump’s name, which Epstein listed in his phone book.

It seems unlikely that Musk has knowledge of anything more nefarious than this, declaring, “I love [Donald Trump] as much as a straight man can love another man” in February, and regularly bringing his children to spend time with the President at the White House and his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Subsequent to his Epstein insinuations, Musk agreed with a social media user that Trump should be impeached and replaced with Vice President J.D. Vance.

Musk stepped down as the face of DOGE at the end of May, having achieved a reported—but questionable—$175 billion in savings out of an initially promised $2 trillion. Shortly afterwards, he began attacking the pending “one big beautiful bill” championed by President Trump, on the grounds that it will increase the deficit.

Writing on his Truth Social platform, President Trump said he had asked Musk to leave government because he was “wearing thin,” and that the true source of the electric carmaker’s anger with the bill is that it “took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted.”

He added that the “easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” adding: “I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”

Musk’s SpaceX company, in particular, relies heavily on contracts with NASA, the Department of Defense, and other government agencies.

Trump’s team says the bill fulfills key campaign promises, including increased funding for border security and defense and new cuts to taxes on tips, overtime, and social security. The administration argues it will not increase but actually reduce the deficit by around $6.6 trillion over the next decade via spending cuts coupled with Trump’s tariffs and deregulation agenda.

Notably, much of the spending Musk is concerned with cannot be addressed in the “one big beautiful bill” because it is a reconciliation bill, and reconciliation bills deal only with nondiscretionary spending, excepting Social Security, rather than the discretionary spending which has been DOGE’s focus.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

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

14 hours ago
William Upton
Politics

Tesla Shares Fall as Elon Melts Down Over Trump and the ‘Big Beautiful Bill.’

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Tesla saw its shares fall eight percent on Thursday after Elon Musk authored a series of erratic posts on X critical of President Donald J. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” working its way through Congress, while claiming credit for Republican victories in the 2024 election.

👥 Who’s Involved: Elon Musk, President Trump, and Tesla.

📍 Where & When: Musk made the posts on Thursday, June 5, 2025.

💬 Key Quote: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote on X, adding: “Such ingratitude.”

⚠️ Impact: A political falling out between Trump and Musk could pose significant problems for the Tesla chief’s business interests, with his prior support for the America First leader having already alienated many liberals.

IN FULL:

Tesla shares plunged eight percent Thursday afternoon as the electric vehicle company’s CEO, Elon Musk, authored a series of erratic posts on his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), attacking President Donald J. Trump and taking credit for his 2024 election victory. “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote, adding: “Such ingratitude.”

In another bizarre post, Musk appears to assert that he should have reviewed the reconciliation bill before it was voted on. Responding to Trump’s assertion that the former DOGE leader was keyed in on the critical details of the bill, Musk wrote: “False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!”

After leaving his role as an advisor in the Trump White House and frontman for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) at the end of May, Musk almost immediately began attacking the budget reconciliation bill enacting much of Trump’s agenda that is currently moving through Congress. The attacks drew a response from President Trump on Thursday, with the America First leader telling press in the Oval Office, “I’m very disappointed in Elon; I’ve helped Elon a lot.” Trump noted Musk has not “said [anything] bad about me, personally,” but predicted, accurately, that he was “sure that’ll be next.”

Musk has repeatedly claimed the bill will drastically increase deficits, plunging the federal government further into debt. However, the Trump White House argues that it actually achieves substantial spending cuts, which, when combined with Trump’s tariffs and deregulation agenda, will reduce the deficit by $6.6 trillion over the next decade.

In one of his posts, Musk, 53, threatened Republicans, “Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years…”

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.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad

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

14 hours ago
Immigration
News

Judges Stop Trump From Deporting Accused Anti-Semites, Hamas Supporters.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Federal judges have blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to deport foreign students accused of supporting Hamas.

👥 Who’s Involved: Four foreign students, including Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Badar Khan Suri, and Mohsen Mahdawi; Trump administration officials; federal judges; ACLU representatives.

📍 Where & When: Detentions occurred across the U.S. in 2023; recent court rulings have halted deportations and detentions.

💬 Key Quote: “These rulings delay justice and seek to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers,” said Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

⚠️ Impact: Courts have ruled against the administration’s use of a 1952 law to justify deportations, citing constitutional concerns and an alleged lack of evidence.

IN FULL:

Efforts by the Trump administration to deport foreign students accused of supporting Hamas or engaging in anti-Semitic behavior have been halted by federal judges, citing constitutional issues and supposedly insufficient evidence. Four students—Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Badar Khan Suri, and Mohsen Mahdawi—were arrested by federal agents under claims that their actions posed foreign policy risks.

The students, who deny any links to Hamas or anti-Semitism despite taking part in anti-Semitic protests, were detained under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. This law allows deportation of noncitizens whose presence could adversely affect U.S. foreign policy. However, federal judges have rejected the administration’s arguments, freeing Öztürk, Mahdawi, and Suri, while Khalil’s case remains pending.

In one notable ruling, Judge Michael Farbiarz stated that deporting Khalil based on his beliefs and speech would be “unprecedented” and unconstitutional.

Assistant Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Tricia McLaughlin defended the administration’s actions, claiming the rulings “delay justice” and undermine presidential authority. Meanwhile, Esha Bhandari of the ACLU described the courts’ decisions as a necessary check on executive overreach.

The legal battles have highlighted tensions between executive power, immigration law, and free speech. Judges like federal Judge Fernando Rodriguez have previously rejected the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrant gang members. This comes despite gangs like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua being designated a foreign terrorist organization by the administration.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

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

15 hours ago
Jack Montgomery
UK

BREAKING: Zia Yusuf Out as Chairman of Farage’s Reform Party After Burka Row.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Zia Yusuf resigned as chairman of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, after callings its newest Member of Parliament (MP) “dumb” for advocating a burka ban.

👥 Who’s Involved: Zia Yusuf, Reform Party, Nigel Farage, and Sarah Pochin.

📍 Where & When: Announced via X (formerly Twitter) on June 5, 2025.

💬 Key Quote: “I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time,” Yusuf said.

⚠️ Impact: Yusuf’s exit paves the way for significant changes to Farage’s top team.

IN FULL:

Zia Yusuf has announced his resignation as chairman of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, hours after publicly criticizing the party’s newest Member of Parliament (MP) for pushing for a burka ban.

“[Eleven] months ago I became Chairman of Reform. I’ve worked full time as a volunteer to take the party from 14 to 30 percent, quadrupled its membership and delivered historic electoral results,” Yusuf said in a post on X (formerly Twitter). “I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office,” he added.

Yusuf, a Muslim businessman, had criticized Sarah Pochin MP, after she had grilled Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on introducing a ban on the Islamic burka in the House of Commons.

Yusuf said on Wednesday that banning the burka was not party policy and Pochin was stupid for asking Starmer the question, writing that it was “dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn’t do.”

The National Pulse Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam, a former advisor to Nigel Farage, suggested in March that the Reform leader should consider replacing Yusuf, who was previously at the center of a spat with now-former Reform MP Rupert Lowe.

“Farage isn’t a dictator. He’s one of the most reasonable people in politics. He’s moved aside when it made sense, and he’s returned when asked,” Kassam said of Farage’s leadership style in comments to the British press.

“He’s also a meritocrat. If someone comes along who can run the party better than its current chairman, or if a deputy could help augment the work, he’d be all over it,” he continued, adding: “The problem is everyone has his number and any time anyone has a problem in the party they immediately call Nigel, and drag him into their fights. If he doesn’t side with them, or tries to stay neutral, they lash out. I’ve seen it a thousand times.”

“If anything, he needs a militant chief of staff to police his time and keep him above the fray. This is the next Prime Minister we’re talking about now… They need to get his team right and support him wholeheartedly. No one has put more into this movement than him,” Kassam concluded.

Farage has offered a magnanimous response to Yusuf’s departure, writing that he is “genuinely sorry that Zia Yusuf has decided to stand down as Reform UK Chairman” as he was “a huge factor” in the party’s recent triumph in England’s local elections.

“Politics can be a highly pressured and difficult game and Zia has clearly had enough. He is a loss to us and public life,” he added.

This story is developing…

Image by Z979.

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.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad

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

16 hours ago
Jack Montgomery
News

BREAKING: Trump ‘Very Disappointed’ in Elon Musk.

President Donald J. Trump has said he is “very disappointed” in Elon Musk, the former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) frontman, who has been attacking the Trump-backed “one big beautiful bill.”

“I’m very disappointed in Elon; I’ve helped Elon a lot,” President Trump told the press on Thursday. The America First leader noted Musk has not “said [anything] bad about me, personally,” but said he was “sure that’ll be next.”

So far, Musk has attacked the “one big beautiful bill” only as a “Congressional” spending bill. Still, it is inextricably linked to the President, fulfilling many of his key campaign pledges, including the extension of his 2017 tax cuts, new cuts to taxes on tips, overtime, and social security, and increased spending on defense and border security.

Musk believes it increases spending unacceptably, but the administration argues it actually achieves substantial spending cuts. Moreover, because it is a reconciliation bill, there is a great deal of spending it cannot touch, and further, separate legislation to cut spending is pending.

During his remarks to the press, Trump suggested Musk “is upset because we took the EV mandate which was a lot of money for electric vehicles,” such as those produced by Musk’s Tesla firm.

“Whatever,” Musk irately responded on his X (formerly Twitter) platform, complaining: “Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill.”

WATCH:


This story is developing…

show less
President Donald J. Trump has said he is "very disappointed" in Elon Musk, the former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) frontman, who has been attacking the Trump-backed "one big beautiful bill." show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

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

16 hours ago
Politics

Biden’s Press Sec is Now at War With Her Former Colleagues.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre faced harsh criticism from anonymous Biden government insiders following her announcement of leaving the Democratic Party to register as an independent.

👥 Who’s Involved: Karine Jean-Pierre and anonymous Biden staffers.

📍 Where & When: Washington, D.C.; the backlash followed Jean-Pierre’s announcement on Wednesday and new book release in June 2025.

💬 Key Quote: “She was one of the most ineffectual and unprepared people I’ve ever worked with,” said an anonymous former Biden official.

⚠️ Impact: The public fallout highlights internal tensions within the Biden government and raises questions about loyalty and competence among senior officials.

IN FULL:

Former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre became the target of sharp criticism from anonymous Biden government insiders just one day after announcing her departure from the Democratic Party. Jean-Pierre, who served as the public face of the Biden White House for over two years, revealed in her new book, Independent, that she had registered as an independent, citing a need for Americans to “free ourselves of boxes” and think more strategically about the nation’s challenges.

However, the former Biden White House Press Secretary’s decision to ditch the Democratic Party is already drawing ire from her former colleagues, with some viewing the move as a betrayal. A number of former Biden government staffers are anonymously slamming Jean-Pierre in the media, with one former official describing her as “one of the most ineffectual and unprepared people I’ve ever worked with,” adding that she struggled to manage her team and deliver coherent policy messages.

Another former communications official criticized Jean-Pierre’s decision to position herself as an outsider despite enjoying the perks of close proximity to power during her time in the administration. “The hubris of thinking you can position yourself as an outsider… is as breathtaking as it is desperate,” the unnamed official said, suggesting the move was primarily a “cash grab” tied to her book release.

Additional anonymous sources revealed frustrations within the White House about the amount of effort spent “coddling” Jean-Pierre compared to focusing on substantive issues. Critics claimed she frequently experienced “meltdowns” when confronted with unexpected questions during interviews. The swift and public nature of the criticism underscores ongoing tensions among the former Biden government staff, as no significant voices have come forward to defend Jean-Pierre amid the backlash.

Notably, Jean-Pierre played a key role in defending President Biden’s cognitive fitness, despite internal concerns about his performance during public appearances, including a debate with President Donald J. Trump. Jean-Pierre had publicly vouched for Biden’s mental acuity, calling him “as sharp as ever” at the time.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad