GET THE APP
Wednesday, December 24, 2025

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

1 hour ago
News

Major U.S. University Severs Links with Sanctioned UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Georgetown University has severed ties with Francesca Albanese, a U.N. Special Rapporteur facing U.S. sanctions, following scrutiny from watchdog groups.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Francesca Albanese, Georgetown University, U.N. Watch, and U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The removal was first noted on December 21, 2025, with Albanese’s profile removed from Georgetown’s website.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Universities exist to uphold intellectual honesty and historical truth, not to legitimize distortions of history or rhetoric that excuses violence against civilians.” – Heather Johnston, founder of the U.S.-Israel Education Association

🎯IMPACT: The decision underscores global condemnation of Albanese’s statements.

IN FULL

United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has been removed from a list of affiliated scholars at Georgetown University following criticism over her public statements and her inclusion on a U.S. sanctions list. The removal came after U.N. Watch drew attention to Albanese’s record and publicly questioned her continued association with the university. On December 21, U.N. Watch CEO Hillel Neuer wrote on social media, “U.N. Hamas apologist Francesca Albanese has been removed from Georgetown University.” Neuer also posted screenshots showing Albanese’s profile on Georgetown’s website before it was taken down, followed by an error page indicating the profile was no longer available.

Before its removal, Albanese’s biography described her as “an international lawyer and researcher” with publications focused on Palestinian refugee issues.

The decision was welcomed by some pro-Israel advocates. Heather Johnston, founder of the U.S.-Israel Education Association, praised Georgetown’s action, stating, “Universities exist to uphold intellectual honesty and historical truth, not to legitimize distortions of history or rhetoric that excuses violence against civilians.”

Albanese has been the subject of growing international controversy. In July, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the United States had imposed sanctions on her, citing her involvement with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its efforts to pursue legal action against U.S. and Israeli nationals without their consent. The U.S. State Department accused Albanese of “unabashed antisemitism” and of supporting terrorism.

Her comments following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel further fueled criticism. In February 2024, France and Germany condemned Albanese after she appeared to justify the attacks by arguing that the victims were not targeted because they were Jewish but as a response to Israeli policies. France labeled her remarks “scandalous,” while Germany called them “a disgrace” to the United Nations.

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

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.

36 minutes ago
Health
News

DOJ Reverses Biden-Era Rule, Halts Veterans Affairs Abortion Funding.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an opinion reversing a Biden-era rule that allowed the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide taxpayer-funded abortions, citing federal restrictions.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, the VA, and the former Biden government.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The opinion was published on Monday, affecting VA medical centers across the U.S.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The DOJ’s opinion states that VA is not legally authorized to provide abortions, and VA is complying with it immediately.” – Veterans Affairs Press Secretary Peter Kasperowicz.

🎯IMPACT: The VA has ceased aborting babies under the Biden-era rule, complying with the DOJ’s interpretation of federal law.

IN FULL

A U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ruling issued on Monday has overturned a former Biden regime policy that allowed the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide taxpayer-funded abortions. The DOJ opinion concludes that federal law generally prohibits the VA from aborting babies.

Issued by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, the opinion found that a 2022 rule adopted after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision conflicted with the Veterans Health Care Act. That rule had permitted the VA to provide abortions in certain circumstances.

Josh Craddock, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the OLC, said the VA secretary’s authority over medical care has clear limits. “That discretion is not limitless,” Craddock wrote, adding that the Veterans Health Care Act “makes clear” abortion services may only be provided in specific situations, such as life-threatening emergencies or as part of treatment for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages.

Veterans Affairs Press Secretary Peter Kasperowicz confirmed the department has already stopped providing abortions under the Biden-era rule. “The DOJ’s opinion states that VA is not legally authorized to provide abortions, and VA is complying with it immediately,” he said.

The VA operates a nationwide network of medical facilities, serving approximately nine million veterans and beneficiaries. Under the 2022 policy, the department provided about 140 abortions per year, a figure significantly lower than the approximately 1,000 annual procedures the administration initially projected following the rollback of Roe v. Wade and the implementation of state-level abortion restrictions.

Notably, the decision comes amid broader disputes over federal abortion funding. In recent months, Planned Parenthood has sued the Trump administration over provisions in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that restrict Medicaid reimbursements to organizations that abort babies.

Supporters of the legislation argue it enforces long-standing limits on taxpayer-funded abortion. Courts have also weighed in on abortion funding, with some judges temporarily blocking restrictions and others ruling that the federal government must continue certain payments.

Image by Tony Webster.

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.

2 hours ago
NatSec
News

Pentagon Hits Best Recruitment Numbers in 15 Years.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. military achieved its best recruiting numbers in 15 years during fiscal year 2025, with all services exceeding their goals, except for the Army Reserve.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell, and Undersecretary of War Anthony J. Tata.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Fiscal year 2025, United States.

💬KEY QUOTE: “If you look at the data from November, from the election of President Trump and then Secretary Hegseth’s confirmation thereafter, the numbers that we’ve seen during that time period have been historic.” – Sean Parnell

🎯IMPACT: The surge in recruiting numbers strengthens U.S. military ranks amid global geopolitical challenges, suggesting a renewed focus on military readiness.

IN FULL

U.S. military recruiting in 2025 has reached its highest level in about 15 years, with every active-duty service exceeding its annual goals except the Army Reserve, according to Pentagon data. Department of War officials say the rebound marks a dramatic reversal from recent years of shortfalls under the former Biden regime.

Pentagon leaders have linked the surge to policy and cultural shifts under President Donald J. Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. Speaking about the timing of the increase, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell highlighted the period following the election and the confirmation of the new Secretary of War. “If you look at the data from November, from the election of President Trump and then Secretary Hegseth’s confirmation thereafter, the numbers that we’ve seen during that time period have been historic,” Parnell said.

Hegseth has made military culture a central focus of his tenure, promoting what he has described as a renewed “warrior ethos.” Since taking office, he has canceled official identity-based observances, dismantled several diversity-focused programs, and stated that promotions and hiring decisions should be based strictly on merit. The Pentagon has also begun reviewing how terms such as “bullying” and “hazing” are defined and enforced, arguing that standards must distinguish misconduct from the demands of military training.

Recruitment gains have been reported across multiple branches. The Army reached its annual enlistment target months ahead of schedule for the first time in more than a decade, while the Navy also surpassed its projected numbers earlier than expected. Officials have pointed to changes in messaging, advertising, and recruiting standards, along with the broader policy shift, as factors attracting more applicants.

The improved recruiting environment comes as U.S. forces remain active globally. In recent months, the military has carried out strikes against terrorist targets in Syria and expanded counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean. Defense leaders argue that stronger recruitment directly supports readiness at a time of heightened competition with adversaries such as China.

In previous years, analysts and military officials warned that persistent recruiting gaps could strain force readiness and limit the Pentagon’s ability to meet operational demands. The 2025 figures, however, suggest those concerns have eased for now, with most services reporting enlistment levels that exceed expectations.

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.
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.

2 hours ago
Education

University Fires Trans Instructor for Failing Student Over Biblical Gender Views.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The University of Oklahoma removed a transgender graduate teaching assistant from instructional duties after accusations of religious discrimination and arbitrary grading practices.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Samantha Fulnecky, a conservative student; Mel Curth, the graduate teaching assistant; University of Oklahoma officials.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The decision at the University of Oklahoma was announced on Monday.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Based on an examination of the graduate teaching assistant’s own statements related to this matter, it was determined that the graduate teaching assistant was arbitrary in the grading of this specific paper.” – University of Oklahoma statement.

🎯IMPACT: The instructor was removed from teaching duties, the student’s grade was reviewed, and a full-time professor was assigned to the course.

IN FULL

A transgender graduate teaching assistant, Mel Curth, has been removed from his duties at the University of Oklahoma after a student alleged he engaged in religious discrimination after assigning her a failing grade on an essay. The essay, written by 20-year-old junior Samantha Fulnecky, rejected gender ideology from a Christian perspective. University officials cited arbitrary grading practices in their decision to remove Curth.

The controversy began with a late-November assignment in a psychology course, where students were tasked with writing a 650-word response to an academic article. Fulnecky’s essay argued that gender is biologically fixed and rooted in Christian belief, stating, “I live my life based on this truth and firmly believe that there would be less gender issues and insecurities in children if they were raised knowing that they do not belong to themselves, but they belong to the Lord.”

Curth, who uses “she/they” pronouns, failed the paper, claiming it relied too heavily on “personal ideology” and describing parts of it as offensive. In a response to Fulnecky, Curth stated, “To call an entire group of people ‘demonic’ is highly offensive, especially a minoritized population.” The essay’s grading and Curth’s comments sparked public scrutiny after being shared widely online.

Following an internal review, the university confirmed that Curth’s grading practices were arbitrary and reassigned teaching duties to a full-time professor for the remainder of the semester. Officials also ensured that Fulnecky’s failed grade would not impact her final course outcome and conducted a formal grade appeal process. Additionally, Fulnecky filed a religious discrimination complaint, which triggered an internal investigation.

Conservative figures praised Fulnecky for standing firm in her beliefs. Oklahoma state Representative Gabe Woolley (R) called the removal of Curth appropriate, stating the instructor “should never have been employed at a public university” while rejecting biological sex differences. Former state schools superintendent Ryan Walters described Fulnecky as “an American hero” for confronting what he described as a broader attack on Christianity.

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.

3 hours ago
News

FBI Dismissed Alleged Epstein Postcard to Nassar as Forgery: DOJ.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has declared a postcard allegedly written by Jeffrey Epstein to Larry Nassar before his death as fake, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Jeffrey Epstein, Larry Nassar, and the FBI.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The postcard was postmarked August 13, 2019, after Epstein’s death, and flagged in New York prison mail.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The FBI has confirmed this alleged letter from Jeffrey Epstein to Larry Nassar is FAKE.” – Department of Justice

🎯IMPACT: The DOJ emphasized, “This fake letter serves as a reminder that just because a document is released by the Department of Justice does not make the allegations or claims within the document factual.”

IN FULL

A postcard allegedly written by deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein to Larry Nassar before his death has been ruled as fake by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The postcard, which was part of a Department of Justice (DOJ) file release, included claims about “our president” loving “young, nubile girls.” However, the FBI has dismissed the document as fraudulent, citing inconsistencies in handwriting and postmarking.

The postcard, dated August 13, 2019, was postmarked out of Northern Virginia, despite Epstein being jailed in New York at the time. It was flagged by the prison mailroom and subsequently investigated by the FBI. The letter lacked the required inmate number and listed an incorrect return address.

The DOJ stated, “The FBI has confirmed this alleged letter from Jeffrey Epstein to Larry Nassar is FAKE. The fake letter was received by the jail, and flagged for the FBI at the time. The FBI made this conclusion based on the following facts.”

The alleged note, addressed to “L.N.” (Larry Nassar), included bizarre remarks about shared interests and referenced Epstein’s death as taking the “short route home.” The postcard was signed “Yours, J. Epstein.”

Despite its inclusion in the DOJ’s document release, the FBI‘s findings cast doubt on the authenticity of the document. The DOJ emphasized, “This fake letter serves as a reminder that just because a document is released by the Department of Justice does not make the allegations or claims within the document factual.”

Image by Dave Newman.

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.
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.

3 hours ago
Crime
UK

Russell Brand Faces New Rape and Sexual Assault Charges as Two More Accusers Emerge.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: British comedian and actor Russell Brand has been charged with one count of rape and one count of sexual assault following allegations from two additional women.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Russell Brand, the Metropolitan Police, and six women who have come forward with allegations.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The alleged incidents occurred between 1999 and 2005, with charges announced Tuesday in London. Brand is scheduled to appear in court on January 20, 2026.

💬KEY QUOTE: “I pray, Lord, for the absolute truth of who I am to be abundantly revealed.” – Russell Brand

🎯IMPACT: A total of six women have now come forward with allegations against Brand, and the investigation remains ongoing.

IN FULL

Russell Brand, the British actor and comedian turned political pundit, is facing new charges of rape and sexual assault after two additional women have come forward with accusations against him. According to the Metropolitan Police in London, England, the new charges—one count each of rape and sexual assault—are in addition to charges filed in April.

Brand, 50, posted on X (formerly Twitter) earlier on Tuesday, “I pray Lord, anyone that I’ve harmed or hurt in my years of mindlessness and sin would be healed, Lord. And I pray, Lord, for the absolute truth of who I am to be abundantly revealed.”

British police first launched an inquiry into Brand in September 2023 after media reports revealed allegations of sexual assault and rape against four women. The alleged incidents span from 1999 to 2005, with Brand being charged in two of the incidents earlier this year on two counts of rape, one count of indecent assault, and two counts of sexual assault.

In May, Brand pleaded not guilty. He asserted in a video posted to social media at the time that he had “never engaged in nonconsensual activity.” In court filings from the initial prosecution, Brand is alleged to have grabbed a woman by the arm in 2001 and subsequently attempted to drag her into a toilet stall. Meanwhile, in a 2004 incident, Brand is accused of sexually assaulting a woman by touching her breasts without consent. The new charges bring the total number of women making allegations against Brand to six.

Brand is scheduled to appear in court on January 20, 2026.

Image by D B Young.

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.

4 hours ago
News
UK

Former Prince Andrew Scrutinized Over ‘Inappropriate Friends’ Email to Ghislaine Maxwell.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: An email purportedly from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, referencing “inappropriate friends” has surfaced in the latest release of Jeffrey Epstein files by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, Ghislaine Maxwell, Virginia Giuffre, and deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The email, dated August 2001, reportedly originated from Balmoral, Scotland, during one of the Royal Family’s summer retreats. The DOJ released it at the end of December along with thousands of pages of Epstein materials.

💬KEY QUOTE: “I am up here at Balmoral Summer Camp for the Royal Family… Have you found me some new inappropriate friends?” – Email attributed to “A xxx.”

🎯IMPACT: The release adds further scrutiny to Andrew’s connections with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

IN FULL

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, is facing renewed scrutiny following the release of an email referring to “inappropriate friends” that emerged in the latest batch of Jeffrey Epstein files made public by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

The email was sent in August 2001 from the address “abx17@dial.pipex.com” to Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime associate and accomplice. It was signed “A xxx” and included the line: “I am up here at Balmoral Summer Camp for the Royal Family.” The British royals traditionally spend part of August at Balmoral, their private estate in Scotland. Media reports have not been able to confirm that the email address belonged to Andrew, however.

The message continued: “How’s LA? Have you found me some new inappropriate friends? Let me know when you are coming over as I am free from 25th August until 2nd Sept and want to go somewhere hot and sunny with some fun people before having to put my nose firmly to the grindstone for the Fall.” It ended: “Any ideas gratefully received! See ya A xxx.”

Maxwell’s reported reply read: “So sorry to disappoint you, however the truth must be told. I have only been able to find appropriate friends.” She signed off: “Kisses Gx.”

The email’s release has added to the longstanding controversy surrounding Andrew’s relationship with Epstein and Maxwell. Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre accused Andrew of raping her when she was a teenager, allegations he has consistently denied. Giuffre stated in court filings, media interviews, and her memoir Nobody’s Girl that Epstein and Maxwell trafficked her to London, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where she said she was made to have sex with Andrew over several months beginning in March 2001. She said she feared death if she refused. Andrew settled Giuffre’s New York civil lawsuit in 2022 while denying liability.

In recent years, Andrew’s public role has continued to diminish. In December 2024, he withdrew from a Royal Family pre-Christmas lunch amid controversy linked to an alleged spy scandal, a move widely seen as an effort to limit further damage to the monarchy. In recent weeks, King Charles III formally stripped his younger brother of his royal titles and honors, and he began using the name Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, citing the need to step back from royal life while reiterating his denial of all allegations.

Image via Royal Navy Media Archive.

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.
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.

4 hours ago
Jack Montgomery
News
TECH

U.S. Sanctions Pro-Censorship Figures in UK, EU for Suppressing Americans’ Free Speech.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The United States imposed sanctions targeting the international censorship-NGO ecosystem, focusing on visa-related measures against former officials and NGO leaders in Britain and the European Union (EU) involved in extraterritorial censorship of American speech.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers announced the sanctions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and several foreign former figures, including Thierry Breton, Imran Ahmed, Clare Melford, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, and Josephine Ballon, were involved.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The announcement was made on December 23, 2025, in the United States.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship.” – Marco Rubio

🎯IMPACT: The sanctions aim to prevent individuals who promote censorship of American speech from entering the U.S., reinforcing the administration’s stance against external censorship pressures.

IN FULL

Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers announced on Tuesday that the United States has issued sanctions targeting the censorship-NGO ecosystem. These sanctions are specifically visa-related, aimed at British and European Union (EU) former officials and NGO leaders who have been involved in extraterritorial censorship of American speech.

Those named as having been sanctioned are former European Commissioner Thierry Breton, Imran Ahmed of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), Clare Melford of the UK-based Global Disinformation Index, and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of Germany’s HateAid organization. Khan, in particular, has close ties to British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, whose chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, founded the CCDH.

All have been involved in various efforts to suppress speech and promote censorship, often collaborating with U.S. bureaucrats or supporting legislation like the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Notably, the DSA has been used to impose massive fines on U.S.-led and U.S.-based tech firms, in an effort to effectively extend the European censorship regime beyond its borders.

“The State Department is taking decisive action against five individuals who have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed in an official statement. “These radical activists and weaponized NGOs have advanced censorship crackdowns by foreign states—in each case targeting American speakers and American companies. As such, I have determined that their entry, presence, or activities in the United States have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States,” he added.

The sanctions do not involve severe Magnitsky-style financial measures but send a clear message that those who spend their careers promoting censorship of American viewpoints are not welcome on American soil. Under Secretary Rogers stressed that “None of those sanctioned is a current UK or EU official—however, we know that foreign government officials are actively targeting the United States.”

Secretary Rubio noted that today’s list of sanctioned individuals is illustrative rather than exhaustive and the State Department is prepared to expand it if necessary, stressing: “President Trump has been clear that his America First foreign policy rejects violations of American sovereignty. Extraterritorial overreach by foreign censors targeting American speech is no exception.”

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.

5 hours ago
Immigration
News

DOJ Sues Dem Gov. Over Illegal Immigrant ‘Protections’ on Public Properties.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) over new state laws aimed at protecting immigrants at courthouses, hospitals, and day care centers.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Governor J.B. Pritzker, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D), U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, and the DOJ.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The lawsuit was filed on Monday in Illinois following laws signed earlier this month.

💬KEY QUOTE: “No doubt, they have the ability to go to court about it, but I believe this is not just a good law, but a great law.” – Gov. Pritzker

🎯IMPACT: The DOJ claims the laws violate the U.S. Constitution and threaten the safety of federal officers.

IN FULL

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated litigation on Monday against Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D), challenging newly enacted state laws that expand protections for immigrants at courthouses, hospitals, day care centers, and other public institutions. The laws, signed by Pritzker earlier this month along with Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D), prohibit civil immigration arrests in or around courthouses and require institutions such as hospitals and public universities to adopt formal procedures for responding to civil immigration enforcement while safeguarding personal information. The legislation also allows individuals to sue if their constitutional rights are violated during federal immigration actions, with damages of up to $10,000.

Illegal immigrant advocacy groups praised the measures, claiming they are necessary to address alleged fear among immigrant communities about accessing essential services. The DOJ, however, contends the laws interfere with federal authority and put federal officers at risk. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has made identifying and challenging state and local laws that impede federal immigration enforcement a priority, according to the department.

Pritzker acknowledged the likelihood of legal challenges when signing the bills but defended the measures. “No doubt, they have the ability to go to court about it, but I believe this is not just a good law, but a great law,” he said.

Illinois has been a focal point in the national immigration debate as state and local leaders continue to expand sanctuary policies. In recent months, Pritzker signed additional legislation further limiting civil immigration enforcement at schools, hospitals, and universities. Chicago’s mayor has also moved to establish “ICE-free zones” on certain city-owned properties, drawing criticism from federal officials.

Tensions have occasionally escalated beyond policy disputes. Earlier this fall, a Chicago-area grand jury declined to indict suspects accused of violently confronting federal immigration agents during protests, adding to concerns among federal authorities about resistance to enforcement operations.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

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.
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.

5 hours ago
Economy
World

Trump Imposes New Trade Duties on Cheap Food Containers From China, Vietnam to Protect U.S. Producers, Public Health.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Trump administration announced significant trade penalties on disposable food containers imported from China and Vietnam, citing unfair competition and safety concerns.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Trump administration, U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Department of Commerce, and Yohai Baisburd of the American Molded Fiber Coalition.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The ITC ruling was issued on Monday, December 22, 2025, with duties expected in the coming weeks. The ITC report is due by January 23.

💬KEY QUOTE: “America continues to thrive when fair competition occurs. The Trump Administration is using every tool in the toolbox to enforce U.S. trade laws, and cheaters beware because they are coming after you.” – Yohai Baisburd

🎯IMPACT: U.S. manufacturers will benefit from a level playing field and increased ability to reinvest in operations and workers, while addressing health concerns over “forever chemicals.”

IN FULL

The Trump administration announced that it is taking action against the import of cheap disposable food containers from China and Vietnam by imposing significant trade penalties. These measures aim to protect American companies from unfair competition and ensure safer products for American consumers.

Yohai Baisburd, an attorney representing the American Molded Fiber Coalition, praised the administration’s efforts, stating, “The Trump Administration is using every tool in the toolbox to enforce U.S. trade laws, and cheaters beware because they are coming after you.”

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) recently ruled that imports of thermoformed molded fiber products from these nations are materially injuring U.S. industry.

These products, which include disposable bowls, plates, and take-out containers made from natural fibers and recycled materials, have been “dumped” into the U.S. market at unfairly low prices, according to the ITC. As a result, the Commerce Department will issue final antidumping and countervailing duty orders, with duties reaching as high as 540 percent on certain Chinese producers and over 260 percent on Vietnamese producers.

The ITC’s ruling allows for at least five years of duties on these imports, with retroactive duties also authorized on Vietnamese products. Baisburd noted, “U.S. workers/companies can compete against anyone, anywhere. What they can’t do is outcompete Chinese and Vietnamese government subsidies that violate U.S. trade laws.”

The duties are separate from the Trump administration’s tariffs and are legally binding enforcement mechanisms. In addition to economic concerns, health risks from “forever chemicals” such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in imported containers have also been highlighted. The ITC reported that while some foreign producers claim their products are PFAs-free, U.S. manufacturers generally produce safer alternatives.

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.

6 hours ago
Education

Judge Rules California Schools Cannot Conceal Students’ Gender Transitions from Parents.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: A federal judge blocked California school employees from misleading parents about their child’s gender presentation at school.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez, California state officials, and school employees.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Monday, Southern District of California.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.” – Judge Roger Benitez

🎯IMPACT: The ruling upholds parental rights over state-imposed policies on gender identity in schools.

IN FULL

California school employees will no longer be allowed to hide the gender presentation of a student from their parents or legal guardian, according to a ruling issued by a federal District Court judge in the state. U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez ruled that parents have a constitutional right to be informed of such matters, and California state and local officials cannot enforce laws or guidance that require employees to deceive parents.

According to Judge Benitez’s ruling, California educators and state officials are “enjoined from implementing or enforcing: (1) the Privacy Provision of the California Constitution, Cal. Const. art. I, § 1; (2) any other provision of California law, including equal protection provisions such as Cal. Educ. Code §§ 200, 220, Cal. Gov. Code § 11135; or (3) any regulations or guidance, such as the 2016 “Legal Advisory regarding application of California’s antidiscrimination statutes to transgender youth in schools” and accompanying FAQ page, or Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, §§4900-4965, or the newly produced PRISM cultural competency training…”

Further, the state’s PRISM training materials must henceforth contain the following statement to educators: “Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence. Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence. These federal constitutional rights are superior to any state or local laws, state or local regulations, or state or local policies to the contrary.”

In his 52-page opinion, Judge Benitez criticized California’s policies, stating that they “purposefully interfere” with parents’ access to meaningful information about their children. He noted, “Preventing student bullying and harassment in school is a laudable goal. The problem is that the parent exclusion policies seem to presume that it is the parents that will be the harassers from whom students need to be protected.”

Image by Gage Skidmore.

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.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad