GET THE APP
Friday, February 20, 2026

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

Trump Declassifies Entire UFO and Alien File Archive.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Donald J. Trump has ordered the release of all files related to alien life and UFOs.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Donald Trump, former President Barack Obama, and U.S. government agencies including the Pentagon.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Announced late Thursday; details involve Pentagon and other U.S. agencies.

💬KEY QUOTE: “I will be directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant departments and agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs).” – President Trump

🎯IMPACT: The directive could lead to increased transparency on unidentified aerial phenomena and alien life, following years of speculation and limited disclosures.

IN FULL

President Donald J. Trump has directed the Pentagon and other agencies to begin identifying and releasing files related to alien life and UFOs. The announcement was made Thursday, with the former President stating his intention to make government-held information on extraterrestrial and unidentified aerial phenomena available to the public.

“I will be directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant departments and agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters,” Trump said.

The announcement comes shortly after former President Barack Obama discussed the topic on a podcast. Obama remarked that aliens are “real,” causing Trump to rebuke him for revealing classified information. Obama later clarified that he had not seen evidence of extraterrestrial life during his time in office, and was merely acknowledging the statistical likelihood of life existing elsewhere in the universe.

During a Congressional hearing in 2022, U.S. officials shared footage of unidentified flying objects, including a spherical object filmed by a Navy fighter jet and triangular objects viewed through night-vision goggles. Despite public interest, Pentagon officials stated there was no evidence to suggest these objects had extraterrestrial origins, with most sightings attributed to misidentified objects or classified defense projects.

The release of additional files could shed light on decades of speculation regarding UFOs and alien life, providing transparency on a subject long shrouded in secrecy.

Image by David James Henry.

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.

12 minutes ago
News

Ex-Trump Campaign Chief Chris LaCivita Abandons Lawsuit Against Left Media Which Highlighted His Campaign Cash Haul.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Chris LaCivita, former campaign co-chief for Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, has quietly abandoned a defamation lawsuit against the left-wing Daily Beast over its reporting on campaign expenditures. He is believed to have settled privately, receiving no correction, apology, retraction, or any cash.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Chris LaCivita and the Daily Beast.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The lawsuit was abandoned nearly 10 months after it was filed.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Fuck around and Find Out. I’m really looking forward to making my case in front of a jury.” – Chris LaCivita (March 2023).

🎯IMPACT: The abandonment of the lawsuit comes after President Trump reportedly told LaCivita that if the stories about his financial take from the campaign were untrue, he should sue the media outlets reporting on it. He has now abandoned such cases.

IN FULL

Chris LaCivita, a senior figure in Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, has abandoned a major defamation lawsuit against the left-wing Daily Beast after the outlet published a stunning report about LaCivita gouging nearly $20M from the campaign’s coffers.

“The consulting firm of Donald Trump’s White House campaign’s co-manager has raked in $19.2 million and counting from the Republican nominee’s political operation in just two years,” the Beast reported in late 2024.

President Trump is said to have told LaCivita that if the claims were not true, he should sue those who published them, forcing LaCivita to embark on a costly legal process that is believed to have used Republican National Committee (RNC) donor cash rather than his own to defend himself.

Per reporting from November 2024, Trump summoned LaCivita on his plane.

“As they settled across from each other, Trump reached for a small stack of paper: a printout of the Daily Beast story… For the next half hour… the two men had it out—profanities flying but voices kept intentionally low—as LaCivita insisted to Trump that he wasn’t ripping the candidate off. Trump, the sources said, seemed to vacillate between believing his employee and seething over the dollar figure, wondering how something so specific could be wrong. Finally, after a couple of concluding f-bombs… he added: ‘You should sue those bastards.'”

RNC donor cash then flowed to LaCivita’s attorney, Mark Geragos, for over $650,000 in legal fees. Geragos previously represented Hunter Biden, Colin Kaepernick, and Michael Jackson.

“F— Around Find Out,” LaCivita tweeted at the time. “I’m really looking forward to making my case in front of a jury.”

Just 10 months later, however, LaCivita abandoned his much-publicized claims. The Daily Beast did not retract or even have to change any part of its story. It offered no apology or cash payment, both of which are common in settlements.

After the campaign, LaCivita was one of the very few campaign staffers not to make it into the White House, instead taking on a role managing RINO John Cornyn’s Senate campaign in Texas, as well as advising Warner Bros. on its mooted takeover. He is also a senior advisor to Senator Lindsey Graham, who is facing a strong primary challenge from Project 2025 author Paul Dans.

As part of his campaign in Texas, LaCivita has endeavored to attack those supporting Attorney General Ken Paxton, including former Trump campaign chief from 2016, Stephen K. Bannon.

In the moments before this story was due to be published, LaCivita lashed out on X (formerly Twitter), falsely claiming that the Editor-in-Chief of this publication, The National Pulse, is an “illegal alien.”

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.

29 minutes ago
William Upton
Politics
SCOTUS

GOP Lawmaker Demands Congress Codify Trump Tariffs, Reverse SCOTUS Decision.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: U.S. Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) is demanding that Congress immediately take up a new reconciliation bill to codify the tariffs imposed by President Donald J. Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Sen. Moreno, President Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Congressional Republicans and Democrats.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Friday, February 20, 2026.

💬KEY QUOTE: “This betrayal must be reversed and Republicans must get to work immediately on a reconciliation bill to codify the tariffs that had made our country the hottest country on earth!” — Sen. Moreno

🎯IMPACT: Earlier on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down President Trump’s authority under the IEEPA to enact tariffs, finding that Congress’s legislative intent did not extend taxation power to the executive branch under the law’s regulatory provisions.

IN FULL

U.S. Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) is demanding that Congress immediately take up a new reconciliation bill to codify the tariffs imposed by President Donald J. Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Earlier on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s authority under the IEEPA to enact tariffs, finding that Congress’s legislative intent did not extend taxation power to the executive branch under the law’s regulatory provisions.

“SCOTUS’s outrageous ruling handcuffs our fight against unfair trade that has devastated American workers for decades. These tariffs protected jobs, revived manufacturing, and forced cheaters like China to pay up,” Sen. Moreno wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter) following the high court’s decision. “Now globalists win, factories investments may reverse, and American workers lose again. This betrayal must be reversed and Republicans must get to work immediately on a reconciliation bill to codify the tariffs that had made our country the hottest country on earth!”

A reconciliation bill could be a viable avenue to effectively reverse the Supreme Court‘s ruling. This type of legislation only requires a simple 51-vote majority in the Senate and is not subject to a filibuster. Additionally, reconciliation bills—though limited by the number of times the legislative vehicle can be used—must pertain to spending, revenue, and debt limit changes, including tariffs.

Still, the path of a reconciliation measure would be uncertain. It is not clear if there are 51 votes in the Senate in favor of tariffs, with at least three Republican lawmakers in the upper chamber—Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)—all opposed to the trade levies. Additionally, the narrow majority in the House could complicate passage as well.

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.

1 hour ago
Economy

Trump Admin Celebrates Mortgage Rates Reaching Lowest Level Since 2022.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Mortgage rates have fallen to their lowest level since September 2022, which the White House says improves affordability for Americans.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump, Freddie Mac, and the National Association of Realtors.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The data was released on February 19, 2026, reflecting trends across the United States housing market.

💬KEY QUOTE: “This lower rate environment is not only improving affordability for prospective homebuyers, it’s also strengthening the financial position of homeowners,” Freddie Mac stated.

🎯IMPACT: The Trump administration contends that the increased affordability, rise in home purchase applications, and a boost in housing construction signal growing confidence in the housing market.

IN FULL

Freddie Mac’s Primary Mortgage Market Survey (PMMS), released on Thursday, reveals that mortgage rates have dropped to their lowest levels since September 2022. The Trump White House is highlighting the falling rates as part of its affordability push, with Freddie Mac stating, “This lower rate environment is not only improving affordability for prospective homebuyers, it’s also strengthening the financial position of homeowners.”

According to the Freddie Mac data, the average 30-year fixed mortgage dropped to a multi-year low. This has driven down monthly housing payments to their most affordable levels in over two years. Meanwhile, the National Association of Realtors’ Housing Affordability Index has hit its highest level since March 2022. This marks seven straight months of improving affordability.

In addition to index data, hard data support the case for improving housing affordability. Apartment rents have declined for six straight months, reaching a four-year low. Meanwhile, 62 percent of homebuyers were able to purchase at a discount compared to the original listing price in 2025. Consequently, the number of Americans filing refinancing applications has jumped 132 percent, and home purchase applications are up nearly 10 percent compared to last year. Even on the construction front, the White House contends that the economic environment is improving, citing housing starts at a five-month high.

The White House points to President Donald J. Trump’s decision to order Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities as one of the primary drivers of the decline in borrowing costs. Additionally, the administration is highlighting President Trump’s move to restrict large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes.

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
William Upton
SCOTUS

BREAKING: SCOTUS Strikes Down Trump Tariff Power.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s power to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The U.S. Supreme Court, President Donald J. Trump, and dissenting Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

📍WHEN & WHERE: February 20, 2026, United States.

💬KEY QUOTE: “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs” – Supreme Court ruling

🎯IMPACT: The decision could lead to the refunding of billions of dollars to importers and undermine President Trump’s efforts to protect American workers and his leverage in striking trade deals.

IN FULL

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down President Donald J. Trump‘s power to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). According to the mixed six-to-three ruling, the justices found that IEEPA’s emergency and regulatory powers, granted to the President by Congress, do not extend to forms of taxation like tariffs.

“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” the ruling states. 

While the Supreme Court struck down the tariff powers President Trump claimed under IEEPA, the majority acknowledged that other laws and statutory provisions do allow the executive branch to impose trade levies unilaterally. So, while the high court has reached a firm conclusion on the IEEPA, the decision becomes fractured with no clear majority on the general powers of the President to impose tariffs—a departure from its frequent recent use of the Major Questions Doctrine to settle such matters.

Should the Trump administration seek to reimpose its tariff measures, it could do so through other means than the IEEPA; however, with some avenues subject to review by trade courts, this process could take well over a year. Notably, President Trump did use a number of these other provisions to impose tariffs on China during his first term.

Importantly—and as Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted in his dissent—the majority’s opinion does not address refunds. The issue of what will happen to the estimated $168 billion in tariff revenue collected by the federal government is essentially left to Congress. However, any effort to return the funds is likely to be a protracted and legally messy process.

“[T]he interim effects of the Court’s decision could be substantial. The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.'”

Kavanaugh also noted that the court’s decision is likely to jeopardize a number of foreign trade deals struck by President Trump. “[A]ccording to the Government, the IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars—including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, and more. The Court’s decision could generate uncertainty regarding those trade arrangements,” the justice warned.

Interestingly, Kavanaugh took to task the core of the majority’s findings—namely, that IEEPA does not mention the word “tariff” and that trade levies are categorically the same as taxes. “The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful. I respectfully dissent,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.

Jack Montgomery contributed to this report. 

Image by Joe Ravi.

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.

17 hours ago
Health
News

California Sues to Make Trump Admin Recommend More Vaccines to Kids.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced plans to take legal action against the Trump administration over recent changes to the childhood vaccine schedule.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Rob Bonta, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald J. Trump, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

📍WHEN & WHERE: The CDC issued changes on January 5, 2026. California’s legal response was announced on February 17, 2026.

💬KEY QUOTE: “I like the facts. I like science. I don’t want to give any airtime to his—I mean, just conspiracy [expletive],” said Bonta regarding Kennedy’s stance on vaccines.

🎯IMPACT: The legal challenge could delay or block the CDC’s revised vaccine schedule, which already faces lawsuits from other groups.

IN FULL

California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced on February 17 that his office is preparing legal action against the Trump administration over sweeping revisions to the federal childhood vaccine schedule. The changes, issued January 5 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) following a directive from President Donald J. Trump, scale back the number of vaccines categorized as routinely recommended for all children. Several shots, including hepatitis B and rotavirus, were shifted to a “shared clinical decision-making” model, meaning parents and physicians will determine on an individual basis whether a child receives them.

The review was backed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long argued for greater scrutiny of vaccine policy and alignment with other developed nations such as Denmark, Japan, and Germany, which tend to recommend fewer vaccines to infants and young children. The Trump administration previously questioned practices like administering the hepatitis B vaccine at birth, noting that some peer nations do not do this.

Bonta said his team is exploring jurisdictional grounds for a lawsuit. “I like the facts. I like science. I don’t want to give any airtime to his—I mean, just conspiracy [expletive],” he said, referring to Kennedy’s views on vaccines. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong (D) signaled his state may join the effort.

Meanwhile, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical groups have already filed suit, arguing that the CDC failed to sufficiently review data or justify the revisions. A federal judge heard arguments on February 13 and is weighing whether to block the updated schedule.

In a January 28 statement, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) defended the overhaul, saying the new vaccine recommendations are grounded in “gold-standard scientific evidence” instead of corporate interests. The agency maintains the updated framework promotes transparency and informed consent while continuing to support public health protections.

Image by Chhor Sokunthea / World Bank.

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.

17 hours ago
Crime
Immigration

Another Illegal Immigrant Truck Driver Causes Deadly Crash.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: A truck driver allegedly ran a red light, causing a fatal crash in Indiana. The driver was revealed to be an illegal immigrant from India.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The driver, Singh Sukhdeep, and the victim, 64-year-old Terry Schultz.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The crash occurred in Hendricks County, Indiana, just west of Indianapolis.

💬KEY QUOTE: “These tragedies are 100 percent preventable and we pray for the family and victim.” – Department of Homeland Security (DHS) statement

🎯IMPACT: The incident highlights the ongoing threat to Americans’ lives from illegal aliens operating commercial vehicles without proper knowledge of traffic laws.

IN FULL

A truck driver arrested Wednesday in connection with a deadly crash in Hendricks County, Indiana, has been identified by federal law enforcement sources as Singh Sukhdeep, an Indian national in the United States illegally. Sukhdeep obtained his commercial driver’s license (CDL) in May 2025 after first being apprehended at the U.S. border in 2018 and later released under the Flores consent decree. The Flores policy stems from the 1993 Supreme Court case Reno v. Flores, which limited how long minors could be detained and allowed their release to family members or sponsors.

The collision took place west of Indianapolis when a Freightliner semi-truck allegedly ran a red light and struck a Chevrolet pickup. The force of the crash pushed the pickup across a median into another vehicle. The pickup’s driver, 64-year-old Terry Schultz, was pronounced dead at the scene. Sukhdeep is currently in custody with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said: “This tragedy comes less than two weeks after another illegal alien driving a semi truck killed four innocent people in Indiana. It is incredibly dangerous for illegal aliens, who often don’t know our traffic laws or even English, to be operating semi-trucks on America’s roads. These tragedies are 100 percent preventable and we pray for the family and victim.”

The incident follows several other recent deadly crashes involving illegal immigrant truck drivers. In Oregon, Indian national Rajinder Kumar was charged after a crash that killed a newlywed couple. Federal officials have also announced stepped-up enforcement of English-language proficiency standards for commercial drivers, disqualifying more than 9,500 drivers who failed required testing. In October, authorities reported the arrest of 146 illegal immigrant truck drivers during a broader enforcement operation.

Another recent Indiana case involved a truck driver from Kazakhstan who allegedly caused a crash that killed four people after entering the U.S. in 2023 and later obtaining a CDL. In a separate August case, an Indian national was charged with vehicular homicide following a fatal wreck; he had reportedly failed an English proficiency test.

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.

18 hours ago
News

Legislators Override Dem Governor’s Attempt to Keep Men in Women’s Restrooms.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Kansas Republicans overrode Democrat Governor Laura Kelly’s veto of a bill requiring the use of restrooms based on biological sex rather than self-proclaimed gender identity.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Kansas Senate and House Republicans, Governor Laura Kelly, Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson (R), and state Representative Abi Boatman (D).

📍WHEN & WHERE: The Kansas Senate voted on Tuesday, and the House voted on Wednesday to override the veto during the 2026 legislative session.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Kansas Democrats are for They/Them. I will continue to fight for you, and protect women and girls across our state.” – Ty Masterson

🎯IMPACT: The bill, now law, mandates government buildings, including schools and universities, separate facilities by biological sex, with penalties for violations.

IN FULL

Republican lawmakers in Kansas have overridden Democratic Governor Laura Kelly’s veto of Senate Bill 244, enacting a requirement that individuals use restrooms in government buildings according to their biological sex rather than gender identity. The measure cleared the Kansas Senate in a 31–9 vote and passed the Kansas House of Representatives 87–37, achieving the two-thirds majority needed to nullify the veto.

The statute applies to public facilities statewide, including schools and universities. Violations can carry a $1,000 fine, with potential criminal penalties for repeat offenses. Exceptions allow parents or guardians to accompany children under nine into opposite-sex restrooms and permit coaches to enter locker rooms as long as occupants remain clothed.

Senate President Ty Masterson hailed the override as having “restored sanity,” criticizing Kelly’s veto, which he said “would have forced our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters to share their bathrooms with biological men in government buildings.” He added, “Kansas Democrats are for They/Them. I will continue to fight for you, and protect women and girls across our state.”

Governor Kelly argued in her veto message that the bill was “poorly drafted” and warned of “numerous and significant consequences.” She suggested it could create confusion in situations such as fathers accompanying daughters at public events or siblings visiting one another in dormitories. Republican lawmakers, including State Sen. Kellie Warren and State Rep. Susan Humphries, dismissed those claims as “red herrings.”

Kansas Republicans have previously overridden Kelly’s vetoes, including a 2025 law restricting certain gender-transition medications for minors that remains under court review.

Image by Bojan Cvetanović.

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.

18 hours ago
Crime
News

Mistrial Declared in Anti-ICE Antifa Sniper Ambush Case.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: A federal judge declared a mistrial in a case involving nine alleged Antifa members accused of ambushing a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, defense attorney MarQuetta Clayton, nine alleged Antifa members, and federal prosecutors.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The mistrial was declared on Tuesday in the Northern District of Texas; the alleged ambush occurred on July 4, 2025, at the Prairieland ICE Detention Center.

💬KEY QUOTE: “I don’t know why in the world you would think that’s appropriate.” – Judge Pittman.

🎯IMPACT: A new pool of jurors will be brought in, and the defense attorney may face sanctions for her attire.

IN FULL

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman declared a mistrial Tuesday in the Northern District of Texas in the case against nine alleged Antifa members accused of ambushing the Prairieland ICE Detention Center. The decision came before a jury was seated and followed controversy surrounding defense attorney MarQuetta Clayton’s courtroom attire.

Clayton, who represents defendant Maricela Rueda, wore a T-shirt beneath her blazer displaying civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr. and Shirley Chisholm. The shirt also appeared to honor Rev. Jesse Jackson, who had died that same day. Judge Pittman rebuked the choice, stating, “I don’t know why in the world you would think that’s appropriate.”

Tensions also arose during jury selection after Clayton referenced constitutional protest rights and Jackson’s death. During questioning, a portion of the 75 prospective jurors voiced anti-ICE and anti-Trump views, complicating efforts to seat an impartial panel. Pittman dismissed the group and said a new pool of roughly 130 jurors would be summoned the following week.

Federal prosecutors allege the defendants participated in a July 4, 2025, attack on the detention center in Alvarado, accusing members of what they describe as a North Texas Antifa cell of launching fireworks, vandalizing property, and firing at federal officers. An Alvarado police officer responding to the scene was shot in the neck but survived. Authorities have characterized the case as the first federal prosecution treating Antifa as a domestic terrorist group.

Attorney General Pam Bondi recently directed federal law enforcement to examine people linked to Antifa for potential domestic terrorism and tax violations. Separate federal cases have also targeted self-identified Antifa activists on charges ranging from threats against immigration officers to alleged involvement in politically motivated violence.

In explaining his ruling, Pittman compared Clayton’s shirt to a prosecutor wearing overtly political imagery, such as “a prosecutor wearing an ICE pin” or “a shirt with Donald Trump riding an eagle” alongside an ICE flag. He emphasized, “Politics—as prevalent as they are, as divided as they are—don’t have any business here.”

Clayton could face sanctions over the incident as the court prepares to restart the trial with a new jury pool.

Image by Tim Sheerman-Chase.

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.

19 hours ago
Lawfare

Fine Arts Commission Approves Trump’s White House Ballroom.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts approved design plans for President Donald J. Trump’s proposed White House ballroom.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Trump, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The East Wing of the White House was demolished in October 2025; the commission approved the project during a February 2026 meeting in Washington, D.C.

💬KEY QUOTE: “We have to protect the country and the country’s guests, and this is a facility that is definitely needed for over 150 years,” said U.S. Commission of Fine Arts Chairman Rodney Mims Cook Jr.

🎯IMPACT: The project has sparked Democrat lawfare challenging its compliance with historic preservation laws.

IN FULL

The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts has granted approval for President Donald J. Trump‘s planned addition of a ballroom to the East Wing of the White House. This approval comes after architects addressed a handful of concerns raised by the panel and will put an end to several lawsuits attempting to stop the ballroom addition.

“We have to protect the country and the country’s guests, and this is a facility that is definitely needed for over 150 years,” the commission’s chairman, Rodney Mims Cook Jr., stated. The East Wing was demolished last October, and the ballroom underwent several subsequent redesigns, expanding its original capacity from 500 to 1,350 guests.

Notably, the National Trust for Historic Preservation has attempted to sue to block the construction, claiming that “No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever.” However, The National Pulse reported last December that U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon—a George W. Bush appointee—found that the National Trust for Historic Preservation failed to demonstrate that “great and certain” harm would occur if construction proceeded.

Construction has been allowed to continue pending approval by the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission. With the former granting said approval, the legal cases against President Trump’s ballroom have lost a critical legal justification.

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.

19 hours ago
Immigration
Lawfare

Biden Judge BLOCKS Mass Deportation Powers.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: A federal judge in California overturned an immigration court ruling that supported the Trump administration’s broad detention powers over illegal immigrants.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: U.S. District Court Judge Sunshine Sykes, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

📍WHEN & WHERE: The ruling was issued on Wednesday, February 18, 2026, in California.

💬KEY QUOTE: “‘Worst of the worst’ is an inaccurate description of most of those affected by DHS and ICE’s operations.” — Judge Sykes

🎯IMPACT: The ruling could block mass deportations and guarantee bond hearings for many non-criminal illegal immigrant detainees, though the Department of Justice (DOJ) is likely to appeal.

IN FULL

On Thursday, a federal judge in California overturned a previous immigration court ruling that supported the Trump administration’s illegal immigrant detention policies. U.S. District Court Judge Sunshine Sykes, a Joe Biden appointee, criticized the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for their characterization of detainees as the “worst of the worst.”

“‘Worst of the worst’ is an inaccurate description of most of those affected by DHS and ICE’s operations,” Judge Sykes ruled. She argued that the administration’s language was designed to justify the scale of its actions against illegal immigrants.

“Even though these press releases might contain an inkling of truth, they ignore a greater, more dire reality,” she claimed, adding: “Beyond its terror against noncitizens, the executive branch has extended its violence on its own citizens, killing two American citizens—Renée Good and Alex Pretti—in Minnesota,” Sykes wrote in her decision, adding, “The threats posed by the executive branch cannot be viewed in isolation.”

The ruling, if upheld, could block mass deportations and ensure bond hearings for many non-convicted illegal immigrant detainees. Previously, DHS had denied bond hearings to migrants arrested by federal immigration authorities, even if they had been in the United States for years. Those who recently illegally crossed the border were also not guaranteed immediate bond hearings under the policy.

While the New Orleans-based federal appeals court recently upheld the administration’s detention and bond policy in its jurisdiction, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is expected to appeal Sykes’s ruling and request that it be stayed during ongoing litigation.

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