❓What Happened: More than 60 percent of Wisconsin voters approved a state constitutional amendment to enforce voter ID requirements, strengthening existing state election laws.
👥 Who’s Involved: Wisconsin voters, President Donald J. Trump, Republicans, Democrats, Judge Susan Crawford, and Brad Schimel.
📍 Where & When: Wisconsin’s Spring Election this past Tuesday.
💬 Key Quote: Trump on Truth Social stated, “This is a BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS, MAYBE THE BIGGEST WIN OF THE NIGHT.”
⚠️ Impact: Strengthens the Republican position in Wisconsin, making it more challenging to alter voter ID laws through legal and legislative actions. Despite the win, a left-leaning judge was elected to the state Supreme Court, which could pave the way for other Democratic Party-backed changes to Wisconsin’s election laws.
IN FULL:
Wisconsin voters have decisively approved a constitutional amendment that strengthens state voter ID requirements, with over 60 percent in favor. This new amendment will fortify existing voter ID laws, which have been in place since 2011, from legal and legislative challenges.
President Donald J. Trump praised the amendment’s approval by Wisconsin voters, suggesting it secures a strategic advantage for Republicans in the state for the foreseeable future. “VOTER I.D. JUST APPROVED IN WISCONSIN ELECTION. Democrats fought hard against this, presumably so they can CHEAT. This is a BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS, MAYBE THE BIGGEST WIN OF THE NIGHT,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social late Tuesday night.
He added: “IT SHOULD ALLOW US TO WIN WISCONSIN, LIKE I JUST DID IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, FOR MANY YEARS TO COME!”
Republicans in Wisconsin pushed for the constitutional amendment to protect the law from potential changes by a future Democratic government or the state’s Supreme Court. Tuesday’s election also saw far-left judge Susan Crawford defeat conservative candidate Brad Schimel in a race for an open seat on the state’s high court—placing further importance on the adoption of the voter ID amendment.
Voter ID laws remain almost universally popular among the broader American electorate. Notably, an October survey by Gallup found that 84 percent of voters support the election integrity measures. However, the Democratic Party—through lawfare and legislative action—continues to work against voter ID requirements, claiming such laws disenfranchise voters.
❓What Happened: Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Rally (RN) party, was found guilty of misusing European Union (EU) funds by a Paris court, sentenced to four years in prison (two suspended, two under house arrest), fined €100,000 (~$105,000), and barred from the 2027 presidential race. The populist political leader is now appealing the verdict.
👥 Who’s Involved: Marine Le Pen; French judiciary; Matthieu Almeras, Paris bar lawyer; Gabriel Attal, former French Prime Minister.
📍 Where & When: Paris court ruling decision announced on a Monday; Paris Court of Appeal ruling expected by summer 2026.
💬 Key Quote: “This is a double-edged sword for Le Pen, who could receive a heavier or lighter sentence,” stated Matthieu Almera, a French legal commentator.
⚠️ Impact: Le Pen has filed an appeal delaying prison and financial penalties but maintaining ineligibility for office; questions are being raised about the speed of the appeal process.
IN FULL:
Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s populist National Rally party and 2027 presidential election frontrunner, has declared her intention to challenge a recent Paris court verdict that found her guilty of embezzling European Union funds. Following the verdict, the court sentenced Le Pen to four years in prison, with two years suspended and two under house arrest, accompanied by a fine of €100,000. The court also ruled that Le Pen is prohibited from participating in any elections for the next five years, rendering her unable to compete in the 2027 presidential election.
While Le Pen’s appeal delays the imposition of a prison sentence and fine, her ineligibility to run for public office remains intact. The Paris Court of Appeal is now set to evaluate her case, with a decision anticipated by mid-2026. According to French legal commentator Matthieu Almeras, the appeal “is a double-edged sword for Le Pen, who could receive a heavier or lighter sentence.”
Should the initial judgment stand, Le Pen has further judicial avenues, including the Court of Cassation, which reviews procedural adherence rather than case facts, and potentially the European Court of Human Rights, although such cases would extend beyond the 2027 electoral timeline, given the exhaustive nature of the processes involved.
The relatively rapid processing of Le Pen’s appeal has also sparked debate within France’s legal circles. Political opponents of Le Pen and the National Rally contend the expedited legal proceedings raise questions of fairness and equality under the law. Former French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, the leader of Emmanuel Macron‘s Renaissance party, criticized the fast pace of the appeal, telling reporters on Tuesday that he wouldn’t know what to say to those whose appeals might be delayed so that the court can take up Le Pen’s legal challenge. However, the obvious answer to this is that a slower appeal might leave her unable to run in 2027 even if she pleads her case successfully.
Many regard Le Pen’s conviction, which hinges on the fact she used assistants at the European Parliament, paid via EU funds, to perform domestic party work, as a farce. Even liberal journalists concede that “hundreds” of European Parliament members use their parliamentary assistants in this way without sanction.
❓What Happened: The U.S. Supreme Court is deliberating if Medicaid recipients can file lawsuits to access specific healthcare providers, focusing on South Carolina’s decision to exclude abortion giant Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding.
👥 Who’s Involved: The Supreme Court justices, Medicaid beneficiaries, Planned Parenthood, South Carolina government officials, and Julie Edwards, a plaintiff and Medicaid recipient.
📍 Where & When: The case is being heard in Washington, D.C., with arguments presented on Wednesday. The decision is anticipated by the end of the Court’s term in June.
💬 Key Quote: “Congress specifically enacted this provision in response to some States’ efforts to restrict Medicaid patients’ choice of provider,” the plaintiffs stated.
⚠️ Impact: The outcome could impact Medicaid beneficiaries’ choice of healthcare providers and potentially reduce government funding sources for Planned Parenthood.
IN FULL:
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide whether Medicaid beneficiaries can legally challenge South Carolina’s exclusion of Planned Parenthood from its state Medicaid program over the vast number of abortions it carries out. This case will test whether states truly have the right to adopt pro-life stances.
South Carolina, led by Republican Governor Henry McMaster, cut Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid payments in 2018, though these did not cover abortion services. State officials argue this move complies with federal prohibitions on government funding for abortion services. They claim that allocating Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood amounts to indirectly subsidizing abortions.
Julie Edwards, a Medicaid recipient, initiated legal action against South Carolina. She claimed that disallowing Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program infringes on the Medicaid Act. “Congress specifically enacted this provision in response to some States’ efforts to restrict Medicaid patients’ choice of provider,” the plaintiffs said.
Typically, Planned Parenthood receives a significant portion of its funding through government grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements. State representatives argue that Medicaid recipients have alternative healthcare options.
Should the court rule in favor of Edwards and Planned Parenthood, the lawsuit against the state’s funding exclusion would proceed. Conversely, a decision in favor of South Carolina could strengthen similar exclusion efforts in other states. The judgment is expected to be delivered by the end of the Supreme Court’s term in June.
While Planned Parenthood claims it does more than abort babies, the organization has been accused of heinous actions in the past involving abortions. Last year, the Missouri Attorney General sued the group for trafficking minors for abortions without their parents’s consent. In another case, documents claimed that the University of California-San Diego was even buying the body parts of aborted babies from the group.
❓What Happened: Illegal crossings at the southern U.S. border declined significantly in March.
👥 Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump and U.S. Border Patrol.
📍 Where & When: Southern U.S. border in March.
💬 Key Quote: “Migrant crossings have slowed to a near halt” as reported by the Los Angeles Times.
⚠️ Impact: A sharp reduction in illegal crossings, reaching a 97 percent decrease compared to March 2022.
IN FULL:
In March, the number of unauthorized crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border fell sharply, marking a significant decrease from previous years. Under the administration of President Donald J. Trump, the U.S. Border Patrol registered encounters with 7,181 migrants attempting to cross into the United States unlawfully. This marks a substantial drop compared to March of the preceding years under former President Joe Biden, where figures were recorded at 137,473 in 2024, 163,672 in 2023, and 211,181 in 2022.
The term “Trump Effect” has been attributed to this drastic reduction, with proponents crediting specific policies aimed at bolstering border security. The Los Angeles Times reported a notable decline in apprehensions along the California-Mexico border. Where once daily arrests numbered over 1,200 during peak migration periods in April, current figures suggest only 30 to 40 such instances per day.
Since taking office this past January, President Trump has deployed members of the U.S. military to the southern border and secured an agreement with Mexico that has seen thousands of Mexican National Guard soldiers dispatched to the Mexican side of the border. The increased military presence from both countries and the surge in federal law enforcement, including agents from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) criminal division, have helped to deter unlawful crossings significantly.
Additionally, Trump’s mass deportation initiative—led by White House border czar Tom Homan—has discouraged many would-be illegal immigrants from attempting to make the dangerous multi-country trek to the United States through Central America. The prospect of immediate deportation from the U.S. back to their country of origin is seen by many as not worth the physical or financial risk of attempting unlawful entry.
❓What Happened: German troops will be stationed permanently along NATO’s eastern flank in Lithuania.
👥 Who’s Involved: Germany’s Bundeswehr, Brigadier General Christoph Huber, NATO.
📍 Where & When: Lithuania, along NATO’s eastern flank; fully operational by 2027.
💬 Key Quote: “We have to ensure the protection, freedom, and security of our Lithuanian allies here on NATO’s eastern flank,” said Brigadier General Christoph Huber.
⚠️ Impact: This marks the first permanent foreign deployment of German soldiers since World War II, strengthening NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe.
IN FULL:
The Bundeswehr has announced that German military personnel will soon be stationed in Lithuania to bolster NATO’s eastern defenses, marking a significant shift in Germany’s post-World War II military deployment strategy. The unit, slated to be fully operational by 2027, represents Germany’s first permanent foreign troop deployment since the war, when Lithuania was part of the Soviet Union.
Brigadier General Christoph Huber, who commands the German brigade in Lithuania, emphasized the mission’s critical objectives. “We have to ensure the protection, freedom, and security of our Lithuanian allies here on NATO’s eastern flank,” said Huber.
The deployment is part of a broader NATO strategy to ensure a robust military presence in Eastern Europe. It aims to deter potential threats by demonstrating the alliance’s commitment to the security of its member states near Russia.
Modern Germany has engaged in some foreign military missions, including their involvement in Afghanistan, but these operations have not been permanent deployments. Stationing troops permanently in Lithuania reflects an evolving security landscape and an increased emphasis on fortifying NATO positions along its eastern borders.
It is also a diplomatic victory for President Donald J. Trump, who has long pushed Germany, as Europe’s economic powerhouse, to pull its weight in defense matters, having hitherto failed to meet its NATO spending targets while enriching Russia through a series of energy deals.
However, the deployment will likely be seen as provocative by Russia, which views its invasion by Germany during the Second World War—or Great Patriotic War—as a defining event. The Kremlin will almost certainly cite the return of German soldiers to Russia’s borders as proof that its hostile posture towards NATO and its entanglement with Ukraine are justified.
❓What Happened: Hooters, a restaurant chain known for its chicken wings and servers in distinct outfits, filed for bankruptcy in Texas.
👥 Who’s Involved: The company founders, current owners, and a private equity firm are involved in the bankruptcy proceedings.
📍 Where & When: The filing was announced on Monday in Texas.
💬 Key Quote: “Our renowned Hooters restaurants are here to stay,” stated the company in its announcement.
⚠️ Impact: The filing aims to maintain operations and transfer company-owned locations to franchise status.
IN FULL:
Hooters, a restaurant chain recognized for its chicken wings and buxom serving staff, has filed for bankruptcy in a Texascourt, as announced by the company on Monday. The bankruptcy agreement puts forth a plan where the company’s founders, who oversee about a third of the independent franchise locations in the U.S., are set to purchase U.S.-based company-owned restaurants from the existing private equity owner.
The restructuring plan intends to facilitate the popular chain’s ongoing operations and keep many locations open. “Our renowned Hooters restaurants are here to stay,” the company said in a statement following the bankruptcy announcement. “It’s always hang time at Hooters.”
Hooters founder Neil Kiefer stresses that the restaurant chain will undergo a significant rebrand, however. Derisively dubbed a “breastaurant,” the chain will be reimagined as a more family-friendly venue. Kiefer notes that its Clearwater, Florida flagship—where the chain was founded—has long embraced a more family-focused theme than most of its franchises across the country. “You go to some parts of the country and people say, ‘Oh, I could never go to Hooters, my wife would kill me,’” Kiefer said in a recent mediainterview. “That’s depressing to us. We want to change that.”
Hooters operates over 400 locations across 42 states and 29 countries. Franchised locations, including those internationally situated, are not impacted by the bankruptcy. The company plans for all remaining sites to transition into franchises following the proceedings. Rumors of the bankruptcy filing have been circulating for several months, amid recent closures of several Hooters establishments last year.
❓What Happened: An air traffic controller was charged with assault and battery after an incident.
👥 Who’s Involved: Damon Marsalis Gaines, 39, from Upper Marlboro, Maryland, was charged.
📍 Where & When: The event occurred at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Thursday night.
💬 Key Quote: “The employee is on administrative leave while we investigate the matter,” stated the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
⚠️ Impact: The arrest comes as the airport already faces scrutiny following a deadly January collision between a passenger jet and a military helicopter and a recent near-collision involving military jets and a Delta flight.
IN FULL:
An air traffic controller at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) has been charged with assault and battery following an incident that took place last Thursday night. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority confirmed Damon Marsalis Gaines, 39, of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, faces charges related to an altercation.
“The employee is on administrative leave while we investigate the matter,” the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said in a statement. However, authorities have not detailed the specifics of the incident or any potential motives behind it.
The situation arises while Reagan National Airport is already under elevated scrutiny. Earlier this year, a mid-air collision occurred involving a military helicopter and a passenger airplane that resulted in the deaths of 67 individuals, including passengers, flight crew, and military pilots. As of last month, 55 of the 67 bodies of those deceased had been recovered from the Potomac River.
More recently, another close call occurred at the airport when military aircraft, on their way to Arlington National Cemetery, activated a collision alarm in a Delta Air Lines plane during takeoff. These incidents highlight ongoing safety and operational challenges at the airport. The proximity of military operations in the region adds complexity to the airspace management surrounding the nation’s capital.
Notably, in January 2024, the Biden governmentpushed a DEI policy that required the FAA to ensure a greater portion of new hires included individuals with severe intellectual and psychiatric disabilities.
❓What Happened: A resolution has been introduced by a Republican congressman that aims to dismiss a judge who halted deportations to El Salvador under President Donald J. Trump.
👥 Who’s Involved: Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Judge James Boasberg, President Donald J. Trump, and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
📍 Where & When: Resolution introduced in Washington, D.C., March 31, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “We cannot stand by while activist judges, who incorrectly believe they have more authority than the duly-elected President of the United States, impose their own political agenda on the American people.” — Rep. Andy Biggs.
⚠️ Impact: Could trigger a constitutional crisis if the resolution bypasses the traditional impeachment process, with legal challenges expected.
IN FULL:
Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) is moving to remove U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, who is impeding the deportation of Venezuelan gang members and other violent, illegal immigrant criminals to El Salvador’s CECOT prison facility. The resolution, introduced late Monday night, proposes a simplified procedure to remove a federal judge that would bypass the requirement of two-thirds of the Senate to vote in favor of removal after a standard impeachment process. Instead, Biggs’s resolution cites the Constitution’s “good behavior” clause for judges as grounds for removal.
The controversy began when Judge Boasberg issued an order on March 15, 2025, restricting the Department of Justice (DOJ) from deporting certain Venezuelan nationals until the case particulars were reviewed comprehensively. However, Boasberg’s order came as several deportation flights were already in the air and over international waters, and they were unable to be recalled. This led the judge to accuse the Trump administration of non-compliance and question the DOJ’s cooperation.
According to Congressman Biggs’s resolution, Judge Boasberg has violated his judicial oath by interfering with presidential authority for political motives. The resolution implies that Congress can dismiss a judge based on not maintaining “good behavior,” referencing constitutional provisions. Notably, Biggs has introduced a joint resolution, which will require a Senate cosponsor to move through both chambers of Congress.
“We cannot stand by while activist judges, who incorrectly believe they have more authority than the duly-elected President of the United States, impose their own political agenda on the American people,” Rep. Biggs said in a statement after introducing the resolution. However, the Arizona Republican’s joint resolution removing Boasberg will likely face formidable legal hurdles, particularly in terms of whether it can effectively bypass the traditional impeachment process. If it gains approval from both legislative chambers, court challenges are anticipated.
President Donald J. Trump had previously suggested impeachment for Boasberg, a notion rebuked by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts argued that impeachment is inappropriate for “disagreements” over judicial decisions, advising reliance on the standard appellate procedure.
WATCH:
Judge Boasberg’s willful interference with President Trump’s enforcement of immigration law is an abuse of judicial power.
I’ve introduced a resolution to remove him from office for violating the Good Behavior Clause. pic.twitter.com/ggMQnf1mD2
❓What Happened: Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) stated she departed from the House Freedom Caucus due to internal opposition to her proxy voting initiative for new parents.
👥 Who’s Involved: Anna Paulina Luna, House Freedom Caucus members, House Speaker Mike Johnson, Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-CO).
📍 Where & When: Washington, D.C., Luna announced her departure and the petition developments on Monday.
💬 Key Quote: “A small group among us threatened the Speaker, vowing to halt floor proceedings indefinitely … unless he altered the rules to block my discharge petition,” Luna wrote.
⚠️ Impact: The petition could lead to a full House vote on proxy voting for new parents, and the House Rules Committee is evaluating whether it will proceed.
IN FULL:
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) has left the House Freedom Caucus. According to Luna, members of the caucus were attempting to obstruct her pro-family proposal to allow proxy voting for new parents on maternity or paternity leave. Luna joined forces with Colorado Democrat Rep. Brittany Pettersen to advocate for a petition supporting temporary proxy voting. The proposal has received substantial backing from other lawmakers, potentially prompting a full House vote.
In a letter disclosed on Monday, Luna expressed frustration at GOP colleagues. “A small group among us threatened the Speaker, vowing to halt floor proceedings indefinitely … unless he altered the rules to block my discharge petition,” she wrote.
At the heart of the disagreement is House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who opposes proxy voting, citing constitutional concerns. Despite this, Luna and Pettersen’s petition calls for accommodating new parents by allowing them to transfer their voting privileges to a fellow House member during their first 12 weeks after their child is born. Luna, who had a child two years ago, has vowed, “I will not compromise on something as important as ensuring new moms can vote while recovering.”
READ:
House Republican Leadership is trying to crush my popular proxy voting for new parents resolution by making up arguments about its constitutionality, what it does, or how it could conflict with President Trump’s agenda.@VirginiaFoxx just put out an Op-Ed explaining why her and… https://t.co/cRyunPkKGn
❓What Happened: Vice President J.D. Vance is slamming corporate media outlets—including The Atlantic and POLITICO—for misrepresenting the immigration case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an El Salvadoran national and MS-13 gang member deported from the U.S.
📍Where & When: The case dates back to a 2019 immigration ruling under the Trump administration. The media coverage and political backlash surfaced in March–April 2025.
🧑⚖️Who’s Involved: – Kilmar Abrego Garcia: Determined by a federal immigration judge to be a member of MS-13 and a danger to the community. – J.D. Vance: Vice President, refuting media claims and citing court documents. – Jon Favreau: Former Obama speechwriter, accused Trump team of sending an “innocent father” to a “torture dungeon.” – Kyle Cheney: POLITICO reporter claiming Garcia had not been convicted.
📄Key Facts: – In 2019, a judge denied bond and ruled Garcia a flight risk and community danger. – Immigration court found sufficient evidence he was a member of MS-13. – Deportation order was issued—but not to El Salvador due to withholding protections. – Media reports ignored or downplayed gang affiliation, painting Garcia as a sympathetic figure.
💬Key Quote: “My comment is that according to the court document you apparently didn’t read he was a convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here.” – Vice President J.D. Vance
⚠️Fallout: – Vance accused the media of running a “propaganda operation” to vilify Trump-era immigration enforcement. POLITICO’s Kyle Cheney and The Atlantic have been criticized for selectively citing legal documents and downplaying criminal affiliations.
THE FULL STORY:
The corporate media is being called out by Vice President J.D. Vance for failing to accurately report the facts of an immigration case where Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an El Salvadoran national and alleged member of the violent MS-13 criminal gang, was deported to his home country. While federal attorneys have acknowledged a U.S. immigration judge had issued an order preventing Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador, the corporate media—especially The Atlantic and POLITICO—have attempted to brush the more troubling facts regarding the MS-13 gang member under the rug, instead portraying Abrego Garcia as an innocent father of three.
According to The Atlantic–the same magazine that recently peddled the Signal ‘war plans’ hoax–the Trump administration detained and deported “a Maryland father with protected legal status” to El Salvador—obfuscating Abrego Garcia’s court-determined affiliation with MS-13.
Meanwhile, former Obama White House speechwriter Jon Favreau attempted to make political hay of The Atlantic article with a post on X (formerly Twitter) directed at Vice President Vance, Elon Musk, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, stating: “You just admitted to accidentally sending an innocent father from Maryland to a torture dungeon in El Salvador. And you refuse to do anything about it.”
‘A CONVICTED MS-13 GANG MEMBER.’
The post by Favreau prompted Vice President Vance to respond and set the record straight regarding Abrego Garcia’s criminal history.
“My comment is that according to the court document you apparently didn’t read he was a convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here,” Vance wrote, adding: “My further comment is that it’s gross to get fired up about gang members getting deported while ignoring citizens they victimize.”
In an attempt to pile on, POLITICO legal reporter Kyle Cheney further added to the corporate media obfuscation with the journalist claiming that Abrego Garcia had not been “convicted” of being a gang member. Cheney, instead, states that the El Salvadoran national was merely “denied bond in 2019 over an informant’s claim he was in MS-13. ”
THE 2019 IMMIGRATION CASE.
However, Cheney appears to have only read the current legal filing by Robert L. Cerna, acting field office director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), where ICE acknowledged the protective order barring Abrego Garcia from being removed to El Salvador. A review of Abrego Garcia’s 2019 case before a federal immigration judge reveals—as noted by Vice President Vance—that the court found sufficient evidence to determine that the El Salvadoran national was, in fact, a member of MS-13. The court’s determination is the equivalent of a conviction.
Further, the immigration judge did order his removal from the United States but also issued a grant of withholding—preventing the illegal immigrant from being sent back to El Salvador specifically, as the court found doing so posed a credible threat to his life.
Also of note in the 2019 case—and where Cheney appears to have stopped reading—is the fact that Abrego Garcia was denied bond during the hearing process as the immigration judge found he posed a danger to the community and was a flight risk. Additionally, after Abrego Garcia appealed the bond ruling, the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the court’s determination—agreeing that the El Salvadoran illegal immigrant posed a threat to the community.
‘MEDIA PROPAGANDA OPERATION.’
The Abrego Garcia is a fairly straightforward example of how the corporate media is desperate to frame the illegal immigration and deportation narrative as one where President Donald J. Trump is removing innocent fathers and mothers and sending them to an El Salvadoran gulag.
However, even in their most touted example of such an alleged instance, the actual facts tell a very different story. Abrego Garcia was determined by an immigration court to be a member of the violent MS-13 gang. Further, the court determined that Abrego Garcia was a danger to the community. That same court ordered Abrego Garcia’s removal from the United States, only barring him from being sent to El Salvador.
As Vice President Vance stated on X: “It is telling that the entire American media is going to run a propaganda operation today making you think an innocent “father of 3″ was apprehended by a gulag.”
READ:
Kyle Cheney, a “legal affairs reporter” is apparently unable or unwilling to look at the facts here.
In 2019, an Immigration Judge (under the first Trump administration) determined that the deported man was, in fact, a member of the MS-13 gang. He also apparently had multiple… https://t.co/tEFd4AUqGYpic.twitter.com/i70r4leqkw
FacebookTwitterWhatsappTruthTelegramGettrCopy Link
Real News Fan? Show It!
Many people are shocked to learn that because of active censorship, we currently have to spend more time making sure you can even see The National Pulse, than on producing the news itself. Which sucks. Because we do this for the truth, and for you.
But the regime doesn’t want you being informed. That’s why they want us to go away. And that will happen if more people don’t sign up to support our work. It’s basic supply and demand. So demand you get to read The National Pulse, unrestricted. Sign up, today.
We don’t sell ads, and refuse corporate or political cash. It all comes down to you, the reader. I hope you can help.
