GET THE APP
Tuesday, October 28, 2025

Category: Politics
June 30, 2025
William Upton
Politics

Top Ukraine Ally Quits Congress.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Representative Don Bacon (R-NE), an outspoken proponent of U.S. military assistance for Ukraine, announced he will not seek re-election in 2026.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Rep. Don Bacon, President Donald J. Trump, and other congressional Republicans.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Announcement made Monday; Bacon represents Nebraska’s second congressional district.

💬KEY QUOTE: “After 30 years in the Air Force and 10 years in Congress, it’s time to spend my future with the love of my life, our four kids, and our wonderful grandchildren. Thank you, Nebraska!” – Don Bacon

🎯IMPACT: Bacon’s retirement opens up a key battleground district for Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterms. The Nebraska Republican’s exit from Congress also marks a significant blow for the coalition of Democrats and Republicans who continually insist on propping up Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in his ongoing conflict with Russia.

IN FULL

Representative Don Bacon (R-NE), a key House Republican ally of Ukraine who has continually pushed for increased American military assistance for the Eastern European country, announced Monday that he will not seek re-election in 2026. Bacon, who has represented Nebraska‘s second congressional district since 2017, stated his intention to focus on his family. “After 30 years in the Air Force and 10 years in Congress, it’s time to spend my future with the love of my life, our four kids, and our wonderful grandchildren. Thank you, Nebraska!” Bacon said.

The Nebraska Republican has been one of just a handful of GOP lawmakers who have often worked to undermine President Donald J. Trump‘s America First agenda in Congress. While Bacon ultimately voted for President Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill‘ last month, he has often expressed concerns about specific provisions. Currently, Bacon is among a group of House Republicans who could potentially derail the legislation’s final passage in the lower chamber later this week.

A so-called ‘moderate’ Republican, Bacon has on occasion served as a foil to Trump’s agenda in the House. Most recently, he indicated opposition to a White House rescission proposal if it included cuts to an AIDS program. Additionally, Bacon was the only Republican to vote against a House bill that would make Trump’s name change for the Gulf of America permanent.

Bacon has criticized Trump’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, both taking umbrage with Trump’s pursuit of an end to the conflict and mounting Republican opposition to further supplying military aid.

In a March post on X (formerly Twitter), Bacon declared, “real Republicans know that Putin’s Russia hates the West and freedom. We also know that Ukraine wants democracy, free markets and rule of law. We stand with right vs evil. Reagan, Churchill, Eisenhower… that is our legacy. I won’t walk away from it.” Notably, Bacon announced his retirement just over three months after the post.

Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, which former Vice President Kamala Harris won by nearly five percentage points in 2024, remains a key target for Democrats in the upcoming 2026 midterms. The state is one of two that splits its Electoral College votes by congressional district. Bacon narrowly won re-election in 2024 by less than two percentage points.

Image via the Presidential Office of Ukraine.

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

show less
show more
June 30, 2025
1A
Politics

Could This SCOTUS Case Limit the Need for SuperPACs and Dark Campaign Cash?

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Supreme Court has agreed to review federal limits on coordinated spending by political parties in support of their candidates, questioning whether these restrictions violate the First Amendment.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Republican Party political committees, Vice President J.D. Vance, former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and the Justice Department (DOJ).

📍WHEN & WHERE: The Supreme Court will hear the case during its next term, with a decision expected before the 2026 midterm elections.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Congress has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them.” – GOP appeal filing

🎯IMPACT: The case could reshape campaign finance rules and affect the role of political parties in U.S. elections.

IN FULL

The Supreme Court announced it will review federal limits on coordinated spending by political parties in support of their candidates, raising questions about whether such restrictions violate the First Amendment. The case will be heard in the court’s next term, with a decision anticipated just months before the 2026 midterm elections.

The case was brought by Republican political committees, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), along with Vice President J.D. Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH). The Department of Justice (DOJ) has joined the GOP in arguing that the limits are unconstitutional. Democratic Party committees have been allowed to intervene to defend the law, as the government has declined to do so in this instance.

Notably, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Republican challenge, the legal changes would likely empower campaign committees directly under the control of political parties and actually reduce the influence of SuperPACs and dark money groups like the far-left Sixteen Thirty Fund. Since the high court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, outside political spending in elections has been taken over by well-financed consulting operations like the politically progressive Arabella Advisors, which controls a network of nonprofits—like the Sixteen Thirty Fund and New Venture Fund—and political PACs.

The limits in question stem from a 50-year-old provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act. For the 2024 election cycle, coordinated spending limits range from $123,600 to $3.7 million for Senate candidates and $61,800 to $123,600 for House candidates. A U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit decision upheld these limits, citing a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that supported an earlier version of the restrictions.

In their appeal, Republicans argued that the spending limits violate the First Amendment by restricting political parties’ ability to coordinate with candidates. They asked the Supreme Court to either clarify or overturn its 2001 decision, describing it as “plainly wrong the day it was decided.”

“Congress has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them,” the GOP filing contends, adding: “The result is a more polarized process in which political parties—an institutional force almost as old as ‘the formation of the Republic itself’—have been supplanted by less-restricted speakers.”

The DOJ, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, stated that the expenditure limits burden the rights of political parties and candidates, calling the restrictions a significant impediment to political speech. Democratic Party committees stepped in to defend the law after the government sided with the Republicans. Noel Francisco and Don McGahn are representing the Republican campaign committees.

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

show less
show more
June 30, 2025
William Upton
Politics

Here’s Where the Big Beautiful Bill Currently Stands.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Donald J. Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ is entering the homestretch toward passage in the United States Senate after narrowly clearing a procedural vote this past weekend. Once adopted by the upper chamber, the legislation will face a final vote in the House before heading to President Trump’s desk to be signed into law.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, and House Republicans.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The Senate vote-a-rama on amendments began Monday, June 30, at 9:00 AM, and a vote on final passage is expected late tonight. The House is expected to vote on adopting the Senate changes on Wednesday, July 2.

🎯IMPACT: While the budget reconciliation bill is entering the homestretch, several hurdles remain, which could derail the legislation or delay its passage beyond July 4—President Trump’s deadline for the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ to land on his desk.

IN FULL

President Donald J. Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill‘ is entering the homestretch toward passage in the United States Senate after narrowly clearing a procedural vote this past weekend. The budget reconciliation bill, which enacts much of Trump’s domestic policy agenda, sat in limbo for several hours on Saturday as Senate Republican leadership and Vice President J.D. Vance worked to hammer out last-minute compromises to attain the 51 votes on a motion to proceed. Notably, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Rand Paul (R-KY) both voted with Democrats against the measure. At the same time, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) eventually switched his vote from “No” after protracted talks with Vance and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), giving the bill the support it needed to clear the procedural hurdle.

Typically, after legislation clears the “motion to proceed” hurdle, the Senate swiftly moves to debate and amendments. However, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) used a procedural motion to force the entire 900-page-plus bill to be read aloud by the Senate clerk, which—along with the Democrats’ 10 hours of debate time—took up much of Sunday.

As of 9:00 AM on Monday, the Senate had finally moved to the amendment phase before a vote on final passage. Under usual circumstances, the “vote-a-rama” is a highly orchestrated process tightly controlled by Senate leadership. However, the current vote-a-rama is being described as a far more “fluid” process with a number of key compromises and amendments enacting significant changes expected to be brought to the floor. Each amendment receives a 10-minute voting period. Should any of the compromise amendments or other modifications fail, it could erode support for President Trump’s signature legislation—as it only cleared the “motion to proceed” by a single vote.

Sens. Tillis and Paul appear poised to vote with Senate Democrats against the bill once again. However, the Republican duo may be joined by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who has indicated that while she supported the “motion to proceed,” she remains undecided on voting for passage. Concerningly, the combination of Tillis, Paul, and Collins would leave the Senate evenly split on the legislation, meaning Vice President Vance would be required to break the tie. Should the adoption or rejection of an amendment alienate any other Republican vote, Senate Republicans could face the very real possibility of losing majority support for the legislation. Barring any erosion in Republican support, the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ should see a vote on final passage late this evening—possibly as late as midnight.

Once adopted by the Senate, the budget reconciliation legislation will return to the House of Representatives, which will need to vote on it again to adopt the changes made to its text in the Senate. A notice from House Republican leadership, issued late Sunday, recalled lawmakers to Washington, D.C. for an expected vote on Wednesday, with Tuesday being reserved for the bill’s reading. Here again, the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ could face headwinds if members of the House Freedom Caucus or the New York Republican delegation balk at the Senate changes. However, lawmakers will likely be under intense pressure from the Trump White House to drop any opposition and back the bill.

President Trump has repeatedly stated that he expected the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ to clear Congress and be on his desk by July 4 for his signature. Barring any significant conflicts in the Senate today or in the House on Wednesday, the bill should land on Trump’s desk with about 24 hours to spare before the July 4 holiday.

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

show less
show more
Mamdani
June 27, 2025
Politics

NYC’s Mamdani Wants Higher Taxes for ‘Whiter Neighborhoods.’

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Zohran Kwame Mamdani, the far-left Democratic Party nominee in New York City’s mayoral race, has proposed shifting the city’s property tax burden to “whiter” neighborhoods.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Zohran Mamdani, Representative Andy Ogles (R-TN), New York billionaire Bill Ackman, and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Mamdani’s policy memo was released ahead of New York City’s general mayoral election in November.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.” – Zohran for New York City policy memo.

🎯IMPACT: Mamdani’s plans have drawn criticism from Republicans, moderates, and business leaders, with efforts underway to prevent his election.

IN FULL

Zohran Kwame Mamdani, the Muslim extremist Democratic nominee in New York City’s mayoral race, has proposed a controversial plan to “[s]hift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.” His policy memo claims that the city’s current system favors homeowners in gentrifying areas, and he aims to raise taxes on properties more likely to be owned by affluent white people so he can lower them in lower-income neighborhoods. He is himself a Ugandan immigrant of Indian heritage, only becoming an American citizen in 2018.

Mamdani has also advocated for other radical measures, including city-owned grocery stores, defunding the police, and abolishing prisons. His proposals have sparked backlash from Republicans and moderates nationwide.

Representative Andy Ogles (R-TN) has been particularly critical of Mamdani, even calling for him to be stripped of his American citizenship if it turns out he failed to disclose terrorist sympathies during his naturalization process. In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Ogles accused Mamdani of expressing support for individuals linked to Hamas, stating, “Zohran ‘little muhammad’ Mamdani is an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York.”

Billionaire Bill Ackman has pledged significant financial resources to prevent Mamdani’s election. “There are hundreds of millions of dollars of capital available to back a competitor to Mamdani that can be put together overnight,” said Ackman, CEO of Pershing Square Capital.

Mamdani, who defeated former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in a surprising Democratic primary upset, will now face incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who is running as an independent, in November’s general election.

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

show less
show more
June 27, 2025
Lawfare
Politics

Rogue Judge Faces Impeachment After Blocking Trump’s National Guard Order.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: A Republican lawmaker has filed impeachment articles against a federal judge who temporarily blocked President Donald J. Trump’s control of the National Guard in California during pro-illegal immigrant riots in Los Angeles.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL), U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer, President Donald J. Trump, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).

📍WHEN & WHERE: The resolution was filed on Friday, June 27, 2025, following riots in Los Angeles earlier this month.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The goal is to get judges to do their jobs. If we’re not going to try to hold accountable the ones that aren’t, then they have no incentive to stop,” said Rep. Fine.

🎯IMPACT: The resolution highlights GOP frustration with repeated judicial interference in Trump’s executive actions.

IN FULL

Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) has filed a resolution to impeach U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer for temporarily blocking President Donald J. Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard during riots in Los Angeles. Fine criticized the judge’s decision as “political.”

The riots in Los Angeles were sparked by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Hispanic and Latino neighborhoods, where activists clashed with law enforcement and burned cars in protest. Trump bypassed California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) to deploy the National Guard, citing inadequate action by state officials to protect federal law enforcement and restore order.

Judge Breyer’s temporary order earlier this month ruled that Trump’s actions exceeded his statutory authority and violated the Tenth Amendment. “His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the court opinion stated. Breyer ordered control of the National Guard to be returned to California.

However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Breyer’s ruling last week, affirming that Trump was within his authority to federalize the National Guard. Breyer’s decision has drawn scrutiny from House Republicans, who have increasingly voiced frustration over judicial interference in Trump’s executive actions.

Fine acknowledged the long odds of removing Breyer but defended the impeachment resolution as a necessary step. “I think it’s worth doing. I don’t know that we can pass it, I don’t know that the Senate would remove him from office, but I think failing to avail ourselves of the remedies that the framers intended was a mistake,” he said.

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

show less
show more
June 27, 2025
Politics

Cuomo Poised to Split the Liberal Vote in NYC With Independent Mayoral Run.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Former New York governor Andrew Cuomo reportedly plans to run as an independent candidate in New York City’s mayoral race after losing the Democratic primary to Zohran Mamdani.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Andrew Cuomo, Zohran Mamdani, Eric Adams.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The Democratic primary results were announced Tuesday night in New York City; Cuomo has until Friday to decide whether to withdraw from the independent ballot.

💬KEY QUOTE: “There is a need for a new generation of leadership,” Mamdani insists.

🎯IMPACT: Cuomo’s expected independent run could reshape the dynamics of the race, while Mamdani’s progressive platform has drawn both support and criticism.

IN FULL

Former New York governor Andrew Cuomo has reportedly decided to run as an independent candidate for New York City’s mayoral race. This announcement comes days after he lost the Democratic primary to Zohran Mamdani, an avowed socialist and Islamic extremist originally from Uganda.

Cuomo, 67, conceded the primary to Mamdani but appears unwilling to withdraw from the race altogether, potentially splitting the liberal vote. Incumbent Eric Adams, elected as a Democrat but running for reelection as an independent, could split this vote even further.

Former Governor Cuomo is expected to run on a “Fight and Deliver” ballot line. Mamdani’s campaign leans on younger voters, focusing on left-progressive economic policies such as rent freeze and tax hikes on the wealthy, rather than his more contentious beliefs in defunding the police and “decarcerating” prisoners. “There is a need for a new generation of leadership,” he insists.

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

show less
show more
June 27, 2025
William Upton
Politics

The Senate GOP Has Canceled Friday’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Vote.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has cancelled a Friday vote on President Donald J. Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ after a number of key provisions were determined to violate the Byrd Rule by the Democrat-appointed Parliamentarian. Senate Republicans are now aiming for a vote over the weekend after more changes to the legislation are made.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Senate Republicans, Majority Leader John Thune, President Trump, and the Senate Parliamentarian.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The reconciliation legislation was originally slated to move to the Senate floor on Friday, June 27, 2025.

🎯IMPACT: The delay could jeopardize President Trump’s July 4 deadline to sign the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ into law. If the Senate is unable to make changes to comply with the Parliamentarian’s rulings, key provisions could be stripped from the legislation.

IN FULL

Senate Republicans are delaying a final vote on the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill‘ until this weekend as lawmakers scramble to make changes to the legislation in order to conform to rulings issued by the Senate Parliamentarian on Byrd Rule compliance. Earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) had aimed for a Friday vote on the bill.

The rush to revise provisions in the reconciliation bill to conform to the Byrd Rule likely means the Senate will not be able to move a final version of the legislation to the floor until at least Saturday afternoon, barring any further rulings from the Parliamentarian. The National Pulse reported on Thursday that Thune had ruled out several maneuvers to overrule the Parliamentarian, as well as the possibility of firing her outright.

Notably, despite pulling the Friday vote, Thune is allowing a roll call vote this evening on a War Powers Resolution aimed at constraining President Trump’s ability to take any further military action against Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The lack of urgency shown by Senate Republican leaders has rankled pro-Trump lawmakers in both legislative chambers. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) slammed Thune in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Friday, writing, “The UN-ELECTED Parliamentarian is no different than the radical far left judges and Jerome Powell!!!! Thune needs to over rule her or FIRE HER!!!”

Meanwhile, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) was even more blunt in a media interview, stating: “We need to start voting… and the jackassery has to stop.”

Image by Gage Skidmore.

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

show less
show more
June 27, 2025
Health
Politics

SCOTUS Just Upheld This Obamacare Provision.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as “Obamacare.”

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The ruling was issued by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh authoring the opinion. Other justices in the majority included John Roberts, Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The ruling was handed down in Washington, D.C. on June 27, 2025, with the case focusing on the appointment and oversight of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The Health Secretary may review recommendations from the task force before they take effect,” the court ruled, acknowledging the oversight role of the Health Secretary.

🎯IMPACT: An estimated 150 million Americans benefitted from the preventive healthcare provision in 2020 alone, which includes services like cancer screenings and immunizations.

IN FULL

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a crucial provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), often referred to as “Obamacare,” is constitutional. The case specifically examined the appointment process for members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a panel responsible for determining which preventive health services private insurance companies must cover at no cost to patients. Notably, this task force is responsible for having implemented Obamacare’s contraception mandate.

The court’s decision, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and supported by five other justices, also clarified that members of the task force can be removed at will by the Health Secretary, currently Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Additionally, the Health Secretary has the authority to review the task force’s recommendations before they are implemented. However, the case specifically revolved around the provision of PrEP, a pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV, which some plaintiffs argued violated their religious beliefs.

The plaintiffs, represented by former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell, received backing from Republican and conservative groups. Despite this, the Obamacare provision was defended by the Biden government, with significant opposition to ending the provision coming from public health groups, hospitals, and Democratic attorneys general. The case continued under the Trump administration following the 2024 presidential election.

The Supreme Court has now ended one of the last significant legal challenges to Obamacare, suggesting any future attempts to undo the law through the courts will prove unfruitful.

Image by Domenico Convertini.

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

show less
show more
June 27, 2025
Jack Montgomery
Politics

NYC’s Mamdani: Race Rioting ‘Has to Happen.’

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Democratic New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Kwame Mamdani defended the Black Lives Matter riots in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 2020, describing the violence as necessary and grounded in racial justice solidarity.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Zohran Mamdani, Minneapolis rioters, local business owners, and social media users.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Minneapolis and New York City, May 30, 2020; Mamdani’s social media post resurfaced June 2025.

💬KEY QUOTE: “While politicians & pundits condemn the uprising in Minneapolis from TV studios thousands of miles away, those at the center of it – even those who are hurting – understand why it’s happening. And why it has to happen. Black + brown solidarity will overcome white supremacy.” – Zohran Kwame Mamdani.

🎯IMPACT: Mamdani’s comments on Minneapolis highlight his promotion of racial grievance politics and pro-criminal stance, with opponents accusing him of condoning riots and racial unrest in pursuit of radical politics.

IN FULL

In a resurfaced post on Twitter, now X, from May 30, 2020, New York City Assemblyman and current Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani appeared to justify the Minneapolis riots that followed the death of George Floyd. While referencing the destruction of local businesses and escalating violence, Mamdani stated: “While politicians & pundits condemn the uprising in Minneapolis from TV studios thousands of miles away, those at the center of it – even those who are hurting – understand why it’s happening. And why it has to happen. Black + brown solidarity will overcome white supremacy.”

The post was a response to journalist Molly Hensley-Clancy, citing a restaurant business destroyed during the riots whose owner stated, “Let my building burn, justice needs to be served.”

Critics say Mamdani’s statement shows explicit sympathy for violent rioters and a willingness to frame destruction as a justified tool of political expression.

Mamdani has a long history of advocating for the abolition of police, so-called “decarcerations” of jail and prison inmates, and systemic dismantling of the criminal justice and law enforcement apparatus, stating in 2020, “White supremacy has many faces, from the police & prison systems in America to occupation & apartheid in Palestine.”

The Uganda-born “Twelver” Muslim previously wrote that “as socialists, we believe people should not have to endure the violence & coercion of a criminal-legal system.”

He has also stated, “As socialists, we believe people should not have to endure the violence & coercion of a criminal-legal system that props up the exploitation of the market by surveilling, caging & killing those fighting to survive under capitalism. We can abolish that system.”

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

show less
show more
June 26, 2025
News
Politics

Trump Terminates Biden-Era Program Promoting DEI to Kids.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under Secretary Kristi Noem ended a costly program promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in schools.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, the Biden government, and various far-left organizations contracted under the program.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The program was terminated during the Trump administration, following its implementation under President Biden.

💬KEY QUOTE: “This program was not only wasteful, it was also using public money to support an openly partisan and political organization.” – Tricia McLaughlin, DHS assistant secretary

🎯IMPACT: The termination of the program is projected to save DHS over $1.5 million and signals a shift from DEI-focused policies.

IN FULL

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have ended a multimillion-dollar program initially intended to help students prevent terror and violence in their communities. The program, known as Invent2Prevent, was repurposed by the former Biden regime to focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and LGBT ideology in schools, often via partisan nonpartisans.

Tricia McLaughlin, DHS assistant secretary, said, “This program was not only wasteful, it was also using public money to support an openly partisan and political organization. Politicized NGOs like Eradicate Hate have been siphoning away taxpayer dollars for far too long. We are ending the grift.”

The DHS estimates that cutting the program will save more than $1.5 million. The Invent2Prevent website now displays a banner indicating the content is archived and may not reflect current policies.

The Biden regime’s push for DEI policies extended across the private and public sectors, including an executive order signed on his first day in office titled “Advancing Equity and Racial Justice Through the Federal Government.” However, DEI policies became a focal point in the 2024 presidential campaign, with then-candidate Donald J. Trump criticizing them as part of the woke agenda.

President Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025, titled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing.” The order called for the termination of discriminatory programs, prompting companies like Amazon and Goldman Sachs to follow suit in scrapping DEI-related initiatives. Trump also issued a memorandum in March to remove DEI from the Foreign Service, emphasizing a merit-based approach throughout the government.

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

show less
show more