GET THE APP
Friday, September 19, 2025

Tag: Donald Trump
July 9, 2025
Jack Montgomery
Immigration

Trump Tightens Travel Restrictions on Nigerians.

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: The Trump administration has restricted temporary visas for Nigerians, limiting most to single-entry visas valid for only three months.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump, the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, and Nigerian travelers.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: United States and Nigeria, July 2025.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Effective immediately, most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas issued to citizens of Nigeria will be single-entry visas with a three-month validity period.” – U.S. Embassy in Abuja.

🎯IMPACT: The move is part of broader Trump-era security measures affecting African nations, raising diplomatic tensions and threatening future trade opportunities with West Africa.

IN FULL

Temporary-stay visas for Nigerians visiting the United States have been slashed to three months and are now limited to single entry only. The change, announced by the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, follows a wave of travel restrictions under President Donald Trump’s administration.

The embassy’s statement on Tuesday framed the move as an “update to its reciprocal non-immigrant visa policy,” noting that it impacts several countries, including Nigeria. Previously, visa durations and terms varied widely depending on the applicant’s purpose of travel.

The visa clampdown comes shortly after Trump ordered sweeping travel bans and restrictions affecting nationals from more than a dozen countries, citing concerns about national security and insufficient vetting systems. Citizens of Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan were banned outright. Chad responded by suspending U.S. visa issuances in return.

“In my first term, my powerful travel restrictions were one of our most successful policies, and they were a key part of preventing major foreign terror attacks on American soil,” Trump said at the time, adding, “We will not let what happened in Europe happen to America.”

The Trump administration’s broader immigration crackdown has intensified scrutiny on African nations and sparked concern among diplomats and trade partners. The latest decision to curtail Nigerian travel is seen as part of a larger pattern of policy designed to overhaul and harden American entry requirements.

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

show less
show more
July 9, 2025
TECH

Did X’s CEO Resign Because She Couldn’t Keep Musk in Check?

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: Linda Yaccarino announced her resignation as CEO of X (formerly Twitter), following controversies involving the platform’s AI assistant, Grok. Some—including former Trump White House Chief Strategist and WarRoom host Stephen K. Bannon—speculate that Yaccarino’s exit was precipitated by her inability to keep the social media platform’s owner, Elon Musk, in check.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Linda Yaccarino, Elon Musk, Stephen K. Bannon, and, indirectly, President Donald J. Trump.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: Yaccarino announced her resignation on Wednesday, after serving two years as CEO of X.

💬KEY QUOTE: “After two incredible years, I’ve decided to step down as CEO of X.” – Linda Yaccarino

🎯IMPACT: Yaccarino’s departure fuels speculation about internal issues at X and coincides with tensions between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump.

IN FULL

Elon Musk reacted briefly on Wednesday to Linda Yaccarino‘s resignation as CEO of his X platform (formerly Twitter), after two years in the role, brusquely responding to her announcement: “Thank you for your contributions.” The terse reply from Musk is fueling speculation that Yaccarino’s departure was driven by deeper issues than those with X’s AI assistant, Grok, which recently drew backlash for praising Adolf Hitler, among other inappropriate behaviors.

Yaccarino took to X to share her decision, writing, “After two incredible years, I’ve decided to step down as CEO of X. When [Elon Musk] and I first spoke of his vision for X, I knew it would be the opportunity of a lifetime to carry out the extraordinary mission of this company. I’m immensely grateful to him for entrusting me with the responsibility of protecting free speech, turning the company around, and transforming X into the Everything App.” Musk acquired the social media platform—then known as Twitter—in 2022 for $44 billion.

The exchange between Musk and Yaccarino is driving speculation that the latter’s exit was more driven by her inability to assert control over the billionaire technology mogul, especially regarding his ongoing political spat with President Donald J. Trump. For instance, former White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon, referring to Musk as “Elmo,” contended that Yaccarino’s resignation was entirely because of Musk’s antics.

“We understand why you are stepping down and why you’re running. That Elmo’s out of control. Sorry, baby, that came with the job. You took the job, you took the pay, you took the warrants, you took the stock options, you took all the hundreds of millions of dollars you’re going to make,” Bannon argued.

“No, if you can’t keep Elmo in the nursery and keep him under control, you’re gonna pay a price. You are gonna pay the price. It doesn’t matter that you’re resigning today, baby. The whole scam over there, the whole complete scam of Elmo is going to be taken apart brick by brick, OK?”

Image by Gage Skidmore.

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

show less
show more
July 9, 2025
Education

Trump Admin to Subpoena Harvard for Data on Foreign Agitators.

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: The Trump administration announced plans to issue subpoenas to Harvard University for information about alleged misconduct involving foreign students.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Harvard University.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: The announcement was made on Wednesday, July 9, with actions targeting Harvard University.

đź’¬KEY QUOTE: “We tried to do things the easy way with Harvard. Now, through their refusal to cooperate, we have to do things the hard way,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

🎯IMPACT: The move could lead to Harvard losing its accreditation, affecting student eligibility for federal financial aid.

IN FULL

President Donald J. Trump’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on Wednesday that it intends to issue subpoenas for information Harvard University may have on any misconduct, anti-Semitism, or illegal activities connected to foreign students. The move marks the latest escalation in an ongoing dispute between the Trump White House and Harvard that has already seen the Ivy League institution potentially lose billions in federal funding.

In addition to the subpoenas announced by DHS, the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services (HHS) revealed they have notified Harvard’s accreditor that the university violated federal law by failing to address reported harassment of Jewish students. Consequently, Harvard could lose its accreditation, potentially making its students ineligible for federal financial assistance.

Notably, the administrative subpoenas from DHS are in response to Harvard refusing to provide requested information regarding its Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification. “We tried to do things the easy way with Harvard. Now, through their refusal to cooperate, we have to do things the hard way,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin in a statement.

The National Pulse reported in late May that President Trump had drawn a firm line on Harvard’s refusal to hand over the names of its foreign students to his administration. “Harvard wants to fight. They want to show how smart they are, and they’re getting their ass kicked,” Trump said at the time.

Already, the Trump administration has frozen $3 billion in federal funding, moved to strip Harvard of its SEVP certification, and blocked new foreign visa appointments.

Image by Adam Fagen.

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

show less
show more
July 9, 2025
Politics
Sports

Trump Admin Sues California for Keeping Males in Female Sports.

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Education (CDE) and California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) over the state’s policy of allowing biological male athletes to compete against women and girls.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Trump administration, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D), U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and transgender athletes such as A.B. Hernandez.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: The lawsuit, filed on July 9, 205, follows California’s rejection of a federal resolution agreement on Monday.

đź’¬KEY QUOTE: The lawsuit states that, in addition to requiring women and girls to compete against males, California policy “also require[s] girls to share intimate spaces, such as locker rooms, with boys, causing a hostile educational environment that denies girls educational opportunities.”

🎯IMPACT: The lawsuit escalates the conflict over biological male athletes’ participation in women’s sports and raises questions about federal funding and Title IX compliance in California.

IN FULL

The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against California’s Department of Education (CDE) and California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), citing the state’s continued allowance of biological male athletes to compete in women’s sports in violation of Title IX. The move comes after California rejected a federal resolution agreement on the issue on Monday.

President Donald J. Trump had previously signed an executive order in February 2025, banning transgender athletes from competing in women’s divisions and calling for biology-based definitions of “male” and “female.” Despite this, California has permitted such participation, prompting federal action.

The lawsuit follows high-profile incidents involving transgenders in female sports, including A.B. Hernandez, a biological male, winning gold in the high jump and triple jump at the California Interscholastic Federation state finals in May. Hernandez also dominated a triple jump competition in March, sparking protests from parents.

Notably, the lawsuit cites safety issues as well as sporting fairness, noting that California policy “also require[s] girls to share intimate spaces, such as locker rooms, with boys, causing a hostile educational environment that denies girls educational opportunities.”

After California rejected a federal resolution agreement on Monday, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced the matter had been referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for legal action. She warned in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that “California will be hearing from Attorney General Pam Bondi.”

In late June, the U.S. Department of Education found that the State of California had violated Title IX with its policies allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports. Despite the federal finding, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has signalled his state will continue to resist the Trump administration’s directive. Notably, Newsom himself admitted earlier this year that allowing biological males to compete against women was “unfair.”

Image by Steve Fernie.

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

show less
show more
July 8, 2025
Breaking

BREAKING: Supreme Court Clears Path for Trump’s Federal Firings.

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that President Donald J. Trump can move forward with plans to significantly reduce the federal government workforce.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court, and federal agencies.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: The decision was made on Tuesday, July 8, following Trump’s executive order issued on February 11.

🎯IMPACT: The decision clears the way for significant reductions in workforce across 19 federal departments and agencies.

IN FULL

The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Donald J. Trump to proceed with his plan to reduce the size of the federal government workforce. This decision lifted a lower court order that previously blocked the administration from cutting workforces across 19 federal departments and agencies.

The Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request on Tuesday, with only one dissenting justice. The ruling allows the implementation of Trump’s February 11 Executive Order while ongoing litigation continues.

Opponents of the move have expressed concerns that the changes could result in hundreds of thousands of federal employees losing their jobs. The administration, however, has argued that the reductions are necessary to streamline government operations and reduce unnecessary expenditures.

The decision marks a significant victory for the Trump administration as it pursues its goal of reshaping the federal government. The ruling will remain in effect as legal challenges to the executive order proceed.

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

show less
show more
July 8, 2025
Immigration

Trump: ‘We’ve Got to Give the Farmers the People They Need’ — But No ‘Amnesty.’

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: President Donald J. Trump said he is not considering any form of “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, but that farmers must be given “the people they need.”

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald Trump, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, lawmakers on Capitol Hill, and agricultural and hospitality industry lobbyists.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: Trump made his remarks on Tuesday, following statements earlier in the day from Agriculture Secretary Rollins.

đź’¬KEY QUOTE: “We’ve got to give the farmers the people they need, but we’re not talking amnesty.” – Donald Trump

🎯IMPACT: The announcement reinforces the administration’s stance on immigration enforcement and pushes back against lobbying efforts for amnesty.

IN FULL

On Tuesday, President Donald J. Trump said that his administration will not entertain any “amnesty” deals for illegal immigrants, with mounting rumors that lawmakers on Capitol Hill—along with agricultural and hospitality industry lobbyists—are pursuing one. Both industries, in recent weeks, have ramped up political pressure for a carve-out to protect illegal immigrants in their respective workforces from ongoing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids across the country.

“We’ve got to give the farmers the people they need, but we’re not talking amnesty,” Trump said, echoing remarks by his Agriculture Secretary, Brooke Rollins, who stated earlier on Tuesday that, “[T]here will be no amnesty, the mass deportations continue but in a strategic way, and we move the workforce towards automation and 100 percent American participation.”

The comments come amid an ongoing debate within the Trump White House over how to address the agricultural and hospitality industries’ push for exceptions to the illegal immigrant crackdown. Notably, in mid-June, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued guidance resulting in a brief pause on immigration enforcement actions targeting farms and hotels. However, after public and internal White House backlash, the guidance was withdrawn just days later.

On Monday, The National Pulse reported that Republican state lawmakers in California authored a letter urging President Trump to direct ICE to end its “sweeping raids” against illegal immigrants and instead open “a path to legal status” for “non-criminal undocumented immigrants [sic].”

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

show less
show more
July 8, 2025
Lawfare

Obama Judge Bizarrely Rules Congress Cannot Deprive Planned Parenthood of Funding.

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: A Massachusetts federal judge temporarily blocked a provision in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” recently signed into law by President Donald J. Trump, that would have halted Medicaid funding to abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Planned Parenthood, Judge Indira Talwani, and the Trump administration.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: Massachusetts, the ruling was issued Monday, with a hearing set for July 21.

đź’¬KEY QUOTE: “The fight is just beginning, and we look forward to our day in court!” – Planned Parenthood.

🎯IMPACT: The ruling temporarily ensures Medicaid funding continues to Planned Parenthood despite the new federal provision.

IN FULL

Planned Parenthood secured a temporary legal victory late Monday after a Barack Obama-appointed federal judge in Massachusetts moved to block a federal provision barring Medicaid funding for the abortion giant. U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani’s ruling comes despite the provision in question being a part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” recently passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Donald J. Trump. On the surface, it appears to be a grave encroachment by a federal judge into the powers of the legislative branch.

While the Hyde Amendment already bars most federal dollars from funding abortion services, like those offered by Planned Parenthood, the fungibility of said dollars has allowed the organization to remain a major Medicaid funding recipient. However, under the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” healthcare providers who abort babies and received $800,000 or more in Medicaid funding in 2023 are barred from receiving additional funding for one year.

“Defendants, their agents, employees, appointees, successors, and anyone acting in concert or participation with Defendants shall take all steps necessary to ensure that Medicaid funding continues to be disbursed in the customary manner and timeframes to Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its members; Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts; and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah,” Judge Talwani wrote in her order which prevents the federal provision, already authorized by Congress, from taking effect for 14 days. Consequently, the judge has scheduled a hearing on the matter for July 21.

Planned Parenthood contends the provision—which does not single the organization out—explicitly targets them for what it maintains are legal activities. However, the nature of the legislative provision is that of a budgetary measure aimed at reducing Medicaid expenditures, and again, it does not single out Planned Parenthood specifically.

U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) slammed the ruling. “What part of the Constitution prohibits Congress from defunding Planned Parenthood?” the Utah Republican wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter), continuing: “If any part of the Constitution somehow prohibits Congress from withdrawing federal funding from an entity like Planned Parenthood, I’m not familiar with that provision.”

“Unless I’m missing something, this is an abuse of judicial power,” Lee added.

Notably, the United States Supreme Court already ruled recently that state governments can move to restrict Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.

Image by Robin Marty.

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

show less
show more
July 8, 2025
War

Trump Resumes Military Aid to Ukraine.

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: President Donald J. Trump announced that the United States will resume sending defensive weapons to Ukraine, reversing a recent pause in shipments.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump, Pentagon officials, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: Announcement made on July 7, following escalating Russian attacks on Ukraine.

đź’¬KEY QUOTE: “They’re getting hit very hard now,” said Trump, speaking from the White House.

🎯IMPACT: The resumption of defensive aid could increase pressure on Russia’s President Putin to renew peace negotiations with Ukraine; however, the move could also be seen as a reescalation and further prolong the conflict.

IN FULL

The Pentagon announced on Monday that it will resume sending defensive weapons to Ukraine at the request of President Donald J. Trump. This decision reverses a prior move to pause air defense shipments that were already en route to Ukraine.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stated that the weapons would “ensure the Ukrainians can defend themselves while we work to secure a lasting peace and ensure that the killing stops.” President Trump, speaking alongside U.S. and Israeli delegations at the White House, emphasized the need for Ukraine to be able to defend itself against escalating Russian air attacks. “They’re getting hit very hard now,” Trump said, adding that he was “disappointed, frankly, that President Putin hasn’t stopped.”

Following a July 3 phone call between Trump and Putin, Russian forces launched what Ukrainian officials described as the largest airstrikes since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022. The Ukrainian air force reported over 539 drones and 11 missiles during the attacks, marking a record high.

In addition to the renewed flow of military aid, President Trump continues to float the possibility of imposing additional sanctions on Russia. Additionally, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is pushing legislation in the U.S. Senate that would hit countries purchasing Russian oil with a 500 percent tariff—though it remains unclear just what level of support the South Carolina Republican has among his colleagues for the measure.

Ukraine’s reliance on air defense systems supplied by Western allies, including the Patriot missile system, has grown as Russian attacks intensify. Ukrainian officials were surprised when the Pentagon initially paused shipments of critical munitions, citing concerns that America’s stockpiles had been run down. However, the decision to resume aid follows a productive July 4 phone call between President Zelensky and President Trump. Zelensky described the conversation as “the best in all this time” and expressed gratitude for U.S. support in addressing air defense needs.

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

show less
show more
July 7, 2025
Politics

Are Democrats Finally Realizing Just How Radical and Violent Their Base Has Become?

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: Democrat lawmakers claim their base is frustrated with their inability to counter Republican policies and are demanding more drastic action, even suggesting violence.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: House Democrats, unnamed lawmakers, Rep. Brad Schneider, and leftist constituents.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: Recent events across cities like Portland, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC, as reported by Axios.

đź’¬KEY QUOTE: “Our own base is telling us that what we’re doing is not good enough … [that] there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public.” – Anonymous lawmaker to Axios.

🎯IMPACT: Heightened tensions and potential for escalated unrest as Democrat leaders struggle to appease their increasingly radicalized base.

IN FULL

Democrat lawmakers are now noticing the increasing radicalism among their political base over their inability to effectively counter President Donald J. Trump’s agenda, especially the America First leader’s nationwide crackdown on illegal immigration. According to Axios, at least 24 House Democrats who spoke with the media outlet expressed alarm over the increasingly violent feedback they’re receiving from their constituents.

“Our own base is telling us that what we’re doing is not good enough … [that] there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public,” one lawmaker said. Another Democrat noted that their constituents are done with “civility” and are urging preparation for “violence… to fight to protect our democracy.”

“Some of them have suggested … what we really need to do is be willing to get shot,” another lawmaker stated, noting their voters have suggested Democrat lawmakers should ramp up protests outside U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities in an effort to elicit a violent response from federal agents. Notably, several major U.S. cities have seen instances of violent riots in recent months, including Antifa-led blockades in Portland, Oregon, and riots in Los Angeles, California. Protests have also erupted in New York City and Washington, D.C., among other locations.

Representative Brad Schneider (D-IL) commented, “We’ve got people who are desperately wanting us to do something… no matter what we say, they want [more].” Another lawmaker recounted a meeting where someone suggested using “gasoline” instead of an “extinguisher” when responding to political fires. “It’s like … the Roman coliseum. People just want more and more of this spectacle,” one Democrat observed.

The Axios report was published the same day as Border Patrol agents were ambushed at an immigration facility in Texas by a man with a rifle. A local law enforcement officer was wounded in the gunfight, while the shooter was killed.

Stephen Miller, the Trump administration’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor, said in reference to the Axios report, “Democrats [are] inspiring domestic terrorism against ICE.”

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

show less
show more
July 7, 2025
Lawfare

Planned Parenthood Is Suing Trump to Stop Abortion Funding Cuts in ‘One Big Beautiful Bill.’

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit challenging a provision in President Donald J. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” that would strip Medicaid funding from its abortion centers.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Planned Parenthood, the Trump administration, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: The lawsuit was filed on Monday, July 7, 2025, in a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The true design of the Defund Provision is simply to express disapproval of, attack, and punish Planned Parenthood, which plays a particularly prominent role in the public debate over abortion,” Planned Parenthood stated in its complaint.

🎯IMPACT: Planned Parenthood claims the provision would have “catastrophic consequences” for over one million patients annually who rely on Medicaid services at its nearly 600 facilities.

IN FULL

Planned Parenthood has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, targeting a specific provision in the “One Big Beautiful Bill”—signed into law last week by President Donald J. Trump—that would revoke Medicaid funding from its abortionist clinics. The lawsuit, submitted in a Boston federal court, argues that the provision is unconstitutional and aims to prevent the organization’s abortionists from receiving Medicaid money.

The organization stated that over one million patients annually rely on Medicaid services provided by its nearly 600 facilities. Planned Parenthood described the measure as an effort to “attack and punish” the organization due to its status as the industry leader in aborting babies.

“The true design of the Defund Provision is simply to express disapproval of, attack, and punish Planned Parenthood, which plays a particularly prominent role in the public debate over abortion,” the organization claimed in its filing.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that oversees Medicaid, has not commented on the lawsuit. Planned Parenthood asserts that the provision would lead to “catastrophic consequences,” claiming it would negatively impact patients who depend on Medicaid.

In June, the top abortion provider suffered a significant legal blow when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state governments have the authority to block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics, siding with South Carolina in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. Medicaid and government grants comprise a significant portion of Planned Parenthood’s funding.

Image by Tim Evanson.

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

show less
show more