Powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has ceased fundraising activities for Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT). The move came after the three voted against a supplemental funding measure for Israel last month. Representative Scott Perry has defended his vote against a bill for supplemental funding for Israel, which he claims contained allocations of humanitarian aid that could indirectly support Hamas.
AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann confirmed that the organization has not officially withdrawn its endorsement of Perry. However, Wittmann declined to provide details regarding the timeline or conditions under which AIPAC might resume its fundraising efforts for Perry.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
In his statement, Perry stood firm on his decision to vote against the bill. He stated that the humanitarian aid components could potentially benefit Hamas, a concern he described as unavoidable.
“I have been and remain one of the most vehement defenders in Congress of the State of Israel,” said Perry. “I have grievous concerns, however, about provisions in the recent House funding bill that also allocates $9 billion to Hamas — terrorists!”
Perry, who previously chaired the House Freedom Caucus, could face significant electoral challenges in the upcoming November elections. According to the Cook Political Report, Perry’s race is classified as “lean Republican,” suggesting a more competitive contest compared to the “likely Republican” ratings for Cruz and Zinke.
Generally speaking, the majority of Republicans in both the House and the Senate have been staunchly — some critics have argued slavishly — supportive of Israel in its conflict against Hamas in Gaza.
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.
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.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against New Jersey over its sanctuary policies, challenging an executive order that blocks federal immigration enforcement in certain state facilities.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The DOJ, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill (D), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The lawsuit was filed Monday, targeting New Jersey’s Executive Order No. 12.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Federal agents are risking their lives to keep New Jersey citizens safe, and yet New Jersey’s leaders are enacting policies designed to obstruct and endanger law enforcement,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi.
🎯IMPACT: The lawsuit highlights the DOJ’s ongoing efforts to combat sanctuary policies, which it argues endanger public safety and obstruct federal immigration enforcement.
IN FULL
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is suing New Jersey after Governor Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) signed an order expanding the state’s sanctuary policies, prohibiting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal immigration officials from conducting secure arrests of criminal illegal aliens within nonpublic areas of state property. Of particular concern to the DOJ is that Gov. Sherrill’s executive order extends to state correctional facilities, making the enforcement of immigration detainers especially difficult.
“On its face, the Executive Order prevents federal immigration agents from using state-owned property accessible to local and state law enforcement,” the DOJ lawsuit states, continuing, “The sole reason for the exclusionary treatment of federal immigration agents enforcing our Nation’s federal immigration laws is New Jersey’s disagreement with the substance of the laws written by Congress that have remained on the books and largely unchanged for half a century.”
Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi blasted the New Jersey Democrat governor, stating, “Federal agents are risking their lives to keep New Jersey citizens safe, and yet New Jersey’s leaders are enacting policies designed to obstruct and endanger law enforcement.” She added, “States may not deliberately interfere with our efforts to remove illegal aliens and arrest criminals —New Jersey’s sanctuary policies will not stand.”
The lawsuit alleges that the executive order unlawfully restricts cooperation with federal authorities and results in the release of “dangerous criminals” from police custody who would otherwise be subject to removal. According to the complaint, these individuals include illegal immigrants convicted of aggravated assault, burglary, and drug and human trafficking offenses.
New Jersey is the latest state to face federal litigation filed by the Trump administration over its sanctuary policies. Previously, the DOJ has filed lawsuits against New York, Minnesota, and the city of Los Angeles.
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.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Mexican soldiers killed Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) cartel boss Nemesio “El Mencho” Oseguera Cervantes in a raid on his hideout, following a tip-off involving one of his romantic partners.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Mexican military forces, El Mencho and his security detail, and U.S. intelligence support.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The raid occurred on Sunday in Tapalpa, Jalisco state, Mexico.
🎯IMPACT: The operation led to widespread retaliatory violence, with over 70 deaths, major disruptions, and increased security deployments.
IN FULL
The capture and subsequent death of Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) leader Nemesio “El Mencho” Oseguera Cervantes at the hands of the Mexican military on Sunday came—in part—through a tip provided by one of El Mencho’s romantic partners. According to Mexican military officials, the tip—along with United States intelligence support—allowed for the woman to be tracked to a wooded area near Tapalpa in the state of Jalisco, where El Mencho had established a safe house.
After confirming the cartel leader’s location, Mexican special forces launched an assault, resulting in the deaths of El Mencho and at least eight other cartel members after a fierce firefight. El Mencho was one of the most wanted drug lords by both the Mexican and U.S. governments, largely due to the cartel’s role in trafficking fentanyl into the United States.
General Ricardo Trevilla, Mexico’s defense minister, highlighted the importance of surprise in the operation, with some troops positioned along Jalisco’s state border to avoid detection. El Mencho’s bodyguards engaged the soldiers, and the cartel leader fled with his inner circle to nearby cabins before being apprehended. He and two others were gravely injured while being subdued and later died en route to Mexico City.
The death of El Mencho triggered significant retaliatory violence across 20 states, including Jalisco. Armed cartel supporters set vehicles and buildings ablaze, blocked roads, and disrupted daily life. Mexican authorities reported over 70 deaths during the operation and its aftermath, including 25 law enforcement officers. Additional security forces were deployed to stabilize the region.
U.S. intelligence reportedly supported the operation, providing a dossier on El Mencho to Mexican authorities. The CJNG, designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by U.S. President Donald J. Trump last year, has been a major target in efforts to combat drug trafficking.
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.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: NPR claims the Department of Justice (DOJ) has withheld some Jeffrey Epstein files related to allegations against President Donald J. Trump.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Trump, deceased child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, and two accusers, alongside the DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Allegations date back to the 1980s and involve Epstein’s properties, with recent document reviews occurring in January and February 2025.
💬KEY QUOTE: “President Trump has done more for Epstein’s victims than anyone before him.” – White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson
🎯IMPACT: The mishandling of the Epstein Files generally has led to bipartisan criticism of Attorney General Pam Bondi and the DOJ.
IN FULL
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has withheld or removed certain documents from the Epstein Files’ public database, NPR alleges. Despite the requirements of the Epstein Files Transparency Act for public disclosure, more than 50 pages—consisting of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) interviews and notes related to allegations against President Donald J. Trump—are alleged to remain unavailable. NPR reached this conclusion after examining serial numbers, metadata, and other indicators in the Epstein files database.
The withheld or missing materials reportedly include accounts from accusers. One allegedly stated she was introduced to Trump by Epstein in the 1980s and alleged abuse occurred; FBI records show she was interviewed several times, though only a single interview appears in the accessible public files.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson responded to NPR’s accusations by defending the President, saying, “Just as President Trump has said, he’s been totally exonerated on anything relating to Epstein,” adding that “by releasing thousands of pages of documents, cooperating with the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena request, signing the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and calling for more investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends, President Trump has done more for Epstein’s victims than anyone before him.”
Jackson also highlighted the Democrats’ lack of action regarding their own ties to Epstein following his conviction.
The DOJ has drawn criticism over its management of the Epstein Files, including accusations of excessive or improper redactions. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress in a letter that no materials were withheld or redacted due to political concerns, reputational issues, or embarrassment involving any public figures, and that redactions were instead focused on safeguarding sensitive details like victim privacy.
The DOJ has stated that its staff is working intensively to resolve issues and fully comply with legal requirements.
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.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: A defense motion to disqualify the Utah County Attorney’s Office from prosecuting Tyler Robinson was denied by Judge Tony Graf.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Defendant Tyler Robinson, Judge Tony Graf, and the Utah County Attorney’s Office.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The hearing took place on Tuesday in Utah.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Because defendant has not established a factual basis for a finding of conflict of interest or an objective appearance of impropriety rising to constitutional concern, his motion is respectfully denied.” – Judge Tony Graf
🎯IMPACT: The Utah County Attorney’s Office will continue to prosecute the case against Tyler Robinson.
IN FULL
Utah Judge Tony Graf has denied a key motion brought by the defense team representing Tyler Robinson, who is accused of assassinating Turning Point USA (TPUSA) founder Charlie Kirk. The motion sought to disqualify the Utah County Attorney’s Office from prosecuting the case.
The defense argued that a conflict of interest existed because the daughter of one of the attorneys in the prosecutor’s office was present at the Utahcollege campus where the assassination occurred. They contended that this warranted disqualifying the entire office.
In his ruling, Judge Graf stated, “Defendant argues that high level prosecutor assigned to this case has a concurrent conflict of interest, and because no efforts were made to screen him, the entire office should be disqualified. Because defendant has not established a factual basis for a finding of conflict of interest or an objective appearance of impropriety rising to constitutional concern, his motion is respectfully denied.”
The assassination of Charlie Kirk occurred on September 10, 2025, when Kirk was speaking at a political event in the courtyard area of Utah Valley University. While addressing the crowd, Kirk was shot in the neck and later pronounced deceased at Timpanogos Regional Hospital. Robinson faces capital murder charges, with prosecutors seeking the death penalty.
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.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: France summoned U.S. Ambassador Charles Kushner over comments made by the Trump administration regarding the murder of conservative Catholic student Quentin Déranque, which France found objectionable. Kushner did not attend the meeting, and his government access has now been restricted.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: U.S. Ambassador Charles Kushner, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, and the Trump administration.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Events unfolded in Paris, France, with a summons issued Monday evening and responses on Tuesday.
💬KEY QUOTE: “It will, naturally, affect his capacity to exercise his mission in our country.” – Jean-Noël Barrot
🎯IMPACT: Kushner’s access to French officials has been suspended until he complies with the summons.
IN FULL
France’s Foreign Ministry summoned U.S. Ambassador Charles Kushner on Monday evening over comments made by the Trump administration regarding the murder of conservative Catholic student Quentin Déranque. French officials stated that Kushner did not attend the meeting, leading to criticism from French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot.
Barrot described Kushner’s absence as “a surprise” and said it violated diplomatic protocol. “It will, naturally, affect his capacity to exercise his mission in our country,” Barrot stated. He emphasized that an ambassador must have access to government officials to effectively perform their duties.
The U.S. Embassy in Paris has not commented on the matter despite requests from the media. Kushner’s access to French government officials will remain suspended until he complies with the summons, according to Barrot. “When these explanations have taken place, then the U.S. ambassador in France will, naturally, regain access to members of the French government,” he added.
The summons was prompted by a statement from the U.S. State Department‘s Counterterrorism Bureau, which highlighted the role of “violent radical leftism” in Deranque’s killing. “Reports, corroborated by the French Minister of the Interior, that Quentin Deranque was killed by left-wing militants, should concern us all. Violent radical leftism is on the rise and its role in Quentin Deranque’s death demonstrates the threat it poses to public safety. We will continue to monitor the situation and expect to see the perpetrators of violence brought to justice,” it said.
The U.S. Embassy in Paris posted the same statement in French, drawing objections from French officials who viewed it as interference in domestic matters. “We don’t accept that foreign countries can come and interfere, invite themselves, into the national political debate,” Barrot complained.
Déranque was providing informal protection for a protest organized by the right-wing feminist group Collectif Némésis outside Sciences Po Lyon, where a lecture by far-left Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Rima Hassan of La France Insoumise (France Unbowed/LFI) was taking place. The National Pulse reported earlier this month that French authorities had arrested four people in connection with the killing of Déranque, who died after suffering severe brain injuries.
According to local reporting, those detained include Jacques-Élie Favrot, a parliamentary assistant to radical leftist legislator Raphaël Arnault, and Adrian Besseyre, a former intern for Arnault.
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.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: A man reported being stabbed in his Miami Beach apartment after refusing to have sex with a transgender porn creator who was “not Jewish.”
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: La’Rose Angel Sainte, a 30-year-old Atlanta-based transgender porn creator, and the victim, a male resident of Miami Beach.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Last Thursday night at approximately 9:30 PM at the Edwards Apartments, 953 Collins Ave., South Beach, Miami.
💬KEY QUOTE: The victim told police that Sainte said, “I’m about to crash out,” after grabbing a knife during the altercation.
🎯IMPACT: Sainte was arrested and is being held on a $1,650 bond at the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center.
IN FULL
Police in Miami Beach arrested La’Rose Angel Sainte, a 30-year-old transgender porn creator, last Thursday night after an altercation in which a man reported being stabbed. The incident occurred at approximately 9:30 PM at the Edwards Apartments on South Beach.
According to the Miami Beach Police Department (MBPD) arrest report, the victim told police he had invited Sainte to his apartment after meeting three weeks earlier. Upon Sainte’s arrival, the man stated that he would not engage in sexual activity because Sainte was “not Jewish.” This reportedly enraged Sainte, who then demanded car keys and money.
The victim said that as he walked toward the bathroom, Sainte pushed him, causing him to fall. Sainte allegedly punched him multiple times in the face. The victim left the apartment but returned after hearing that property had been damaged inside. Upon returning, Sainte reportedly grabbed a piece of glass from a broken mirror and stabbed the victim in the hand.
After fleeing the scene, Sainte was spotted entering an SUV by a drone operator. Police stopped the vehicle and took Sainte into custody. The victim also reported damage to two pairs of sunglasses, a mirror, and a refrigerator door handle. The arrest report notes that Sainte may have been intoxicated during the incident and allegedly stated, “I’m about to crash out,” while holding a weapon.
Sainte is being held at the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center on a $1,650 bond. Charges include felony aggravated battery and three misdemeanors.
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.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Warner Bros. Discovery is reviewing an enhanced bid from Paramount Skydance to acquire the company, while maintaining a merger agreement with Netflix.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount Skydance, Netflix, and their respective boards.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The announcement was made on Tuesday, with ongoing discussions between the companies.
💬KEY QUOTE: “This deal isn’t about efficiency. It isn’t about innovation. It isn’t even about competition. It’s about control—over content, over distribution, over culture, and over what Americans are allowed to see, hear, and believe.” — Former Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL) on Netflix’s planned merger with Warner Bros. Discovery
🎯IMPACT: The bidding war intensifies as Paramount Skydance aims to acquire all Warner Bros. Discovery assets, while Netflix focuses on its studio and streaming business.
IN FULL
Warner Bros. Discovery revealed on Tuesday that it is reviewing an enhanced bid from Paramount Skydance to acquire the entertainment giant. While the terms of the offer were not disclosed, Paramount Skydance is attempting to secure a deal that would outmaneuver Netflix, which previously struck a $27.75 per share merger agreement with Warner Bros. Discovery in December, valued at $82.7 billion.
“Following engagement with PSKY during the seven-day limited waiver period, we received a revised PSKY proposal to acquire WBD, which we are reviewing in consultation with our financial and legal advisors,” Warner Bros. Discovery said in a statement, adding, “We will update our shareholders following the Board’s review. The Netflix merger agreement remains in effect, and the Board continues to recommend in favor of the Netflix transaction.”
The latest bid from Paramount Skydance comes after Warner Bros. Discovery resumed talks with the company following its prior $30 per share offer. Paramount Skydance has argued that its proposal is financially superior and warned that Netflix’s bid could face U.S. antitrust challenges. The Netflix deal focuses solely on Warner Bros. Discovery’s studio and streaming business, while Paramount Skydance’s offer includes all of the company’s assets.
Warner Bros. Discovery owns a vast array of assets, including HBO, CNN, the Harry Potter franchise, and cable channels like Food Network, HGTV, TBS, and TNT. Former Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL) warned in The National Pulse in January that the Netflix-Warner Bros. Discovery merger “isn’t about efficiency. It isn’t about innovation. It isn’t even about competition. It’s about control—over content, over distribution, over culture, and over what Americans are allowed to see, hear, and believe.”
Notably, Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings is a Democrat mega-donor who backed several Never Trump political groups and Kamala Harris’s 2024 presidential campaign.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Dozens of Democrats are boycotting the State of the Union, opting for counter-programming instead of direct protests.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Democrat lawmakers including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Sens. Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and others, as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The State of the Union address on Tuesday, with counter-programming events taking place on the National Mall and at the National Press Club.
💬KEY QUOTE: “If Trump will not honor the American people, then the people should turn off his remarks and turn toward each other—toward their neighbors, their communities, and the real power of this country,” said Sen. Ed Markey.
🎯IMPACT: The move, while framed by congressional Democrats as an embrace of so-called counter-programming events, appears to be an effort to prevent more radical lawmakers from engaging in performative protests that could alienate voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections
IN FULL
Around three dozen Democrats have announced plans to boycott the State of the Union on Tuesday. The move, while framed by congressional Democrats as an embrace of so-called counter-programming events, appears to be an effort to prevent more radical lawmakers from engaging in performative protests that could alienate voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Last year, Representative Al Green (D-TX) was removed from a joint session of Congress and later censured by the House for heckling President Donald J. Trump during an address to lawmakers.
“The two options that are in front of us in our House is to either attend with silent defiance or to not attend, and send a message to Donald Trump in that fashion,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said during a news conference last week. Notably, a number of Democrat lawmakers are promoting an event dubbed “People’s State of the Union” on the National Mall—hosted by tthe highly controversial MeidasTouch organization and MoveOn—which will feature Sens. Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), and Chris Murphy (D-CT), as well as Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Greg Casar (D-TX).
Democrats hope to use their counter-programming events to draw media attention away from President Trump’s State of the Union address. According to Sen. Markey, “If Trump will not honor the American people, then the people should turn off his remarks and turn toward each other – toward their neighbors, their communities, and the real power of this country.”
Another group of Democrat lawmakers are slated to host a “State of the Swamp” event earlier in the evening on Tuesday at the National Press Club, which will feature Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Reps. Seth Moulton (D-MA) and Dan Goldman (D-NY). Other prominent leftist lawmakers like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are opting to skip the State of the Union without appearing at any of the Democratic Party’s counter-programming events.
President Trump is expected to focus his address on his administration’s headway in tackling the inflation crisis caused by the former Biden government, as well as plummeting violent crime, policies addressing affordability, and efforts to remove illegal immigrants from the United States.
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.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Jeffrey Epstein’s brother, Mark Epstein, claimed that a forthcoming peer-reviewed report will prove Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, not a suicide as officially stated.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Mark Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and a group of pathologists studying Jeffrey Epstein’s autopsy results.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The claims were made during an interview on February 24, 2026.
💬KEY QUOTE: “They are concluding… for a number of reasons [that] it couldn’t have been a suicide as they had claimed.” – Mark Epstein
🎯IMPACT: Renewed scrutiny on Jeffrey Epstein’s death, as questions about the circumstances surrounding his 2019 demise in a New York prison remain.
IN FULL
Mark Epstein, the brother of Jeffrey Epstein, claims that an upcoming report will definitively prove his brother’s 2019 death was not a suicide. He said on Piers Morgan’s Uncensored show that a team of pathologists is examining the autopsy findings, which he argues should have received a more comprehensive review initially.
“They are concluding, and doing the report that will come out shortly, which is being peer reviewed, for a number of reasons showing it couldn’t have been a suicide as they had claimed,” Mark Epstein said. He went on to assert that the forthcoming document would back his view that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, stating, “It will conclusively show it was not a suicide… then who killed him and who had him killed.”
Mark Epstein highlighted missing CCTV footage from the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, where Jeffrey Epstein died, and raised concerns about what he sees as the withholding of official records. “Why all of the games? Why all the obfuscation? It just doesn’t make any sense,” he said.
When questioned about Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and his awareness of his brother’s offenses, Mark sidestepped the issue, responding, “Unfortunately, I really don’t care to be honest with you. I’m just concerned that my brother, whoever and whatever he was, was murdered. That’s my concern.” He declined to discuss the matter any further and terminated the interview soon after.
Jeffrey Epstein, while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges involving minors, was discovered dead in his jail cell in 2019. The official determination was suicide by hanging, but various irregularities—including issues with the timing of events and problems with prison surveillance—have sparked theories of foul play and debate over the mishandling of the case.
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.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: FedEx filed a lawsuit seeking a full refund of tariff payments made under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), following a Supreme Court ruling.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: FedEx, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Trump administration, and the Supreme Court.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. Court of International Trade, following the Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday.
💬KEY QUOTE: “This Court has jurisdiction and authority to order remedial relief and refunds of IEEPA duties paid by importers,” FedEx wrote in its lawsuit.
🎯IMPACT: The ruling opens the door to numerous lawsuits seeking refunds for billions of dollars in tariffs paid under IEEPA.
IN FULL
FedEx is suing the Trump administration in the U.S. Court of International Trade in an effort to recoup tariff payments the company made that were authorized by President Donald J. Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). President Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose trade levies was ruled unconstitutional last week by the U.S. Supreme Court—though the issue of what would happen with the money already collected was not settled in the ruling.
Filed on Monday, the lawsuit marks the second major legal action addressing the possibility of tariff refunds tied to the IEEPA ruling. Notably, the emergency powers law only covered part of President Trump’s tariff actions, with trade levies enacted under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 remaining in effect.
The National Pulse reported last December that Costco filed a federal lawsuit seeking to guarantee its right to a refund should the Supreme Court overturn the IEEPA tariffs. Similarly, FedEx is demanding that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) refund all duties paid under IEEPA last year. “This Court has jurisdiction and authority to order remedial relief and refunds of IEEPA duties paid by importers,” the company stated in its lawsuit, adding that it has “suffered injury caused by those orders.”
All in all, the Supreme Court ruling could result in the federal government losing around $170 billion in tariff revenue, out of the nearly $300 billion it collected last year. Despite the ruling, President Trump has vowed that his administration will act swiftly to use other legal mechanisms to reimpose most of the tariffs he authorized under IEPPA, including imposing a 15 percent global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
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.
Share Story
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.
_%22Athena%22_(12808879574).jpg){kind=link}
