President Trump’s Justice Department opened a federal civil rights investigation into Arizona State University this week over allegations the school kept DEI practices alive while hiding them from federal oversight. The Civil Rights Division announced the Title VI investigation on June 3, 2026. DOJ says recent viral videos indicated ASU denied equal treatment to students based on race, color, or national origin, and that the school tried to conceal those practices from federal scrutiny. Today, the @CivilRights Division opened an investigation into Arizona State University to determine whether the school is hiding unlawful DEI practices. Universities receiving federal funding cannot discriminate against ANY student based on race.https://t.co/FeTSxQFxa3 — AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) June 3, 2026 Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon is running the probe out of the Civil Rights Division. She said no student should be denied access to opportunities or resources because of race, color, or national origin. ASU is one of the largest universities in the country and a major recipient of federal funds, which is exactly what makes Title VI scrutiny so consequential here. The investigation will look at admissions, recruitment, scholarships, tutoring, and educational support to determine whether students are being treated differently by race. The Justice Department laid out the scope in its official release: The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division announced today that it launched an investigation into diversity, equity, and inclusion practices at Arizona State University (ASU). Recent viral videos indicating ASU denied equal treatment to students based on race, color, or national origin — while attempting to hide its discriminatory practices from federal scrutiny — prompted the investigation. “No student should be denied access to opportunities or resources because of race, color, or national origin,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The United States is committed to keeping universities free of unlawful discrimination — especially when they try to hide illegal conduct to avoid oversight and compliance.” ASU is one of the nation’s largest universities and is a major recipient of federal funds. The Division’s investigation will examine whether ASU subjects its students to illegal discrimination through its DEI policies in admissions, recruitment, scholarships, tutoring, and the provision of educational support. The Civil Rights Division has not reached any conclusions about the subject matter of the investigation. DOJ is clear that it has not reached conclusions yet. This is an open investigation, not a finding of guilt. Dhillon framed the core question plainly when she announced it. She said the division wants to determine whether ASU is hiding unlawful DEI practices, and that universities taking federal money cannot discriminate against any student based on race. The investigative group Accuracy in Media says it helped trigger the probe. The conservative watchdog posted that DOJ launched the investigation following evidence it brought to light: Our investigation into ASU is making an impact. The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an investigation into Arizona State University’s DEI practices following evidence brought to light by Accuracy in Media. Now it’s time to keep the pressure on. Take action today:… — Accuracy In Media (@AccuracyInMedia) June 4, 2026 The bigger fight underneath all this is simple. Schools that quietly renamed or repackaged race-based programs after the courts and the administration moved against DEI now have to answer for whether they actually changed anything or just hid it better. Arizona State is one of the first big public universities to find out what that answer costs. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

President Trump’s Justice Department just widened its civil-rights crackdown on race-based admissions, and this time the target is medicine. On Thursday, June 4, 2026, the DOJ Civil Rights Division announced fifteen new investigations into potential race discrimination in medical school admissions. That is not one school. That is fifteen at once. Each of those schools takes millions of dollars in federal taxpayer money, which means each of them is bound by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The new probes come right after the division announced findings that UCLA and Yale both illegally used race in their medical school admissions. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon made clear where the department stands, particularly when it comes to the doctors of tomorrow. The Civil Rights Division shared the announcement directly: Justice Department Expands Admissions Investigations into 15 Additional Medical Schools “Many of America’s top medical schools appear more concerned about the demographics of their incoming classes than training students to succeed in the profession,” said @AAGDhillon. “Under… — DOJ Civil Rights Division (@CivilRights) June 4, 2026 The Justice Department laid out the action in its own announcement: The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division announced today that it opened fifteen new investigations into potential race discrimination in medical school admissions. The Division recently announced its findings that the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) and Yale University both illegally used race in medical school admissions. “Many of America’s top medical schools appear more concerned about the demographics of their incoming classes than training students to succeed in the profession,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Under this Justice Department, we will continue to protect American students from discriminatory and illegal preferences in admissions — especially in professions as critical as medicine, where quality of training should be the top priority.” The Division opened the investigations to enforce compliance with federal law and ensure the students become doctors based on their merit, not their race. Each of the fifteen schools under investigation receives millions of dollars in federal taxpayer funding. The investigations will examine whether these medical schools follow Title VI of the Civil Rights Act as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. The Civil Rights Division has not reached any conclusions about the subject matter of the investigations. This is the merit-versus-race fight moving into one of the highest-stakes fields there is. Nobody wants a surgeon who got the white coat because of a quota. The legal backbone here is the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which the DOJ release cites as the standard the schools will be measured against. The Supreme Court put the standard this way in Students for Fair Admissions: Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. Accordingly, the Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause applies “without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality”—it is “universal in [its] application.” For “[t]he guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.” Respondents’ race-based admissions systems also fail to comply with the Equal Protection Clause’s twin commands that race may never be used as a “negative” and that it may not operate as a stereotype. Twenty years have passed since Grutter, with no end to race-based college admissions in sight. But the Court has permitted race-based college admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions: such admissions programs must comply with strict scrutiny, may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and must—at some point—end. In that case, the Court held that the admissions programs at Harvard and UNC violated equal-protection principles. The era of sorting applicants by skin color was supposed to end there. The Civil Rights Division says it will examine whether each of the fifteen schools is actually complying with Title VI as the Court interpreted it. To be fair about it, the DOJ also says it has not reached any conclusions about the new investigations. These are probes, not verdicts, and the department is not naming the fifteen schools. That caution is the right call. The point is enforcement, not a press-release pile-on. This also is not coming out of nowhere on the medical side. The HHS Office for Civil Rights had already put medical schools on notice in writing: Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR) clarified in a “Dear Colleague” letter its interpretation of what constitutes race-based discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (Section 1557), and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The interpretation applies not only to student admissions at HHS-funded institutions but also to academic and campus life, including the operations of university hospitals and clinics. The Dear Colleague letter reinforces that relying on race-based criteria, racial stereotypes, and facially neutral criteria that operates as a pretext for race are all prohibited under Title VI and Section 1557, including when diversity and racial-balancing are the aims. The Department advised medical schools to: Ensure their policies and procedures comply with existing federal civil rights laws; Discontinue criteria, tools, or processes that serve as substitutes for race or are intended to advance race-based decision-making; and End reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or data aggregators that engage in prohibited uses of race. Translation: dressing up a racial preference in softer language does not make it legal. The schools were warned. Now the investigators are showing up. The same Civil Rights Division had just announced a separate Title VI investigation into Arizona State University one day earlier: Recent viral videos indicating ASU denied equal treatment to students based on race, color, or national origin — while attempting to hide its discriminatory practices from federal scrutiny — prompted the investigation. “No student should be denied access to opportunities or… pic.twitter.com/F0qsrIawVO — DOJ Civil Rights Division (@CivilRights) June 3, 2026 For years the higher-education establishment treated the Supreme Court’s ruling like a suggestion it could quietly work around. This administration is treating it like the law it is. Fifteen medical schools just found out that taking federal dollars comes with a federal expectation of equal treatment under the law. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

The water is on, and the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is reflecting again. On June 4, 2026, the White House posted a pair of official photos showing the Lincoln Memorial mirrored in the refilling pool, and the message was pure celebration. The message was simple: the water is on, the Reflecting Pool is reflecting, and the White House is thanking President Trump. Here is the post that kicked it all off: The water is ON, the Reflecting Pool is reflecting, and D.C. is looking better than ever. We are so back. THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP. pic.twitter.com/J3xE33XiA5 — The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 4, 2026 For weeks the pool sat empty during renovations. Now the most photographed body of water in the capital is doing its one job again, throwing a clean mirror image back at the Lincoln Memorial. The local reporting backs up the celebration. According to FOX 5 DC, water began flowing back into the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on Thursday after weeks of work. FOX 5 reported the project was a fast-tracked $1.5 million renovation that included deep power washing, fumigation, and a new bright blue basin coating ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary. The country’s big birthday is on the calendar, and this is exactly the kind of deadline job Washington should be able to finish. That timing matters for anyone who cares about how the capital looks when the world shows up to celebrate America turning 250. The site itself is a central piece of the National Mall. It is one of the most recognizable views in the country. The National Park Service lays out exactly why this pool carries so much weight: Historically, the area was defined as the land bounded by Constitution and Independence Avenues on the north and south, respectively, and by the Potomac River and 17th Street on the west and east, respectively. The landscape generally includes the memorial circle, the Watergate steps, each of the major road and sidewalk approaches, the Reflecting Pool, and the Elm Walks. Stretching from 3rd Street to 14th Street, city planner Peter L’Enfant’s historic promenade forms an integral part of the Federal City concept due to its great symbolic and visual importance. Symbolically, the Mall points the way west toward national expansion from a fledgling start along the Atlantic seaboard. Its long rows of elm trees, walks, and roads emphasize the vista to and from the Capitol while its borders of museums form a cultural center for the republic. The 2,028-foot long water basin helps to maintain both the physical and visual connections between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. The 160-foot wide western end sits at the foot of the several tiers of steps leading directly up to the Lincoln Memorial while the 175-foot wide eastern end provides a dramatic approach to the rebuilt Rainbow Pool and the World War II Memorial. The Reflecting Pool contains nearly 6,750,000 gallons of water and provides mirror images of the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. Nearly 6.75 million gallons, and a sightline that ties together two of the most important landmarks in the country. That is what was sitting empty, and that is what is back. The bigger story here is the beautification push President Trump has put behind the capital, and the Reflecting Pool is the latest visible payoff. It is easy to talk about cleaning up Washington. It is harder to show a before-and-after that everyone can see with their own eyes. The White House just did exactly that, and the thank-you went straight to the man driving it. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

A judge on Thursday dismissed a second-degree murder charge against Aaron Spencer, an Arkansas sheriff candidate who was scheduled to go on trial for killing a man accused of sexually assaulting his teenage daughter. Special Circuit Court Judge Ralph Wilson Jr. dismissed the case against Spencer, citing missing evidence and misconduct by law enforcement. According to CBS News, “Spencer won the GOP nomination over a three-term incumbent sheriff whose office had arrested him on the murder charge in Lonoke County.” “The court finds that conduct by law enforcement was so egregious that dismissal of this case is warranted,” Wilson wrote, according to the outlet. Calling a sheriff's deputy's failure to preserve video evidence an "egregious" due process violation, a court has dismissed the criminal charges against Aaron Spencer, the Lonoke County man accused of killing the man who molested Spencer's teen daughter. https://t.co/kvG42X4srC pic.twitter.com/WUDfhF1anD — Arkansas Times (@ArkTimes) June 4, 2026 CBS News explained further: Spencer’s attorneys did not deny that he shot and killed Michael Fosler, 67, in 2024. At the time, Fosler was out on bond after being charged with dozens of sexual offenses against Spencer’s then-13-year-old daughter. Court documents show that on the night of the shooting, Spencer had woken up to find his daughter missing, and later found the girl in the passenger seat of a vehicle Fosler was driving. Spencer forced Fosler’s truck off the road and, after an altercation, called 911 to report he had shot the man. Prosecutors said Spencer planned the killing and that he could have called police while pursuing Fosler. But Spencer pleaded not guilty and maintained he acted to protect his child from a predator. Spencer said in a statement Thursday that the support from the community “carried our family.” “Neighbors here in Lonoke County, people from every part of Arkansas, and folks I’ve never met from around the world reached out, prayed for us, and refused to stay quiet,” Spencer said. “When I couldn’t speak for myself, you spoke for me. I’ll never be able to thank you the way you deserve, but I’ll spend the rest of my life trying to live up to it.” Spencer’s attorney, Erin Cassinelli, said she is thankful for the court’s decision. “No member of this family should ever again be forced to walk into a courtroom and relive this horror,” she said in a statement. “This father should have never been charged for protecting his child.” “My focus now is on my family and getting back to a normal life. I would ask people to please respect my family’s privacy as we move into this next phase of life and seek to return to normal. I’m grateful this chapter is closed. There’s still work to do in Lonoke County, and I’m more committed to it than ever. Together we can build a safer and stronger Lonoke County,” Spencer said. “Today, the court did exactly what courts are supposed to do: protect the rights of the accused and hold our law enforcement accountable for following the same laws they are sworn to uphold. Arkansans must have full confidence that when public officials make decisions affecting our freedoms, those decisions are made with competence and integrity. When a community loses faith in the officials they entrust to make those decisions, justice loses all meaning and families suffer,” Cassinelli said. “This case is a good reminder that even when the local courts fail us, we have a larger justice system in place to protect the rights of Arkansans. I am thankful for both the Arkansas Supreme Court’s interventions in this case and for Special Circuit Judge Wilson’s thoughtful and careful consideration of the record and commitment to the rule of law,” she added. pic.twitter.com/ZB7D58C94i — Aaron Spencer (@Spencer4Sheriff) June 5, 2026 More from Arkansas Times: The dismissal was due to Lonoke County Sheriff’s deputies mishandling of evidence, which the court said was crucial to Spencer’s ability to prove that he was justified in shooting Michael Fosler in October 2024. The court said failure to preserve the evidence — a memory card from a dash camera in Fosler’s truck — violated Spencer’s right to due process and amounted to conduct “so egregious that it warrants dismissal.” This dismissal is just the latest twist in a case that has been anything but normal from the outset. The facts of Spencer’s case have drawn attention inside and outside of Arkansas. The man he allegedly killed, Fosler, was arrested in July 2024 and charged with 43 counts including sexual assault of a minor, internet stalking of a child, and possession of child pornography, some or all of which related to Fosler’s alleged assault of Spencer’s then-13-year-old daughter. Fosler was released on a $5,000 bond pending trial on those charges. Late one night in October 2024, Spencer told police, he heard his dogs barking and went to his daughter’s room to check on her. She was not there. Spencer called 911 to report her missing, then went looking for her in his truck. A short time later, he found his daughter and Fosler in Fosler’s truck, and Spencer forced the truck off the road. The affidavit in Spencer’s subsequent arrest gives this account of what happened next: Spencer then stated that he exited his vehicle with his firearm in hand and ordered Fosler out of his vehicle and to lay down in the ditch. Spencer stated that he observed his daughter trying to exit the passenger side of the vehicle, but it appeared that Fosler had grabbed her and stopped her from getting out. Spencer then stated that Fosler exited his vehicle and had something in his hand, but [Spencer] did not know what it was. Spencer stated that Fosler then lunged towards him, saying “fuck you.” Spencer stated that he then opened fire on Fosler, emptying his weapon before jumping on top of [Fosler] and pistol whipping him. Spencer then stated that he got his daughter out of the vehicle and returned to his truck where he reloaded his weapon and called 911. Fosler died at the scene. The state charged Spencer with second-degree murder in November 2024. Spencer’s case was assigned to Judge Elmore. Due perhaps to the vigilante nature of the killing, Spencer’s case quickly drew national attention, much of it sympathetic to Spencer. Elmore, however, seemed sympathetic to the prosecution, and she seemingly bent over backward to help the state put Spencer in prison. She first issued an improper gag order, prohibiting communications about the case by anyone associated with it, and — without a request from either side — ordered the entire record sealed. The Arkansas Supreme Court stepped in a short time later, rescinding the gag order, which they said “was on its face a plain, manifest, clear, and gross abuse of discretion and in excess of its authority.” Elmore then tried to limit public access to the case. She entered a new order on Jan. 13 — just 13 days before the scheduled start date for Spencer’s trial — that limited public and media access to only 20 attendees during jury selection and only 55 attendees, “inclusive of parties, counsel, counsel’s staff, family members, observers and media” for the actual trial. Again the Supreme Court had to get involved. This time, a bare four-justice majority ordered Elmore removed from the case entirely. Special judge Ralph Wilson Jr. was appointed in Elmore’s place. Oh, and just to really round out the strangeness of this whole situation: in March, Spencer won the Republican primary for Lonoke County Sheriff, beating incumbent Sheriff John Staley, whose deputies had arrested Spencer in the first place. Spencer faces Democrat Brian Mitchell, Sr., and independent candidate Larry Behnke in November. Read more below: “System Failed” – Man Charged With K*lling Accused S*x Offender He Found Inside Car With 14-Year-Old Daughter Announces He’s Running For Sheriff

The House just moved another big Ukraine package out the door, and it took 18 Republicans to get it across the finish line. On June 4, 2026, the chamber passed H.R. 2913, the Ukraine Support Act, on a vote of 226 to 195. The official roll call was recorded at 8:08 p.m. Eastern. The bill passed. Here is the part that should make MAGA voters sit up. While President Trump has spent recent weeks publicly pushing Russia and Ukraine toward talks and compromises, the House loaded up another aid-and-sanctions package and rammed it through. Democrats supplied 207 yeas. Republicans split 18 yea, 194 nay. Without those 18 Republicans, this thing does not pass. The official tally comes straight from the Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives: Roll Call 207 | Bill Number: H. R. 2913 Jun 04, 2026, 08:08 PM | 119th Congress, 2nd Session Vote Question: On Passage Ukraine Support Act Vote Type: Yea-And-Nay Status: Passed VOTES yea: 226 nay: 195 present: 0 not voting: 9 votes by party Party Yeas Nays Present Not Voting Republican 18 194 0 5 Democratic 207 1 0 4 Independent 1 0 0 0 Total 226 195 0 9 All votes Representative Party State Vote Bacon Republican Nebraska Yea Bresnahan Republican Pennsylvania Yea Carey Republican Ohio Yea Fitzpatrick Republican Pennsylvania Yea Garbarino Republican New York Yea Gimenez Republican Florida Yea Hurd (CO) Republican Colorado Yea Joyce (OH) Republican Ohio Yea Kiggans (VA) Republican Virginia Yea LaLota Republican New York Yea Lawler Republican New York Yea McCaul Republican Texas Yea Miller (OH) Republican Ohio Yea Murphy Republican North Carolina Yea Newhouse Republican Washington Yea Thompson (PA) Republican Pennsylvania Yea Turner (OH) Republican Ohio Yea Wilson (SC) Republican South Carolina Yea So who were the 18 Republicans? The Clerk’s records name them. They are Bacon (NE), Bresnahan (PA), Carey (OH), Fitzpatrick (PA), Garbarino (NY), Gimenez (FL), Hurd (CO), Joyce (OH), Kiggans (VA), LaLota (NY), Lawler (NY), McCaul (TX), Miller (OH), Murphy (NC), Newhouse (WA), Thompson (PA), Turner (OH), and Wilson (SC). One of those 18, Rep. Michael McCaul, defended the vote on X by calling it a “vote of conscience”: I have always supported regular order. However, the members of the House of Representatives decided the Ukraine Support Act should come to the floor and be given a vote of conscience. For the past four years, Russia has committed war crimes against the country of Ukraine — from… — Michael McCaul (@RepMcCaul) June 4, 2026 The bill itself is sponsored by Democrat Gregory Meeks of New York. That is a tell about whose priorities this package serves. The package carries real money and real pressure. The official text from Congress.gov lays out the structure: H. R. 2913 To authorize support for Ukraine, and for other purposes. SECTION 1. Short title; table of contents. (a) Short title.—This Act may be cited as the “Ukraine Support Act”. TITLE II—SECURITY ASSISTANCE Sec. 201. Lend-lease authority. Sec. 202. Direct loans and foreign military financing. Sec. 203. Support for Baltic countries. Sec. 204. Extension of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. TITLE III—SANCTIONS AND EXPORT CONTROLS Sec. 301. Sanctions trigger determination. Sec. 302. Imposition of sanctions with respect to Russian financial institutions. Sec. 303. Impositions of sanctions with respect to Russian oil and mining industry. Sec. 304. Imposition of sanctions on certain persons affiliated with or supporting the Government of the Russian Federation. Sec. 307. Rosatom sanctions. Sec. 309. SWIFT sanctions. Sec. 310. Russian sovereign debt sanctions. Sec. 311. Imposition of sanctions on Russia-North Korea cooperation. Sec. 312. Sanctions for kidnapping Ukrainian children. Sec. 313. Imposition of dual-use export controls. Sec. 314. Duties on the Russian Federation. Sec. 315. Ending Russian oil import loophole. SEC. 202. Direct loans and foreign military financing. (a) Direct loans.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Through fiscal year 2026, direct loans under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act may be made available for Ukraine and North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, notwithstanding section 23(c)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, gross obligations for the principal amounts of which shall not exceed $8,000,000,000. The big-ticket number is the loan authority. The text authorizes direct loans for Ukraine and NATO allies running into the billions through fiscal year 2026. That is $8 billion in loan authority on its own, with additional security and reconstruction money spread across other sections of the bill. Stack the sanctions provisions on top. The text hits Russian financial institutions, oil and mining, Rosatom, SWIFT, sovereign debt, and Russia-North Korea cooperation. The timing is the problem. President Trump has been working the leverage game, pressing both Moscow and Kyiv toward a deal that ends the killing. A fresh House package built around more money and a wall of new sanctions does not exactly hand him a stronger negotiating position. It hands the other side of the table a reason to dig in. The 194 Republicans who voted no read the room correctly. They understood that the President is trying to close out a war, not feed it. Rep. Thomas Massie, who voted no, put the taxpayer argument in plain language: I just voted against the Ukraine Support Act tonight. It sends over $9 billion of your dollars overseas, and includes $250 million for Radio Free Europe, a Cold War relic that benefits no American.https://t.co/BVmVFajN9I pic.twitter.com/6RS6r8v5UJ — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 5, 2026 The 18 who voted yes will have to explain to their voters why they sided with Gregory Meeks and a near-unanimous Democrat caucus over the President’s diplomacy. The vote is done in the House. But the leverage President Trump is building toward a settlement is the bigger game, and these 18 names are now on the record for working against it. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.