In a move that surprises absolutely nobody who has ever glanced at a California zip code, the University of California, Berkeley — the granddaddy of left-wing campus culture — has decided the perfect face for its shiny new “nonpartisan” democracy institute is an 86-year-old San Francisco Democrat who once told reporters she’s “out to get” Republicans and that they’re “dead.” That’s right. UC Berkeley is hanging Nancy Pelosi’s name on a civics institute. A woman who said Trump’s name is “like swearing.” A woman whose daughter bragged she’ll “cut your head off and you won’t even know you’re bleeding.” A woman who ripped up the President’s State of the Union address on live national television with the glee of a kid unwrapping a birthday present. But sure — totally nonpartisan. Berkeley officials announced this week that the former House Speaker, who spent nearly four decades representing San Francisco, will lend her name, teaching talents, and fundraising Rolodex to the new institute, which has already raked in $35 million in donations from undisclosed sources. Pelosi herself — one of the wealthiest members of Congress — says she’ll chip in personally. The school is billing the whole venture as academically rigorous and scrupulously neutral, focused on American democracy and civic leadership. Chancellor Richard Lyons insisted with a straight face that Berkeley wasn’t aligning itself with Pelosi’s politics. The UC system, he noted, actually has a policy against “political indoctrination” in the classroom. This from a university currently under federal investigation for antisemitism and campus protests — though notably, the Trump administration hasn’t hauled Berkeley into court the way it has Harvard and UCLA. Yet. Pelosi, for her part, called her new academic role “almost an emancipation from partisanship” — a remarkable statement from someone who, just last year, told CNN that Trump is “a vile creature and the worst thing on the face of the earth.” She plans to co-teach a course alongside a political science professor and promises that Republican leaders will be invited to speak. Well, some Republicans. She strongly hinted that those who don’t meet her personal test of patriotism need not apply. She also impeached Trump twice, skipped his 2025 inauguration, and spent years refusing to even say his name aloud. She once said, “I hardly ever say his name. I think [Trump is] a grotesque word. … You just don’t like the word passing your lips. I just don’t. I’m afraid, you know, when I grew up Catholic, as I am now, if you said a bad word, you could burn in hell if you didn’t have a chance to confess. So I don’t want to take any chances.” The institute’s stated mission is training the next generation of civic leaders — presumably those who share Pelosi’s very particular definition of democracy. Only in Berkeley.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled President Donald Trump cannot fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over mortgage fraud allegations.  In a 5-4 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court blocked the president from removing Cook, dealing a defeat to the White House, which has consistently criticized the Fed over its handling of interest rates. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice Roberts and the three liberal justices in arguing that Congress properly limited the president’s ability to remove Federal Reserve Board governors.  “Any change in that scheme must come from Congress, not the courts. That is why we cannot accept the government’s contentions in this case,” Roberts wrote for the majority. “To do so would allow the president to remove a member of the Federal Reserve at any time, for any reason, without any notice before, and without any judicial check after.” “That would turn for-cause protection into little more than at-will employment,” he added.  The decision draws a line in the sand on the extent of Trump’s executive power. On its emergency docket, the justices have previously allowed the administration to remove members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Merit Systems Protection Board. In another ruling on Monday, the conservative majority overturned a decades-old legal precedent, allowing the president to fire the heads of other independent agencies.  Cook was appointed to the board of governors by President Joe Biden and is slated to stay on the board until 2038. She previously worked on the Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama and at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. Under the Federal Reserve Act, the president may remove a governor only “for cause,” a term the law, until now, did not define, according to SCOTUSblog.  “To be clear, the ultimate question of whether the president can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts,” Roberts wrote. “In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts, as they have yet to be found or analyzed under the relevant legal standards.”  Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett all wrote separate dissenting opinions.  “Today’s decision is an unprecedented incursion on the Executive Branch,” Justice Thomas wrote in a scathing dissent. “Neither the parties nor the Court can point to a single time in American history that this Court has upheld an injunction against the President’s removal of an executive officer.” In August 2025, Trump told Cook that she had been terminated, citing allegations of mortgage fraud, The Daily Wire previously reported.  “Pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as amended, you are hereby removed from your position on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, effective immediately,” Trump wrote to Cook in a letter. “The Federal Reserve Act provides that you may be removed, at my discretion, for cause,” he wrote. “I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position.” Trump cited allegations by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, who accused Cook of claiming two separate properties as her primary address within weeks of purchasing each with financing. “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” Cook said in a statement responding to Trump’s letter. “I will not resign. I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022.” Legal challenges quickly followed, prompting the Supreme Court to take up the dispute. During oral arguments, justices across the ideological spectrum expressed concerns about the Board’s independence and questioned whether Cook had been afforded due process. “Your position,” Kavanaugh told U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, “that there’s no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, very low bar for cause that the president alone determines — I mean, that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Monday overturned a decades-old legal precedent that prevented the president from removing heads of independent agencies.  In a 6-3 ruling, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court allowed President Donald Trump to fire Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. The ruling effectively overturns Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a landmark 1935 Supreme Court decision that held Congress may limit the president’s removal power by requiring that members of independent agencies be removable only for cause. “Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him,” Roberts wrote for the court.  “Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people,” he added.  The decision represents a significant victory for the president and proponents of the unitary executive theory, strengthening the legal argument that the Constitution gives the president near-total control over the executive branch. President Trump celebrated the ruling on Truth Social.  “BIG WIN just moments ago at the Supreme Court, in the Slaughter Case, confirming Presidential Power in our Country to remove Executive Branch Officers and Agency Appointees, or Representatives, under Article II. This Decision was long sought by United States Presidents, dating all the way back to the 1930s,” Trump said.  “It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers,” he added.  Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.  “Today, the Court discards that democratic regime in favor of one that distorts the structure of Government to fit the majority’s theory of unitary, total executive control,” Sotomayor wrote. “The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before. It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him.”  The controversy erupted in March 2025, when Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter, whom he originally nominated to the Federal Trade Commission in 2018. Then-President Joe Biden renominated her in 2023 for a second term set to run through 2029. In an email notifying Slaughter of her termination, Trump said her continued service would be “inconsistent with [the] Administration’s priorities,” according to SCOTUSblog.  At the same time, Trump also fired Democratic appointee Alvaro Bedoya. Bedoya initially joined Slaughter’s legal challenge but later resigned from the commission, citing financial struggles. Last July, lower courts blocked Trump’s attempt to remove Slaughter, finding he had failed to comply with the removal protections set out in federal law. In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the ruling, and the administration appealed to the Supreme Court, where it prevailed today. The high court appears to be threading the needle between expanding the president’s firing power and preserving limits for other government agencies. On Monday, a divided 5-4 court refused to allow President Trump to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over mortgage fraud allegations.

Pakistan carried out cross-border airstrikes in eastern Afghanistan overnight after a deadly militant attack killed three Pakistani security personnel, escalating tensions between Islamabad and the Taliban government as each side offered sharply different accounts of the operation. Pakistan’s information minister, Attaullah Tarar, said the military first conducted an “intelligence-based ground operation” before launching airstrikes along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border targeting terrorist hideouts. The operation followed Saturday’s attack on the Pakistan Rangers’ regional headquarters in Karachi, where militants killed three security personnel. Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, a breakaway faction of the Pakistani Taliban, later claimed responsibility for the Karachi attack. Pakistani authorities said security forces killed three attackers and arrested another suspect, whom the military identified as an Afghan national. Tarar said Sunday’s operation targeted hideouts and safe havens used by Jamaat-ul-Ahrar and Fitna al-Khawarij, the term Pakistan uses for Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP. Pakistani authorities have blamed the Pakistani Taliban and allied groups for much of the recent violence targeting police and security forces. The TTP is separate from Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban, although the two are allies. The Taliban government disputed Pakistan’s account of the strikes, accusing Pakistan of hitting civilian homes rather than militant positions. Afghan officials claimed the strikes hit three eastern provinces and killed 36 civilians while wounding 163 others. Taliban spokesman Hamdullah Fitrat said Pakistani forces struck a home in Paktia province, killing an older man and a child. He said the area was struck again, killing 28 villagers and wounding 158 others. Fitrat also said six people, most of them women and children, were killed when a home was hit in Paktika province, while a strike in Kunar province reportedly killed livestock but caused no human casualties. Another Taliban spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, condemned the operation as a “cowardly act of aggression.” Pakistan defended the strikes as part of its campaign against militant groups responsible for attacks inside the country. “Pakistan has always strived for maintaining peace and stability in the region, but at the same time shall not compromise on the safety and security of our citizens, which remains our top priority,” Tarar said. The latest strikes highlight another escalation in a relationship that has steadily deteriorated since the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan in 2021. Pakistan has repeatedly accused Kabul of allowing militant groups to operate from Afghan territory, an allegation Afghan authorities have consistently denied. Although the two countries agreed to a ceasefire in March after weeks of fighting, cross-border violence has continued. Afghan officials said Pakistani strikes earlier in June killed 13 people, while prior Pakistani operations have also drawn accusations of heavy civilian casualties. The conflict has included fighting along the frontier and Pakistani airstrikes on Afghan cities, including Kabul and Kandahar, where the Taliban’s supreme leader is based. Mediation efforts by countries including China and Saudi Arabia have so far failed to produce a lasting resolution, and the frontier has remained largely closed since cross-border violence in October. In March, Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, said peace between Pakistan and Afghanistan could only prevail if the Taliban regime “renounced their support for terrorism and terrorist organizations.”

More than 1,400 people have died since an earthquake ravaged Venezuela earlier this week, and I blame socialism. I know ideology can’t shift tectonic plates. But it can leave a society unprepared to face disaster and render a people unable to pick up its pieces. Things were bad before the first road cracked or buildings fell. The numbers were a catastrophe before the first building fell. According to the United Nations, nearly eight million Venezuelans — about one in four citizens — required humanitarian assistance. That level of need for a country sitting atop one of the Earth’s largest oil reserves is something only central planning can create. The economist Friedrich Hayek said the problem with central planning is that the knowledge on which a society runs is not held in any single mind or ministry. It’s scattered across millions of people, each aware of some small fact — what is needed, where, and how badly — that no central authority could ever gather in one room. In free societies like ours, market prices ensure that knowledge is spread out and accessible in times of need. A command economy throws that mechanism away and tries to do the calculating from a single desk. This system fails even in calm times, as Venezuela’s bread lines, empty shelves, and hyperinflation have long proved. After a disaster, those failures turn lethal. A government that cannot keep a pharmacy stocked in peacetime will not conjure a rescue operation out of the rubble. Imagine a man in La Guaira — let’s call him Carlos — who woke up to find his house shaking. Half asleep he rushes outside, and as he stands in the dust he realizes his wife and baby daughters were still inside. From inside the rubble of what was once his home, Carlos hears their call. His family survived. They need to be rescued. Carlos calls the government’s emergency number, but no one answers. No one comes. There are no trucks, no spreaders, no floodlights, no crew of strangers trained for exactly this. Just a father digging at concrete with his bare hands while the sounds underneath him got quieter and then stopped. His daughters did not die in the earthquake. They died in the hours after it, in the moments where people in a functioning country would have access to rescue crews and emergency lines: ordinary, unglamorous competence. Carlos’s family died because for 20 years the governments of Hugo Chavez and Nicolás Maduro hollowed out the country in the name of socialism. In the United States, the consent of the governed enables the government to serve its people, not enslave them. In Venezuela, things have been inverted for a long time, as the earthquake laid bare. The same security forces that spared no expense breaking up pro-democracy protests have, in the days since the ground shook, mostly stayed out of the rubble. Reporters in La Guaira watched state workers pose for photographs in front of collapsed buildings and then leave without lifting a stone, while their neighbors dug with motorcycle helmets for hard hats and bare hands for tools. On the night of June 26, the government sealed off the hardest-hit areas and demanded special permits to enter — even as families clawed at concrete crushing the people they loved. Officials said the roads had to be cleared for ambulances to get through. But according to reports, there were just three functioning ambulances in the entire capital city. I lived the first 16 years of my life in Venezuela. I was old enough to understand exactly what I was leaving behind, and young enough to get a chance to start again in a country that works. Most people only ever live one of those lives. They either grow up inside the failure and never escape it, or they grow up inside the safety and never think to question it. I ended up with both, and the gap between them is not an abstraction to me. That’s why I was aghast when, two days before the earthquakes in Venezuela, my adopted country handed a string of victories to candidates who ran, proudly, under the banner of socialism. Democratic socialism, they’re careful to say — and they’re right that the word matters. New York is not Caracas. Mamdani is not Maduro. But enthusiasm for these candidates runs hottest among people who, like most Americans my age, have never once seen the bill come due. I don’t blame them. It’s easy to like the idea of the city running the grocery store when you’ve never lived somewhere the state couldn’t keep one stocked. It’s easy to trust the single desk with more and more of daily life when you’ve never heard the silence on the other end of an emergency line. This earthquake didn’t break Venezuela. It revealed a country that was already broken, and stripped away the last of the cover that had been hiding the damage. The tragedy isn’t just that the plates shifted. The tragedy is that they shifted under a people whose government made sure they’d have nothing left to land on. *** Olga Benacerraf de Strulovic is a J.D. Candidate at the University of Chicago Law School. She was born and raised in Venezuela’s capital city of Caracas, and was one of many Venezuelans who fled the country during Nicolás Maduro’s rule.