Knicks owner James Dolan says New York City officials, not President Donald Trump or the Secret Service, were responsible for the intense security surge around Madison Square Garden during Game 3 of the NBA Finals.  On Monday night, as the New York Knicks hosted an NBA Finals for the first time in decades, local authorities imposed strict access controls around the arena ahead of President Trump’s attendance. Only ticketed fans were permitted within the secured perimeter, which featured expanded checkpoints, street closures, and restricted movement zones around Penn Station and nearby blocks. But according to Dolan, the crackdown was not driven by federal officials. “Look, let’s just talk about the Game 3, right? The Secret Service didn’t demand this stuff. It was NYPD, and it was really the commissioner’s office,” Dolan said during an appearance on The Carton Show.  When a host suggested the restrictions would have been more understandable if they had come from the Secret Service, Dolan doubled down, pointing fingers at NBA Commissioner Adam Silver’s office.  “No, this was the commissioner’s plan all along. She (sic) just used the president coming as an excuse, that you know, to set it up,” Dolan fired back.  James Dolan on @CartonShowWFAN says that the secret service didn’t demand the extra security around MSG, it was the NYPD Commissioner’s Office: “This was the plan all along, she used the president coming as an excuse to set it up” pic.twitter.com/kIPR7eEPSq — SNY Knicks (@sny_knicks) June 10, 2026 Dolan’s comments appear to contradict the narrative that President Trump and the Secret Service sparked the confusion and long lines outside Madison Square Garden.  “All because Donald Trump wanted to make it about himself,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said of the situation. “I trust New Yorkers will let him hear how they feel about that.” ESPN personality Stephen A. Smith also criticized the situation, saying politicians should not interfere with Knicks fans’ ability to enjoy the team’s historic Finals run. “I have a problem with any politician — any politician — that shows up, causes delays and interferes with these watch parties buzzing all over NYC,” Smith posted on social media.  Grow the Hell up! I have a problem with any politician — any politician — that shows up, causes delays and interferes with these watch parties buzzing all over NYC. It’s not political. It’s about the @nyknicks and the vibe this city has going. Anyone who messes with that needs to… https://t.co/FTEIS8E8nz — Stephen A Smith (@stephenasmith) June 6, 2026 The controversy escalated after watch parties planned outside of MSG were canceled. Roughly 7,000 people later gathered in Bryant Park, where celebrations turned chaotic and violent, The Daily Wire previously reported.  In one video, New Yorkers appeared to be ganging up on a man wearing a San Antonio Spurs jersey as he was walking down the street, forcing him to fend off numerous attackers. Of the 21 people police took into custody, officers arrested and charged eight and released 13 with criminal court summonses. At least five NYPD officers were injured, according to the department. Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch defended the restrictions, saying the NYPD and Secret Service jointly determined that watch parties directly outside Madison Square Garden could not be safely accommodated during a presidential visit. “We are looking forward to bringing back watch parties for Game 4,” Tisch said at a news conference.  That promise did not last long. Madison Square Garden canceled its Wednesday night watch party for Game 4, citing the city’s strict security perimeter restrictions.  In response, the Madison Square Garden executive chairman and CEO blasted NYC leadership, calling Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Commissioner Tisch the city’s “biggest party poopers.”  “We now know these restrictions were never about the President – it was just a convenient excuse to restrict how and when Knicks fans celebrate,” Dolan said, according to NBC4 New York. “The complete closing of areas around MSG is going to affect not only the celebration but also all the small businesses that rely on Garden fans for their livelihood.” “They have never managed anything like this before, and it’s like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches coming out the sides,” he added, according to The New York Post. Mamdani pushed back online, arguing that Madison Square Garden had applied for a watch party permit capped at 500 to 999 attendees and that city officials approved a permit for up to 999 fans. “Mr. Dolan has now decided to cancel the watch party. I know this is breaking hearts across our city,” Mamdani said. “But if there’s one thing Knicks fans don’t need permission for, it’s showing up for our team wherever we may be — no matter the block or the borough.” MSG requested a permit for a watch party for 500-999 fans. We approved that permit for 999 fans. Mr. Dolan has now decided to cancel the watch party. I know this is breaking hearts across our city. But if there’s one thing Knicks fans don’t need permission for, it’s showing up… — Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) June 10, 2026

During a hearing on the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 (SBA) Wednesday afternoon, Congress spoke out on the NFL’s antitrust exemption, arguing that the league is exploiting the law to make fans pay absurd prices across multiple streaming platforms to watch their favorite teams suit up. The hearing followed a Monday press release from the House Judiciary Committee, accusing the NFL of veering away from the original intent of the law created 65 years ago. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee, voiced his concerns. “Sixty five years later, however, it is fair for this body to ask whether the professional sports leagues have kept up their end of the bargain,” Fitzgerald stated. “In my opinion, they have not, and sports fans are paying the price because of it.” To watch every game in 2026, it costs nearly $800 across nine different streaming services.  Originally, the NFL benefited from making as much money in media as possible for “revenue-sharing arrangements” to keep competitive balance alive, but the league is not in the same financial position now as it was in 1961. Both Fox Corp. and Fitzgerald argue that the SBA was never intended to allow the NFL to distribute the media rights across numerous platforms for its own benefit.  “The Sports Broadcasting Act was designed to facilitate the distribution of games through free over-the-air television,” he explained. “It was not intended to provide a perpetual shield for leagues to coordinate the sale of media rights across every new technology and distribution platform that emerges.” The question that arises is whether or not fans really benefit from the SBA, given how watching sports has drastically changed over the years. Congress will now have to make a decision on whether they are going to revise the antitrust exemption, leave it as is, or ban it altogether.

A brutal beheading attempt in Belfast that left a man with catastrophic injuries has sparked waves of unrest across Northern Ireland, renewing a fierce debate over mass migration and public safety that is also resonating in the United States. Anti-migration riots in Northern Ireland pic.twitter.com/MQKy8Hwmfv — Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 10, 2026 Law enforcement said the suspect, Hadi Alodid, a Sudanese national, pinned Stephen Ogilvie to the ground and repeatedly stabbed him in the face and neck during Monday’s attack. The graphic caught-on-camera incident captured a frantic scene. “He’s trying to cut his head off!” a person can be heard shouting in the video.  Ogilvie survived the attack but reportedly suffered devastating injuries, including the loss of an eye and deep wounds to his head and back. The incident quickly became the latest flashpoint in a years-long debate over mass migration and whether political leaders have ignored concerns raised by their own people. Within hours of the attack, demonstrations erupted across Belfast and continued into Wednesday. Video from the scene showed vehicles set ablaze, roads blocked, and clashes between protesters and police as anger spread throughout parts of Northern Ireland. At first glance, riots in Belfast following an attack by a migrant might seem like Europe’s problem. But the issues driving the unrest have become some of the most contentious political battles in the United States, where immigration, border security, crime, and assimilation have dominated national debate for years.  “This is the direct result of letting the third world into your country. This is policy failure. This is preventable, and this is what happens when you use two-tier policing, allow for mass migration, and have suicidal empathy for those who hate you,” The Daily Wire’s Chloe Trapanotto said.       The gruesome killings of Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, and Rachel Morin, all at the hands of illegal immigrants, appalled much of the country and rocked the political establishment.  In fact, President Donald Trump rode a wave of anger over President Joe Biden’s handling of immigration and border security to secure a second term. Under the Trump administration, illegal border crossings have plunged, and millions have either self-deported or been physically removed from the country, according to DHS.  Still, millions of illegal immigrants remain in the United States. Across the pond, immigration levels have exploded in recent years, putting intense strain on public services and igniting a divisive debate on what it means to be British. Critics of the United Kingdom’s immigration policies argue the riots are about more than a single attack. They say public frustration has been building for years as concerns about crime, assimilation, housing, and social cohesion were dismissed or downplayed by political leaders. British officials, including embattled Prime Minister Keir Starmer, raced to condemn the riots and vowed to prosecute offenders.  “Murderous migrants beheading innocent people in their hometown is what’s making people angry, not ‘social media’!” Elon Musk posted on X.  Murderous migrants beheading innocent people in their home town is what’s making people angry, not “social media”! — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 10, 2026 “You know how we avoid this chaos on American streets? Mass deportations–whether self-initiated or ICE-initiated,” The Daily Wire’s Megan Basham said on social media. “If the public sees our leaders working to ensure our safety and prosperity, this mayhem need not come to our shores. You know how we avoid this chaos on American streets? Mass deportations–whether self initiated or ICE initiated. If the public sees our leaders working to ensure our safety and prosperity, this mayhem need not come to our shores. https://t.co/cHigTwe3eC — Megan Basham (@megbasham) June 10, 2026

The CEO of the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue was a font of absolutely no information during a Capitol Hill hearing on Wednesday. Regina Wallace-Jones gave the same answer to every question — invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination — throughout the hearing, provoking a shocked response from Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) when she offered the same response to a question about her name. WATCH: Apparently, even the preferred usage of the ActBlue CEO’s name is protected under the 5th Amendment. pic.twitter.com/9tJhqRcwCQ — Rep. Barry Loudermilk (@RepLoudermilk) June 10, 2026 “So I do have a series of questions for you, but I want to make sure I’m respectful. Is it Miss Jones or Miss Wallace-Jones?” Loudermilk asked. “On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline to answer this question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution,” Wallace-Jones replied, prompting a few laughs in the room. “Okay, wow! Okay, didn’t, uh … expect that one,” Loudermilk reacted in surprise. But Wallace-Jones also refused to answer the more substantive questions — including a series of questions from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) about whether ActBlue had allowed illegal foreign donations to pass through the platform or had weakened fraud safeguards to help Democrats. WATCH: After Rep. Garcia (D-CA) claimed that the hearing on ActBlue is nothing more than a charade, Rep. Jim Jordan made him eat his own words. “Let’s be clear. We’re here because ACTBlue’s legal counsel said Ms. Wallace-Jones lied to Congress, willfully and knowingly misled the… pic.twitter.com/493tQJLH0R — Andrew Kolvet (@AndrewKolvet) June 10, 2026 Jordan, pushing back on claims from Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) that the hearing was more of a political performance than substance, pointed out that statements from ActBlue’s former legal counsel had prompted the hearing. As laid out in a press release from the House Judiciary Committee in April, former ActBlue general counsel Darrin Hurwitz, ex-director and associate general counsel Aaron Ting, and former counsel Zain Ahmad all parted ways with ActBlue after warning that unspecified changes to fraud standards could leave the political action committee and fundraising platform open to legal risks. In the investigation that followed, ActBlue employees invoked their 5th Amendment rights at least 146 times — and Wallace-Jones did the same throughout her hearing on Wednesday, declining to answer questions such as: “How much fraud is too much fraud?” “How many foreign contributions did ACTBlue accept?” “How much money did ACTBlue accept from Russia?” “Why did your entire legal team quit, your in-house legal team?” “Did your legal team quit because of reduced fraud standards?” “Did you weaken your fraud standards to help Democrats?” “The crux of this misconduct is simple: ActBlue appears to have accepted illegal foreign donations en masse and tried to cover it up, lying to and withholding information from Congress in the process,” the Judiciary Committee’s report concluded.

WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump’s White House game-planned how to message the Jeffrey Epstein files during the summer of 2025, Dan Bongino was growing increasingly frustrated and angry. He understood the vast interest in Jeffrey Epstein online, and he had repeatedly sounded the alarm to Trump’s team that the outcry over the DOJ’s bungling of the Epstein files was gaining momentum, as Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman reported for their book “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump.” Back in July 2025, the president wasn’t yet interested in releasing the files. The DOJ had briefed him on the contents of what they had, noting that much of it included child sexual abuse material and that a lot of the raw records contained unverified and unsubstantiated information, including about the president and some of his friends. The White House viewed the conversation as toxic and unnecessary (the president would later call out Democrats’ new fixation on the files as a “hoax”). Trump’s advisors argued at the time that the president had weathered every possible media storm — and he could weather this Epstein one as well. Ultimately, the House and Senate would vote to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025, and Trump would sign it into law the same month. The files would be released in massive dumps in December and January. But during the summer of 2025, Bongino repeatedly told the White House that Team Trump wasn’t grasping how big of a deal the Epstein drama was, telling White House advisors, according to The New York Times: “It’s not an online story. You don’t understand.” Things came to a head when the DOJ and FBI put out a memo saying that they had concluded that there was no evidence Epstein had a client list. It also said that Epstein’s death was a suicide, that the Trump administration wouldn’t be releasing any more information about the Epstein case, and that no further investigation was warranted. At the same time, they also released 11 hours of video footage from the Manhattan jail where Epstein was found dead. That surveillance video actually made matters worse, since it was missing a pivotal minute, from 11:58:58 to midnight on the night that Epstein died. That missing minute was later released, but it had only fueled angry speculation about a coverup. Bongino was enraged by the memo and by the handling of the entire situation. He had argued to Patel that it would not at all align with their transparency promises, the NYT reports, and he pushed hard for the FBI seal to be left off the letter. While Patel reportedly agreed with Bongino on many points, he ultimately went along with what the DOJ and White House wanted. In what Haberman and Swan described as a “volcanic mood,” Bongino shouted at Bondi in a Justice Department meeting with FBI staff. “You f*cked this thing up from the start,” Bongino allegedly yelled at the former attorney general. “The way you’ve been talking about this — that dumb f*cking charade with the Epstein files, the ‘They’re on my desk’ nonsense, all the promises to the folks out there.” Photographer: Alex Kent/Bloomberg via Getty Images Bongino and Patel were reportedly called into a Situation Room meeting with Susie Wiles, Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, and Taylor Budowich two days later. Wiles immediately asked Bongino if he had leaked a story about Epstein and Trump to ABC News, the New York Times reports. “I’ll tell you what,” Bongino reportedly replied. “I’ll give you $100,000 cash right now. I’m not kidding. Walk out to West Exec, put that reporter on speaker and get him to admit I leaked it. A hundred thousand dollars.” When Wiles started to tell Bongino that “we all got ourselves into this,” he allegedly cut her off, saying, “No, no, no, no, no. We didn’t get ourselves into anything. I warned you guys about this the whole time, and you ignored me. And exactly what I said was going to happen happened. And now you’re pretending I was in on this. I was never in on this.” His response startled the rest of the group, particularly given that Wiles was the White House chief of staff. Wiles reportedly pressed forward, telling Bongino, “Going forward, we’re all in. We’re all going to agree to move forward. Are you in or not?” He reportedly responded: “No, I’m not. This is not my plan. I’m not part of this going forward. Forget it. I’m out of here.” And, in an even more shocking move, Bongino “stormed out of the Situation Room and onto West Executive Avenue, where he climbed into the back of Patel’s armored SUV and directed the driver to take him to FBI headquarters.” MAGA world lit up with rumors that Bongino would resign. Sources close to Bongino at the time told Daily Wire that he was threatening to leave the bureau if Bondi remained on the job, effectively issuing an ultimatum. Patel also wanted Bondi gone, sources close to the FBI chief told The Daily Wire, saying that Patel would consider leaving the FBI if Bongino left. “Blondie f*cked this whole thing up,” Bongino told a confidant, The New York Times reported. He was using a nickname for the attorney general coined by outspoken Bondi critic Laura Loomer. “She was the one on TV saying over and over they had all this stuff. There was never anything.” “We were always clear about that,” Bongino emphasized, according to the Times. “But now everyone thinks we did something wrong. And I gave up everything.” He stayed on until January 2026, when he resigned from the bureau and returned to hosting his “Dan Bongino Show.” “Dan did a great job,” Trump told reporters, as news of Bongino’s departure broke. “I think he wants to go back to his show.” Former Attorney General Pam Bondi had made things difficult for Patel and Bongino when she promised in a February 2025 Fox News interview that the Epstein list was “sitting” on her “desk right now to review.” Her possibly greater misstep occurred during a White House briefing with influencers on the president’s agenda, according to the NYT. During that briefing, Bondi and her team walked into the Roosevelt Room carrying boxes and handed out binders to the influencers that she described as “The Epstein files.” Swan and Haberman write that “the blood pressure of other officials in the room skyrocketed” — they did not know what was in the binders, and the binders hadn’t been vetted by the White House. The president was about to meet with Prime Minister Keir Starmer before the press, and the news might possibly blindside him. “One official, opening the binder, began flipping through pages to see if Trump’s name was mentioned anywhere,” they wrote. “A few pages in, right in the middle of the page, there it was.” The binders didn’t actually contain anything meaningfully new, but after the influencers took photos in front of the White House holding them, word spread like wildfire on social media. Not only did the influencers feel duped by the lack of substance in the binders, but many of Trump’s supporters were seething on social media over what they saw as Bondi playing showman with the files without releasing anything meaningful. The Epstein files, which will have all been released as of July 2026, include many mentions of Trump’s name but have not been found to include substantiated allegations against the president. NEW: Photo obtained by @realDailyWire shows Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein together. To my knowledge, this photo hasn’t been reported. Massive trove of Epstein files are expected to be released tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/OvFFbUQlXq — Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) December 19, 2025 The DOJ noted that the batch released in January contained numerous “sensationalist” claims submitted right before the 2020 election, in an apparent attempt to stop Trump from winning the presidential election. Many of those claims don’t even include callback numbers, such as one graphic claim that the president raped a 13-year-old girl. “Just as President Trump has said, he’s been totally exonerated on anything relating to Epstein,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told The Daily Wire on Wednesday. “And 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,” she added.