The head of the Southern Poverty Law Center played a masterclass in evasion on Capitol Hill Tuesday, refusing to answer basic yes-or-no questions from House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) about explosive allegations that the Left-wing nonprofit used donor cash to secretly bankroll extremist activities across America. Bryan Fair, the SPLC’s interim president and CEO, hid behind his lawyers at nearly every turn — repeatedly deflecting to “counsel in the Middle District of Alabama” — as Jordan methodically walked through the superseding federal indictment against the organization. According to the indictment, the SPLC used donor money to pay confidential “field sources” to infiltrate extremist groups — but the scheme allegedly went far beyond mere surveillance. Jordan pressed Fair on charges that the group’s operatives actually hosted extremist rallies, grew existing chapters of hate groups, recruited new members into those organizations, and even purchased materials for cross burnings. Fair’s response to nearly every charge was a variation of “our counsel will respond to all the allegations.” “It seems to me if the answer is no, you could just say no,” a visibly frustrated Jordan told Fair, who acknowledged only that “we’ve alleged that those allegations are false.”      The indictment also names a web of alleged shell companies — Fox Photography, North West Technologies, Tech Writers Group, Rare Books Warehouse, Imagery Ink, J&J Electronics, Center Investigative Agency, and Kelly’s Marine — which Jordan suggested were used to launder payments to field sources and keep the paper trail obscured. Fair claimed knowledge of the companies came only through attorney-client privileged conversations, and refused to say whether they were fronts. The reported total price tag for the alleged program? A staggering $4 million funneled to field sources, according to the indictment. Then came the gut-punch moment. Jordan asked whether the SPLC’s fundraising spiked after the deadly 2017 Charlottesville rally — where, the indictment alleges, one of its own paid field sources helped coordinate transportation for participants. Fair acknowledged donations surged, but credited President Donald Trump’s 2016 election rather than Charlottesville. Jordan pointed out the group’s haul jumped from $51 million to $133 million in a single year. Fair finally offered one voluntary admission: the SPLC ran the program “to protect our staff and to protect the public.” The group has since announced it is shutting down the field source program. Jordan’s parting shot — asking Fair if he knew the president of the National Socialist Party — was met with the now-familiar refrain: “That’s an allegation in the indictment that will be responded to by counsel.”

“House” actor Hugh Laurie got into an online argument with a journalist, then apologized later for calling her out, saying he was under the influence of alcohol at the time. “I’m sorry if people have been having a go at you because of my tweet,” the 66-year-old actor wrote in his apology shared on Monday, saying it was “not at all the plan” of his initial response to her criticism of the show. “I was very slightly drunk and already upset about something that had nothing to do with you,” Laurie wrote in an X post. “If it’s any comfort, I got it in the neck too. I’m a thin-skinned twat, apparently, even though it wasn’t my skin.” He went on to say he reacted in anger because he was defending the show’s writers.  The drama started on Saturday when British journalist Janet Murray shared some of her criticisms of “House,” a popular medical drama series that aired for eight seasons beginning in 2004. “Late to the party, but I’ve started watching Season 1 of House. Same narrative every episode: Patient has mysterious illness. Hugh Laurie (House) gets diagnosis wrong. Patient nearly dies,” Murray wrote in the original post.  She continued, “Hugh Laurie gets diagnosis wrong again. Gets threatened with being fired. Patient nearly dies again.” “Hugh Laurie has last minute left-field idea. Gets diagnosis right. Doesn’t get fired. Eight seasons of this?” Laurie wrote back in his original response, “Thanks for your critique, Janet. We actually tried a couple of episodes where House (Hugh Laurie) (please put the brackets in the right place) gets it right first time, but they were only 6 minutes long. NBC weren’t (sic) happy. Then we tried some where House never gets it right and the patient dies. The audience wasn’t happy.” “One could apply your trenchant analysis to other art forms: JS Bach wrote 30 Goldberg variations on the same chord structure; Frida Kahlo painted 50 portraits of herself;  Henry Moore, what??” He added, “The point is, or was, variations on a theme; if all you see is hospital, medical blah blah, then it wasn’t meant for you. Nonetheless, I look forward to your first novel!” Thanks for your critique, Janet. We actually tried a couple of episodes where House (Hugh Laurie) (please put the brackets in the right place) gets it right first time, but they were only 6 minutes long. NBC weren’t happy. Then we tried some where House never gets it right and… — Hugh Laurie (@hughlaurie) June 7, 2026 Murray went on to publish an article in UnHerd about the interaction and the fallout on social media. It was titled, “What I learnt from my online fight with Hugh Laurie.” “While it’s all been rather fun, I do hope @hughlaurie takes the time to read my @unherd article (I’m sure he can stretch to a subscription),” Murray wrote in an X post sharing the article on Monday. “Because while his witty riposte was genuinely amusing, one point I make in the piece is that it was shared with his 1.2 million followers on X,” she wrote, comparing it to her paltry audience of just 38,000. “That creates something of an imbalance – particularly given that the responses to my original post were overwhelmingly warm-hearted and affectionate towards the show. The result has been some fairly horrific trolling. It turns out House fans are even more abusive than trans activists (and that’s saying something).” She concluded, “I have enough experience of the media to take it on the chin, as the saying goes. But someone without my background might have found the experience far more distressing.”

A Navy sailor admitted Monday that he strangled and killed a fellow service member before hiding her body in a suitcase and dumping it in a wooded area near Naval Station Norfolk, a guilty plea that is renewing questions of why military officials failed to remove him from service despite multiple prior allegations of violence against women. Culinary Specialist 3rd Class Jeremiah Copeland pleaded guilty during a military court-martial to the unpremeditated murder of Petty Officer 3rd Class Angelina Resendiz, a 21-year-old sailor assigned to the guided-missile destroyer USS James E. Williams. “I killed CS3 Resendiz on May 29, 2025,” Copeland told the military judge. “I strangled her with my hands.” Under a plea agreement accepted by the court, Copeland also pleaded guilty to aggravated assault by strangulation, indecent recording, obstruction of justice, and making a false official statement. He faces a minimum sentence of 40 years and two months in prison, a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and mandatory registration as a sex offender. According to court proceedings, Resendiz entered Copeland’s barracks room on May 29, 2025. Copeland admitted the two were drinking alcohol when an argument began after she saw something on his phone. He told the court he strangled her on the floor of the room before hiding her body in a suitcase in his closet. Investigators later determined Copeland kept Resendiz’s body concealed for several days before transporting it to a wooded area roughly ten miles from the base. Her decomposing remains were discovered on June 9, 2025, nearly two weeks after she vanished. But even before Resendiz’s death, Copeland was already facing allegations involving other women. Military prosecutors had previously accused Copeland of raping a fellow sailor in November 2024 and sexually assaulting and attempting to strangle another service member months earlier. Court records also show he was facing a separate rape allegation involving a civilian woman in Norfolk just days before Resendiz disappeared. His history reportedly stretches back even further. Before joining the Navy in 2023, a Washington state judge issued a temporary sexual assault protection order against Copeland involving an underage girl. He was also accused in a separate incident of kissing and groping another underage girl against her will. Resendiz’s mother, Esmeralda Castle, has repeatedly argued that Navy leadership failed to act despite numerous warning signs. “This situation was absolutely preventable,” Castle said before trial proceedings began. “If they would have dealt with him when he started harming women, he would never have gotten to Angie,” she later told Fox News. Castle has been among the most vocal critics of the Navy’s response to her daughter’s disappearance. Resendiz was last seen on May 29, 2025, but a statewide missing-person alert was not issued until five days later after military officials initially classified her as absent without leave. The delay sparked criticism from family members and comparisons to the case of Army Specialist Vanessa Guillen, whose murder prompted sweeping reforms throughout the military regarding sexual harassment and assault investigations. Friends and family described Resendiz as a bright and ambitious young sailor who hoped to build a career in military culinary arts. According to her mother, Resendiz aimed to one day join the Navy’s elite culinary competition team and cook for world leaders. Following Monday’s plea hearing, Castle met privately with Copeland. “I thanked him for telling the truth,” she said. While Castle said hearing Copeland finally admit responsibility brought her “peace of mind,” she remains convinced the tragedy should never have happened. “We have statutes, and we have policies, and we have procedures that were implemented by Congress to protect service members from this type of violence,” Castle said. “And nothing’s changed.” The military judge is expected to formally impose a sentence under the terms of the plea agreement following the conclusion of court-martial proceedings.

A New York man was fatally shot Monday afternoon after confronting a teenager who was talking loudly on a cell phone aboard a city bus in the Bronx, police said.  Jonathan Pettigrew, 41, was riding a Bx36 bus around 2:30 p.m. near East Tremont Avenue and White Plains Road when he confronted the teen about the volume of his phone conversation. The teen then pulled a handgun and shot Pettigrew in the abdomen, according to authorities. First responders rushed Pettigrew to Jacobi Medical Center, where he later died. Police said the suspect fled the scene and remains at large. An employee at the nearby Family Mexican Deli told Gothamist that surveillance video appeared to show the gunman fleeing south on White Plains Road. Authorities said the suspect was last seen wearing a white T-shirt. “ Right now it’s just hard for me to believe what’s going on because I’m really, like, in a state of shock,” Pettigrew’s older brother, Avery Pettigrew, told Gothamist.  He said his brother struggled with anxiety and was particularly sensitive to loud noise. “ He got this anxiety where he, like me, we can’t be around a lot of noise,” Pettigrew said. “I guess the person that was on the phone was being very disrespectful and loud, and it was bothering him.” Pettigrew worked in catering and was the father of seven children. He was likely on his way to pick up his youngest daughter from school when he was shot, two of his aunts told The New York Times. “This is his routine: He drops her off at school, he goes to work, he gets off work, he picks her up,” his aunt, Sandra Ferguson, said. “I just can’t believe this.” “He took real good care of that little girl,” another aunt, Sabrina Vereen, said.

When President Donald Trump signed his January 2025 Executive Order banning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Americans cheered the “end” of the divisive, hateful ideology. Meanwhile, university administrators rolled their eyes, feigned compliance, and continued advancing their toxic agenda. Fortunately, the U.S. Department of Justice just announced a Title VI investigation into one of the worst offenders: Arizona State University (ASU). The outcome could have ripple effects throughout the country. This comes on the heels of Accuracy in Media (AIM) releasing hidden-camera videos from institutions across the country. Our team wanted to determine if the radicals running higher education were actually in compliance with the law. What we discovered was a shell game. DEI offices were renamed, DEI programs were rebranded, DEI job titles were changed, but the activism continued. If I dropped names like the University of Alabama, NC State, the University of Texas, Louisville, and the University of Kentucky, you’d probably think I was offering a poor prediction of the preseason AP football poll. In fact, these are all universities where we’ve discovered taxpayer-funded DEI activism, often in defiance of state law. Our investigation would start by examining whether staffers bragged about bending or breaking the law when speaking with someone they believed to be an ideological ally. Then a surprise visit with a cameraman revealed what they’d say when confronted with the reality of the situation. The resulting videos went viral. To the surprise of many, some of the worst footage came from ASU. On most campuses, one or two administrators brag about continuing DEI. But at ASU, seven were recorded engaging in such behavior. When more than a half-dozen highly paid staffers are caught, there’s no denying the entire orchard is rotten. One administrator admitted, “We’re doing pretty much what we were doing before.” Another confessed, “… we are still doing the same thing,” and added, “It’s kind of embedded … this is who we are.” A third summed it up by saying, “We are DEI.” When someone tells you — and shows you — who they are, believe them. An administrator from ASU’s education college says, “I know that the new legislation has asked us to eliminate it, but it’s in our hearts in education, so education has that just naturally.” This is consistent with what we hear in education colleges across the country. When Americans wonder why their child’s school is more focused on indoctrination than education, they need only look at the education colleges. The same is true for colleges of social work and criminology. If you wonder why social workers sound more like activists, it’s because their colleges require them to be committed to social justice. I wasn’t taken aback by these results, but I was shocked by the lack of response from ASU’s leadership. The individuals featured in our videos frequently find themselves out of work. A half dozen administrators in North Carolina lost their jobs after appearing in AIM videos recently, including the dean of students of UNC-Asheville. In Texas, the results are similar. We investigate, and the offender is fired. I don’t think this is because the university cares about reform. It’s more likely that they’re afraid of Texas’s Attorney General Ken Paxton, who regularly investigates the universities we expose. To be clear, we don’t view the firing of one individual as a victory. These staffers are usually replaced by someone just as radical but aware enough to keep their mouth shut. The reality is that senior administrators who hire and manage these people probably know that lawbreaking is occurring and support this behavior. Alternatively, these executives are so incompetent that they’re unqualified to work for the taxpayers. Either way, they don’t deserve a government paycheck. The DOJ’s investigation into ASU’s DEI program comes on the heels of its investigation into Ohio State University. These actions are a massive step towards cleaning houses at America’s universities. The Justice Department is examining whether ASU’s DEI policies affected admissions, recruitment, scholarships, tutoring, and educational support services. If investigators conclude that ASU’s DEI programs violate federal civil rights law, political activists masquerading as “educators” will likely begin job searching. But to truly rid our universities of DEI, each state must enact a Florida-style DEI ban, which prohibits administrators and professors from promoting identity politics. Educators are still free to discuss controversial topics in the appropriate courses, but they can’t promote antiracism and social justice in math class. Arizona State will soon discover that legal compliance isn’t optional. Other universities would be wise to take notice. My hope is that this DOJ investigation will set the precedent that their divisive politics will no longer be tolerated in taxpayer-funded institutions. *** Adam Guillette is the president of Accuracy in Media.