'Deep partisan divide'

'Highly increases the likelihood that non-citizens will be registered to vote'

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Where are we in the trade wars, the tariff wars? The stock market recently has recovered somewhat. We’re about where it was in August. I didn’t think it was too bad in August of 2024. It’s recovering 1% to 2%, on occasion. And why is that? Because Donald Trump has announced that JD Vance and his wife, who is of Indian legacy—her family was born in India—met with the Indian government officials, and there may be a trade deal. Japan has been talking with us. They both want—us and Japan—want a deal. Japan says we moved the goalpost. We say, “They’re not serious.” But there’s going to be a deal there. And more importantly, Donald Trump said he was willing to lower tariffs on China. Now the Left says, “Oh, he’s caving, he’s caving. This was all unnecessary.” You could interpret it that way. But it’s more likely “Art of the Deal.” In other words, “We’re going to invade Panama,” but we’re not going to invade Panama. We just want Panama to let American companies run the exit and the entry to the canal—and that’s probably going to happen. “Canada’s going to be the 51st state.” No. It’s not going to be the 51st state. But Canada should defend themselves and pay 2% of their GDP, and they need to address a $65-$100 billion deficit. But, “We want to absorb Greenland.” No. We don’t. We want Denmark—a colonial power with this huge North American colony—we want them to help them a little bit. And indeed, they’re starting to put Greenland on their imperial flags, and they gave them a billion dollars, and the base is secure. And the Greenland people, 50,000 or so, will want U.S. security. So, that is the “Art of the Deal.” And to get China to come and reduce its $300 billion trade surplus with the United States, Donald Trump talked about these huge tariffs. Now, he will talk down and we’ll probably get a deal in an “Art of the Deal” fashion. We saw that with NATO. He harangued them in 2018. They were furious. Said he might not come to their aid. They haven’t met their 2%, 2014 promises. And guess what? They started to spend more in defense. Timely so, because when the Ukraine war broke out, Europe had spent a billion dollars more on defense expenditure. And more importantly, they had Finland and Sweden, two of the most muscular of all the European nations in terms of munitions and defense readiness, now both part of NATO. That worked. And I think the same thing is happening with trade. Here’s the dynamic: the Europeans detest Donald Trump more than they see their self-interest. In other words, they would rather be on the outside of these trade negotiations and punish Donald Trump than they would be with the Asian powers and make a deal and profit, mutually with the United States. And partly that’s because they’re akin to the American Left. And, as we saw with Jamie Raskin, a representative in the Congress, he said to each country, “If you cut a deal with this administration [the Trump administration] we’re going to remember that.” So, the EU people want to help the American Left, and one of the ways they think they can is to stonewall and watch the bond and stock market go down. And then they could come in later with more favorable concessions from the United States. The problem with that thinking is that if India cuts a deal and South Korea cuts a deal—and now they’re talking about Japan, Taiwan, Australia—the Trump administration has already established, openly, transparently, that those countries that are first to cut a deal will get the most favorable terms. And so, the more people that come in and have a reciprocal agreement with the United States—I’m not saying it’s going to be parity. I’m not saying we’re going to get down to zero deficits—but if we cut this trillion-dollar deficit by half, that will be a considerable achievement. The Europeans, then, will see that they’re left out. And especially if we come to an accord in the next month or so with China—not that we’re going to be able to force China to have no tariffs on their part. But we might be able to lower them and then make them buy American products to reduce that $300 billion—If that were to be true, then Europe has missed the boat. The bottom line. The trade war, or tariff war was never really a war. It was just an effort to stop a 50-year-cycle of chronic American trade deficits that had harmed the industrial interior. There’s one caveat I would like to leave you with, and it’s this: as long as Donald Trump talks about parity and the desirability of lowering our trade deficits and the unfairness of our trade partners, and a idealized goal of no tariffs, he’s got a winning issue. However. Caveat. If he starts talking about tariffs in pre-1913 terms, before the income tax, when tariffs were the primary source of American revenue. In other words, if he thinks, “I’m going to get all this money coming into the United States from these countries that are going to have to give us this money. And then I can cut taxes on tips, I can do this…” that’s not going to work. No country will wanna make a deal when they think that we’re doing tariffs, not in pursuit of fairness, but in pursuit of gouging, whether true or not. So, as long as he talks about any other aspect of tariffs except revenue raising—that is a losing political issue. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Method Behind the Madness of Trump’s So-Called Tariff Wars appeared first on The Daily Signal.

This Week in Tesla Vandalism

Thursday was apparently a slow day for the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View since they occupied their first segment by hyperventilating about people who expected former First Lady Michelle Obama to show the office of the president respect and attend President Trump’s second inauguration. The View cast were eager to blame it on sexism and suggested women uniquely had to deal with people putting pressure on them to attend events they didn’t want to. “So, former First Lady Michelle Obama used her latest podcast episode to take on all the misinformation about her decision, HER DECISION to skip the last inauguration,” moderator and friend to the Obamas, Whoopi Goldberg huffed. After playing a soundbite of Obama on her podcast, Goldberg shouted: “My question about all of this is why does she owe anybody an explanation? … Why is it my business?! She didn't go!” “Well, there were rumors that she was having trouble in her marriage. She’s clearing it up,” Behar defended Obama. Later quipping: “If I have to listen to Trump babble on for two hours I'd have menstrual cramps too.” Co-host Sunny Hostin took a break from blaming everything on racism and instead chose to blame this sexism, which drew wide agreement from the rest of the cast: HOSTIN: You know why -- I think it's because women are always expected to say “yes,” and expected to do things even when they don't want to do them. I remember in my 20s and my 30s I didn't know the power of “no.” I just -- expected -- people expected me to say ‘yes” to almost everything. BEHAR: Is that how you got pregnant all those times? HOSTIN: Yeah, pretty much! Yeah! Pretty much! [Laughter] But in your 40s and certainly now in my 50s I say “no” when I don't want to do anything and it comes with wisdom and it comes with -- BEHAR: Age. SARA HAINES: Time. BEHAR: It comes with age for me. HOSTIN: And time. And freedom. It gives you.     Goldberg refused to acknowledge the fact that former presidents and their spouses were expected to attend the inauguration of their predecessors if they’re medically able to. “I don't understand why you would go somewhere and be uncomfortable. See, I don't want to be uncomfortable. If I know I'm going someplace and it's not a good thing for me, I don't do it because it’s not good for me!” Goldberg continued to shout. Pretend independent Sara Haines argued that Obama didn’t have any obligations because she was no longer the first lady. “[W]hen you're the acting first lady I think the obligations are different and probably should be different. But when you are out of office, you are out of office, peace,” she proclaimed while holding up the peace sign. Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin agreed that sexism played a role, declaring: “But people often, if a woman decides to make a decision and a public figure they're going to jump to the worst possible conclusion.” Goldberg was so desperate to argue that there was some kind of double standard at play in the situation that she ridiculously claimed that no one in the media had ever made an issue out of Melania Trump not appearing somewhere with her husband. Her assertion was so insane that both Behar and Hostin had to admit that they’ve mocked the Trumps about it on the show: GOLDBERG: Well, let me ask you this because I notice and maybe I'm just making stuff up but I noticed when Melania doesn't go anywhere, people don't flip out the way they been flipping out here. HOSTIN: No, they talk about it too. GOLDBERG: Well, we joke about it but we – But she is not obligated. She is not obligated to explain why she doesn't go and I don't understand why one and not the other. BEHAR: Well, it’s all over Twitter when she doesn’t – they think she's in witness protection. Yes, Whoopi, you were “just making stuff up.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 24, 2025 11:03:19 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: So, former First Lady Michelle Obama used her latest podcast episode to take on all the misinformation about her decision, HER DECISION to skip the last inauguration. (…) 11:04:09 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: My question about all of this is why does she owe anybody an explanation? I don't understand why -- JOY BEHAR: Well, there were rumors that she was having trouble in her marriage. She’s clearing it up. GOLDBERG: But, again, this is the fourth time she's had to do this and I don't understand why if she says I didn't go, why do I have to know, do I -- Why do I have to ask you, what did you get your friend this month or did you not go because -- why is it my business?! She didn't go! BEHAR: If I have to listen to Trump babble on for two hours I'd have menstrual cramps too. [Laughter and applause] SUNNY HOSTIN: You know why -- I think it's because women are always expected to say “yes,” and expected to do things even when they don't want to do them. I remember in my 20s and my 30s I didn't know the power of “no.” I just -- expected -- people expected me to say ‘yes” to almost everything. BEHAR: Is that how you got pregnant all those times? HOSTIN: Yeah, pretty much! Yeah! Pretty much! [Laughter] But in your 40s and certainly now in my 50s I say “no” when I don't want to do anything and it comes with wisdom and it comes with -- BEHAR: Age. SARA HAINES: Time. BEHAR: It comes with age for me. HOSTIN: And time. And freedom. It gives you. GOLDBERG: Really? See, I must be a freak of nature because HAINES: Well, you’re different. GOLDBERG: Because “no” -- I don't understand why you would go somewhere and be uncomfortable. See, I don't want to be uncomfortable. If I know I'm going someplace and it's not a good thing for me, I don't do it because it’s not good for me! HOSTIN: Were you always like that? GOLDBERG: Always. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But see, she doesn’t go and then there’s people jump to the worst conclusion that her marriage was falling apart. And I literally just on Instagram the other day saw pictures of – or video of her and President Obama on a date in Georgetown holding hands and out together. But people often, if a woman decides to make a decision and a public figure they're going to jump to the worst possible conclusion. GOLDBERG: Well, let me ask you this because I notice and maybe I'm just making stuff up but I noticed when Melania doesn't go anywhere, people don't flip out the way they been flipping out here. [Applause] [Crosstalk] HOSTIN: No, they talk about it too. GOLDBERG: Well, we joke about it but we – But she is not obligated. She is not obligated to explain why she doesn't go and I don't understand why one and not the other. BEHAR: Well, it’s all over Twitter when she doesn’t – they think she's in witness protection. [Laughter] HAINES: Yeah, but I would say it actually brings you to one of my points, which is when you're the acting first lady I think the obligations are different and probably should be different. But when you are out of office, you are out of office, peace [hold up peace sign]. Like, she is allowed to. HOSTIN: Did you say peace?! GOLDBERG: Did she just do? HAINES: Peace. BEHAR: How do you do it? HAINES [while making peace sign]: Peace. Peace. Peace. [Laughter] HOSTIN: Peace out. GOLDBERG: You are scaring me! HAINES: I know. I know. But I think that it's kind of what Sunny said – thank you – he power of “no” that drawing your boundaries, that we are kind of preprogrammed, it's not just expected of us, I think it's in us to just -- that's how we please. That's how we succeed. That's how she show up. To let go of those “what you should do” [uses air quotes] takes decades, it takes wisdom, purpose, time. GOLDBERG: Do you realize if you live by what you should do, by other people's standards, you will never move forward. HOSTIN: Yeah. HAINES: Right, but I think it takes you – for me, not for you, it took me a long time to even hear that I was doing what I should – I had dimmed my vice so much that I was autopiloting things that was, like, why does this not feel good? FARAH GRIFFIN: You take the path of least resistance often even if it's not the best thing for you. I definitely fell to that. HOSTIN: Same. BEHAR: There’s such a thing as obligation and family. GOLDBERG: Well, that’s different obligation is different. She was not obligated to go to this and I – HAINES: Maybe you should tell her. GOLDBERG: Well, I do. I say to people. HOSTIN: You did say that. GOLDBERG: It's important that we recognize that, not just women, but just as human beings. We are not obligated to do those things which are harmful to us or that do not help us go forward. HOSTIN: Or cause discomfort. GOLDBERG: Yes, you're not obligated. And what you do sometimes is you teach your children to do that, so maybe that's something we have to remind people to stop doing, because it's not – What other people think of you is not as important as what you think of yourself. HOSTIN: Absolutely. GOLDBERG: Because nobody can kick your behind like you can kick your own behind. HOSTIN: Absolutely.

Wednesday’s PBS News Hour fretted over the “wrongful deportation” of the media’s favorite Maryland resident, illegal immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, back to El Salvador, and suggested that it's unconstitutional not to give every illegal immigrant a trial before deportation. Co-anchor Geoff Bennett: Last night, a federal judge in Maryland said the Trump administration is trying to obstruct the truth about the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. The judge added, the administration's refusal to answer questions about its assertion that Garcia is an MS-13 gang member, nor provide details about its contract with the Salvadoran government -- quote -- "reflects a willful and bad-faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations." Co-anchor Amna Nawaz: Addressing the case this week, President Trump repeatedly said he wants to bypass due process required by the Constitution in order to fulfill his migrant crackdown. The judge is Obama-appointed Paula Xinis. PBS ran a clip of what Trump actually said: Donald Trump: We have thousands of people that are ready to go out. And you can't have a trial for all of these people. They emptied out insane asylums into our country. We're getting them out. And a judge can't say, no, you have to have a trial. But let's -- the trial is going to take two years. Is PBS being sloppy or did they truly suggest every illegal immigrant (out of the millions in America now) really require a trial before being deported? Talk about gumming up the deportation works. Nawaz: So the president has said he wants to get rid of the legally required due process here for the immigrants he wants to deport. All of that is despite a Supreme Court ruling that blocks more deportations under that Alien Enemies Wartime Act. So what are lawyers telling you right now about their ability to get due process for their clients? Laura Barron-Lopez: Multiple lawyers that I have talked to said that it's been increasingly difficult to represent their clients that are being targeted for deportation because the Trump administration is moving these migrants from jurisdiction to jurisdiction…. That story led straight into an interview with liberal Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) under the online headline, “‘Dignity is being compromised’: Democratic lawmakers visit students arrested by ICE.” (Speaking of dignity being compromised, Abrego Garcia’s “home state” Democratic senator Sen. Chris Van Hollen, actually visited Abrego Garcia in prison in El Salvador.) Geoff Bennett: Meantime, a group of Democratic members of Congress traveled to Louisiana yesterday to visit foreign students Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk in a pair of federal detention facilities as both face potential removal from the U.S. Video captured agents last month apprehending Ozturk, a Turkish national with a valid F-1 student visa near her home outside Boston. Khalil is a former Columbia University graduate student who was also arrested by ICE officials. The Trump administration maintains they're each a threat to national security for their activism against the Israeli war with Hamas in Gaza. Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey was part of that visit and joins us now…. Yet they only discussed the Ozturk case, which is a more sympathetic one than Khalil’s active pro-Hamas activities at Columbia University. Sen. Edward Markey: Well, the only public statement which has been made is that she wrote an op-ed in the Tufts University undergraduate newspaper about her views on a resolution that had passed in the Tufts government, undergraduate government. So that's the accusation against her, that she exercised her free speech to be able to have an opinion, an action that was taken by the student government at Tufts University…. Bennett set up Markey with a question using PBS’s familiar template “What do you say to that?” or “What do you make of that?” for the liberal guest to take an easy swing at. Bennett: You know, there are those who maintain that no one is entitled to a student visa, it's a privilege granted by the U.S. government, and the federal government should reserve the right and the authority to revoke or deny that privilege as it deems necessary. What do you say to that argument? That was Markey’s cue for his impassioned spiel, which concluded with his “dignity” remarks. These two segments were brought to you in part by BDO. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour 4/24/25 7:20:53 p.m. Geoff Bennett: Last night, a federal judge in Maryland said the Trump administration is trying to obstruct the truth about the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. The judge added, the administration's refusal to answer questions about its assertion that Garcia is an MS-13 gang member, nor provide details about its contract with the Salvadoran government — quote — "reflects a willful and bad-faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations." Amna Nawaz: Addressing the case this week, President Trump repeatedly said he wants to bypass due process required by the Constitution in order to fulfill his migrant crackdown. Donald Trump, President of the United States: We have thousands of people that are ready to go out. And you can't have a trial for all of these people. They emptied out insane asylums into our country. We're getting them out. And a judge can't say, no, you have to have a trial. But let's — the trial is going to take two years. Amna Nawaz: Our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez, joins us now for more. So, Laura, the judge has a very strong word there for the Trump administration, bad-faith refusal to comply. Where do things stand now? Laura Barron-Lopez: So Judge Xinis has essentially given the Trump administration until this evening to — quote — "respond to all outstanding discovery requests" and to essentially provide the factual basis for their assertion that Garcia is an MS-13 gang member. And, so far, there have been a number of depositions of Trump administration officials. But we should note, Amna, that now, over the last 24 hours, there have been a number of sealed filings in the case, including one from the Trump administration seeking a seven-day stay of Judge Xinis' discovery and daily status reports. And so we expect to hear from Judge Xinis soon, but we don't know how she's going to rule on that. Amna Nawaz: So the president has said he wants to get rid of the legally required due process here for the immigrants he wants to deport. All of that is despite a Supreme Court ruling that blocks more deportations under that Alien Enemies wartime act. So what are lawyers telling you right now about their ability to get due process for their clients? Laura Barron-Lopez: Multiple lawyers that I have talked to said that it's been increasingly difficult to represent their clients that are being targeted for deportation because the Trump administration is moving these migrants from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. And these lawyers have also had limited access to their clients to get interviews and information from them. I spoke to Holly Cooper. She's the co-director of the Immigration Law Clinic at U.C. Davis. And she warned that the administration's actions are weakening due process rights. Holly Cooper, Co-Director, Immigration Law Clinic, U.C. Davis: Without these structures, these pillars of due process, we are going to end up erroneously deporting a lot of individuals into very extreme conditions like what we're seeing in CECOT in El Salvador. So this is really even like — it wouldn't be in exaggeration to say this is a life-or-death situation to provide fair procedures for our immigrants and for people who aren't even immigrants who are citizens. Those traditional procedural protections that have demarcated us as a democracy are completely eroding before our eyes. Laura Barron-Lopez: Holly Cooper said that she and other immigration lawyers are also concerned about the escalation, potential escalation, of racial profiling. And while there's no requirement for U.S. citizens to carry I.D.s, she said that she may start advising U.S. citizens to carry some form of identification. Amna Nawaz: And you have been reporting on the case of one U.S. citizen, right, from Georgia who was arrested and detained. What happened there? Laura Barron-Lopez: That's right. The U.S. citizen is Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez, and he was detained by ICE for nearly 48 hours in Florida. He was arrested during a traffic stop under a state law that makes it illegal for undocumented immigrants to cross into — that are over the age of 18 to cross into Florida. And, now, the key thing here was that law was suspended by a judge when Carlos Gomez was arrested. Now, we asked the Homeland Security Department about this. A senior DHS official said in a statement to "News Hour" that: "After a stop by a Florida highway patrol trooper, a dual citizen of Mexico and the U.S. was detained after he said that he was in the U.S. illegally. Immediately after learning the individual was a United States citizen, he was released.' Now, my producer Shrai Popat and I spoke to Juan and his mother, and Juan disputes Homeland Security's claim, and he said that he told Highway Patrol that he was a United States citizen and shared his story with us. Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez, Detained U.S. Citizen (through interpreter): As soon as I arrived at the detention center, they asked me, if I am a U.S. citizen, why do I not speak English? They were just laughing in my face. After that, they took photos of me and they made me sign a lot of papers, and I didn't know what I was signing. I immediately got desperate because I didn't want to be in there and I just felt hopeless. Laura Barron-Lopez: Juan said that he presented his Social Security card to officials, and that they dismissed it. And that is a proper form of I.D., Amna. And Juan and his mother described the entire experience as traumatic and Juan said that he's afraid it could happen again. Now, Juan Lopez-Gomez's lawyer said that they are very likely to sue the state of Florida. Amna Nawaz: And, as you report this out, you found this wasn't an isolated incident. Is that right? There's another U.S. citizen's case you're following? Laura Barron-Lopez: There is. Jose Hermosillo, he's 19. He was arrested in Tucson, Arizona, where he was detained for nearly 10 days. An ICE agent said that Hermosillo told them that he was — quote — "a citizen of Mexico." Now, a senior DHS official told us in a statement that standard procedures were followed for an individual who self-identifies as a — quote — "illegal alien." They said that agents were not aware of a learning disability that Hermosillo has. Now, we were not able to reach Hermosillo, but in interviews with other reporters, he has said that he made clear that he was a United States citizen, Amna. And the attorney general for Arizona says that they are looking into this incident Amna Nawaz: All right, Laura Barron-Lopez, thank you for your reporting. Laura Barron-Lopez: Thank you. Geoff Bennett: Meantime, a group of Democratic members of Congress traveled to Louisiana yesterday to visit foreign students Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk in a pair of federal detention facilities as both face potential removal from the U.S. Video captured agents last month apprehending Ozturk, a Turkish national with a valid F-1 student visa near her home outside Boston. Khalil is a former Columbia University graduate student who was also arrested by ICE officials. The Trump administration maintains they're each a threat to national security for their activism against the Israeli war with Hamas in Gaza. Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey was part of that visit and joins us now. Thanks for being with us, sir. Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA): Great to be with you. Geoff Bennett: Trump officials say Rumeysa Ozturk's visa was revoked because she allegedly engaged in activities supporting Hamas. She's a Ph.D. student at a university in your state. What's your understanding of why she was detained and targeted for deportation? Sen. Edward Markey: Well, the only public statement which has been made is that she wrote an op-ed in the Tufts University undergraduate newspaper about her views on a resolution that had passed in the Tufts government, undergraduate government. So that's the accusation against her, that she exercised her free speech to be able to have an opinion an action that was taken by the student government at Tufts University. That's protected under the First Amendment of the United States, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. And, beyond that, there have been no accusations. There's been no evidence of a crime. They haven't even alleged a crime, and yet they whisked her off of the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts, where Tufts University is located, moved her to Vermont and then to Atlanta, and then to a remote part of Louisiana, where Congressman Jim McGovern and Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley and I visited her yesterday. And, thus far, they are presented, from the government's perspective, no evidence that in any way could be constituted as a crime, and that is a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States. That is the protection under due process to have the evidence presented against you. And they have not done that either. For four weeks, she's been in prison, no charge of a crime, no evidence presented against her, and yet she sits there in prison wearing an orange jumpsuit without any accusation that has been publicly made by the Trump administration. Geoff Bennett: What's your understanding of the Trump administration's motivation in moving her to that facility in Louisiana, despite a court order maintaining that she would remain in Massachusetts? And, beyond that, under what conditions is she being held right now? Sen. Edward Markey: Well, she was in Vermont when she was moved. And obviously the Trump administration is forum shopping. They're trying to find the most conservative circuit code of appeals in the United States, which is the Fifth Circuit, which is where Louisiana is located. And so to the extent to which they have moved Rumeysa 1,500 miles away from Somerville, and then 100 miles further out from the New Orleans Airport, they seek to distance her from her family, from her friends, from her attorneys, from any support system that could be provided to her. And it's all a part of a pattern, which, by the way, is the same thing that they did to Mahmoud Khalil, who is also in prison down in Louisiana in one of these facilities, and we visited him as well. And I would say that she obviously had a terrifying experience. Where six undercover law enforcement officers swept her up and into a vehicle, put handcuffs on her, and then, as she was being transported, ultimately she was in chains as she was arriving in Louisiana. No charges made against her, despite all of that. And despite her asthma attacks that keep recurring in prison, despite the less-than-ideal conditions in these prisons, the lack of easily accessible medical care or nutrition, or even extra blankets at night if it's too cold, she still has an indomitable spirit, an indomitable spirit. And it was just a privilege to be able to meet with her. Geoff Bennett: You know, there are those who maintain that no one is entitled to a student visa, it's a privilege granted by the U.S. government, and the federal government should reserve the right and the authority to revoke or deny that privilege as it deems necessary. What do you say to that argument? Sen. Edward Markey: Well, what I say is that we're the United States of America, and she's entitled to due process, and she is entitled to have the evidence presented against her, and it has not happened yet. There's no provision that says that Marco Rubio, as the secretary of state, can just designate someone like Rumeysa and all of a sudden she can be whisked to a prison, as though we're in Russia or Belarus, with no charges made against her. No, we're better than that. And that's why, 250 years ago in Massachusetts, we began the American Revolution to create our Constitution which would provide protections, freedom of speech and protections under the due process Fifth Amendment clauses that have guaranteed that our nation is one of laws, and not of men. And that man cannot be Marco Rubio or Donald Trump. It must be the laws that are enforced. And, right now, this Trump administration is in complete and total disregard for those laws. And the humanitarian consequences for Rumeysa and thousands of others, the dignity which is being compromised, is absolutely unacceptable in the United States in 2025. Geoff Bennett: Senator Ed Markey, thank you for your time this evening. We appreciate it. Sen. Edward Markey: Great to be with you. Thank you.

The overlords of Carbondale, Illinois seem to run their city like East Berlin.  With the help of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), one pro-life resident may take legal action, after he was threatened with criminal charges for holding up signs in a public area near an abortion business. Brandon, a sidewalk counselor and founder of Gospel for Life was standing peacefully outside his local baby killing center on April 16, when the city’s thought police, under the direction from their attorney, demanded he remove his signs. Why? Because they stated super offensive things, like “Please don’t abort your baby” and “Free baby supplies,” in an effort to convince desperate mothers to seek options other than putting down their unborn children.  It would seem that apparently violates some sign ordinance, according to the officer who approached Brandon. The ACLJ says the Constitution claims otherwise. Brandon responded that he had the right to constitutionally protected speech, to which the officer reportedly snapped “No, you don’t.”  The authorities called for backup, threatening their pro-life subject with citation and criminal charges. “Let’s be clear,” wrote the ACLJ in a response.  “The First Amendment protects the right to speak out in public spaces – especially on matters of public concern.” The center noted multiple courts “have consistently struck down vague ordinances and arbitrary enforcement,” that “chill” that fundamental right,” calling Carbondale’s actions “not only unconstitutional,” but “dangerous.”  If the thought police refuse to correct course immediately, Brandon’s lawyers are promising to sue.     If the thought police refuse to correct course immediately, Brandon’s lawyers promise to sue.    

A federal judge issued an injunction against the Trump administration for trying to pull federal funding from local governments with sanctuary policies. Sixteen cities and counties filed the lawsuit after President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end federal funding to sanctuary cities. The lawsuit argued that the order violated the constitutional separation of powers by infringing on the power of the purse granted to Congress.U.S. District Judge William Orrick sided with the cities and counties on Thursday and blocked the administration from enforcing the order on the litigant municipalities. The lawsuit argued that the order violated the constitutional separation of powers by infringing on the power of the purse granted to Congress. It also claimed that the order violated the 10th Amendment by commanding local officials to enforce federal immigration law and was vague in relation to the Fifth Amendment. Orrick agreed with the lawsuit and made a joke because he issued a similar ruling during Trump's first term. "Here we are again," he said. The Trump administration appealed that 2017 decision, but it was upheld by an appeals court. The Justice Dept. argued that the municipalities had no standing because the administration had not yet pulled their federal funding, but Orrick said that was "essentially the same argument" made in the earlier lawsuit. "The threat to withhold funding causes them irreparable injury in the form of budgetary uncertainty, deprivation of constitutional rights, and undermining trust between the Cities and Counties and the communities they serve," he wrote. Orrick was nominated to the court by former President Barack Obama. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In a wide-ranging interview on Wednesday with Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck, President Donald Trump addressed the repeated attempts from federal judges to block his actions, particularly regarding the administration's efforts to shut down the border and implement mass deportations.Trump discussed the success of the administration in drastically reducing border crossings. According to recent Customs and Border Protection data, encounters were down 88% in March compared to the previous year. — (@) "We had 11,888 murderers allowed into the country. We're taking them out as rapidly as we can. And by the way, we're being met with strong resistance from judges that are — I don't know where they come from," Trump stated.Beck pointed out the number of injunctions filed against Trump compared to previous administrations, which all rejected millions of foreign nationals: former Presidents Bill Clinton had 12 injunctions, George W. Bush had six, and Barack Obama had 12.'If you had one court case, it takes forever. Millions of court cases?'"You have 60," Beck told Trump. "Thirty last time, 30 this time. You're 100 days in, and you have 190 cases against you.""It's obstruction, and what they're doing to the country is unbelievable," Trump responded.The president stated that the process for removing illegal aliens is "so much more difficult than it should be" because of the rogue judges. Yet, he emphasized that it has not prevented the administration from moving forward with its deportation and border shutdown plans. Trump slammed Democrats for protecting criminal illegal aliens.Beck pointed out how the previous administration "didn't want to check anybody's ID or ask any questions on the way in," but "now they all seem to want to check them on the way out." He mentioned that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) referred to federal judges repeatedly blocking Trump's actions as "judicial insurrection.""Yeah, I think you could say that," Trump responded to Beck quoting Lee. Beck asked the president whether he would consider intervening "in a constitutional way" to stem the judicial overreach."I hope we don't have that problem, and I hope we don't have to get into it," Trump responded.The president doubled down on his sentiment that it would not be feasible to hold "millions of court cases" for every illegal alien who has stolen into the U.S. "If you had one court case, it takes forever. Millions of court cases? They're really saying you're not allowed to do what I was elected to do? I was elected, for a very big part of it, [to address] the border and get people out," Trump said.He mentioned how violent and dangerous criminals, including Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gang members, were allowed to flood into the country."They put them into our country through open borders, and now we have to go to court to get them out. I don't think the people of our country are going to stand for it," Trump added.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Actor Pedro Pascal attacked author J.K. Rowling over her reaction to a recent landmark ruling by the U.K.'s Supreme Court that defines a woman based on biological sex, which could bar biological males posing as transgender females from spaces designated for biological women. Last week, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made a unanimous decision that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.'Awful disgusting S**T is exactly right. Heinous LOSER behavior.'The BBC said of the Supreme Court ruling, "Specifically, they ruled that the definition of sex as used in the Equality Act 2010 is 'binary' and decided by biology — a person who was not born as a biological female cannot obtain the legal protections the Act affords to women by changing their gender with a Gender Recognition Certificate."Rowling enthusiastically approved the Supreme Court ruling by posting a photo of herself on the X social media platform with a cigar and a drink with the caption, "I love it when a plan comes together. #SupremeCourt #WomensRights."Numerous celebrities applauded the reaction by Rowling, including Elon Musk, Megyn Kelly, Jordan Peterson, and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.). However, not everyone was as enthusiastic over Rowling's celebration of the historic ruling by the U.K.'s Supreme Court. A pro-Palestinian and pro-transgender activist named Tariq Ra'ouf demanded a boycott of "Harry Potter" projects and experiences in an Instagram video. Ra'ouf said of Rowling's post, "This is some serious Voldemort villain s**t, right here." Ra'ouf urged everyone to make it their "mission" to make the "Harry Potter" franchise no longer profitable to "anyone who dares to do business with J.K. Rowling." Speaking of Rowling's opinion that men who identify as transgender shouldn't be invading spaces designated for women, Ra'ouf said, "That s**t, that awful disgusting s**t, that has consequences." In response to Ra'ouf's video, Pascal replied in the comments: “Awful disgusting S**T is exactly right. Heinous LOSER behavior.”The official Instagram of Pascal has nearly 10 million followers.Pascal – the 50-year-old star of HBO's "The Last of Us" – has been a vocal supporter of the LGBTQ community over the years. Pascal has publicly supported his sibling, Lux Pascal, who came out as transgender in February 2021. Lux has accompanied Pascal to several red carpet premieres.On Tuesday, Pedro Pascal attended the U.K. premiere of Marvel's "Thunderbolts" movie in London, England. Pascal was wearing a white T-shirt emblazoned with the message "Protect the Dolls."According to Newsweek, "dolls" is an "affectionate term within the LGBTQ+ community to refer to transgender women."The $100 T-shirt is made by Conner Ives, who created the shirt to call attention to any anti-transgender sentiment."Given the U.S. federal government's current hostility towards trans people, support like this is needed now more than ever," according to the website that sells the pricey activist shirt. Also this week, "The Mandalorian" actor shared an Instagram post that featured an apparent coffin with the caption, "An unjust law is no law at all." In the post, Pascal tagged the "Trans Kids Deserve Better" Instagram account, which demands: "We deserve equal access to gender-affirming health care. To delay care to a trans person is to deny it. We don't have time to wait. Secondly, we should be able to give informed consent to our own treatment — just as any cisgender young person already can."As Blaze News previously reported, Pascal was widely lambasted after posting a social media tribute to Joseph Rosenbaum — one of Kyle Rittenhouse's attackers.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!