The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a Republican challenge to campaign finance regulations that restricts political parties from coordinating campaign spending with political candidates. The challenge from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) argues that restricting the amount parties can spend in coordination with candidates violates the First Amendment by restricting speech. The court is expected to hear arguments on the case when its fall 2025 term begins. “The government should not restrict a party committee’s support for its own candidates. These coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, and we appreciate the Court’s decision to hear our case,” said NRSC Chair Tim Scott and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Richard Hudson. “Coordinated spending continues to be a critical part of winning campaigns, and the NRSC and NRCC will ensure we are in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.” The case was originally brought by the NRSC and now-Vice President J.D. Vance back in 2022 in a challenge to restrictions on coordinated spending introduced by the 1972 Federal Election Campaign Act. In September 2024, the restrictions were upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In its decision, the appeals court said that the NRSC made “fair points” about speech restrictions; it could not side with them because of previous Supreme Court precedent. The precedent in question was the 2001 FEC vs. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee decision, which ruled that limits on coordinated spending do not violate the First Amendment. JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free “The key reality is that the Supreme Court has not overruled the 2001 Colorado decision or the deferential review it applied to these provisions of the Act. In a hierarchical legal system, we must follow that decision and thus must deny the plaintiffs’ First Amendment facial and as applied challenges,” the Sixth Circuit Court wrote in its September decision. In its December 2024 petition to the Supreme Court, the NRSC said that Congress “has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them.” “Should this Court decline to take this case, future litigants will interpret that decision as proof that, whatever the Court has said in more recent campaign-finance cases, it is content to leave the political parties as second-class holders of First Amendment rights,” they wrote. The Trump administration has signaled support for the challenge, while the Supreme Court allowed the Democratic National Committee to intervene in support of the campaign finance restrictions.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt ripped into New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, the self-described “Democratic Socialist” who bested disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) in the Democratic primary. Leavitt addressed the controversy surrounding Mamdani — which has even some Democrats worried about the optics of endorsing him — and made it clear that, in the White House’s opinion, Mamdani was just another manifestation of the Democratic Party’s efforts to undermine “the very fabric of our country.” WATCH: ?@PressSec BASHES Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani: “The Democrats are DOUBLING DOWN on craziness and radical policies that are undermining the very fabric of our country…Zohran Mamdani…a communist who proudly calls to defund the police, pedals anti-Semitism, praises… pic.twitter.com/HUVT9JFlNi — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 30, 2025 “The Democrats are doubling down on craziness and radical policies that are undermining the very fabric of our country,” she began. “Just look at the Democrat nominee for New York City Mayor, Zohran Mamdani He’s a Democrat Socialist — really a communist — who proudly calls to defund the police, peddles antisemitism, praises pro-Hamas groups, wants Israel abolished, and believes wealthy Americans should not exist.” “Those are his words, just as recent as this weekend,” Leavitt continued, referencing Mamdani’s appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” During that interview, in spite of the fact that host Kristen Welker gave him three opportunities to do so, Mamdani could not being himself to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada” — a phrase that Welker correctly explained was a call to violence against Jewish people. Mamdani shrugged off the question, claiming that he did not think it was his place to “police” the language others might choose. JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free Mamdani’s history of backing anti-Israel protests and the “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) against Israel may be what has even some New York Democrats feeling squeamish about offering their endorsement. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), whose district is 11% Jewish, told ABC News host Jonathan Karl on “This Week” that he didn’t know Mamdani well enough to endorse him right away. “Globalizing the Intifada, by way of example, is not an acceptable phrasing,” Jeffries explained. “He’s going to have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward. With respect to the Jewish communities that I represent, I think our nominee is going to have to convince folks that he is prepared to aggressively address the rise in antisemitism in the city of New York, which has been an unacceptable development.”

Several high profile Democrats have responded after Zohran Mamdani, the presumptive Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, refused to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada” over the weekend. On Sunday, Mamdani was pressed three times to condemn “globalize the intifada” during an appearance on NBC, and each time he refused to do so, but said, “it’s not language that I use.” “But do you actually condemn it?” NBC’s Kristen Welker pressed, noting that many people hear it as a “call to violence against Jews.” “Globalize the Intifada” is a call to violence. Full stop. Words matter—whether Mamdani cares to believe that or not. New Yorkers need to reject this lunatic. pic.twitter.com/xLk9kyR9vQ — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 30, 2025 “I don’t believe that the role of the mayor is to police speech in the manner, especially, of that of Donald Trump, who has put one New Yorker in jail, who has just returned to his family, Mahmoud Khalil, for that supposed crime of speech,” Mamdani said. Mahmoud Khalil was a prominent participant of pro-Palestinian protests and campus occupations at Columbia University. Also on Sunday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) demanded Mamdani “clarify” his position on the controversial phrase. “Globalizing the intifada, by way of example, is not an acceptable phrasing,” Jeffries said on ABC. “He’s going to have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward.” “With respect to the Jewish communities that I represent, I think our nominee is going to have to convince folks that he is prepared to aggressively address the rise in antisemitism in the City of New York, which has been an unacceptable development,” Jeffries said. “Any mayor, whether you’re a Democratic mayor, a Republican mayor, an independent mayor, has got to commit to the safety of all of the people of the city of New York,” Jeffries said. Hakeem Jeffries on Mamdani: "'Globalizing the intifada' by way of example is not an acceptable phrasing. He's gonna have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward." pic.twitter.com/TA9Hn6lFD9 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 29, 2025 Jeffries was also hesitant when asked whether he planned to endorse Mamdani, and said his district includes many Jewish Americans. “Well, we don’t really know each other well. Our districts don’t overlap. I have never had a substantive conversation with him, and so that’s the next step,” Jeffries said, adding that he and Mamdani have agreed to sit down and talk. Meanwhile, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat came out swinging against Mamdani for refusing to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada.” “New York constituents I talked to are alarmed. They are alarmed by past public statements. They are alarmed about past public positions, referring to global jihad,” Gillibrand said during a WNYC interview on Thursday. “This is a very serious issue because people who glorify the slaughter of Jews create fear in our communities,” she said. “The global intifada is a statement that means destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.” Other Democrats weighed in as well. Rep. Laura Gillen, a freshman Democrat representing Long Island who is known as a centrist, accused Mamdani of “a deeply disturbing pattern of unacceptable antisemitic comments.” “He is the absolute wrong choice for New York,” Gillen said. Mamdani, a New York assemblyman representing Queens, won the Democratic primary last week in an upset that threw the New York City mayor’s race into chaos. Current Mayor Eric Adams and former Governor Andrew Cuomo will both likely run as independents, and Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels, will face them all as the Republican candidate. The general election for mayor will be held on November 4.

Disney and Pixar’s latest offering is lagging well behind box office expectations — and the animation studio isn’t taking it sitting down. “Elio” has earned just $35 million worldwide since its June 20 release, a record-low for Pixar. The film — which addresses themes like childhood and social isolation through the story of “Elio, a space fanatic with an active imagination and a huge alien obsession” — only brought in $21 million in ticket sales during its first three days in theaters. In response to the disappointing numbers, Pixar shared a snarky post on its official Instagram account. In the video, a woman addresses the reaction to “Elio,” which isn’t a remake or sequel, saying “Stop complaining that Disney doesn’t make original stories if you don’t show up to movie theaters and support them in the first place.” JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free “Who… who said that?” a woman in her car says by way of reaction. “Oh my gosh, I thought I was the only one in my car. But anyway, there’s a new original story,” she continued, holding up a photo of the movie poster. “Look at that, from Disney-Pixar, called Elio,” she went on. “You should go ahead and support it, it comes out this Friday so yeah, you should go to the movie theater, thank you.” Commenters on the Instagram post noted the lack of marketing for the film, which they indicated may have contributed to the lackluster results. “Maybe actually market the movie then???” one comment read. “Some marketing would’ve helped… but yes it deserves way better; it’s such a good movie!!” another commenter echoed. “I think what drove people away from this one was reusing that same animation style. So many people are wanting something different and we’ve now gotten it quite a few times with movies and shorts,” another person wrote. “Don’t get me wrong, I’m beyond excited to see this new movie! I think it’s just time to switch up the animation again. Also there was barely any marketing for the movie,” a third said. “Elio” is the latest in a long line of Disney flops, but there have also been several success stories, including the live action remake of “Lilo & Stitch,” which earned over $945 million worldwide.

This year, several local governments are switching up their 4th of July celebrations, conducting drone shows in lieu of fireworks. Lincoln City, Oregon; Redwood City, California; Waynesboro, Virginia; and Pasadena, California, are all jumping on the drone show bandwagon. Lincoln City provided an explanation for the change alongside the schedule for their 4th of July celebrations: “We are making this change in response to growing community concerns about the environmental and wildlife impacts, public safety issues, and wildfire risk that can be caused by traditional fireworks shows.” Redwood City stated that their new tradition of drone shows will provide “all the ‘wow’ without the worry.” Pasadena announced that they would replace the annual fireworks at the Rose Bowl — known for being one of the largest and longest running shows in the nation — with a drone show. The debate of fireworks versus drones is a hot one. Proponents of drone shows point to the pollution caused by fireworks. On Monday, Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) published a report warning residents that “EGLE’s air monitoring network often shows high levels of particulate pollution over the 4th of July.” JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free Additionally, it’s claimed that drone shows are more inclusive and respectful of wildlife and pets. “Drones produce almost no noise, allowing pets and veterans that may have PTSD to enjoy aerial entertainment, unlike fireworks,” says Tyler Kubicz, production manager for Sky Elements Drones, the largest drone show company in the United States. “Drones also do not produce debris or smoke, allowing for those with compromised immune systems to enjoy the show too.” “Fireworks frighten birds out of their nests, send terrified dogs and cats running away from their homes, and start fires that can quickly turn devastating,” PETA’s executive vice president commented in response to Pasadena’s announcement in April. Viewers say they appreciate the futuristic effects and storytelling capabilities of drones. “Reactions to the show in 2023 were overwhelmingly positive,” said Amber Thrill, operations manager for the city. “The primary request through the 2023 event survey was for the drone show to be longer.” On the flip side, drone shows are significantly more expensive, being approximately 10 times the cost of fireworks. Fourth of July fireworks are also a centuries long American tradition, and many Americans love the explosiveness and nostalgia of fireworks. This has led some cities to walk back on their changes. “Redondo Beach and Laguna Beach switched back to fireworks after trying out drone shows, and some promoters of fireworks shows have voiced criticism over efforts to transition to drone shows,” writes the LA Times.

Right now, the West is in its ascendancy, not in its decline. Over the weekend, President Trump championed a peace deal that is now cut between Congo and Rwanda, brokered by the White House to stop the bloodshed in Congo, where a militia allegedly backed by Rwanda occupies huge areas of land. President Trump explained that he is brokering peace throughout the world, saying, “This is a tremendous breakthrough. In a few short months, we’ve now achieved peace between India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, and the DRC and Rwanda. And a couple of others also, Serbia was getting ready to go to war with a group I won’t even mention because it didn’t happen. We were able to stop it.” He’s right about that. He also continues to maintain his strength in the face of an Iran that has pledged further nuclear development. He said to Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei, listen, you keep lying and saying that you won? You didn’t. You got your ass kicked. “I’m putting out a little statement,” he stated. “I’m going to respond to the Ayatollah’s statement yesterday that ‘We won the war.’ Won the war? And I said, ‘Look, you’re a man of great faith, a man who’s highly respected in his country. You have to tell the truth, you got beat to hell … It would be great if they (Iran) didn’t have that hate. But the last thing they’re thinking about is nuclear weapons right now.” “Would you consider bombing the country again?” he was asked. “Sure. Without question. Absolutely. That would be unbelievable,” he answered. “But, you know, our incredible fliers; I call them the shots. These guys are unbelievable. Think. From 52,000 feet, they hit the equivalent of a refrigerator door. They actually hit it right in the center, so it’s much smaller than that.” But at a time when the West should be resurgent and on the upswing, instead you have America’s major cities: New York City, L.A., and Chicago, being run by full-scale left-wing nutcases who are deeply ensconced with hatred for their own civilization. The same thing has happened in London in the UK. It’s been happening in France as well. It’s a serious threat to the West. And the biggest threat to the West is not external at this point. The biggest threat to the West is internal: the Red-Green Alliance, the communists/socialists, and the Hamasniks coming together in hatred of their own civilization. WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show All of this ties into July 4. It’s going to be great. I hope you’re going to have a wonderful Independence Day, celebrating the foundation of the greatest country in the history of the world, but we should talk about a myth that has been purveyed about July 4 and about the United States in general. This, of course, is the 1619 myth that “America was founded on slavery and that the Revolutionary War was fought for the preservation of slavery.” There are many lies that are told about our civilization, particularly about the foundation of our civilization, in order to somehow claim that our civilization should be torn down. If you were to poll the morons of Glastonbury in the UK who chanted “Death to the IDF” and mocked white Britons by chanting “I hear you want your country back. Well, shut the f*** up,” or the Democratic primary voters for Zohran Mamdani in New York about what they think of the United States, they would surely agree with the myth that America was founded on slavery. It’s not true. A huge number of the Founders overtly opposed slavery in principle. Even those who held slaves themselves did not provide significant defenses of slavery. That included George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Washington said, “There’s not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for its abolition.” Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence called the slave trade an “execrable commerce” and “an affront against human nature itself.” John Jay said, “It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished, to contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others involves an inconsistency not to be excused.” Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton spoke against slavery as well. Why was slavery included in the Constitution of the United States originally? Because there were still slave-holding states in the United States. Many of the northern states were not slave holding states, but the southern states were. And the question was, could you get together a coalition to defeat the British, or could you not? This was not a fight on behalf of promoting slavery. Slavery remained legal in the British Empire until 1833. So this was not a fight in which one side was pro-slavery and one side was anti-slavery. Far from it. The leaders in America ideologically were not in favor of slavery. There was a practical on-the-ground consideration, which was that many of the southern states were reliant on slave labor.  Again, that’s an evil not to be excused, but to claim that the Revolutionary War was about slavery is to be ignorant of history. In fact, as soon as the Revolution began, there were eight states that immediately came out and started abolishing slavery: Vermont, 1777. Pennsylvania, 1780. Massachusetts and New Hampshire, 1783. Rhode Island and Connecticut, 1784. New York, 1799. New Jersey 1804. JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free As the Claremont Institute’s Arthur Milikh once pointed out: The Founders laid the constitutional ground for abolishing slavery. One example is Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, which states that Congress could prohibit importation of slaves starting in 1808. On the first day that this clause became operative, Congress passed, and President Thomas Jefferson signed, this prohibition into law. Congress took additional steps to restrict slavery. It passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territories. Seven years later, Congress made it illegal to build ships for the purpose of the slave trade. It’s important to debunk some of these myths, because those myths become the basis for claiming that the West is uniquely evil. Slavery has indeed been an evil institution, but it has also been virtually universal.  The question isn’t whether the Founding Fathers were hypocrites about slavery. Some were; some weren’t. The question truly is: Why did it take the West to end slavery? In fact, slavery is still practiced in many of the areas that are favorites of the Glastonbury crowd. Many of the places that they are claiming are “havens of freedom,” that require “less of a heavy Western hand,” are places that are still practicing slavery. A huge part of the Middle East still engages in slavery. Not Israel, but many of its opponents. That is the point. July 4 spells a clarion call for human freedom, and it has been seen that way by right-minded people ever since. This is why the very famous Frederick Douglass speech about what July 4 meant to the slave doesn’t say that July 4 is bad. It says that the problem with the 4th of July is that the principles that the Founding Fathers sought to instill had not yet been realized. That is the right approach, a historically accurate and mature approach, instead of the leftist scumbag wing that simply suggests the West is uniquely evil when in reality the West is uniquely good.

'Prosecuted criminally'

'Do you read his X?'

'This horrific attack has now claimed the life of an innocent person'

36% of Democrats are "very" or "extremely" proud of America