President Trump hinted that a truce is forthcoming in his war against Harvard, teasing a deal within "the next week or so."
The nation's oldest and richest university has spent months resisting Trump's efforts to reshape higher education, but Trump suggested that change is coming.
“Many people have been asking what is going on with Harvard University and their largescale improprieties that we have been addressing, looking for a solution. We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.
For months, Trump has been pressuring Harvard to change its policies, citing its response to anti-Semitism on campus and its use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in admissions and hiring. But Harvard has pushed back in court, decrying the Trump administration's crackdown as an attack on the school's autonomy.
On the same day that Trump hinted at a settlement, a federal judge in Boston blocked Trump indefinitely from revoking Harvard's ability to host international students. Foreign students are an important source of income for many universities, and at Harvard, they account for roughly a quarter of the student population.
"The Court order allows Harvard to continue enrolling international students and scholars while the case moves forward. Harvard will continue to defend its rights—and the rights of its students and scholars," the university said.
The Trump administration has argued that hosting international students is a privilege that Harvard lost by failing to control anti-Semitic unrest.
"It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system; no lawsuit, this or any other, is going to change that," Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said.
The university's refusal to cooperate with the administration led Trump to yank over $2 billion in research grants, and Trump followed that by revoking Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification.
Trump's moves sparked two lawsuits from Harvard, but the university is apparently moving toward a settlement of some kind with the federal government.
The school has taken some measures to appease Trump, replacing leaders at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and renaming its DEI office.
In his triumphant post, Trump hinted that Harvard is ready to make further concessions.
“They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right. If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be ‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC, and very good for our Country,” he added.
A federal appeals court has blocked Louisiana from displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools.
The Fifth Circuit is one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country, but the panel of three judges that decided the case was dominated by two Democrat appointees.
“This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education,” said Heather L. Weaver, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “With today’s ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith.”
The battle isn't over yet, with Louisiana's Republican leaders vowing to take the case to the Supreme Court.
"We will immediately seek relief from the full Fifth Circuit and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court," said Republican attorney general Liz Murrill.
“The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our laws — serving both an educational and historical purpose in our classrooms,” Governor Jeff Landry (R) said.
The appeals court ruled that Louisiana's law is "plainly unconstitutional," upholding a lower court decision that blocked the statute.
"H.B. 71 is plainly unconstitutional. The district court did not err," the appeals court said. "H.B. 71’s minimum requirements provide sufficient details about how the Ten Commandments must be displayed. Plaintiffs have shown that those displays will cause an "irreparable" deprivation of their First Amendment rights."
The case is a classic dispute on the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. While often understood to require a complete separation of religion from public life, interpretations of its text vary widely, from the strictly secular to a more flexible reading that respects the important role of religion in upholding a moral society.
The Ten Commandments have moral and educational purposes that are not strictly religious, making the debate over their public display a complex issue. Defenders of Louisiana's law point out that the Ten Commandments are an important part of America's legal and cultural heritage, but some argue that they have no place in public schools, which serve students of different faiths.
Texas has enacted a new law similar to Louisiana's that requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments, setting up more legal challenges on the issue.
In 1980, a divided Supreme Court struck down a similar law in Kentucky, finding it was plainly religious in nature, without any secular purpose.
Of course, the Supreme Court looks much different today, giving conservatives fresh hope of a different outcome.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In the wake of President Donald Trump's military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities Saturday, Republicans in Congress are at odds over the constitutionality of the military action without congressional approval.
House Speaker Mike Johnson said: "The President made the right call, and did what he needed to do.
"Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act.
"The world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants 'Death to America,' simply could not be allowed the opportunity to obtain and use nuclear weapons.
"The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties."
But a fellow Republican, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, said the dropping of 12 bunker buster bombs in a precision strike on three nuclear sites was "not constitutional."
Massie responded directly to Johnson's opinion, saying: "Why didn't you call us back from vacation to vote on military action if there was a serious threat to our country?"
"I introduced a War Powers Resolution on Tuesday, while Congress was on vacation. We would have had plenty of time to debate and vote on this."
Massie added: "When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war.
"I'm amazed at the mental gymnastics being undertaken by neocons in DC (and their social media bots) to say we aren't at war… so they can make war."
As WorldNetDaily reported, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocaio-Cortez, D-N.Y., says Trump should be impeached due to the strike.
"The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," she indicated.
"He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment."
Fox News host Mark Levin noted: "See how the media keep quoting the Democrats and a handful of ignorant Republicans about the constitutionality of President Trump's power to order a strike on Iran's nuclear sites?"
Meanwhile, President Trump warned further U.S. military action would be coming should Iran retaliate against the U.S.:
"ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."
Numerous presidents of both major political parties have taken military action against countries without congressional approval in recent years, including Democrat Barack Obama launching strikes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Can a state force all workers at a Ford plant to purchase Toyotas? Can Republicans be forced to donate to Democrats? Can vegetarians be forced to buy meat and eat it? Are bureaucrats allowed to coerce a Muslim to fund a Christian event?
Silly questions to be sure. But none of them less than what the state of Oregon has done, and has prompted the question before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Can those with religious objections to abortion be forced by the state to pay for abortion?
It was James Bopp Jr., of the Bopp Law Firm, who argued before the court that it should overrule a lower court's claim that Oregon can require Oregon Right to Life, a pro-life group, to pay for abortion.
"This case is saturated with examples of the exact things the Constitution prohibits. The First Amendment does not permit the government to favor secular organizations over religious ones. It does not permit the government to favor only the religious organizations of which it approves. It does not permit the government to draft laws in a way that achieves a religious gerrymander to ensure disfavored religious organizations cannot receive certain benefits. And it does not permit courts to second guess whether an organization's religious beliefs are, in fact, religious. The Ninth Circuit panel's decision should be easy since the trial court disregarded the principles in so many ways," Bopp said.
At issue is a mandate from the state of Oregon, that demands health insurance plans pay for abortion.
"Even though ORTL objects to abortion on religious grounds, Oregon declined to provide an exception that would cover ORTL—all while the state did include both secular exceptions and exceptions for other religious organizations in the Mandate. Accordingly, in plain violation of ORTL's religious liberty, the Mandate requires ORTL to purchase employee insurance plans that cover abortion, the very thing ORTL is devoted to fighting against," the law firm's report said.
It is uncertain exactly when the 9th Circuit will issue an opinion on the fight.
Bopp told the court the lower court judge "overlooked several key factors in its determination. For example, although ORTL had provided ample evidence of its religious beliefs, the trial court doubted ORTL's religiosity. Similarly, although the Mandate contains numerous secular exceptions, the district court relied on the single religiously-oriented exception (a minor exception which only gave an exemption to churches) to conclude that the law was favorable to religion. The district court even found that another exception that says nothing at all about religion, but instead focuses on coverage offered in 2017, is nonetheless a religious exception."
The legal team explained, "The government may not require anyone to do something that violates sincere religious belief all while giving others a pass based on secular criteria. Furthermore, the government may not pick and choose religious 'winners' and 'losers' by creating its own definition of 'religious.'"
Lois Anderson, of ORTL, said, "The attempt by the state to force Oregon Right to Life to finance abortion—the precise human rights violation we are dedicated to opposing—is blatantly unconstitutional and obviously unjust."
Sources close to former Vice President Kamala Harris say she is seriously considering a run for governor in California in 2026, but hasn't made a final decision yet.
The sources told The Hill that Harris doesn't consider herself done with public service and that she has a "glimmer in her eye" when she talks about the possibility of running for governor.
“She has a lot of people in her ear telling her that it makes the most sense and she can do the most good,” one source said.
Another source pushed back on the idea that she's seriously considering a gubernatorial run, saying that the frequent conversations about doing so are happening because the time for making a decision is fast approaching.
Harris plans to take some time off in July for self-reflection, and has made a self-imposed deadline at the end of the summer when she will make a final decision, other sources said.
The Democrat primary field is already crowded and includes former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who was also Health and Human Services Secretary under former President Joe Biden.
Harris has an early polling advantage, however.
Emerson College poll results in April showed her with 50% support from California voters, and Politico/UC Berkeley Citrin Center also showed she was the frontrunner in the race.
Despite the early polling lead, some analysts don't think she's necessarily a shoo-in for the race.
“She would start out, at least initially, as the front-runner. There’s no doubt about it because she has 100 percent name ID in California,” California-based Democratic strategist Gary South said. “I think there are real mixed feelings about her among California Democrats, and I think those mixed feelings would grow if she actually got into the race.”
“She doesn’t come into this as an 800-pound gorilla,” he added.
Questions have plagued her as well as Becerra about their awareness of Biden's decline and why they didn't intervene, and those questions would follow her into any political race she decided to enter.
“Voters deserve to know the truth, what did Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra know, when did they know it, and most importantly, why didn’t either of them speak out? This cover up directly led to a second Donald Trump term,” Villaraigosa wrote last month already in an attempt to weaken his potential rivals.
Her devastating loss to Trump in 2024 could also become an issue in her campaign, analysts said.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has been a thorn in the side of just about every other Republican the last few years, stubbornly trying to get them to make real and meaningful budget cuts and avoid adding more to the nation's already enormous debt of $34 trillion.
After Massie sided with Democrats against President Donald Trump's strike last week on Iranian nuclear sites, Trump blasted Massie and pledged on Sunday to go to Kentucky to campaign against him.
“Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Actually, MAGA doesn’t want him, doesn’t know him, and doesn’t respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes ‘NO,’ no matter how good something may be.”
Massie not only opposed Trump's strikes, he called on Congress to pass a joint war powers act resolution to prevent any further action by Trump.
“We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the ‘bomb’ right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!) but, as usual, and despite all of the praise and accolades received, this ‘lightweight’ Congressman is against what was so brilliantly achieved last night in Iran,” Trump said. “Massie is weak, ineffective, and votes ‘NO’ on virtually everything put before him (Rand Paul, Jr.), no matter how good something may be.”
He predicted that Massie would vote against the Senate version of the "big beautiful bill" and told his supporters to “drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!”
He then promised to support an effort to primary Massie and campaign against him.
“The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I’ll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard,” Trump pledged. “MAGA is not about lazy, grandstanding, nonproductive politicians, of which Thomas Massie is definitely one. Thank you to our incredible military for the AMAZING job they did last night. It was really SPECIAL!!! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.”
Massie is admirable in his dedication to conservative ideals, but it seems like he has no idea of the political realities that make it very difficult to get a perfectly conservative bill through Congress.
It's all too easy to criticize current leadership and insist on legislation that will never make it through Congress; it's much harder to compromise and make a deal that will actually get enough support to pass both houses of Congress.
Trump prides himself on making deals, which requires give and take as well as flexibility.
The Senate removed many provisions of the bill that were popular with conservatives, including the ability of judges to impose nationwide restraining orders and injunctions and the repeal of the EPA's emission limits for cars.
The provisions were removed because the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, said that they violated the Senate's rules.
Some of the provisions could be restored to the bill if they are modified to better fit within the Senate's parameters.
President Donald Trump was in compliance with the War Powers Resolution when he ordered strikes on three nuclear testing sites in Iran, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said on NewsNation on Sunday.
Congress was notified of the strikes "well within" the 48-hour window required, Rounds said in an interview that pushed back on critics who said Trump acted outside his constitutional authority.
“The Constitution clearly gives the President the authority to act on our nation’s behalf,” Rounds said.
“Second of all, the War Powers Act, which is in place, was responded to appropriately. They were supposed to notify congressional leaders within 48 hours. They were well within that range of notifying them of the actions [that] were taken, so the law has been complied with. The Constitution is being complied with,” Rounds continued.
In Rounds' view, the Constitution was being applied just as “the founders wanted it to work.”
”The president is the chief. The commander in chief has the responsibility. Our Founding Fathers were brilliant in the way they wrote the Constitution. They understood that Congress takes a long time to act. They also understood that in times in military conflict or in times of great danger or emergencies that the president needed the authority to be able to respond quickly and effectively and decisively,” he said.
“This president did just exactly that. It is working the way the founders wanted it to work in the first place,” Rounds added.
Congress was notified of the strikes after bomber planes were safely out of Iran's airspace, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said.
It makes total sense that Trump would not want some members of Congress like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) to know about a planned attack in coordination with Israel, given their anti-Semitic comments and positions.
Clearly, he couldn't trust some Democrats to maintain confidentiality with the press or even with our enemies, as treasonous as that would be.
Rounds had a warning for Iran in another interview with The Hill on Sunday.
He said it was "time Iran understands they will never have a nuclear weapon" and that "there will be a price to pay" if they continue to be a "purveyor of terrorism" in the region.
WATCH: @SenatorRounds warns Iran to "give up your nuclear ambitions or there's more to come" during an interview with @ChrisStirewalt on "The Hill Sunday." pic.twitter.com/WT5fIlAqdl
— The Hill (@thehill) June 22, 2025
Some reports about the strikes have said that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) were briefed about the strikes, but Democrats like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said that Trump was wrong for not getting congressional authorization before the strikes and demanded that the full Congress be briefed.
Michelle Obama made headlines recently with her candid comments about being a mother on her podcast, "IMO," saying she's glad she didn't have a son, the Daily Mail reported.
As speculation mounts over the state of the Obama marriage, Michelle has prompted further interest with a solo trip to Spain.
Michelle spurred conversations by expressing relief over not having a son, humorously noting he might have turned out like former President Barack Obama. Her remarks came amid ongoing gossip about the solidity of their marriage, a topic Michelle has consistently addressed over time.
The whisperings of discord began circulating when Barack attended a series of prominent events without Michelle by his side. This absence led observers to question the couple's personal life, a subject both Barack and Michelle have tackled head-on through supportive public statements.
Michelle fueled speculation by embarking on a trip to Mallorca, Spain, accompanied by her daughters and friends, but notably not her husband. This decision added fuel to whispers of marital difficulties, despite her ongoing reassurances about their relationship's resilience.
The former first lady remains open about marriage's inherent challenges, consistently emphasizing its demands. She has often been heard highlighting her and Barack's commitment to working through difficulties, painting him as an exceptional father and partner.
Beyond discussions about marriage, Michelle has shared lighthearted insights on parenting. Comparing it to fly fishing, she humorously explains it’s not about rushing but rather about engaging with care and precision.
The former first lady also addressed her discomfort with being labeled primarily through her husband's identity. She expressed a preference for being addressed by her first name, underscoring her individuality outside her role as the spouse of a former president.
Michelle similarly supports her daughter, Malia, in doing the same. Advocating for independence, she praised Malia's choice to adopt her first name professionally, allowing her to cultivate her unique identity.
Despite the persistent rumors, the Obamas have appeared together publicly, signaling an intact unity. They have been seen enjoying each other’s company during outings like a date night in New York City and various dinners around Washington, D.C.
The couple's presence at these outings disputes the ongoing narrative of discord, presenting a contrasting picture to some speculation. Michelle underlines this through her casual remarks that if their marriage were, indeed, troubled, it would be evident to all.
Moreover, Michelle assures that, despite the tough times, she cherishes her relationship with Barack and regards it with great value. Acknowledging the rumors, she repeats that their connection, nurtured over years of partnership, would not be easily dismissed.
Yet, the speculation has not been an entirely welcome aspect of public life for Michelle. Her comments reveal the tension between maintaining a personal identity and meeting public expectations, a balance she believes many women strive to achieve.
The surprise over the Obamas' absence from events like the NBA All-Star Game has only intensified curiosity about their relationship status. However, recent public outings demonstrate an apparent continuity in their partnership.
In closing, Michelle Obama remains consistent in her message of unity and resilience. Her statements not only clarify her stance on family but also illuminate broader themes of identity and partnership. Though the rumors persist, the Obamas appear steadfast in their shared journey, characterized by mutual support and understanding.
President Donald Trump stunned the country and the world on Saturday after he announced that he greenlit a legendary operation to bomb Iran's remaining nuclear sites using B-2 stealth bombers and submarine-fired cruise missiles.
According to the Washington Examiner, shortly after Trump confirmed that the attack was a success, his Truth Social platform briefly crashed, though it was brought back online less than 30 minutes later.
While the reason for the crash is still undetermined, the likely cause is the presumptuous spike in traffic to the platform where Trump typically announces news first before the rest of the media picks it up.
Others on social media who noticed that the platform was down wondered if it could have been a retaliatory cyber attack by Iran or one of its proxies, which is expected in the wake of the successful U.S. strike on its nuclear facilities.
The eyes of the entire world were on Iran since Saturday night, wondering what, if anything, the country will do in response to the United States' devastating attack that marked a catastrophic blow to the country's nuclear program.
While the country threatened to get even with the United States, it hasn't yet, and has only continued to fire missiles into Israel.
Israel's missile defense systems have neutralized a vast majority of the Iranian missiles that target the country and some of its major cities, but some to do manage to get through and cause significant damage.
Even since the strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, President Trump has called for peace from Iran, though the country and its leaders do not look like they're very much interested in that concept.
Many believe if Iran foolishly decides to retaliate against a U.S. base or asset in the region, it will lead to chaos as Trump has promised to cause even greater destruction to the country if that's the path it chooses.
At the time of this publication, Iran has not retaliated against any U.S. bases or assets.
Many across social media weighed in on the current state of affairs as the world waits to see what Iran does next.
"President Trump didn’t bomb Iran…he targeted nuclear facilities within Iran. There’s a big difference. Let’s be accurate with our words. His actions weren’t aimed at the Iranian people, but at the Islamic regime and its pursuit of nuclear weapons," one X user explained.
Another X user wrote, "Trump showed restraint and strength."
It'll be interesting to see how the situation unfolds in the coming days and weeks.
The Pelosis aren't just rich, they're filthy rich, and somehow, they keep getting astonishingly more richer by the year as Nancy continues to hold office and pulls in record returns on her market trading.
According to the New York Post, Pelosi added millions to her net worth last year and pulled in better returns on her portfolio than some of the largest and most experienced hedge funds in the United States.
Her net worth with venture capitalist husband Paul Pelosi skyrocketed to nearly $413 million in 2024. Her defenders will call it a coincidence, while many reasonable people are calling shenanigans.
Pelosi has long been accused of using her high-powered, knowledge-heavy position in Congress to make an amazing run on Wall Street for several decades now.
While it's a continuation of the magical ability of Pelosi's stock-picking prowess, many are paying extra attention this time around as the new net worth of the California couple has skyrocketed since 2023.
In 2023, they topped out at $370 million, which isn't too shabby. But in 2024 that total went to $413 million. Even crazier is that their true net worth isn't even known, as only Nancy is required by law to disclose her finances.
The Pelosis could -- and probably are -- worth substantially more than that, as in addition to their stock market game, they're also involved in several business ventures.
Tbe NY Post noted:
But the value of their various other ventures — which include but are not limited to a Napa Valley winery, ownership in a political data and consulting firm and a stake in a Bay area Italian restaurant — mean Pelosi’s worth could be far higher in the estimated range.
Notably, virtually all of the Pelosi's stock trading activity is done under Paul Pelosi's name.
Their stock trading "luck" is off the charts, as the Post noted:
The former House Speaker, who’s so infamous for trading Missouri Rep. Josh Hawley named a bill after her, and her husband dumped 5,000 shares of Microsoft stock worth an estimated $2.2 million in July — one of their largest sales in three years — a few short months before the FTC announced an antitrust investigation into the tech giant.
Plenty of social media users reacted to the news of Pelosi's windfall in 2024.
Pelosi raked millions last year — and her portfolio out-performed every large hedge fund with stunning returns https://t.co/uqBtKDnetn pic.twitter.com/5ONwA4mmYb
— New York Post (@nypost) June 21, 2025
"Because she inside trades. She’s a con artist," one X user claimed
Another X user wrote, "It's called insider trading in the real world. Congress cheats and gets away with it."