President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order repealing a 13,000-word restriction on the amount of water that can flow through a showerhead, The Western Journal reported.
“Overregulation chokes the American economy and stifles personal freedom. A small but meaningful example is the Obama-Biden war on showers,” Trump wrote in the executive order.
Trump joked with reporters about the restriction and its impact on his shower regimen.
“In my case, I like to take a nice shower to take care of my beautiful hair,” he said as he signed the order, a video posted to X showed.
“I have to stand in the shower 15 minutes until it gets wet,” Trump said. “It comes out drip, drip, drip. It’s ridiculous."
NOW: President Trump signs executive order to de-regulate water pressure
"I like to take a nice shower to take care of my beautiful hair." 🤣 pic.twitter.com/tIObqakZgS
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) April 9, 2025
Trump also said he believed that people just used more water over a longer period of time from a restricted showerhead.
“And what you do is you end up washing your hands five times longer, so, same water,” he continued. “We’re going to open it up, so that people can live.”
“Any time you see a new faucet you know it’s going to be a long wash of the hands. … It’s a big deal.”
A fact sheet about the order said it would “end the Obama-Biden war on water pressure and make America’s showers great again."
“The Order frees Americans from excessive regulations that turned a basic household item into a bureaucratic nightmare. No longer will showerheads be weak and worthless,” it continued.
Trump originally rescinded the regulation during his first term, but former President Joe Biden re-imposed it when he got into office.
"Americans pay for their own water and should be free to choose their showerheads without federal meddling,” the fact sheet further said.
Trump further noted that his predecessor “aggressively targeted everyday appliances like gas stoves, water heaters, washing machines, furnaces, dishwashers, and more, waging war on the reliable tools Americans depend on daily.”
A federal judge has given the green light to a controversial plan introduced by the Trump administration.
The court ruled against a lawsuit filed by nonprofit organizations and allowed the Trump administration to implement an online registration requirement for illegal immigrants aged 14 and above, permitting serious penalties for noncompliance, as the New York Post reports.
In February, the plan was announced by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as part of a larger scheme to monitor illegal immigration. Under this new system, immigrants must disclose specific personal information, including their fingerprints and residential addresses. Failing to register could lead to significant fines or potential imprisonment for up to six months.
The announcement of the registry prompted several nonprofit organizations to take legal action. Groups such as CHIRLA, the United Farmworkers of America, Make the Road New York, and CASA filed a lawsuit in an attempt to halt the implementation of the registry. They argued that the registry caused "speculative" harm and sought to delay its implementation pending a public comment period.
On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden dismissed the lawsuit. In his decision, McFadden pointed to the historical precedents that sanction such registries, referencing the Alien Registration Act of 1940 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. These acts provide a legal foundation for the registration of aliens within U.S. borders.
McFadden concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail in their claims. His ruling emphasized that the harms alleged by the nonprofit organizations were not proven concretely enough. Further, he noted that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary standing to pursue the case further.
The presence of an online registration requirement for illegal immigrants stems indirectly from an executive order entitled "Protecting the American People Against Invasion." This order was issued earlier in the Trump administration and reflects ongoing efforts to bolster U.S. immigration policies.
USCIS has stressed that many aliens in the United States are already registered, following existing laws. However, a substantial number reportedly have not had the opportunity to fulfill this obligation due to the absence of a structured registration method. Consequently, the agency plans to introduce a new form and process to accommodate these individuals who remain unregistered.
In statements provided by the USCIS, the agency articulated the necessity for a new registration form. Officials aim to ensure that no alien will have a valid excuse for failing to comply with the registration duties under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This requisite process aligns with the long-standing legal framework that governs alien registration in the U.S.
The establishment of an online registry marks a significant development in immigration policy under the Trump administration. The requirement does not just facilitate the collection of biometric data but also strengthens the government's grip on immigration control.
For individuals directly affected by this new requirement, understanding the registry's implications is crucial. Immigrants in the U.S. aged 14 and over now face the decision of whether to comply with the registration. Non-compliance risks severe penalties, a factor that may weigh heavily in the community's response to this directive.
The reaction from the broader public and the affected immigrant communities is yet to be fully seen. Nonprofit organizations, despite the court setback, continue to emphasize the perceived risks and potential harm of such a registry. They advocate for immigrant rights and seek to adjust policy measures that they believe may infringe upon these rights.
As the registration goes into effect, attention will undoubtedly turn to its implementation and enforcement. Whether the registration requirement achieves its intended goals, and how alien registration and enforcement policies evolve, remains to be seen. It represents an intensification of measures aimed at managing illegal immigration and its effectiveness will likely garner significant scrutiny.
While McFadden's ruling allows the registry to proceed, the broader immigration debate continues to simmer. Advocacy groups may look for alternative approaches or legal avenues to challenge or adapt immigration policy further.
The new registry presents fresh challenges and opportunities within the U.S. immigration landscape. The balance between regulatory oversight and immigrant rights will continue to be a pivotal issue in discussions and policy-making efforts going forward.
Elon Musk has accused Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) of having ulterior motives for defending "fraud" in the federal government.
Musk was responding to a post from Schumer claiming that DOGE is "sabotaging Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."
“Chuck, I’m starting to think you’re getting a piece of the action with the government fraud,” Musk wrote on X. “But no, that couldn’t possibly be the reason, could it?”
“Another Elon lie,” Schumer replied. “He wants you to think anyone who dares to stand up to him is committing fraud, meanwhile he’s taking tens of billions from the government."
Programs like Medicare and Social Security have long been considered untouchable by politicians in both parties, and President Donald Trump has pledged to leave them alone.
But Democrats, still struggling to oppose Trump months after his historic re-election, have cast Musk's work through DOGE as a sinister effort to snatch benefits from the poor and elderly.
"Make no mistake: What Elon Musk is doing at Social Security is cutting benefits," Schumer said in another post.
"The intern running Schumer’s social media account is lying," Musk replied.
While DOGE is not cutting payments -- benefits are mandated by Congress -- Democrats say Musk is creating chaos for beneficiaries that is just as bad.
"When offices close down, when websites crash, when phone lines shut off, that's no different than cutting benefits," Schumer said.
Musk claims to have exposed rampant fraud within the system, accusing Democrats of enrolling illegal aliens in Social Security to buy up votes.
It was not long ago that Democrats shared Musk's concerns about fraud. A 1996 clip of Schumer that Musk shared shows the senator calling for checks on Social Security fraud to discourage illegal immigration.
“One way to prove you’re a bona fide person who has a job is to ask for a driver’s license and a social security card,” Schumer said in the clip. “If you want to stop fraud in immigration, you have no choice but to support this amendment.”
Schumer has been a fixture in Washington, D.C. for decades, but his handling of a recent spending battle with Trump and the GOP has raised questions among Democrats about Schumer's leadership. Some Democrats think Schumer has been too cautious in the face of Trump's aggressive overhaul of the government.
In his latest bold move, Trump facilitated the listing of thousands of immigrants on the Social Security rolls as deceased to encourage self-deportation.
A judge has refused to dismiss a defamation case against President Donald Trump brought by the so-called Central Park Five, Newsweek reported. Trump repeated accusations about the men Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise, who had their 1989 conviction overturned decades later.
The group was convicted of brutally raping Central Park jogger Trisha Meili after offering their confessions to police. The initial crime made headlines for its brutality among those allegedly involved, as did their later dismissal.
Trump, a New Yorker, was incensed over the crime and urged the city to "bring back the death penalty" in a full-page New York Daily News ad at the time. Trump doubled down on them during his 2016 campaign, though by then, the courts had already overturned their conviction.
Trump said that "they admitted they were guilty" and "the police doing the original investigation say they were guilty." Trump made similar remarks again in the 2024 election during a debate with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.
During the debate, Harris goaded Trump about the full-page ad to smear his tough-on-crime image. "They come up with things like what she just said going back many, many years when a lot of people, including Mayor Bloomberg, agreed with me on the Central Park Five," Trump pointed out.
He said the five men "admitted—they said, they pled guilty, and I said, well, if they pled guilty, they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately. And if they pled guilty—then they pled we're not guilty," Trump incorrectly recalled.
Based on these statements, Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that she would not dismiss the case on the grounds that he was sharing an opinion. Because Trump's statements "can be 'objectively determined' to be false," his claims "must be construed as one of fact, not opinion," the judge wrote in her decision.
"The Defendant, in his briefs, urges the Court to contextualize the statement as a response to Harris's statement sixty seconds before and to interpret the statement as his recollections of why he placed the 1989 ad. Before addressing that point, however, as an initial matter it is necessary to determine exactly on what portions of the statement Plaintiffs premise their claims," Beetlestone went on.
"Given that Defendant's communications were reasonably capable of conveying the particular meaning ascribed to them by the plaintiff, the next question is 'whether that meaning is defamatory in character,'" she later added. The only point Beetlestone gave to Trump was that the plaintiffs did not prove they endured "severe emotional distress and reputation damage" from his statements.
Although the Central Park Five had their case dismissed, conservative commentator Ann Coulter believes there are more questions about their involvement. In her October 2024 substack post, Coulter contended that this lawsuit might actually be a net negative for them.
"I'm not sure the Central Park Five really want a civil trial on what happened the night of April 19, 1989, but by suing Donald Trump for defamation, that's what they're going to get," she wrote. Coulter pointed out that many troubling facts were never explained away despite the dismissal.
"This is a wonderful opportunity to prove the truth in a court of law! They asked for it," She added. Coulter made the case that the accused then-teenagers admitted to being in the park, and some even admitted they had a role in victimizing Meili.
Their confessions were videotaped, with some of the boys' parents present, before Meili had even awoken from a coma. "Weren't the detectives worried that if they bullied five innocent boys into making false confessions, the jogger might suddenly emerge from her coma and be able to identify her attackers? What if she woke up and blurted out, “My boyfriend did it!”?" Coulter pointed out.
The fact that this case will continue on may shed some light on what really happened that night. If nothing else, it's another chance for Trump to clear his name against people who have tried anything they can to get to him.
Boston City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson, who was arrested for federal public corruption last year, has accepted a plea deal, the UK Daily Mail reported. The Democratic politician known for her brashness gave interviews only to two favorable news outlets to announce her resignation.
Fernandes Anderson was implicated in a "complicated kickback scheme" that netted her some $7,000. She funneled a $13,000 inflated bonus from city funds to a relative who works as a staff member for her.
Prosecutors say Fernandes Anderson took the majority of that bonus. She has agreed to plead guilty to one count of theft concerning a program receiving federal funds and another count of wire fraud.
By accepting the deal, Fernandes Anderson avoided four additional charges of wire fraud that each carried a possible 20 years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. This puts an end to a fraught stint in government, which began in 2021 when she was elected as the first Muslim and African immigrant to serve on the city council.
At first, Fernandes Anderson refused to resign after she was arrested for the scheme in December 2024 and wouldn't speak to the media except those who were gentle with her. This week, she told Boston Magazine in an exclusive that she would be stepping down.
The news outlet did not disappoint in glowing coverage of the politician accused of corruption. It ran a piece, "The Rise and Fall of Boston City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson," published on Wednesday that attempted to spin her legal woes in the most favorably.
"From raising her siblings to serving her district to handing out city jobs to loved ones, the city's first African immigrant councilor built her life around helping others at any cost. And that, it turned out, was precisely the problem," the subheading explained.
Meanwhile, Fernandes Anderson also spoke to NBC10 for more gentle treatment. "I'm not just a mom to two boys, as you know, I have actually four sons, with my stepsons. I'm soon to be a grandma," Fernandes Anderson told the news outlet.
"How do I do the right thing to ensure that my family is safe, is stable?" Fernandes Anderson added. This was the same news outlet she let exclusively follow her into her government office after her arrest.
Regardless of the type of media coverage she receives, the Boston Globe reported that her constituents are not happy with Fernandes Anderson's antics. For 59-year-old Carmen Thomas-Jones, the arrest was an eye-opening experience.
“You’re here to serve the people, not serve your purpose. To get a kickback from somebody? No, that’s not how we do things, and it’s a bad representation of the Black community. ... I’m very appalled at her behavior," Thomas-Jones said.
Another Bostonian, 56-year-old Marijke Simmons, was "disappointed" in Fernandes Anderson. "I don’t like thieves, period. That’s what it comes down to. ... [I’m] very disappointed," Simmons said.
Her alleged crimes were by no means the first time Fernandes Anderson embarrassed her constituents. A 2022 obscenity-laced race-baiting rant went viral on social media when she said during official proceedings, "What the f--- do I have to do in this f---ing council in order to get respect as a Black woman?"
Fernandes Anderson has the presumption of innocence under American law, including for this alleged corruption. However, the accusations are serious and would undermine her integrity if they prove to be true, and Bostonians won't be pleased.
The White House is ignoring e-mails from journalists who list their preferred gender pronouns in the signature line.
The Trump administration says the policy will filter out reporters who put ideology above truth and accuracy.
Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has been pushing back on the transgender movement, which has grown increasingly unpopular. Trump has focused especially on the impact of transgender policies on women and girls.
As a matter of policy, the White House recognizes two biological sexes. Consistent with that stance, the administration is snubbing journalists who fail to acknowledge biological reality.
The New York Times reported the new approach, saying some of its reporters have been dismissed by White House officials.
“As a matter of policy, I don’t respond to people who use pronouns in their signatures as it shows they ignore scientific realities and therefore ignore facts,” DOGE adviser Katie Miller wrote in one e-mail. “This applies to all reporters who have pronouns in their signature.”
“Any reporter who chooses to put their preferred pronouns in their bio clearly does not care about biological reality or truth and therefore cannot be trusted to write an honest story," press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the New York Times.
The New York Times issued a statement condemning the administration's policy as a petty and "baffling" choice.
This is not the first time the administration has clashed with its media critics over language.
The White House has sought to block the Associated Press over its continued use of "Gulf of Mexico", which the AP has maintained for convenience and tradition, despite Trump renaming it the Gulf of America.
Of course, it is not the usual practice in today's media to be so tenaciously conservative about words. Associated Press style uses newfangled terms like "gender-affirming care" and urges writers to always refer to individuals by their preferred pronouns. The results, for readers, are not seldom confusing: stories about women's sports, for example, refer to males as transgender "women."
The Trump administration's efforts to corral the "Fake News" have not been successful all of the time. A federal judge this week ordered the White House to restore access to the AP on First Amendment grounds.
“Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists -- be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere -- it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints,” U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden wrote.
Prince William and his wife are said to be facing a "dilemma" as they split over their son George's education.
As reported by the Daily Mail, William wants their 11-year-old son George to attend Eton College, but Princess Catherine prefers other options.
“It’s the talk of the school, and of the parents,” a source told the Daily Mail.
Prince William and his brother, Prince Harry, both attended Eton, an all-boys boarding school that has been associated with the British elite for centuries.
Eton is the traditional choice for young royals, but the Waleses have other options. They have also toured Marlborough College in Wiltshire, Kate's former school, and two schools in London's affluent Highgate suburbs.
Unlike Eton, Marlborough is co-educational, so George could attend the school together with his siblings.
Meanwhile, the Princess of Wales is said to be impressed with the theater department at Highgate School, the Daily Mail reported.
One factor weighing in Eton's favor is distance. Eton is a short walk from the family home at Adelaide Cottage in Windsor, while Highgate is 30 miles away in London.
The Prince of Wales is said to favor Elon, where he excelled in academics and sports, but the school's intimidating reputation could weigh on the family's decision.
William's brother had a miserable experience there, as he recalled in his best-selling memoir Spare, saying that it was "heaven for brilliant boys, it could thus only be purgatory for one very unbrilliant boy.”
"The situation became undeniably obvious during my very first French lesson. I was astounded to hear the teacher conducting the entire class in rapid, nonstop French. He assumed, for some reason, that we were all fluent," he wrote.
Prince William and Princess Kate share three kids: Prince George, the eldest, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. The children all attend the same prep school in the Berkshire countryside, Lambrook School.
Prince George, who turns 12 in July, is the second in line to the throne, making his education a subject of keen public interest.
Prince William, the heir apparent, caused a stir recently by dropping the royal family's longtime attorneys, in a move seen as a bid for independence.
Adding to the intrigue, William recently hired the attorneys his late mother Princess Diana used in her divorce from William's father, King Charles.
"William wants to do things differently from his father and wants to be seen to do them differently," a source told the Daily Mail.
In a bid to counter allegations of voter fraud, lawyers for Tulsi Gabbard have sent a stern cease and desist letter to CNN. The letter warns against publishing a report that accuses her of illegally voting in Hawaii during the 2024 election, despite owning property in Texas. Gabbard's representation argues that such allegations are baseless and damaging.
Gabbard’s legal representatives emphasize her continued residency in Hawaii, asserting her right to vote there while maintaining property elsewhere. The controversy stems from CNN's alleged plan to claim that she committed voter fraud by voting in Hawaii, contrary to her property ownership in Texas. Gabbard’s team insists she is a legal resident and taxpayer in Hawaii, thus eligible to vote there.
The legal letter, sent on April 4, outlines the reasons behind her property dealings and residency status. The letter explains that Gabbard's assets have been registered under a Texas homestead exemption. Her lawyers state this measure was taken to protect her privacy and security in light of credible threats against her and her family. According to the legal team, this does not change her residency status from Hawaii to Texas.
In response to the potential report by CNN, Gabbard's attorneys outline several legal defenses. They contend that Texas law does not equate homestead status with permanent residency, which means Gabbard did not relinquish her Hawaii residency by claiming a Texas homestead exemption. Her team cites court cases supporting the notion that such exemptions offer privacy benefits without altering registered residency.
These arguments aim to clarify the distinction between property ownership and voting rights, particularly in states as disparate as Hawaii and Texas. By maintaining her ties to Hawaii, Gabbard continues to fulfill her obligations as a local resident. Her attorneys argue that the allegations from CNN are "demonstrably false" and harmful, posing risks to her reputation.
Olivia Coleman, a spokesperson for Gabbard, has condemned the impending claims in strong terms. Coleman refers to the alleged accusations as an "illegitimate" representation of voter fraud, marking a new low for CNN. She insists Gabbard’s decision to vote in Hawaii aligns with her tax-paying residence in the state.
The cease and desist letter also confronts CNN with the charge that their report qualifies as defamation. As presented by Gabbard’s legal team, such accusations would imply criminal behavior on her part, inherently tarnishing her standing. The letter urges CNN to reconsider the potential impact of spreading unverified and damaging information.
Gabbard's occupation in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence adds another layer to the discourse. It requires her to frequently travel to Virginia, underscoring her multiple residence arrangements. This detail, her lawyers assert, strengthens her claim of Hawaiian residency against CNN's narrative.
The legal dispute raises significant questions about the intersection of media, privacy, and the law. The threat of a lawsuit looms large, promising possible upheavals in how such cases are addressed moving forward. As of now, CNN has not publicly responded with a decision on whether to move forward with the contentious report.
Faced with these developments, CNN may find itself navigating a complex legal terrain. Should the network opt to publish the report, it risks inciting a high-profile defamation lawsuit. Such a legal conflict could further influence journalistic practices regarding sensitive allegations.
Gabbard's legal response underscores the significant consideration given to reputational damage. Her legal counsels have described the potential publication as a "smear job" consistent with what they label as a discredited media outlet. The emphasis lies heavily on the impact such reports could have on Gabbard's personal and professional life.
In light of this legal contention, the broader ramifications may affect how security concerns and residential disclosures intersect with public life. As public figures navigate these challenges, similar cases may inspire changes in how property laws are perceived about voting and residency rights. The resolution of this conflict remains to be seen.
The House passed legislation Wednesday to limit lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions, a power that many say has been abused by "activist" judges to block President Trump's agenda.
The bill sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) passed 219-213. No Democrats voted for the bill, which restricts the scope of court injunctions to just the parties involved, rather than letting judges block a policy nationwide.
A similar bill has been proposed in the Senate by Josh Hawley (MO), but it faces little chance of getting enough Democratic votes to pass.
While nationwide injunctions have faced bi-partisan criticism in the past, Democrats are embracing them to slow down Trump's agenda.
In some cases, district court judges - nominated in many cases by Democratic presidents, although not exclusively so - have ordered Trump to hire back thousands of federal employees or even return foreign nationals deported from the United States.
Frustration with this "judicial activism" has led to calls for impeachment, but Issa's bill takes a more moderate course.
Issa said the bill would discourage partisan litigants from seeking out district courts sympathetic to their agenda, a practice known as forum shopping.
“It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan,” Issa said. “To do the right thing at this time is critical.”
Since Trump returned to office, the rate at which district courts have issued injunctions has skyrocketed.
In just the past few months, district courts have already blocked Trump more times than they did during Biden's four years as president, and Obama's eight. While Trump is not the first president to push the limits of executive power, Democrats say the stark disparity between presidents is simply a consequence of Trump doing "illegal things."
There were 14 injunctions during Biden's term, and 12 during Obama's two terms. That number surged to 64 during Trump's first term - and activist judges are on track to beat that number.
"Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges who they have sought out to take their cases and weaponize nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives,” Issa said.
“These sweeping injunctions represent judicial activism at the worst," he said.
The Supreme Court granted Trump some relief this week, tossing a ruling from Judge James Boasberg, who infamously ordered Trump to turn back deportation flights carrying alleged gang members.
The Biden administration covered up a report on the origins of COVID-19 that suggests American soldiers were infected while traveling in China.
Seven U.S. service members who attended the World Military Games in Wuhan experienced COVID-like symptoms, according to the Washington Free Beacon, which was first to report the new information.
The Biden administration was required by law to release the Defense Department report, but it was not publicly available until the Trump administration quietly uploaded it in March.
The American athletes traveled to and from Wuhan through Seattle, Washington, the Prospect reported in 2020. As some may recall, Washington state was one of the first COVID hotspots in the U.S.
Thousands of athletes attended the military games in Wuhan, which ran for two weeks in October 2019 at a stadium close to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, considered one of the prime culprits for the origin of the outbreak.
Athletes from different countries later reported feeling COVID-like symptoms, and they described the city of Wuhan as oddly desolate.
The U.S. performed bat coronavirus research in Wuhan that was funded by Anthony Fauci, who played a leading role in the initial effort to discredit the lab leak theory that has since gained mainstream acceptance. The CIA now considers a lab leak to be more probable than the wet market scenario that was backed by many scientists at the outset of the pandemic.
The Pentagon has long dismissed questions about the military games and their possible role in the pandemic. Biden's Defense spokesperson John Kirby told the Washington Post that the military was not aware of any service members being infected, even though none of the troops were tested.
The Biden administration's newly public three-page report offers the explanation that testing "was not available at this early stage of the pandemic," so it is impossible to say if the infected service members had COVID or other respiratory illnesses.
The soldiers had COVID-like symptoms from October 18, 2019, through January 21, 2020, and their symptoms cleared within six days, the report says.
"Data surveillance reports from military treatment facilities indicate no statistically significant difference in COVID-19-like symptoms cases at installations with participating athletes when compared to installations without them," the report notes.
The Trump administration only briefly looked at the World Military Games in March 2020, the Washington Post previously reported, because of Chinese propaganda in the early stage of the pandemic blaming U.S. athletes for bringing COVID to Wuhan.
But this new information corroborates the theory that China - and later, Biden - covered up clues about the origin, Republicans say.
"Taxpayers deserve to know the truth about COVID-19 origins, but the Biden administration concealed this information from the American people for years," Senator Joni Ernst told the Free Beacon.
"This report should have been made public immediately and not restricted to Washington insiders. If Americans visiting Wuhan were potentially infected with the COVID-19 virus in October 2019, those claiming the pandemic began in a wet market just two months later would be completely off base."