President Donald Trump has persuaded Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to increase his pledged $600 billion investment in the U.S. to almost $1 trillion, Breitbart reported. The president wooed the Saudi prince with a banquet and a White House flyover featuring American military planes, including three F-15s and three F-35s.
Trump pulled out all of the stops for the crown prince. The president held an Oval Office meeting with the Saudi royal for the press after showing him the "Presidential Walk of Fame," which includes framed pictures of past presidents save for the autopen in place of former President Joe Biden.
The official White House account shared footage of the flyover to X on Tuesday. "JUST NOW: U.S. military jets fly over the White House as President Donald J. Trump welcomes Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the White House," the caption read. It was punctuated by emojis of the American and Saudi flags.
JUST NOW: U.S. military jets fly over the White House as President Donald J. Trump welcomes Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the White House. đşđ¸đ¸đŚ pic.twitter.com/hnsk1N0yMx
â The White House (@WhiteHouse) November 18, 2025
The crown prince was eager to share the announcement with the reporters gathered at the White House. "I believe, Mr. President, today and tomorrow, weâre going to announce that we are going to increase that $600 billion to almost $1 trillion of investment, real investment, and real opportunity by details in many areas," bin Salman said.
"And the agreement that we are signing today in many areas of technology, [artificial intelligence], and materials, magnets, etc, that will create a lot of domestic opportunities," the crown prince added. Trump expressed his gratitude for the change that came just after he said he would like to see the original investment number increased.
"I appreciate that. Thatâs great. Weâre doing numbers that nobodyâs ever done," Trump said. "And in all fairness, if you didnât see potential in the U.S., you wouldnât be doing itâŚ.You donât want to lose money," the president added.
The crown prince complimented the U.S. as the "hottest country on the planet," bin Salman said, adding it was because of Trump. He also noted that Trump was steering the U.S. towards prosperity and further investment interest.
"Itâs about also long-term opportunity in United States of America to effect American economy positively in the next coming decades, preparing theâŚfoundation of emerging technologies thatâs a game changer for America in a good way. And want to be part of it," bin Salman said.
Of course, with such good news abounding, the establishment media was eager to bring up the fact that bin Salman's visit was the first since Jamal Khashoggi was killed at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018, CBS News reported. Khashoggi was a human rights activist and Washington Post reporter, and the CIA claimed that bin Salman allegedly ordered the hit.
For his part, bin Salman has denied any connection to the crime but did say that he felt responsible for Khashoggi's death because it was "committed by individuals working for the Saudi government," he admitted in a 2019 interview. A reporter asked the crown prince about the crime during Tuesday's Oval Office meeting, and Trump chided them for asking.
Trump chimed in that "a lot of people didn't like that gentleman [Khashoggi]" and that bin Salman "knew nothing about it, and we can leave it at that." The president also took the opportunity to smooth things over with the crown prince after that question by praising him.
"We have an extremely respected man in the Oval Office today, and a friend of mine for a long time, a very good friend of mine. I'm very proud of the job, what he's done is incredible in terms of human rights and everything else," Trump said.
World politics is complicated and often requires a delicate touch with people who aren't the most moral. Trump seems to handle this expertly, and has proven that by getting what's best for the U.S. from the crown prince, even if it makes the establishment media angry.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear oral arguments on a case in which a Florida athletic organization would not let a Christian school say a prayer over the loudspeaker before a championship game.
The court's decision in the case of Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association appeared Monday on a list of orders.
It was not signed and no explanation was given for the order.
The appeals court ruling in the case said that the use of the loudspeaker made the prayer "government speech."
Prior to the championship game in 2015 at Citrus Bowl stadium, it was common practice for Cambridge Christian School to say a prayer over the loudspeaker before games.
Cambridge was playing University Christian School in that game, and both teams requested the prayer.
Roger Dearing of FHSAA told the schools that the Citrus Bowl was "a public facility, predominantly paid for with public tax dollars, [making] the facility 'off limits' under federal guidelines and precedent court cases."
"In Florida Statutes, the FHSAA (host and coordinator of the event) is legally a 'State Actor,' we cannot legally permit or grant permission for such an activity," Dearing said at the time.
An appeals court in 2019 reversed a lower court decision upholding the ban, but further appeals reinstated the ban.
The argument given was that FHSAAÂ was essentially regulating its own speech, which doesn't fall under the purview of the First Amendment.
It makes sense given that the two Christian schools were members of FHSAA and would be under its rules and leadership.
If SCOTUS saw the issue similarly, it wouldn't have a reason to take the case.
Though it seems counterintuitive for two teams who both agree they want to have a prayer to be told they can't, it seems that it can happen in a lawful way that makes sense at some level.
The intersection of secular and religious society has become a little too separate for me, but maybe it's for the best in the end.
Hold onto your hats, folksâPresident Donald Trump just dropped a bombshell thatâs got everyone from tech geeks to policy wonks buzzing.
Trumpâs recent comments on the need for H-1B migrant workers to bolster the returning U.S. microchip industry have ignited both support and sharp criticism from his conservative base, with Republican leaders pushing back hard against the visa program, the Daily Caller reported.Â
Letâs rewind to Trumpâs interview with Fox Newsâs Laura Ingraham on November 10, where the H-1B visa topic first came up. He didnât mince words, arguing that America lacks the skilled workforce needed for certain high-tech roles. Itâs a tough pill to swallow for a nation that prides itself on innovation.
On Monday, Trump doubled down, telling reporters that the microchip industryâs return to American soil demands talent we currently donât have. He pointed out that expertise in chip-making has slipped away, largely to Taiwan, due to past leadership failures. Itâs a stark admission from a leader whoâs all about putting America first.
Trump didnât just stop at diagnosing the problem; he painted a vision of revival. He predicted that within a year, the U.S. could claim a hefty slice of the global chip marketâif we can train our people fast enough. Thatâs a big âifâ in a world where tech moves at lightning speed.
Hereâs Trump in his own words: âFor instance, if youâre going to be making chips â we donât make chips too much here anymore, but we are going to be in a period of a year, weâre going to have a big portion of the chip market. But we have to train our people how to make chips, because we didnât get â we used to do it, and then foolishly, we lost that business to Taiwan, very, very foolishly, because if they had a president that thought like I did, they would not have let that happen,â he told reporters. Now, while his passion for bringing jobs back is clear, banking on foreign labor to kickstart this engine raises eyebrows among his staunchest supporters.
Trump didnât hold back on blasting previous administrations for losing the chip industry in the first place. He called the Chips Act a disaster, claiming it handed billions to foreign nations while failing to secure American dominance. Thatâs a zinger aimed straight at the bureaucrats who thought throwing money around was the answer.
He also tied the industryâs decline to a lack of belief in tariffs, arguing that smarter trade policies could have kept nearly 100% of chip production from shifting to Taiwan. Itâs a fair pointâwhy did we let a cornerstone of modern tech slip through our fingers?
Trumpâs optimism shines through when he notes that chip manufacturers are already returning to the U.S. He believes that in a short time, America could lead the world in chip production again. Thatâs the kind of bold prediction his base usually cheersâminus the H-1B curveball.
But not everyone in the conservative camp is clapping. Trumpâs remarks have sparked a firestorm among his political base, who see H-1B visas as a threat to American jobs. Itâs a classic clash between economic pragmatism and the âhire Americanâ ethos.
On November 13, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis fired back with a pointed challenge to Congress. âRepublicans have a majority in Congress and could legislate elimination of H1B (and any programs designed to import cheap foreign labor). Deeds, not words, are what matter,â DeSantis declared. Thatâs a polite but firm nudge to turn rhetoric into action.
Not to be outdone, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced on X that same day that sheâs introducing legislation to phase out the H-1B program entirely. Talk about drawing a line in the sand. Itâs clear some GOP leaders arenât buying Trumpâs temporary fix.
Letâs not forget the irony here: the microchip itself was born in the U.S., thanks to American innovators like Jack Kilby and Robert Noyce. Yet somehow, weâve outsourced the very industry we pioneered. Thatâs not just a policy failure; itâs a national embarrassment.
Trumpâs argument for H-1B workers isnât without meritârebuilding an industry overnight requires talent, wherever it comes from. But leaning on foreign labor risks alienating the very Americans who want those jobs and the training to do them. Itâs a tightrope walk between quick results and long-term loyalty.
So, where does this leave us? Trumpâs vision of a resurgent chip sector is inspiring, but the path heâs chosen has conservatives split down the middle. Maybe itâs time for a serious debate on how to balance immediate needs with the promise of âMade in Americaââwithout losing sight of who weâre building this future for.
Hold onto your hats, folksâthe Supreme Court just sidestepped a contentious fight over a mandated prison project in New Orleans, leaving conservative justices at odds and taxpayers on the hook.
The crux of this saga is simple: the Supreme Court opted not to take up a challenge against a lower court ruling that forces New Orleans to build a new jail, despite a split among its conservative members, Newsweek reported.
This story starts with Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson, who inherited a mess of judicial orders pushing for a new prison before she even took office.
Her legal team argued that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) bars courts from mandating prison construction as a fix, claiming these orders were questionable from the start.
They petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, hoping to halt what they saw as overreach, but the majority of justices said, âNo thanks.â
Enter the conservative wingâs divide: Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch wanted to hear the case, with Alito and Thomas penning a sharp dissent.
Alito didnât hold back, writing, âThis case cried out for our review,â and lamenting that the city is left âto pay for the Fifth Circuitâs serious errorsâ (Justice Samuel Alito, dissent).
Thatâs a polite way of saying the appeals court botched it, and now New Orleans foots the bill for a project many question.
Before reaching the Supreme Court, a district court rejected the cityâs plea to halt the jailâs planning and construction indefinitely, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals backed that call.
Alito criticized the appeals court for flipping the burden of proof, arguing it wrongly placed the onus on the sheriff to justify stopping the project rather than on opponents to defend it.
With a split among circuit courts on who bears that burden, this legal gray area just got murkier, and the Supreme Courtâs pass means no clarity anytime soon.
Meanwhile, the new prisonâdubbed Phase IIIâis already 68.6 percent complete as of mid-July 2025, according to U.S. attorneys opposing the sheriffâs petition.
They argued that even if the Supreme Court took the case, a ruling wouldnât likely come until mid-2026, rendering any decision moot since the facility would probably be finished by then.
Thatâs a pragmatic jab at the sheriffâs fightâwhy bother with a legal battle when the concreteâs already poured?
With the Supreme Court stepping aside, the lower courtâs ruling stands, construction continues, and New Orleans residents are left wondering if this was the right fixâor just another government overstep.
Tragedy struck Utah Valley University (UVU) with the assassination of Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), during a campus event, raising serious questions about security failures.
The heartbreaking incident unfolded on Sept. 10 when Kirk was fatally shot while debating attendees at a TPUSA event, only to be followed by stunning revelations of ignored warnings from his security team, the Daily Caller reported.
Days before the tragedy, on Sept. 8, Brian Harpole of Integrity Security Solutions, who led Kirkâs security detail, flagged a critical vulnerability to UVU Police Chief Long.
Harpole specifically warned about student access to a rooftop near the event location at the Sorenson Center building, a spot disturbingly close to where Kirk would be speaking.
He urged either restricted access to the roof or permission for one of his team members to stand guard there, a reasonable request for any high-profile event.
Chief Longâs response, according to Harpole, was a casual assurance of âI got you covered,â a promise that now rings hollow in the wake of disaster.
On the day of the event, the alleged assassin exploited that very rooftop access Harpole had flagged, using it as a vantage point for the attack before escaping by dropping off the roof.
Video footage captured the suspectâs daring getaway, a chilling reminder of how preventable this might have been with basic precautions.
Authorities moved quickly after the shooting, arresting 22-year-old Tyler Robinson early on Sept. 12, accusing him of the fatal attack on Kirk.
Harpoleâs frustration with UVUâs police response is palpable, as he shared correspondence with Chief Long that seems to show a tragic dismissal of legitimate concerns.
âOn Monday before, this correspondence went to Chief Long. âHello, Chief Long. We received this message today from the student group. There is a student roof access pretty close to where CK will be set up at the Utah Valley,ââ Harpole recounted, painting a picture of proactive concern met with inaction.
âHe comes back and his last correspondence was, âI got you covered.â What else am I to do when a command level person from an accredited police department says, âIâve got this areaâ?â Harpole added, a question that cuts to the heart of this preventable loss.
Shawn Ryan, reacting to Harpoleâs revelations, couldnât hide his shock, exclaiming, âHoly shit,â a sentiment many share as the details emerge.
UVU has remained silent, offering no immediate comment when reached by the Daily Caller News Foundation, leaving the public to wonder if accountability will ever surface. Isnât it time for institutions to prioritize safety over optics, especially when conservative voices like Kirkâs are so often targeted in todayâs hyper-polarized climate?
The assassination of Charlie Kirk isnât just a loss for TPUSA; itâs a stark warning about the dangers of complacency in securing public events. If a simple post at a stairwell, as Harpole suggested, could have saved a life, why wasnât it done? This tragedy demands answers, not excuses, and conservatives across the nation are watching to see if justiceâand changeâwill follow.
Hold onto your hats, folksâPresident Donald Trump just scored a historic win at the United Nations, steering a groundbreaking resolution for peace in Gaza.
On Monday, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution backing Trumpâs 20-point peace plan for Gaza, naming him chairman of the newly formed Board of Peace, with a commanding vote of 13-0-2, Breitbart reported.Â
Letâs rewind a bit to see how this unfolded. Back on October 8, Hamas signed onto the peace plan, a move that raised eyebrows but signaled a potential shift. Then, on October 13, heavyweights like Egyptâs Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Qatarâs Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, and Turkeyâs Recep Tayyip Erdogan officially endorsed the plan alongside Trump.
Trump didnât hold back his gratitude, thanking not just the Security Council nationsâthink China, Russia, France, and the U.K., among othersâbut also key endorsers like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE who supported the resolution early on. Itâs refreshing to see a leader give credit where itâs due, especially when the globalist crowd often snubs such gestures for political posturing.
The vote itself was a powerhouse moment, with countries like Algeria, South Korea, and Slovenia joining the chorus of approval. That 13-0-2 tally isnât just a number; itâs a rare show of unity in a body often paralyzed by vetoes and virtue-signaling. Dare we say, itâs a slap in the face to the endless hand-wringing over âconsensusâ that usually bogs down progress?
Trump himself called it a monumental achievement, writing, âThis will go down as one of the biggest approvals in the History of the United Nations, will lead to further Peace all over the World, and is a moment of true Historic proportion!â (Donald Trump). Now, while some might roll their eyes at the hyperbole, letâs be realâgetting this kind of international nod isnât just a pat on the back; itâs a potential game-changer for a region desperate for stability.
So, whatâs this Board of Peace that Trump now chairs? Itâs tasked with overseeing humanitarian aid, spurring Gazaâs development, and backing a technocratic Palestinian committee to handle civil administration while the Palestinian Authority sorts out its reforms. This isnât just bureaucracy; itâs a lifeline for a battered region.
Then thereâs the International Stabilization Force, a key piece of the resolutionâs framework. This force will focus on securing Gaza, dismantling terrorist networks, decommissioning weapons, and ensuring civilian safety. Itâs a tall order, but security isnât a luxuryâitâs the foundation for any lasting change.
The endgame here is clear: a Gaza free from Hamasâs iron grip, demilitarized, deradicalized, and governed by Palestinians themselves. This isnât about imposing some top-down fantasy; itâs about empowering locals to rebuild without the shadow of violence. Sounds like common sense, not the usual pie-in-the-sky idealism peddled by progressive think tanks.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz laid it out plain and simple, stating, âThe path to prosperity, colleagues, requires security first. Security is the oxygen that governance, that development needs to live and to thrive.â (Mike Waltz). Heâs spot onâwithout a safe environment, all the aid and investment in the world wonât stick.
Waltz further noted that the International Stabilization Force will be pivotal in freeing Gaza from Hamasâs stranglehold while global financial mechanisms will channel funds for reconstruction. Itâs a two-pronged approach: secure the streets, then build the future. If only more international plans ditched the feel-good rhetoric for this kind of pragmatism.
The resolution also opens the door for troop-contributing nations to step up, providing a clear structure for action. Meanwhile, financial institutions now have the tools to direct investments into Gazaâs recovery. This isnât charity; itâs a calculated move to break the cycle of dependency and despair.
Letâs not forget the broader vision hereâGaza governed by its own people, not a terrorist outfit. Thatâs a goal worth fighting for, even if the road is long and littered with skeptics whoâd rather critique than contribute. The Board of Peace, under Trumpâs leadership, might just be the catalyst to make it happen.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed this optimism, stating, âTodayâs UN Security Council resolution endorsing President Trumpâs 20-Point Peace Plan is a historic milestone in building a peaceful and prosperous Gaza governed by the Palestinian peopleânot Hamas.â (Marco Rubio). While the left might scoff at such bold claims, the fact is, this plan prioritizes real outcomes over endless negotiations.
At the end of the day, this resolution is a rare moment of clarity in a world often muddled by political correctness and indecision. Itâs a step toward a Gaza where security and self-governance arenât just buzzwords but tangible realities. If Trump and his allies can pull this off, itâll be a middle finger to the naysayers whoâve long written off peace as a pipe dream.
President Donald Trump has reversed course to call for House Republicans to "vote to release" the files of disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Breitbart reported. The president hopes this will allow the nation "to move on from this Democrat Hoax" that has been used to smear Trump as an alleged associate of his.Â
Republicans have been demanding the files that are thought to contain the names of Epstein's clients who may have abused the trafficking victims. Trump seems to have reversed course on this issue after getting blowback from both sides for dismissing the importance of this information.
Now, Trump is urging the vote to release the files and hopes to take the issue off the table. He said as much in a post to his Truth Social on Sunday to reiterate remarks he made on Friday about the next steps for Congress.
Trump had told reporters aboard Air Force One that he was in favor of the GOP voting to release the Epstein files "because we have nothing to hide and itâs time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party," the president charged. Trump claimed it was all an effort to distract from Republican successes.
The president went on to say that "thousands of pages" were already released by the Justice Department on "operatives," including former President Bill Clinton, Democratic donor Reid Hoffman, and others with a "relationship to Epstein." Trump said moving on was imperative so that Republicans could get back to their job fighting the insanity of the left.
"All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT, which is the Economy, âAffordabilityâ (where we are winning BIG!), our Victory on reducing Inflation from the highest level in History to practically nothing, bringing down prices for the American People, delivering Historic Tax Cuts, gaining Trillions of Dollars of Investment into America (A RECORD!), the rebuilding of our Military, securing our Border, deporting Criminal Illegal Aliens, ending Men in Womenâs Sports, stopping Transgender for Everyone, and so much more!" Trump went on. He then p;ointed out Democratic hypocricy on the issue.
"Nobody cared about Jeffrey Epstein when he was alive and, if the Democrats had anything, they would have released it before our Landslide Election Victory. Some 'members' of the Republican Party are being 'used,' and we canât let that happen. Letâs start talking about the Republican Partyâs Record Setting Achievements, and not fall into the Epstein 'TRAP,' which is actually a curse on the Democrats, not us. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Trump concluded.
This reversal comes after Democrats attempted to use the files against Trump by insinuating he was somehow involved in Epstein's seedy behavior because the financier referred to him in his private emails, CNN reported. Of course, Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, who committed suicide in April, never implicated Trump despite having worked as a locker room attendant at Mar-a-Lago.
With Trump's blessing, the files could soon be released as the House and Senate have both agreed to do so. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said as much in a statement on Tuesday. "Once the House passes the bill to release the Epstein files today, I will move for the Senate to immediately take it up and pass it â period," Schumer said.
"Republicans have spent months trying to protect Donald Trump and hide whatâs in the files. Americans are tired of waiting and are demanding to see the truth," Schumer added.
Perhaps the elderly senator can be excused for forgetting that Trump has only been in office since January. Epstein has been dead since 2010, so there was no legal reason to hold off on releasing the files while then-President Joe Biden was in office, and yet Democrats like Schumer were not so adamant to have them released.
It's also suspicious that the left tried to throw everything at Trump while he was running for president, but they never could pin any of the Epstein crimes on him. Now they think they will get him this time, and Trump has decided to release the files to take the issue off the table.
Trump is wrong that only the Democrats care about this issue, but he's right to go ahead and release the files. The American people are demanding answers, and even if it's phony support, there's no bipartisan agreement that the time has come. Whether we'll finally get any real answers or revelations is another matter entirely, unfortunately.
President Donald Trump announced Monday that he will make good on a promise to return money collected from tariffs back to the American people, Fox News reported. The president has promised to distribute "hundreds of millions of dollars in tariff money" by the middle of next year.Â
When Trump was elected and began imposing tariffs, the left was apoplectic about the president's use of this measure against foreign nations. They claimed that it would worsen inflation and make Americans pay more for everything if Trump imposed tariffs on China and other nations during his "Liberation Day" rollout in April.
However, Trump stayed the course and promised that the payoff would be better trade deals for America and a better economy. It also means the government will be able to issue $2,000 rebate checks to all but the highest earners.
"We've taken in hundreds of millions of dollars in tariff money. We're going to be issuing dividends probably by the middle of next year, maybe a little bit later than that," Trump said in the Oval Office to reporters.
Trump gave the first indication of his plan last weekend. In a post to his Truth Social on Nov. 9, the president shared about the success of his tariffs and called out his naysayers.
He also shared that he planned to give back some of the funds earned from those tariffs. "People that are against Tariffs are FOOLS!" Trump wrote in his post.
"We are now the Richest, Most Respected Country In the World, With Almost No Inflation, and A Record Stock Market Price," Trump wrote. "401kâs are Highest EVER. We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion," the president noted.
"Record Investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place. A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone," Trump promised.
While Trump is eager to get the money back into Americans' hands, CNN reported that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that it wouldn't be that simple. According to Bessent, a move like that would require congressional approval rather than a presidential fiat.
"We will see. We need legislation for that," Bessent said Sunday on Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures program, though he acknowledged that they "could go out" next year.
There's also a chance that the Supreme Court could eliminate Trump's tariffs that the president put into effect using an emergency provision. The court is currently examining the issue of how those tariffs were imposed and whether he had the authority to do so, though Bessent believes the administration is safe from a reversal, considering the impact it would cause.
"I donât think this ruling is going to go against us, but if it does, whatâs (the Supreme Courtâs) plan for refunds? Because how is this going to get to consumers? Are they just going to hand some of these importers big windfalls?â Bessent said. "I donât think the Supreme Court wants to wade into a mess like that," he added.
Trump has attempted to restore domestic manufacturing through tariffs while ensuring trade imbalances are corrected. He promised to do all of that and to return the dividends to the American people, and it looks like he will do just that to keep another promise.
A divided appeals court ruled last year that migrants must be allowed to apply for asylum in the U.S. even if they are stopped at the border before they actually enter the U.S.
President Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse this ruling and allow immigration officials to turn away asylum seekers before they get to the border and before they actually apply for asylum.
The case hinges on the court's interpretation of The Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows an âalien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United Statesâ to apply for asylum.
Trump wants the high court to flip the current interpretation of the law, that migrants are considered "physically present" even if they are on the Mexico side of the border.
âIn ordinary English, a person âarrives inâ a country only when he comes within its borders,â Solicitor General John Sauer said in a filing. âAn alien thus does not âarrive inâ the United States while he is still in Mexico.â
Immigration rights group Al Otro Lado obviously disagreed, according to Breitbart.
âOur immigration laws require the government to inspect and process people seeking asylum at ports of entry and allow them to pursue their legal claims in the United States,â it said in a statement.
âThe governmentâs turnback policy was an illegal scheme to circumvent these requirements by physically blocking asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry and preventing them from crossing the border to seek protection,â Al Otro Lado said.
The group also argued that the turnback policy put families and individuals in jeopardy by forcing them to stay in unsafe conditions in Mexico while they wait for their asylum hearings.
Migrants have been assaulted, kidnapped, and murdered, they said.
Most would rather just give up than wait for potentially months or years in such conditions, but isn't that the point?
The vast majority of asylum seekers will be rejected, so letting an unlimited number of migrants into the country to await their hearings doesn't make sense.
That's how we ended up with millions of illegal immigrants in the country under former President Joe Biden, and Trump has pretty much turned all of that around just by adopting a stern attitude and letting migrants know his administration was going to make it hard on them.
Trump definitely has the right idea, and the court will hopefully see it his way.
Brace yourselves, patriotsânewly uncovered records expose a stunning double standard at the Department of Justice that reeks of political favoritism.
Documents released by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley reveal that DOJ attorneys who blocked a probe into the Clinton campaignâs dubious financial dealings later spearheaded special counsel Jack Smithâs case against President Donald Trump, the Daily Caller reported.Â
Letâs start at the beginning, back in 2016, when the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee funneled over $1 million through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS, the group behind the notorious Steele Dossier smearing Trump with unproven Russia ties.
Those hefty payments, cleverly listed as âlegal servicesâ in Federal Election Commission filings, were anything but transparent, yet they didnât seem to bother certain DOJ insiders.
By 2019, when allegations of misreporting emerged, FBI officials initially believed there was enough evidence of concealment to justify an investigation.
Enter DOJ attorneys Richard Pilger and J.P. Cooney, who swiftly poured cold water on the idea, arguing it would be tough to prove deliberate falsehoods in the filings.
In a June 14, 2019, email, Cooney noted, âThe FEC has approved campaigns hiring vendors... and any money paid to Fusion GPS for the dossier through [Perkins Coie] was probably reported as legal services or something like that.â (J.P. Cooney, June 14, 2019, email)
Isnât that a neat little loophole? Hiding political hit jobs under vague labels while dodging accountability hardly sounds like the integrity we expect from campaign finance laws.
Thanks to their input, the FBI dropped plans for a Clinton probe in 2019, per a memo Grassley disclosed, despite the FEC later fining the campaign and DNC $113,000 in 2022 for improper reporting.
Now hereâs the kicker: Pilger and Cooney, the same duo who shielded Clinton, later played key roles in the Arctic Frost case against Trump under Jack Smith.
Cooney rose to a top prosecutor spot on Smithâs team, while Pilger assisted in reviewing and approving the investigation, according to Grassleyâs records.
Grassley pulled no punches, declaring, âThese records show the same partisans who rushed to cover for Clinton rabidly pursued Arctic Frost, which was a runaway train aimed directly at President Trump and the Republican political apparatus.â (Chuck Grassley)
This isnât a shock to Grassley, who revealed that whistleblowers alerted him years ago about DOJ interference in Clinton-related investigations.
While some might dismiss this as mere red tape, the glaring pattern of protecting one political faction while hounding another raises troubling questions about impartiality in our justice system.
For those who value equal treatment under the law, this saga is a stark reminder that vigilance against bias in our institutions isnât just necessaryâitâs urgent.