Congress received sworn testimony that no classified information was shared in Signal chats about a military strike in Yemen, as Democrats call on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to resign over the messages that were leaked by a liberal journalist.
The Atlantic published the full chats on Wednesday, which show Hegseth sharing details about weather, timing, and weapon systems shortly before a successful operation against Houthi rebels.
Across two days of hearings, Democrats grilled CIA director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard over the chats and their national security implications.
“If this information had gotten out, American lives could have been lost. If the Houthis had this information they could reposition their defensive systems,” Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) said Tuesday.
Gabbard and Ratcliffe both said during Tuesday's hearing before the Senate Intelligence Community that no classified information was included, although they added it's up to Hegseth to decide what is classified and what isn't. Ratcliffe also defended the use of Signal, an encrypted chat platform, as appropriate for a CIA official.
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee pounced on the Atlantic's publication of the full chat messages Wednesday, with some lawmakers presenting poster boards with the texts printed on them. But Trump's officials stood their ground.
"My answers haven't changed. I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information. It was permissible to do so. I didn't transfer any classified information, and at the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success," Ratcliffe said.
The chats mostly consist of a foreign policy discussion among top Trump officials, including Hegseth, national security adviser Michael Waltz, and Vice President J.D. Vance, about when to strike at Houthi rebels who have crippled shipping in the Suez Canal. In the most heavily scrutinized texts, Hegseth shared a mission update that reads in part, "Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch."
"THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP," Hegseth wrote elsewhere in the text.
Later, Waltz shared an update to confirm that a target was successfully taken out. Waltz has since taken responsibility for adding Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat room by mistake.
While the Trump administration says the controversy is being exaggerated, Democrats have said the kind of information included in Hegseth's messages was sensitive enough to be classified. Wednesday's House hearing grew contentious when one Democrat, Jimmy Gomez (Ca.), asked if Hegseth had been drinking.
"I think that’s an offensive line of questioning. The answer is no,” Ratcliffe said.
Gabbard conceded the chats were sensitive in nature, but she denied that they rose to the classified level.
“The conversation was candid and sensitive, but as the president national security adviser stated, no classified information was shared," Gabbard said.
"There were no sources, methods, locations or war plans that were shared. This was a standard update to the national security Cabinet that was provided alongside updates that were given to foreign partners in the region,” Gabbard added.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As a Democrat in Congress suggests President Donald Trump should investigate and possibly deport first lady Melania Trump, DOGE leader Elon Musk is now reacting.
At an anti-DOGE protest in Los Angeles on Saturday, U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said:
"When he [Trump] talks about birthright, and he's going to undo the fact that the Constitution allows those who are born here, even if the parents are undocumented, they have a right to stay in America."
"If he wants to start looking so closely to find those who were born here and their parents were undocumented, maybe he ought to first look at Melania."
"We don't know whether or not her parents were documented. And maybe we better just take a look," she added.
Waters was alluding to an executive order by President Trump banning birthright citizenship, as it clarifies the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Musk reposted a Fox News story about the event, and said early Wednesday: "At some point, the many crimes of Maxine Waters will catch up to her."
Emma Colton of Fox News reported: "Melania Trump was born in the former Yugoslavia and became a U.S. citizen in 2006, according to official government biographies of the first lady. She is the first U.S. first lady to become a naturalized citizen, and the second first lady to be born outside the U.S. – following President John Quincy Adams' wife Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams, who was born in London in 1775.
"The first lady sponsored her parents, who were also from current-day Slovenia, for green cards and then citizenship after securing her own citizenship, the New York Times reported in 2018. Viktor and Amalija Knavs, the first lady's parents, officially became U.S. citizens in 2018. Amalija Knavs died in 2024, while her father Viktor Knavs has been spotted with the Trump family during public events in recent months, including sitting next to first son Barron Trump during the inauguration."
During the Los Angeles protest, waters also said: "We are here because we are not going to let Trump, we're not going to let Elon Musk, his co-president, or anybody else take the United States Constitution down."
Online commenters were not kind to Waters, saying:
"When they start investigating Maxine Waters, they will likely need a whole server of space to catalog the crime she is involved in. … She has her hands in everything."
"Can we deport Maxine Waters? At least from any government position? Bless her heart, she just needs to go."
"She's mentally ill. She called for violence against MAGA Republicans during President Trump's first term and a lot of innocent people were harmed. She should be removed from office immediately."
"Maxine is a diabolical Democrat who only plays the opposition for the sake of it. This woman stood in front of a crowd of homeless people and told them to go home. She is an a*****e and has the most punchable face."
"If Congress needed a village idiot, Maxine Waters would be the lifelong incumbent. In a just era, she'd be run out of Washington on horseback."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who runs the administration's Department of Government Efficiency which is cutting fraud, waste and corruption in federal spending programs, already have taken on a long list of federal departments.
The U.S. Agency for International Development, for example, was revealed to have delivered millions and millions of taxpayer dollars for highly questionable projects, and largely has been closed down with a few remaining functions taken over by the State Department.
Taxpayers are being saved, actually, billions of dollars through DOGE.
And some members of Congress have come alongside the president's work, including U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who during a congressional hearing brought the receipts for why she believes biased and partisan government operations like National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting System should be defunded.
She pointed out the obvious bias they exhibit, specifically for having claimed Musk gave a Nazi salute, following an arm motion that repeatedly had been exhibited by Democrats:
The news that these entities produced is either resented or increasingly tuned out and turned off by most of the hardworking Americans who are forced to pay for it. They no longer view NPR and PBS is trusted news sources. As a matter of fact, with these people, they're a threat. In fact, when Elon Musk put his hand over his heart and extended it and told the American people, his heart goes out to them, PBS News posted the clip, called it a fascist Nazi salute and described how it was similar to the same he used by Nazis and their victory rallies. Not once did PBS or NPR report on the numerous accounts of Democrats making the same gesture — AOC, Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, somebody that lost a presidential race, Hillary Clinton, Governor Tim Waltz. Why wasn't this treated exactly the same way? Is there not a standard in journalism today? Apparently not.
She also highlighted the so-called "children's content" that is present, and viewed as offensive.
For example, she said, PBS' use of a drag queen for children's programming was a problem: "If I walked in my living room and seen this child predator, this monster targeting my children, I would become unglued."
A report at RedState explained that chiefs of the publicly funded organizations were feeling "the heat" and she came "loaded for bear."
"As if this week wasn't bad enough for the Democrat Party and their mainstream media allies, the DOGE subcommittee is currently holding a hearing on Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR), where the CEOs of both purported "news" and information outlets are in attendance as witnesses," the report said.
Those officials are PBS' Paula Kerger and NPR's Katherine Maher.
Greene called the people at those agencies a "threat" that "hard-working Americans" are forced to fund.
The report explained, "while the hearing undoubtedly was designed to show the American people more evidence against PBS and NPR as various Republican-sponsored bills on the matter make their way through the House and Senate, satisfaction will only be gained if their defunding finally becomes a reality after many years of talking about it."
Later in the hearing, U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, asked Maher several pointed questions about opinions that have been given a venue via NPR, including support for "the whole community of genderqueer dinosaur enthusiasts."
President Trump already has supported cutting of tax money flowing to both groups.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
After his address to Marines Wednesday at the Quantico Marine Corps Base, Vice President JD Vance, himself a Marine, took some time to fire a machine gun at the base range.
Video of Vance's firearm acumen soon filled up X feeds.
After one shot, a voice can be heard shouting, "Hit – center chest."
WATCH:
The Washington, D.C., shakeup continues as the Trump administration continues to attempt to cut the fat, and do away with waste, thereby sometimes shocking the Democrats' sensibilities.
This appears to be the case after news broke that the Secretary of Homeland Security let slip that another beloved federal agency is on the chopping block, and by now, everyone knows the administration is serious, as The Hill reported.
In this case, it's not USAID or the Department of Education (though those cuts did run deep) but the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) whose days are numbered.
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said in a meeting with cabinet members earlier this week that she plans to "eliminate" FEMA, sending shockwaves through Washington.
For context, while FEMA has been a lifesaver to many (literally and figuratively), in recent years, it's also become a money pit without accountability or efficiency and is believed to be rife with corruption and theft.
While providing a status report on border security, Noem also stated, "We're going to eliminate FEMA." She, however, did not provide further details.
“That’s great. Great job,” President Trump said — appearing to respond to her broader status update.
Trump has voiced his strong disapproval of the emergency management agency and has even hinted at the possibility of eliminating it.
“I’ll also be signing an executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA, or maybe getting rid of FEMA. I think, frankly, FEMA’s not good,” Trump said in January.
Instead of dismantling the agency, a recent executive order from the White House requested a review of disaster response policies.
That executive action called on the Homeland Security secretary to propose changes to ensure “state and local governments and individuals have improved communications with Federal officials and a better understanding of the Federal role.”
FEMA is responsible for the coordination of disaster response in the immediate aftermath of hurricanes and also assists with the long-term recovery process.
Democrats responded to Noem's statement, looking for all the world like narcissists about to lose their supply, asserting that eliminating FEMA would constitute desertion for communities in need.
“The Trump Administration’s grand plan for victims of natural disasters is to abandon them—and it’s a complete non-starter,” Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) said in a written statement.
“This rash decision will harm ongoing disaster recovery efforts, and make it impossible to respond after the next natural disaster,” he added.
Michelle Obama said that the thought of her running for president is "unthinkable," The Hill reported. The former first lady's name has been bandied about by Democrats desperate to counter President Donald Trump.
Obama appeared last week on the Not Gonna Lie podcast hosted by Kylie Kelce, wife of retired NFL player Jason Kelce. She directly addressed the issue of whether she would consider a presidential run. "When people ask me, would I ever run? The answer is no," Obama told Kelce.
"If you ask me that, then you have absolutely no idea the sacrifice that your kids make when your parents are in that role. It would be unthinkable," Obama later concluded.
Democrats have been clamoring for a popular figure to coalesce behind, and the best they could come up with was former President Barack Obama's wife. During the 2024 election, polling showed Michelle Obama was the only figure strong enough to beat Trump.
This came after then-President Joe Biden was on the verge of stepping down from his reelection bid, leaving the inept Vice President Kamala Harris to take his place. While rumors abounded about her possibly stepping into the role, Michelle Obama never did.
She is qualified based on how staunchly anti-Trump she is, so much so that she railed against him in a speech at the Democratic National Convention. "For years, Donald Trump did everything in his power to try to make people fear us," Michelle Obama claimed.
"See, his limited, narrow view of the world made him feel threatened by the existence of two hardworking, highly educated, successful people who happen to be Black," she added at the August event. Michelle Obama later declined to attend the inauguration in November.
While the former first lady's name continues to come up for Democrats' political hopes, Michelle Obama made it clear that she will not be swayed based on her concern for her daughters, Sasha and Malia.
Democrats who pushed for Michelle Obama to join the presidential race seem to forget how polarizing she was right out of the gate. First ladies are often more popular than their husbands and rarely ruffle feathers.
Michelle Obama certainly bucked that trend. In the runup to her husband's 2008 election, she insinuated that she wasn't proud of America until Democrats began supporting her husband's presidential bid.
“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country … not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment," Michelle Obama said, according to a February 2008 Fox News report.
Although they tried to back peddle, the damage was done to the Obamas' image with that comment. Barack Obama still got elected, but ever since, it has been a tough road with Republicans and certainly would preclude Michelle Obama from becoming a presidential candidate.
Michelle Obama is not wrong that it should be a tremendous disruption for their kids, although they are both grown now. Still, it wouldn't be a shock if she changed her mind just in time to run in 2028.
A recent court ruling has halted the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing personal data from three federal agencies due to potential legal breaches linked to the Trump administration, Fox Business reported.
A federal judge issued a ruling that temporarily blocks the DOGE's access to certain personal data, spotlighting ongoing judicial challenges to recent executive actions initiated by President Donald Trump.
In the detailed judgment delivered on Monday by U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, an injunction was placed on the DOGE restricting it from accessing identifiable personal information held by the U.S. Department of Education, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Treasury Department.
This decision stemmed from a lawsuit brought forth by various unions and organizations representing federal employees, recipients of student aid, and six veterans who had served in the military.
The controversy traces back to the executive order signed by President Trump at the dawn of his second term. This directive sought to facilitate the DOGE's agenda by granting access to agency records and IT systems. This sweeping access was meant as a step towards improving government performance but faced allegations of contravening the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Privacy Act created half a century ago, aims to shield individuals from the unauthorized distribution of personal data furnished to the government. Judge Boardman conveyed the inherent risks posed by such unauthorized data use, noting Congress's earlier concerns about personal data being collected and potentially misused by governmental entities.
The recent ruling lies within a broader context of numerous legal confrontations against President Trump's actions since January 20. In merely two months, over 120 lawsuits have been presented in reaction to more than 90 executive orders, proclamations, and memos issued under his administration. This specific case emphasizes the potential risks associated with expedited policy enforcement without stringent adherence to legislative frameworks.
In her ruling, Judge Boardman emphasized that the President's urgency did not empower agencies to bypass legal procedures. She articulated the court's perspective: "No matter how important or urgent the President’s DOGE agenda may be, federal agencies must execute it in accordance with the law. That likely did not happen in this case."
Judge Boardman reiterated that law adherence is not merely procedural but essential for safeguarding personal liberties. She highlighted that after the executive directive, federal bodies like the Education Department, Treasury, and OPM opened their records to DOGE affiliates, sparking significant privacy law infringement concerns.
Her remarks underscored the enduring relevance of data privacy concerns, stressing that the initial legislation arose from fears of unlimited data gathering by bureaucrats. "Congress’s concern back then was that ‘every detail of our personal lives can be assembled instantly for use by a single bureaucrat or institution.’ Those concerns are just as salient today," she asserted.
Additionally, Judge Boardman pointed out the lawful boundaries within which executive actions should operate. She noted that while the DOGE's mission may intend to boost governmental efficiency, it must not bypass crucial legal safeguards established to protect citizens' data.
The judgment casts a spotlight on the actions of federal bodies in aligning with executive directives, urging compliance with legal norms. It also emphasizes the balance between governmental efficiency drives and respect for privacy legislation, potentially impacting how future executive instructions are executed.
This ruling stands as a significant judicial assessment of recent executive maneuvers and is an index of emerging legal precedence against executive overreach. As the legal battles unfold, the tension between efficient administration and regulatory adherence continues to draw the attention of legal practitioners, policymakers, and the public alike.
In the wake of the decision, the legal and political discourse surrounding executive orders' implementation and the safeguarding of public information is expected to intensify. This case serves as a vital reference point in the ongoing judicial review of executive powers, particularly concerning individual privacy and data rights.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will be eliminated, echoing a pledge from President Trump to close the disaster relief agency. Noem shared the plans during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Monday, Breitbart reported.
FEMA has faced questions about competence, political bias, and the use of tax resources to help illegal aliens. The agency fired three more employees this month who were tied to a previously publicized incident of discrimination against pro-Trump hurricane victims in Florida.
President Trump has criticized FEMA repeatedly as ineffective and wasteful, and he has called on individual states to play a larger role in responding to disasters.
“FEMA has been a very big disappointment. They cost a tremendous amount of money. It's very bureaucratic, and it's very slow. Other than that, we're very happy with them,” Trump said in North Carolina in January.
Echoing Trump, Noem has endorsed ending FEMA "the way it exists today."
The DHS last month reclaimed $80 million in FEMA money that was given to New York City to house immigrants during Biden's border crisis.
Noem said FEMA was sending money to a high-end hotel used by the Tren De Aragua gang, which has become a target of Trump's immigration crackdown. Four FEMA employees were also fired for circumventing leadership to make the payments.
I have clawed back the full payment that FEMA deep state activists unilaterally gave to NYC migrant hotels.
FEMA was funding the Roosevelt Hotel that serves as a Tren de Aragua base of operations and was used to house Laken Riley’s killer.
Mark my words: there will not be a…
— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) February 12, 2025
FEMA cannot be abolished without an act of Congress, but Trump is moving ahead with overhauling the agency by executive order.
Both Trump and Noem have said the federal government should continue to provide resources, but that FEMA should have a smaller role in responding to disasters.
During an interview in February, Noem said FEMA is "picking and choosing winners."
“I would say, yes, get rid of FEMA the way it exists today," Noem said in February. "We still need the resources and the funds and the finances to go to people that have these types of disasters, like Hurricane Helene and the fires in California but you need to let the local officials make the decisions on how that is deployed, so it can be deployed much quicker. And we don’t need this bureaucracy that’s picking and choosing winners," Noem said.
In the meantime, Trump is scrutinizing FEMA's activities, ordering a review of all disaster aid programs that "indirectly or incidentally aid illegal aliens."
Several bombs were found at a Tesla dealership in Texas on Monday, as the company's founder Elon Musk faces a violent political backlash.
A bomb squad retrieved a number of working "incendiary devices" after police were called to a Tesla dealership in Austin.
“This is an open and ongoing investigation, and there is no further information available for release at this time,” the department said.
While police do not have a suspect, it comes after a series of violent attacks on Tesla dealerships all across the country.
Musk has faced furious backlash for his role in aggressively slashing the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency. He is at the center of an emerging Democratic party narrative about an "oligarchy" that President Trump is supposedly establishing.
Leftists are fighting back against this "oligarchy" with anarchy. Individuals have set fires, sprayed political messages and even fired bullets at Tesla property.
The Trump administration is treating the wave of arson and vandalism like domestic terrorism, with the FBI under Kash Patel announcing a new task force to investigate the threats.
"The FBI will be relentless in its mission to protect the American people. Acts of violence, vandalism, and domestic terrorism — like the recent Tesla attacks — will be pursued with the full force of the law," the FBI said in a statement to ABC News.
The recent attacks against Tesla appear to fit the typical definition of terrorism, which involves the use of political violence to advance an agenda. The FBI has tracked incidents in at least nine states.
"These criminal actions appear to have been conducted by lone offenders, and all known incidents occurred at night," the FBI said last week. "Individuals require little planning to use rudimentary tactics, such as improvised incendiary devices and firearms, and may perceive these attacks as victimless property crimes."
President Trump has stood by Musk, even buying a Tesla at the White House to support him.
The president issued a fresh warning last week to anti-Tesla "terrorist thugs", suggesting they could serve hard time in El Salvador's infamously brutal prisons.
"I look forward to watching the sick terrorist thugs get 20 year jail sentences for what they are doing to Elon Musk and Tesla," Trump said.
"Perhaps they would serve them in the prisons of El Salvador, which have become so recently famous for such lovely conditions."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was established with noble intentions, to regulate immigration in a way that benefits both American workers and foreign talent.
However, over time, this system has been exploited to prioritize profits over people, undermining the American workforce and perpetuating inequities. While the INA is supposed to protect U.S. workers, its enforcement, or lack thereof, has created a dysfunctional ecosystem where key players manipulate the rules with impunity.
To understand this, we need to examine the roles of the Department of Labor (DOL), the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA), and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) the primary agencies tasked with regulating employment-based immigration.
The Department of Labor (DOL): The Overworked Referee
The DOL's job is to ensure that employment-based immigration programs don't harm U.S. workers by displacing them or suppressing wages. Unfortunately, the DOL often acts more like a rubber stamp than a watchdog.
What the DOL is Supposed to Do
\What Happens in Practice
The DOL's oversight has glaring weaknesses. Employers exploit loopholes to sideline qualified Americans:
The Consequences
Qualified Americans are routinely overlooked, and wages for both foreign and domestic workers are suppressed. The DOL's lack of enforcement allows bad actors to continue gaming the system.
BALCA: The Appellate Body That Reflects Systemic Issues
The Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) is an administrative body that reviews denials of labor certifications. BALCA serves as a critical checkpoint, but its rulings often highlight how employers manipulate the system and how weak DOL enforcement really is.
What BALCA Does
Common Issues BALCA Encounters
The Problem with BALCA's Role
While BALCA can reject fraudulent certifications, it lacks the authority to impose penalties. This means employers who violate rules face no real consequences. Worse, BALCA decisions often expose systemic flaws but don't fix them, leaving the door open for continued abuse.
USCIS: The Administrator with Too Much on Its Plate
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) oversees visa programs like H-1B, adjudicates green card applications, and monitors compliance with immigration laws. Despite its critical role, USCIS is hampered by inefficiencies, lack of transparency, and weak anti-fraud measures.
The H-1B Lottery
USCIS runs an annual lottery to allocate 85,000 H-1B visas. Employers are supposed to prove they genuinely need foreign workers to fill these positions. However:
Fraud and Abuse
USCIS has acknowledged rampant fraud in visa programs but lacks the resources to address it effectively:
Operational Inefficiencies
The agency's backlogs in processing applications lead to delays that harm both employers and workers. Meanwhile, employers exploit temporary work authorizations to sidestep regulations, exacerbating displacement of U.S. workers.
The exploitation of immigration programs doesn't just harm American workers, it distorts the entire labor market. Here's how:
Why Should Americans Care?
If you're not in tech or STEM fields, you might think this doesn't affect you. But the systemic issues in immigration programs have far-reaching consequences:
What Needs to Change
Conclusion:
The INA was meant to balance economic growth with labor protections, but it has become a tool for exploitation. Understanding the roles of the DOL, BALCA, and USCIS and their shortcomings is critical to demanding accountability and reform. Americans must engage with these issues, not just for the sake of fairness, but to ensure the future of a labor market that truly serves everyone.