A federal judge in Colorado has limited Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents' authority to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant to only those who pose an obvious flight risk, Fox News reported. The lawsuit is yet another attempt to limit what President Donald Trump's administration can do in its crackdown on illegal immigration.
The ruling from U.S. District Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson came on Tuesday. The judge said that current federal law stipulates that immigration officials must have reason to believe that a person is in the U.S. illegally and that the suspect is likely to flee before a warrant can be issued.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado. The activist group joined attorneys representing four people who were arrested by ICE despite having no warrant issued against them when they were detained during a sweeping immigration crackdown.
Some of those were allegedly asylum seekers, and the lawsuit claims that the agents targeted Latinos without regard for their immigration status. The judge claimed that the plaintiffs in the case each had strong ties to their communities and were well-established, and therefore could not be deemed flight risks.
As Trump tries to get the illegal immigration problem under control, leftist forces are stacked against him and his administration. Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, said Jackson engaged in an "activist ruling" against the agency.
"Allegations that DHS law enforcement engages in 'racial profiling' are disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE," McLaughlin said in a statement. This is not the first time for such a ruling, as another case in California was similarly decided against the administration.
That court ruled that agents were not allowed to target people based on language, race, location, job, or other factors, after agents had been conducting random stops. In September, the Supreme Court rolled back that restraining order imposed in California, and McLaughlin sees the same happening.
"The Supreme Court recently vindicated us on this question elsewhere, and we look forward to further vindication in this case as well," McLaughlin said. There has been no formal announcement that the administration will appeal, but DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has never been one to back down.
While the left attacks ICE's mission in the courts, the rhetoric thrown against the men and women who do the job has become increasingly more hostile. Noem believes this has led to an increase in violence against the agents, and she's not about to leave any stone unturned in making sure they stay safe.
In a post to X on Monday, Noem shared the dire statistics about the impact of those who smear ICE agents and make accusations against them. "Over the past 10 months, Democrat politicians have compared ICE to Nazis, the Gestapo, and slave patrols, fueling a 1,153% increase in assaults," Noem wrote.
"From January 21, 2025, through November 21, 2025, there have been 238 reported assaults against ICE law enforcement. There were only 19 during the same period last year. President Trump and I will always stand with the men and women of @ICEgov who risk their lives every single day to arrest the worst of the worst," Noem pledged.
Over the past 10 months, Democrat politicians have compared ICE to Nazis, the Gestapo, and slave patrols, fueling a 1,153% increase in assaults.
From January 21, 2025, through November 21, 2025, there have been 238 reported assaults against ICE law enforcement. There were only…
— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) November 24, 2025
On Wednesday, it became clear that it was more than just the ICE agents who were putting their lives at risk to make America safer while the left actively works against them. According to the Associated Press, two National Guard soldiers were shot in Washington, D.C., steps from the White House, where they have been sent to clean up crime. Trump pledged 500 more troops to help.
Government agents must balance the rights of the accused with the need to do their jobs. However, these attacks against law enforcement and especially ICE agents, whether in the form of several court cases and even physical violence, jeopardize their mission and make Americans less safe.
The Ohio House has passed a bill called the "Charlie Kirk Act" to allow schools to teach about the positive contributions of Christianity to the U.S. in history classes.
The bill passed along party lines, with all Republicans voting for it and all Democrats voting against it.
It was intended to remind teachers that teaching about different religions including Christianity from a historical and cultural perspective is not a violation of the First Amendment.
“It’s essential that we highlight the positive influence religion has had throughout our history – uniting communities, enriching our shared values, and safeguarding our First Amendment rights as Americans to speak and worship freely,” bill co-sponsor Michael Dovilla said after its passage.
Not all religious leaders and clergy support the bill, with some thinking church and state should be completely separated.
Some also feared that the bill would encourage teachers to ignore potential negative effects of religion, such as the way Christianity was used in the South to uphold slavery for a time.
In addition, the Ohio Council for the Social Studies said the bill was redundant and narrow, but Dovilla disagreed.
“It’s essential that we highlight the positive influence religion has had throughout our history,” he said. “Uniting communities, enriching our shared values, and safeguarding our First Amendment rights as Americans to speak and worship freely.”
The bill does not prevent teachers from covering topics that show the negatives of religion, it only encourages the positive to also be included.
“This bill does not impose a belief system, it simply allows teachers and professors to include historical truths that have too often been neglected,” Gabe Guidarini, chairman of the Ohio College Republican Federation, said.
Students should learn “how faith shaped the resolve of the pilgrims, guided our Founders’ convictions, inspired movements that provided us the liberties we enjoy today, and informed the moral fabric that has bound our republic together since its birth,” he added.
It's clear that the left wants only the negative parts of religion, if any, to be highlighted in schools.
They think we should worship at the altar of the federal government, which they think provides everything that people need.
In truth, taking religion out of schools and the public square has done nothing but make it worse. Hopefully, this bill will help Ohioans realize the positive impact of Christianity and how important faith was to building America.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Indian venture capitalist Asha Jadeja Motwani has publicly claimed credit for President Trump's sudden "change of heart" on H-1B visas, a program the White House itself admits has been "deliberately exploited to replace" American workers. Indeed, Trump's September 2025 Presidential Proclamation states that H-1B has undermined both America's "economic and national security."
Yet within months, Trump reversed course and began welcoming more H-1B workers, declaring that H-1B is "MAGA" and stating that unemployed Americans cannot fill these jobs.
Motwani boasted that she spent "almost one year battling for India in Washington D.C.," enjoying "unusual access" at Mar-a-Lago while pressing U.S. leaders to adopt India-aligned immigration positions. Indian media profiles describe her as a key power broker in Washington behind Trump's H-1B shift.
On Nov. 15 she posted on X that she met Trump at his private club and spoke to him about "my favorite country India" and "how crucial it is for the U.S. to have India strongly aligned with us," adding that he replied he "loves both India and Modi."
Under U.S. law, direct political engagement with a sitting president on behalf of a foreign nation is not a social courtesy. It is foreign political activity. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requires anyone who seeks to influence U.S. officials "at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a foreign principal" to register with the Department of Justice so the American people can see who is trying to move their government.
Motwani did not present herself as an American citizen sharing a personal opinion. She described herself as lobbying for "India," complained that "not a single other high net worth individual (HNI) Indian American is helping India in D.C.," and urged more wealthy Indian-origin donors to join her. That is a self-portrait of someone acting for a foreign principal while enjoying the benefits of U.S. citizenship.
A search of the official FARA database shows no registration for Asha Jadeja Motwani or her foundations, despite a years-long pattern of India-aligned political advocacy stretching from the White House to Silicon Valley, elite universities and national-security think tanks.
Blueprint for a foreign lobby
This is not a one-off brag. In a detailed thread on X Motwani laid out a step-by-step plan to build an "India lobby" in Washington.
She wrote about targeting "Trump circles," explicitly distinguishing them from the State Department and urged Indian conglomerates such as Reliance and Adani to spend "substantial amounts" to "build influence in D.C." and "build relationships in Washington D.C." That is a call for foreign corporate money to reshape U.S. political outcomes.
Foreign governments and foreign companies can lobby in the United States only through registered agents who disclose their activities under FARA and lobbying laws. Motwani's own words describe the same conduct – lobbying for a foreign principal – without registration or public accountability.
She repeatedly frames America as an instrument for India's geopolitical strategy and describes her goal as keeping India "in the American pocket and not with anybody else." That language tracks directly with India's official diaspora strategy, which calls on Indian-origin elites in the United States to advance Delhi's strategic agenda inside Western institutions.
H-1B as 'slave labor'
Motwani has also openly described how the H-1B system she champions actually works. In a Sept. 21 post she wrote that the "dirty little secret" of H-1B labor is that foreign workers are treated as "a bit of slave labor," pointing to 80-hour work weeks, "no complaints" and no overtime demands.
She added that this arrangement "would be impossible if American workers replaced these foreigners," because employers would be forced to pay overtime, provide benefits and face litigation from workers who are free to report abuse without risking their immigration status.
Her own description of H-1B labor conditions, illegal hours, unpaid overtime and silence enforced by fear of deportation points approvingly to unlawful practices under U.S. labor and employment law, regardless of a worker's nationality. This is not a "talent pipeline." It is a system built on vulnerability. Employers exploit H-1B workers precisely because their immigration status can be used as leverage. Motwani's statements reveal the program's real function: securing a cheaper, more compliant, more easily exploited labor force.
Motwani is not a detached commentator, but rather is a long-time Silicon Valley investor with ties to firms repeatedly scrutinized for H-1B abuse, including Google, PayPal and multiple venture-backed tech companies she has funded, mentored or partnered with. Her statements are not guesses; they are admissions from inside the investor class. Yet she continues to press U.S. leaders to expand the very pipeline she admits is built on "slave labor," while American workers are displaced and U.S. wage laws are undercut.
Foreign ideology and political access
Motwani's political influence campaign is paired with explicit support for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological parent of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). As documented by the Encyclopaedia Britannica and AP News, RSS provides the doctrine while BJP executes that doctrine through state power.
Motwani has repeatedly praised RSS as "India's crown jewel," said she is "studying it on a war footing" and urged Indians to "defend it."
In another post, she argued that anyone in the West who "defames" RSS should be "taken to court."
Reporting by the U.K.-based Byline Times notes that Motwani's father served in the RSS and identifies her as part of a U.S.-based network amplifying Hindutva-aligned narratives.
At the same time she boasts of influencing U.S. lawmakers, senior officials and even President Trump on H-1B and U.S.-India policy. Under FARA, "foreign principals" include foreign governments, foreign political parties and foreign ideological movements. RSS and BJP fall squarely into those categories. When someone with direct RSS lineage and open ideological alignment gains access to U.S. leaders and uses that access to press for foreign-aligned policies, it raises exactly the foreign-influence concerns FARA was enacted to address.
Nonprofit fronts and foreign defense pipelines
Beyond her personal lobbying, Motwani runs U.S.-based foundations including the Motwani Jadeja Global Foundation and the Motwani Institute for Thought Leadership in Innovation.
These entities state that they aim to shape government policy in India and the United States, promote "Indian voices" in U.S. think tanks and "open doors at Davos and Washington."
Her foundation funded a major initiative at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), one of Washington's most influential national-security think tanks. With her support, CNAS launched a program on the "U.S.-India Strategic Partnership" focused on defense cooperation, intelligence sharing, drones, space, semiconductors and the Quad, the exact areas where India seeks deeper U.S. alignment.
At the same time, Motwani is partnering directly with foreign defense institutions. In 2024, her foundation launched DRISHTI, an India-Israel initiative built with Israel's Directorate of Defense Research & Development, part of Israel's Ministry of Defense, to advance dual-use technologies in AI, drones, robotics and autonomous systems. She then opened the Motwani Jadeja Centre of Excellence at T-Hub in Hyderabad as the hub of this corridor.
This creates a closed loop: A U.S. private foundation is embedded in Indian and Israeli defense-adjacent tech pipelines overseas while funding U.S. think-tank work that shapes how Washington views and manages its defense relationship with India. Under FARA, foreign-aligned policy programming combined with direct work alongside foreign defense ministries is a textbook indicator that registration and disclosure are required.
The Department of Justice has already brought cases in response to similar patterns of undisclosed foreign influence, including charges against think-tank co-director Gal Luft for alleged China-linked activity, scrutiny of Qatar's funding of the Brookings Institution and the indictment of former Trump adviser Thomas Barrack for acting as an unregistered agent of the UAE.
Pipelines into Silicon Valley and American institutions
The Rajeev Circle Fellowship, run by Motwani's foundation, is marketed as a program that "induces" founders from South Asia into a "tight knit community" in Silicon Valley. Fellowship materials say participants are groomed into a "distributed network of budding Scout VCs," signaling a foreign-national investment and influence network embedded inside the U.S. tech ecosystem, not a typical scholarship.
The program promises that fellows "acquire a permanent home in the Valley" after their first visit and enjoy "unprecedented freedom" to return to the U.S. for sales, fundraising and business development, with all expenses covered by the foundation. A private foundation cannot grant immigration status or lawful residency. Yet the language describes a privately funded system giving select foreign nationals repeated, structured access to U.S. tech and capital markets.
According to the foundation's own descriptions, fellows become a "living and breathing corridor between South Asia, Europe and the U.S.," a South-Asia-only network connecting founders directly into U.S. venture, technology and commercial platforms. That structure mirrors the diaspora-mobilization frameworks promoted in India's own policy documents.
The same approach appears in Motwani's work with U.S. policy institutions. In February 2024, the foundation announced a partnership with the Atlantic Council to send U.S. foreign-policy and national-security experts to India's Raisina Dialogue, co-organized by India's Ministry of External Affairs, with the stated goal of "advancing India's global ambitions" and "shaping India's trajectory on the world stage."
Then in October 2024, the foundation made a major gift to the 21st Century India Center at UC San Diego to fund an India fellowship, leadership program and courses hub targeting U.S. federal and state officials, U.S. military officers, journalists and business leaders and to place them inside Indian institutions for weeks at a time.
At the Stanford India Conference 2025, on a panel titled "Geopolitics and Defense in the Changing World," supported by the foundation, Motwani joined national-security scholars to discuss India's military strategy, defense posture, AI-enabled warfare and its alignment with U.S. frameworks such as the Quad and I2U2.
At Davos 2025, her foundation sponsored a panel on U.S.-India relations featuring former U.S. Ambassador Eric Garcetti and executives from major Indian multinationals to promote deeper alignment on defense, technology, trade and security.
These are not casual networking events. Rather, they are structured programs that bring U.S. officials, experts and capital into forums built around India's strategic priorities. Under FARA, when such programs are carried out "for or in the interests of" a foreign principal, particularly when they target U.S. decision-makers, transparency and registration are not optional.
A pattern the law was written to expose
Viewed together, the pieces form a clear pattern. Asha Jadeja Motwani tells the world she is "battling for India in Washington," claims to have helped flip a U.S. president on H-1B, urges Indian corporations to pour money into "building influence in D.C.," praises and defends the RSS-BJP ideological machine that governs India and runs U.S. foundations that partner with foreign defense ministries, move foreign founders into Silicon Valley and embed U.S. officials in Indian institutions.
She openly states that the "dirty little secret" of H-1B is that workers are treated as "a bit of slave labor," describing conditions that, if imposed on any employee in America, violate U.S. law. Yet she pushes U.S. leaders to expand that program while American workers are sidelined and their wage protections are weakened.
Finally, as noted earlier, under American law, anyone who acts "for or in the interest of" a foreign government, foreign political party or foreign ideological movement and tries to influence U.S. policy or public opinion must register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Failing to register while doing that work is a federal offense.
Americans should not have to decode legal jargon to see what is happening: A powerful Silicon Valley figure is using U.S. citizenship, U.S. institutions and U.S. access to advance the agenda of a foreign government, including a visa system she herself describes as built on exploitation and "slave labor," without the transparency federal law demands.
The record of Motwani's statements, her political outreach, her foundation's partnerships and her role in programs involving U.S.-India defense, technology and immigration policy fits the very pattern of undisclosed foreign influence that FARA was designed to bring into the open. The harm is not abstract. It falls on American workers, American institutions and American security. Whether those protections are enforced in this case is a test – not of India's power, but of America's willingness to uphold its own laws.
The documented records
President Donald Trump's Department of Homeland Security has ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for citizens of Burma as part of its overall immigration strategy to restrict both legal and illegal immigration.
Nearly 10,000 Burmese nationals will be impacted by the move, which set a date of January 26, 2026 for TPS to end.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement that the administration believes the conditions in Burma are improved enough for the nationals to return home.
She said,
The situation in Burma has improved enough that it is safe for Burmese citizens to return home, so we are terminating the Temporary Protected Status. Burma has made notable progress in governance and stability, including the end of its state of emergency, plans for free and fair elections, successful ceasefire agreements, and improved local governance contributing to enhanced public service delivery and national reconciliation.
“This decision restores TPS to its original status as temporary,” Noem added.
It has been a complaint of the Trump administration that previous administrations (Obama and Biden) treated TPS as a more permanent status and were reluctant to ever end it.
Former President Joe Biden alone allowed more than a million migrants to come into the U.S. under TPS, as of early 2025.
TPS, which started in 1990 under then-President Bill Clinton, was intended to prevent deportation of migrants who are designated as experiencing famine, war, or natural disasters in their countries of origin.
Trump has ended the program for migrants from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Syria, and Venezuela, but legal challenges have blocked the action for some countries, at least for now.
Just about any country in the world could claim that conditions there are worse than in the U.S., but that's not the measuring stick TPS was made to use.
It's not a bad thing to be compassionate and take on some refugees when a country is clearly having a bad moment, but taking on millions of refugees and then vaguely making it permanent is not a thing we should be doing as a country.
Trump has set an ambitious goal to deport a million illegal immigrants each year he is in office, and the people whose TPS has been revoked could be some of those if they refuse to leave the country.
The DHS said in September that more than 2 million illegal immigrants have already been deported or left on their own, with the majority of them having self-deported to avoid detention and deportation at the hands of the government.
"The era of open borders is over," a statement from DHS said. And it seems that the open arms that have greeted so many refugees are also a thing of the past.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
"Soup is good food."
For years, this was the marketing slogan for Campbell's Soup, one of America's best-known brands.
But now, a secret recording reportedly of a top company executive is casting doubt on the catchphrase, with him being heard disparaging Campbell's products as using "bioengineered meat" and mocking its own customers.
The recording is part of a lawsuit filed by Robert Garza, a former cybersecurity analyst for Campbell Soup, who accuses Martin Bally, vice president and chief information security officer of the food giant, of making the comments during a November 2024 meeting.
"We have s*** for f***ing poor people. Who buys our s***? I don't buy Campbell's products barely anymore," the voice purportedly belonging to Bally is heard saying.
"Bioengineered meat – I don't wanna eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3-D printer," Bally allegedly says, casting shade on the ingredients in Campbell's soup.
"F***ing Indians don't know a f***ing thing," the voice on the recording says. "They couldn't think for their f***ing selves."
Garza said he felt sick, "pure disgust," after the initial meeting, and again after hearing the comments.
The suit was filed in Michigan's Wayne County Circuit Court.
Garza kept the recording secret at first, but went to his supervisor in January 2025 to report the matter.
Zachary Runyan, Garza's attorney, told WDIV-TV in Detroit that Garza was blindsided 20 days later.
"He reached out to his supervisor and told the supervisor what Martin was saying, and then out of nowhere, my client was fired," Runyan said.
"He was really sticking up for other people. He went to his boss and said, 'Martin is saying this about Indian coworkers we have, he's saying this about people who buy our food — who keep our company open, and I don't think that should be allowed.' And the response to Robert sticking up for other people is he gets fired, which is ridiculous."
Campbell's is acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, and a company spokesperson told Newsweek: "If the recording is legitimate, the comments are unacceptable. They do not reflect our values and the culture of our company. Mr. Bally is temporarily on leave while we conduct an investigation.
"We are proud of the food we make, the people who make it and the high-quality ingredients we use. The comments on the recording are not only inaccurate – they are patently absurd.
"Keep in mind, the alleged comments are made by an IT person, who has nothing to do with how we make our food."
In the aftermath of a Democrat statement encouraging military troops to disobey orders from President Donald Trump, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) admitted to ABC "This Week" host Martha Raddatz that she wasn't aware of any instance when President Donald Trump issued an illegal order to the military.
“Let’s talk right now. Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?” Raddatz asked.
“To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal — but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes, and everything related to Venezuela,” Slotkin answered.
Slotkin justified the Democrat statement about disobeying Trump, which she participated in, by saying that they did it because of the “sheer number” of troops and young officers asking them what they “should do.”
“Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home,” the lawmakers say in the video, which was released on Tuesday.
“Our laws are clear, you can refuse illegal orders,” Kelly says in the video.
“You can refuse illegal orders,” Slotkin says in the video.
President Donald Trump's response on Truth Social initially said the statement was "sedition," which is "punishable by death," but Trump later revised his statement after saying he did not want to "execute" the lawmakers.
“THE TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS SHOULD BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW, NOT ROAMING THE FAKE NEWS NETWORKS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT WHAT THEY SAID WAS OKAY,” Trump wrote in a post on Saturday. “IT WASN’T, AND NEVER WILL BE! IT WAS SEDITION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, AND SEDITION IS A MAJOR CRIME. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY SAID!”
It is important to note that, technically, the Democrats did not tell military members to disobey Trump.
That being said, they certainly seemed to imply from their comments that Trump was a "threat to the Constitution" and was issuing or would likely issue illegal orders to the military at some point, which is unfair and wrong of them to do.
Their words obviously created a controversy, based on Slotkin's appearance on "This Week."
Even if they were sincere about wanting to respond to the inquiries they said they were getting, they ended up inflaming the situation rather than calming it down, which is never a good thing (but probably exactly what they wanted to do, if truth be told).
Hold onto your hats, patriots—President Trump’s much-touted Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, has vanished into thin air well before its scheduled end.
In brief, DOGE, the administration’s flagship effort to gut government waste, has ceased operations eight months early, with its tasks now handed off to other federal offices, the Daily Mail reported.
From the get-go, DOGE was unveiled with bold promises via executive order at the start of Trump’s second term, set to run until mid-2026.
Led by tech mogul Elon Musk, DOGE charged forward, slashing budgets and reshaping federal agencies to match the administration’s vision.
Musk was its loudest cheerleader, even swinging a chainsaw at a conservative gathering to dramatize the mission of cutting government bloat.
“This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy,” Musk proclaimed at the Conservative Political Action Conference, a catchy soundbite that now rings a bit empty given DOGE’s silent exit (Elon Musk).
Despite the early hype from Trump, Musk, and top officials on social media, DOGE’s collapse came without a whisper of acknowledgment from the White House.
Scott Kupor, head of the Office of Personnel Management, didn’t mince words, stating, “That doesn’t exist,” when pressed on DOGE’s current standing (Scott Kupor).
Kupor and internal reports confirm that many of DOGE’s roles have shifted to the OPM, while other duties are now scattered across the federal landscape.
As DOGE faded, its staff didn’t just sit idle—key players like Zachary Terrell landed as CTO at Health and Human Services, while Rachel Riley took a top spot at the Office of Naval Research.
Others, including Jeremy Lewin, moved to oversee foreign aid at the State Department, and some joined the newly formed National Design Studio under ex-DOGE member Joe Gebbia.
Gebbia’s studio, focused on polishing government websites, got a shout-out from DOGE alum Edward Coristine, who urged followers online to apply for roles there.
The National Design Studio isn’t just window dressing—it’s launched platforms to recruit law enforcement for D.C. streets and promote Trump’s drug pricing efforts.
Meanwhile, the battle against red tape continues, with former DOGE staffer Scott Langmack building AI tools at HUD to target regulations for elimination.
For those of us rooting for a leaner government, DOGE’s unannounced demise—especially after Musk’s public clash with Trump and exit from Washington—feels like a fumble, though the fight against bureaucratic overreach still shows signs of life elsewhere.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A school has gotten caught promoting online pornography as "art," and then concealing that agenda from parents.
And officials with the American Center for Law and Justice aren't letting it slide.
"Our clients, Stephanie Boyanski and Jessy Roberts, were horrified to learn that their seventh-grade children were assigned to visit an unvetted website containing graphic sexual images as part of an art project. The teacher, Ms. Bridgette Gates, displayed these images on a Smart Board in class, acknowledged that 'some images were inappropriate,' and then instructed students to 'ignore them and be mature,'" the ACLJ explained about the dispute that has arisen in Watertown City School District in New York.
There, students in seventh grade were ordered to see pornography "under the guise of an 'art lesson.'"
"This wasn't an accident. Students viewed this explicit material repeatedly over the course of approximately two weeks, for a graded assignment. No parental notice. No opt-out option. No filtering of graphic content. No alternative assignment," the legal team explained. "One of the students involved is a survivor of sexual assault. This assignment triggered traumatic memories, and this student is now in counseling as a direct result of the school's actions."
The lawyers said they are taking action, beginning with a formal demand letter to the superintendent outlining the district's constitutional violations and its failure to protect students from exposure to pornographic material.
"We are demanding a formal reprimand in the teacher's file, a clear policy barring teachers from showing sexually explicit content to children without parental notification, mandatory parental consent and opt-out procedures, and district-funded counseling for students traumatized by the assignment," the ACLJ explained.
It's a district with which the ACLJ is familiar, at it earlier refused to provide legally required access to a religious group.
The report noted the parents only found out about the violations by accident, through parents who reviewed an assignment on their students' school laptops and found the "sexually explicit" material.
The teacher at the time blamed the IT department for not blocking it, but the school then refused to let parents meet with the teacher.
The district then claimed the students had "come across inappropriate content," but that, the ACLJ said, wasn't the case.
"That phrasing was deliberately misleading. Students did not 'come across' anything. They were assigned to view this graphic content by their teacher."
When the dispute came before the school board, "The president of the teachers' union mobilized teachers to attend the meeting in 'solidarity,' canceled after-school activities to ensure staff attendance, and distributed 'Fact Over Fiction' pins – an unmistakable message aimed at parents. He went so far as to compare concerned parents to vandals of his Little Free Library outside of his home and dismissed them as 'internet warriors,'" the legal team explained.
But the law is on the side of the parents, the report said. "For over a century, the Supreme Court has affirmed that parents have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A school-board member in Tennessee is "unquitting" after initially resigning amid revelations she appeared to have sex on the Showtime series "Gigolos."
Last Monday, Teresa Crosslin was sworn in as the District 3 School Board member for the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System.
"That same day, the school district received an 'anonymous call' claiming that I appeared in an adult Showtime television show more than a decade ago," Crosslin wrote in Clarksville Now. "When this was disclosed to me, I panicked.
"Believing that resigning might spare the School Board and my family embarrassment, I stepped down before I had time to think clearly."
Crosslin is now withdrawing her initial resignation, saying: "I apologize for the whiplash caused by my resignation and now my withdrawal of that resignation. My initial decision was made in a moment of panic and isolation. After prayer, counsel and reflection, I know I am ready and willing to serve our community with integrity, resilience and renewed purpose."
She does admit the information from the initial call is true.
"I've never denied it happened – I just didn't comment about it when previously asked," she said.
"Nearly 13 years ago, during a low point in my life, I appeared in the show referenced. We all have chapters we wish we could rewrite. Mine is now on full display. I own it. I do not hide from it. And I will not allow it to define me. I recommitted my life to Christ, and I stand today as a new creation in Him."
She told local media the scene on the TV show was only acting, and she did not actually have sex with the actor.
Crosslin says it has since become clear the "anonymous call" was politically motivated.
"Local Democrats sought to pressure me out of office so they could install their preferred candidate," she noted.
"The timing of the call, delivered after I was sworn in, combined with the rapid posting of this information on the Montgomery County Democrats' Facebook page, Democrat-aligned outlets, The Tennessee Holler, and the coordinated online push to defame me speaks for itself.
"I am not a politician. I am a lifelong community member who stepped forward to serve our district. When confronted with sensitive information from my past, and not wanting to become the center of controversy, I reacted out of fear and resigned. But with the understanding that I was set up and pressured into that decision, I am withdrawing my resignation. I am ready to serve. This experience has only strengthened my resolve and deepened my commitment to our students, families and schools."
Tim Harvey, the county attorney, has since weighed in on the matter, saying Crosslin can remain a member of the school board.
"Crosslin was given the oath of office, submitted a resignation, but then her resignation was withdrawn before it had legal effect under TCA: 8-48-104," Harvey said in an opinion obtained by Clarksville Now.
Hold the barricades—President Donald Trump has dialed back his once-fiery rhetoric about sending the National Guard into New York City under its incoming mayor, Zohran Mamdani.
In a surprising pivot, Trump has softened his stance on deploying troops to the Big Apple as part of his broader push to tackle crime in Democrat-run urban centers.
This shift comes despite his earlier tough talk, though he’s keeping the option open if circumstances shift in the future.
The change in tone follows a notable sit-down with Mayor-elect Mamdani at the White House, an encounter that caught many off guard.
Trump himself described the Oval Office meeting on Friday as unexpectedly cordial, a far cry from the campaign trail barbs.
He seems to be extending a rare olive branch to a figure he previously painted as part of the progressive problem.
Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Saturday, Trump clarified his current thinking on federal intervention in New York City.
He suggested that other cities are in greater need of the National Guard right now, showing a strategic pause rather than a full retreat.
“If they need it. Right now, other places need it more, but if they need it,” Trump stated, balancing caution with his signature resolve. (President Donald Trump)
Reflecting on the meeting with Mamdani, Trump hinted at a willingness to cooperate, which might raise eyebrows among his staunchest supporters.
“We agree on a lot more than I would have thought,” he told the press, suggesting there could be room for collaboration. (President Donald Trump)
Is this a genuine thaw, or just a tactical play to keep options open while focusing elsewhere?
Trump’s comments on New York City fit into his larger agenda of addressing urban crime through National Guard deployments in Democrat-led areas.
Legal challenges have dogged these efforts, with the Supreme Court currently reviewing a blocked deployment to Chicago, yet Trump remains undeterred.
Despite setbacks, he continues to champion federal intervention, claiming public support in struggling cities like Chicago where he insists citizens are clamoring for action.