According to the New York Post, the Trump administration recently reversed its demand to replace Washington, D.C.'s local police chief with a federal official after facing legal pushback.
This bold move was met with immediate legal challenges from city officials, leading to a contentious lawsuit. The central issue was the legality of such a federal intrusion into local law enforcement affairs, a situation that escalated into a judicial review.
During court proceedings, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes expressed skepticism about the federal government's authority to completely overtake local police operations. She indicated that while the president might request local police assistance as per the statute, direct control was beyond the stated legal boundaries.
Judge Reyes played a crucial role in steering the conflict towards a compromise. She suggested that both parties find a middle ground to avoid a complete legal standoff, hinting she would favor blocking the federal takeover unless an agreement was reached.
Attorney Yaakov Roth defended the administration's stance, arguing that President Trump held extensive powers to dictate the operational aspects of the D.C. police, especially concerning federal priorities like immigration enforcement.
Eventually, the administration dialed back its original stance, settling instead on a directive that insisted on local police's compliance with federal immigration laws, effectively overriding conflicting local statutes.
The turn of events sparked a mix of relief and ongoing concern among local authorities and community leaders. Chief Pamela Smith of the D.C. police voiced her strong opposition, stating, "In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive."
The administration's adjusted order required D.C. police to aid in federal immigration enforcement, as directed by Attorney General Pam Bondi. This move continued to stress the local-federal relationship, maintaining a focus on the contentious issue of immigration enforcement.
The legal pivot by the administration did not fully quell the underlying tensions but moved the conflict into a new phase of negotiation and potential policy reevaluation.
As the dust settles on this high-profile altercation, the implications for federal-local law enforcement collaborations remain under close scrutiny. The judiciary's role in defining and restricting presidential powers in local law enforcement has been highlighted as crucial in maintaining the balance between federal directives and local autonomy.
The incident underscores the complex dynamics of governance in a federal system, where legal boundaries and civic leadership intertwine significantly.
This event may set a precedent for future interactions between federal authorities and local law enforcement agencies, particularly in areas where policy priorities conflict with local laws and community values.
Looking ahead, the dialogue between federal and local government officials will be vital in navigating the complexities of law enforcement collaborations. It is essential for building trust and ensuring that public safety remains a priority without compromising local autonomy.
The ongoing negotiations will likely serve as a litmus test for the robustness of the United States' federal structure, especially regarding how power and responsibilities are distributed between federal and local entities.
As these discussions continue to evolve, they will undoubtedly influence how similar situations are handled in the future, potentially leading to new legal precedents and policies that further define the interplay between local and federal authorities.
The group of Texas state Democratic lawmakers who fled their state to avoid a redistricting vote were criticized heavily by Republicans, but also received overwhelming positive support from high-ups in their party, like former President Barack Obama.
According to Breitbart, Obama met with the rogue group of Democrats and was described as "cheerleading" them for standing up against the GOP's efforts to redistrict the state, which would likely result in extra Republican seats.
ABC News was the first to report that Obama had met with the group of Dems on a Zoom call, though the location was "undisclosed" as the Dems claim they're under Republican surveillance.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had previously ordered the arrest of the group of Dem holdouts.
Texas state Rep. Gene Wu, chairman of the Texas House Democratic Caucus, was quick to thank Obama for the pep talk and Zoom meeting in an X post.
"We are encouraged by your words and remain committed to fighting for democracy, in Texas & across the country," Wu said after thanking the former president.
Thank you President @BarackObama for joining @TexasHDC members via Zoom and standing with Texas Democrats today!
We are encouraged by your words and remain committed to fighting for democracy, in Texas & across the country. #txlege pic.twitter.com/Xf78oYBKmG
— Gene Wu (@GeneforTexas) August 14, 2025
Breitbart noted:
More than 50 Texas House Democrats fled the state on August 4 to deny a quorum needed to pass a Republican measure that would increase the number of GOP-favorable Congressional districts for representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Should the measure pass, it would likely strong benefit Republicans in the 2026 midterms, which is why Dems are throwing an absolute fit attempting to sabotage it.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder was also reportedly on the Zoom call. Holder heads the party's redistricting committee.
ABC News reported some of the contents of the converstion.
"We can’t let a systematic assault on democracy just happen and stand by and so because of your actions, because of your courage, what you’ve seen is California responding, other states looking at what they can do to offset this mid-decade gerrymandering," Obama reportedly said.
He added, "I want all of you to be returning feeling invigorated and know that you have helped to lead what is going to be a long struggle. It’s not going to be resolved right away, and it’s going to require, ultimately, the American people understanding the stakes and realizing that we cannot take our freedoms and our democracy for granted. You’ve helped set the tone for that, and I’m grateful for it."
Only time will tell if the Dems are able to sabotage the measure or if Republicans will come out on top.
President Donald Trump has said in will make the decision "in the next few weeks" about changing the way marijuana is scheduled to effectively decriminalize it, The Hill reported. This was part of a plan first floated by then-President Joe Biden to change how the government classifies the drug from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule III.
The push to legalize pot has historically been a leftist policy, but Trump said in 2024 that the issue was on the table. "As I have previously stated, I believe it is time to end needless arrests and incarcerations of adults for small amounts of marijuana for personal use. We must also implement smart regulations, while providing access for adults, to safe, tested product," Trump wrote on Truth Social at the time.
"As a Floridian, I will be voting YES on Amendment 3 this November. As President, we will continue to focus on research to unlock the medical uses of marijuana to a Schedule 3 drug, and work with Congress to pass common sense laws, including safe banking for state authorized companies, and supporting states rights to pass marijuana laws, like in Florida, that work so well for their citizens," Trump said.
Trump is not seeking to make the substance completely legal, but it's no doubt a step in that direction. Biden attempted to get it done during his time in office, as he saw it as a criminal justice reform, but Drug Enforcement Administration Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney canceled a hearing on the matter just before Trump took office.
Marijuana Policy Project Director Adam Smith blames the DEA for resisting the change to the laws on marijuana and thwarting Biden's plan. "The DEA, culturally and historically, has been against reforming cannabis laws," Smith said.
"And I think to some extent that is their natural response, to dig in their heels,” Smith said. Still, Smith believes that the growing tolerance of the drug signals that the time is right to make the change to how it's handled on the legal side, even among Republicans.
"I would point out that majorities of Americans from all parties support cannabis law reform and support legalization. [A] large, large, overwhelming majority support medical access, and so I don’t think it’s as unpopular on the right as it is often portrayed," Smith claimed.
"Also, there’s an issue of personal freedom that should speak to conservatives," Smith added. Notably, the Florida measure Trump voted on failed to get 60% of the vote required in the heavily Republican state. However, a Pew Research poll found that only 10% of Americans polled believed cannabis should be completely illegal, while another 87% support the legalization of recreational and medical use.
The push for legalization isn't just from the people who wish to use marijuana. The move would also allow growers to declare additional tax incentives, including deducting business expenses or claiming credits if the drug were rescheduled, as producers of substances classified in Schedule I or II are prohibited from such claims.
Proponents argue that this means the product could be regulated and tested for the consumer's benefit, but it's a small consolation to have America's cities reeking of reefer. Opponents of the drug's rescheduling have pointed out that it unfairly gives tax incentives to an entire industry while the rest of the nation takes the brunt of the downsides.
Kevin Sabet, drug policy adviser to three presidents and president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, believes this is not in line with Trump's values. "I don’t think it’s consistent with his agenda at all. The other thing is, you know, it would give huge tax breaks to the marijuana industry," Sabet said.
"That’s all that this is about. It’s about money. It’s about a small number of people making a lot of money off of many users," he added. Even if Trump wishes to push this through, there may be resistance at the DEA, considering that the new DEA Administrator Terry Cole walked back support for rescheduling after he was confirmed.
The places that have decriminalized marijuana are now filled with the stench of pot, while stoned individuals can be found out and about throughout the day. Bringing this to every city and small town in America seems like a terrible plan and a surprising move from Trump, especially since it was started under Biden.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. military trains its personnel on virtually everything under the sun, yet fails to provide any training at all on the fundamental legal document of the United States of America – and the one every service member swears an oath to "support and defend."
WorldNetDaily spoke to Dr. Chase Spears, a retired U.S. Army public affairs officer, writer and host of the Finding Your Spine podcast about this blatant oversight.
A service member's sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution dates back hundreds of years in American history, Spears noted. He described the commitment as "a good and noble thing." For while other militaries around the world swear allegiance to a ruler or a particular ruling party, Spears said, "the American military is set apart because we swear to our Constitution."
Interestingly, he admitted that over the course of his two decades of service to his country, "it was hard to find anyone who actually read it." As a result, "hardly anyone knows what's actually written in the nation's foundational document."
Why don't service members know the Constitution? Why don't Americans, in general, understand it? These are two questions that heightened Spears' interest in the topic, compelling him to write an article titled "The Case for a Constitutional Training Culture in the Military." For Spears, the answer lies in a lack of "institutional instruction."
He explained to WND, "Many schools are deliberately not teaching civics in elementary education, and the worst offenders are in the public school system."
"That's very much by design," he added.
"They don't want Americans to know civics because the public is much easier to control when isolated from their history," Spears argued.
Specific to the military, he added, "We train them how to shoot, how to manage equipment, how to plan maneuvers, and so much more, but you won't find a single line of instruction about the Constitution and how to uphold an oath to it."
"There are also 'equal opportunity' trainings and 'sexual harassment and prevention' trainings that are mandated," he shared.
"These all sound good on the surface, but through the years, they've become Trojan horses for hard leftwing Marxist ideologies to infiltrate unit culture." Thus, the military has been influenced on how to think about "highly contentious political partisan issues," but its personnel have not been trained on the Constitution that they've actually sworn to defend.
"This is extraordinarily problematic," Spears lamented. "Ignorance to the military's true purpose is how you get a military that has members who will say, 'Of course you should take this experimental jab and lay aside your moral beliefs because you ceded your rights when you joined the military.'" But for Spears, this couldn't be further from the truth.
"There is no such clause in the very Constitution we swear to," a point also noted in the book titled "Defending the Constitution Behind Enemy Lines" by Navy Commander Robert A. Green, Jr.
"Leaders who ignore a service member's constitutionally protected rights are the kind of people helping separate soldiers from their history, and making the Pentagon and partisan whims of Washington, D.C. the ultimate authority," Spears argued.
He encourages Defense Department leadership to strongly consider his words, paving a way to include training service members to know and understand the U.S. Constitution.
"Our military has to get concerned about the constitutional illiteracy filling its ranks," he asserted.
"While there's already precedent to train soldiers in basic reading, writing and arithmetic skills, we should also be educating them to know the very document they swear to support and defend."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats and other extremists long have insisted the January 6, 2021, events at the U.S. Capitol were an "insurrection."
And they continually blame President Donald Trump, who urged its supporters to protest "peacefully" that day.
They've even tried to use their assumption of an "insurrection" to try to keep Trump off the 2024 presidential ballot.
That stunt reached full fruition at the Colorado state Supreme Court, where an all-Democrat panel decided to go for it, before being summarily blocked and reprimanded by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Actually, those events were a protest that got out of control, with the result being vandalism damage to the Capitol and hundreds and hundreds of protesters jailed for months by anti-Trump prosecutors.
But now there's new evidence of an "insurrection."
Actually, constitutional expert Jonathan Turley describes it as more of a "mutiny."
It came in a commentary in the New York Times by Barack Obama administration officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson.
They seemed to write that the U.S. military should disobey the commander in chief, President Donald Trump.
Their sentiments were that they were counting on the military to overthrow the president and they now are disappointed that that apparently won't happen.
The dispute arose over Trump's agenda to crack down on crime, including the rampant violence in Washington, D.C., by using the National Guard to keep order there.
Turley explained, "The NY Times seems to have changed its mind on insurrections. Former Obama officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson wrote the bizarre column, 'We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.' Only the last three words are demonstrably true…"
He added, "There is no question that Trump has the authority to order the National Guard into Washington, a federal enclave. Yet, the column decries how 'it now seems clear to us that the military will not rescue Americans from Mr. Trump's misuse of the nation's military capabilities'…
"So, let's get this straight. A President issued clearly lawful orders for deployment and the NY Times and these Obama officials expected them to simply disregard his orders. In fairness, that is not exactly an insurrection; more like a mutiny."
Commentary postings at Twitchy first said, "At this point in our Twitchy lives, you'd think nothing would bother or shock us, and yet The New York Times found a way to do just that. Hey, we get it, they hate Trump, they're not big fans of America in general, and the idea of 45-47 doing something to help Americans struggling is somehow triggering to these people, but still. Whining because the military hasn't overthrown our duly elected president. Really, you guys? That's low and stupid, even for you."
And Twitchy pointed out the headline soon was changed: "Somebody at the Times eventually thought that was saying the quiet part a little too out loud, so the title of the op-ed was changed to 'How the military became another instrument of Trump's power.' That's still ridiculous, especially considering that Trump is the Commander-in-Chief of the military."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The federal government has begun an investigation into four school districts in Kansas for letting "gender ideology run amok," in violation of the law.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon said, "The Kansas districts' alleged behavior of allowing gender ideology to run amok in their schools is an affront not only to the law, but to the sound judgment we expect from our educational leaders. School personnel should not confuse and unsettle young girls by forcing them to share sex-separated sports and intimate facilities with boys; nor should school personnel abuse their position of authority by hiding sensitive information pertaining to a child's health and wellbeing from that child's parents."
She continued, "From day one, the Trump administration promised to protect students and parents by restoring Title IX and parental rights laws to the fullest extent of the law. My offices will vigorously investigate these matters to ensure these practices come to an end."
Praising the plan was Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who said, "Title IX was enacted to protect the rights of girls to equal educational opportunity and safety. Kansas had to sue and defeat the Biden administration in federal court to stop them from dismantling Title IX. I am grateful that we now have a federal government that takes Title IX seriously and will ensure that school districts follow the law."
Being investigated by the department's Office for Civil Rights and Student Privacy Policy Office are school officials in Topeka, Shawnee, Olathe and Kansas City.
The work was begun after a complaint was registered with the federal department by the Defense of Freedom Institute, which alleged the schools' policies and practices let students participate in sports and access intimate facilities based on so-called "gender identity," that is the person's thoughts about what gender they feel.
Not only is access to intimate facilities a focal point, but those schools' practices actually prevent officials from letting parents know about a student's "transgender status."
That could be a violation of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
The Washington Examiner noted Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools and educational programs receiving federal funding, while FERPA allows parents to access or request changes to their children's education records.
The report also said the Education Department is leading "a number of investigations into other states and school districts, as well as colleges and universities, over alleged Title IX violations. The inquiries are part of President Donald Trump's broader crackdown on gender ideology across the nation."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 mandate era, tens of thousands of service members who were forced to leave the U.S. military, or who left on their own over the issue, are now being invited back. However, relatively few have expressed a desire to return to a military that, not long ago, trampled on their freedoms.
On July 26, Stuart Scheller, senior adviser to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, turned his focus to the reinstatement process. While many commended him for his effort, he also made a statement that heightened the concerns of those who were negatively impacted by the 2021 mandate and who continue to demand that some senior military leaders be held accountable for illegally enforcing the experimental shot.
"… [M]any who exited the service because of poor treatment over the shot refusal want retribution. I get tagged every day with posts questioning when commanders at every level of the military will be thrown in jail for 'illegally enforcing the COVID vaccine.' That's not going to happen. Time to move forward."
Two days after Scheller's statement, this reporter emailed him requesting clarification of what could be interpreted as saying military leadership will not be held accountable for enforcing the "unlawful as implemented" mandate. To date, no response has been received from Scheller.
WorldNetDaily spoke to retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Darin Gaub, a former UH-60 Black Hawk pilot and battalion commander.
"Quite disappointed" by Scheller's lack of response, Gaub said, "Those who have risked a lot and lost a lot in the fight for liberty are begging and asking for transparency from every agency." Service members and veterans, as well as the American people, want "absolute truth and honesty from everybody involved," he added.
Failure to demand accountability on behalf of the tens of thousands of service members adversely affected by the COVID-19 mandate is "a break in trust with the very people who make the military what it is," said Gaub. "It doesn't matter what else you do, because if you break trust and refuse to restore it to the people who make up the military, your military will never be as strong and as sound as you want it to be."
"You have to have accountability to restore trust," he added, "and those who willingly and knowingly violated laws and ethical standards to push the jabs need to be held accountable regardless of rank or position." Whatever "the smoke and mirrors or the cover story" military leaders who enforced the mandate try to create, he said, "they need to be held 100 percent accountable."
"If that doesn't happen, especially in the four years of this [Trump] administration, you will never see trust restored," Gaub stressed, because without real accountability, "they'll miss any chance of rebuilding the backbone of what makes the military strong and what makes it lethal."
What would accountability look like? For Gaub, it would mean some senior military leaders considered for courts-martial. He would even advocate that such proceedings be televised, to show the American people that law breakers, even in the military, will not be tolerated. In addition, he said, "their retirement grade should be based on their last known honorable conduct," which would have occurred before the now-rescinded 2021 vax mandate.
Bottom line, said the former Army chopper pilot and battalion commander: "If you can't promise the people sitting at home that their children will not be put in the same position and not have to suffer the consequences" of upholding their moral and religious convictions to object to an unproven and experimental shot, "you'll never have the best and brightest of America go into a system that's going to chew them up and spit them out."
On the other hand, WND also spoke to an Air Force officer who agreed with Scheller. A fighter pilot affected by the mandates, and who asked to have his name withheld for this story, he considers it "impractical to fire people or anything else of the sort, [arguing that] just because they violated 10 U.S.C. § 1107a does not mean they have criminal liability." The U.S. Code should have required informed consent for the "emergency use" of the COVID-19 shot. However, this was not provided to service members.
Despite the law, he suggested, "the Defense Department's best policy for righting wrongs is in a large-scale policy change for vaccines."
According to the Air Force officer, "We are not in a place to fire tons of people, nor do we need to." He agreed that investigations need to be done, but said, "our [military] community is asking way too much, taking a major win [with the Trump administration only to] squander it with a lot of unreasonable requests that will only alienate the administration."
Having survived the COVID era with the ability to continue serving his country, the Air Force officer said, "It can't always be perfect, and if I've learned anything from this fight, you have to take small wins by baby steps and make influential friends in the process, even if they don't agree on your end state."
The Air Force officer stressed his views do not represent those of the Department of Defense or Department of the Air Force.
Regarding the series of questions submitted to Scheller by this reporter, the Air Force officer said he is particularly interested in knowing how service members can be assured that a similar illegal and harmful mandate will not happen again, as it did in both the anthrax and COVID-19 eras.
"While I share the Department of Defense's desire to move forward," he acknowledged, "I would like to see some significant increases in medical freedom in the DoD." For example, he noted, "There's no reason to lose service members over a flu shot or a Japanese encephalitis vaccine."
Finally, Gen. Mike Flynn, former national security adviser at the start of Donald Trump's first term as president, just posted on X about an open letter, titled "Declaration of Military Accountability," having been officially entered into the Congressional Record. Signed by 231 active service members and veterans, the letter demands accountability over the Defense Department's highly controversial enforcement of the now-rescinded COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
The signatories state, "In the coming years, thousands within our network will run for Congress and seek appointments to executive branch offices, while those of us still serving on active duty will continue to put fulfilling our oaths ahead of striving for rank or position.
"For those who achieve the lawful authority to do so, we pledge to recall from retirement the military leaders who broke the law and will convene courts-martial for the crimes they committed."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge in Alabama has shot down demands by extremists in academia for the "right" to continue to push their DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion, ideologies on students.
Those agendas often include lessons that are racist or sexist, or both.
It is U.S. District Judge David Proctor that concluded the plaintiffs failed to prove enough of their case to qualify for a preliminary injunction while the arguments develop in court, a decision that allows the state legislature's new limits on specifically teaching students to be divisive to stand.
The law bars publicly funded schools from hosting or funding DEI programs that promote radical agendas. It also condemns "divisive concepts," like forcing kids to feel guilty or complicit in historical wrongs based on their race or ethnicity.
An example would be the ideology that blames all white people for slavery. Such agendas frequently have moved to extremes, in some cases demanding that whites who never were slave owners to pay billions of dollars in "reparations" to blacks who never were slaves.
Such programs are purely based on race.
The judge concluded the law doesn't cause a problem for speech or academic freedoms, and teachers still are allowed to discuss, and students are allowed to hear, about such issues as long as the teaching is "in an objective manner without endorsement."
If a teacher teaches "that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129," the judge said.
The law provides a list of common-sense guidelines so that teaching focuses on facts, not the individual beliefs of a teacher, or his or her political agenda.
It defines "divisive concepts" to include teaching that any "race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior," or that "individuals should be discriminated against or adversely treated because of their race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin."
Teachers, under the law, cannot force students to agree that "the moral character of an individual is determined by his or her race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin" or "by virtue of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin, the individual is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously."
Further, students cannot be ordered to adhere to the faith that individuals, because of their race or color "are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin."
Nor can students be ordered to "assent to a sense of guilt, complicity, or a need to apologize on the basis of his or her race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin."
State money cannot be used to sponsor "any diversity, equity, and inclusion program or maintain any office, physical location, or department that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion programs," or "direct or compel a student, employee, or contractor to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to a divisive concept."
Other free speech points include that state-funded schools cannot require students or employees to participate in "any diversity, equity, and inclusion program or any training, orientation, or course work that advocates for or requires assent to a divisive concept"
Significantly, students cannot be required to "participate, as part of any required curriculum or mandatory professional training, in an activity that involves lobbying at the state or local level for legislation related to a divisive concept."
Punishments for disagreeing with a teacher's ideology also is barred.
Teachers were recommended to implement a disclaimer in their courses, explaining classes "may present difficult, objectionable, or controversial topics for consideration, but will do so through an objective scholarly lens designed to encourage critical thinking."
One professor, a plaintiff, however, insisted that she be allowed to indoctrinate students with her beliefs about "[w]hite privilege, implicit bias, structural racism, mental health disparities, homophobia, racism, sexism, and systemic oppression of minority communities."
She apparently believes "racism and sexism are deeply embedded in American society" and she wants to train students about the "impact of systemic racism."
The judge's ruling triggered a flood of outrage from leftists, who have supported the plaintiffs claims that the law protecting students is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.
The case, Simon v. Ivey, challenges the law implemented in the state just months ago.
They claim "harms" from the ruling will include "censorship of teachings and discussions involving race-based and sex-based inequalities."
Plaintiff Cassanda Simon said the law already "has upended the lives of Alabama students and educators, who should have the right to receive and provide the high-quality of education that all Alabamian learners deserve."
She demanded an "inclusive curriculum."
Another like-minded plaintiff, Sydney Testman, said, "I've seen firsthand how SB 129 has transformed my college campus for the worst (sic). Voices have been silenced, opportunities have been revoked, and meaningful community engagement has faded. This decision undermines the need for students to properly feel a sense of belonging and inclusion on campus."
Yet another plaintiff, Ja'Kobe Bibbs, said the "detrimental effects" of the law are obvious.
Bibbs wants a campus "where people across identities and walks of life can come to learn, build community, and grow together."
Dana Patton, a teacher and another in the long list of plaintiffs, added that the decision is "yet another step backwards for the University of Alabama system and fails to address the harms that Alabama students and professors have faced on account of this law."
Patton complains that professors now much live in a "culture of fear."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A man who shouted obscenities and threw a Subway sandwich at a federal officer in Washington, D.C., when President Donald Trump decided to address crime in the district by activating the National Guard, was charged with a felony for assaulting an officer, and now has been fired from his job.
"If you touch any law enforcement officer, we will come after you. I just learned that this defendant worked at the Department of Justice — NO LONGER. Not only is he FIRED, he has been charged with a felony. This is an example of the Deep State we have been up against for seven months as we work to refocus the DOJ. You will NOT work in this administration while disrespecting our government and law enforcement," Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.
A report at the Blaze described the fired suspect, Sean Charles Dunn, 37, a D.C. resident, as a "deranged DC leftist."
Dunn was identified in a police complaint as the suspect who screamed obscenities at federal officers and then threw a sandwich at them.
That prompted a felony assault count.
The Daily Caller News Foundation had reported earlier, "A man in a pink shirt can be seen in a video jumping and shouting at an officer before hurling his sandwich at him and fleeing. Pirro said in her own X video that her office had charged the man with assault on a police officer.
Pirro said, "So President [Donald] Trump has vowed to make D.C. safe and beautiful again. And as part of his effort to fight crime, he's bringing in our federal law enforcement partners … to help the Metropolitan PD fight crime. And the president's message to the criminals was, 'If you spit, we hit.' Well, we didn't quite do that the other night when an individual went up to one of the federal law enforcement officers and started jumping up and down, screaming at him, berating him, yelling at him.
"And then he took a Subway sandwich … and took it and threw it at the officer. He thought it was funny. Well, he doesn't think it's funny today because we charged him with a felony, assault on a police officer. And we're going to back the police to the hilt. So there, stick your Subway sandwich somewhere else."
Trump said the National Guard was needed in the district's crime levels meant there was a "public safety emergency."
A recent decision by a federal appeals court has affirmed the implementation of a controversial immigration measure, Newsweek reported.
The court has allowed the Alien Registration Requirement (ARR) to continue, endorsing a key component of the Trump administration's immigration enforcement strategy.
The ruling against halting the ARR was delivered on Tuesday by a per curiam decision from a three-judge panel consisting of Judges appointed by Presidents Reagan, Obama, and Biden—Karen Henderson, Robert Wilkins, and Bradley Garcia, respectively.
Introduced on April 11, the ARR mandates that noncitizens aged 14 and older must register their fingerprints and carry an identification card. Noncompliance with this requirement could lead to fines or imprisonment.
Furthermore, noncitizens under the age of 14 are required to be registered by a parent or guardian and must re-register at the age of 14. This ensures that all applicable individuals are accounted for under the policy.
The decision confirms an earlier ruling from April 10 by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who deemed that the plaintiffs did not show sufficient harm to justify an injunction against the rule.
According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the rule impacts an estimated 2.2 to 3.2 million people, primarily targeting undocumented entrants. DHS emphasizes the rule's significant scope in addressing undocumented immigration.
The ARR also applies to Canadian nationals who stay in the U.S. longer than one month, expanding its reach beyond typical foreign visitor categories. Notably, green card holders and certain other documented immigrants are exempt, as they are already considered registered.
The legal proceedings concerning the ARR are advancing quickly, with deadlines set for the plaintiffs' and government's briefs in September and October, respectively, and a final reply by the plaintiffs in early November. Oral arguments will be scheduled thereafter.
Carl Berquist from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights views the ARR as a part of a broader deportation strategy, integrating various tools and incentives aimed at encouraging self-deportation among noncitizens.
Berquist also raised constitutional concerns, stating, "It had a severe chilling effect on noncitizens, implicating their Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate and their First Amendment right to assemble and to protest."
The National Immigration Law Center has echoed these concerns, suggesting that the enforcement of this registration could broadly target anyone perceived as foreign by law enforcement, potentially affecting a wide range of individuals.
In contrast, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin underscored the administration's resolve to enforce all immigration laws uniformly without discrimination or selective enforcement.
This recent legal affirmation of the ARR by the appeals court marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy, reflecting deep divides over how best to regulate and manage immigration.
The court's decision underscores the complex interplay between national security, legal enforcement, and individual rights at the heart of American immigration policy.