This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One member of Congress has torn into another, publicly, for an on-floor confrontation that didn't go well.
It is Fox News that reports Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., bashed Rep. John Mannion, D-N.Y., after he shouted at Lawler he was on the "wrong side" of the House floor.
The report said, "Democrats and Republicans traditionally sit on opposite sides of the chamber, but it's not unusual for lawmakers of either party to enter through any door and cross to their side."
Lawler entered, and Mannion attacked him with, "Get over there and tell them the country is falling apart."
Lawler responded on social media, "John Mannion was entirely unhinged and unprofessional. That was a shameful display that exposed his complete lack of temperament.
"No wonder numerous staffers have previously alleged a toxic work environment. He should go seek help for anger management," The social media statement is linked, not embedded, because of language that followed.
Mannion, ahead of the dust-up, "was heard shouting at reporters," the report said: "We need you. We need you to hold them accountable. Media, it's your country too."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Amid a Trump administration war on anti-Semitism, which has moved from a number of universities with such policies to the broader scope of American society, a lawsuit has been filed by the Department of Justice over the alleged actions at a California coffee shop.
And the action was accompanied by a warning from Attorney General Pam Bondi.
"You can't do that. And so we've sued them, and we're going to stop this from happening. And anywhere in the country, if you do this, we're coming after you," she said.
Newsweek reports that a lawyer, Glenn Katon, for the "Jerusalem Coffee House," denied all the accusations it refused to serve Jews.
"Neither the owner nor staff are anti-Semitic, and they would not tolerate anti-Semitism in their cafe," Katon said.
The action alleges the coffee shop denied service to two customers wearing the Star of David, which the owner denied.
"According to the civil complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, one customer visited the coffee shop while scoping out a nearby venue for a workplace event. He was wearing a baseball cap with the Hebrew words 'Am Yisraeli Chai,' which translates to 'The people of lsrael live,'" the report said.
He was confronted by a man who accused him, as a Jew, of being complicit in Israel's defense of its own population following the Hamas terror attack on Israel on Oct. 7.
The customer returned later, to be told he was not welcome, with "owner Fathi Abdulrahim Harara then allegedly joining yelling 'Jew' and 'Zionist' at him in the street," the report said.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, said, "It is illegal, intolerable, and reprehensible for any American business open to the public to refuse to serve Jewish customers. Through our vigorous enforcement of Title II of the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibiting race and religious discrimination, the Justice Department is committed to combatting anti-Semitism and discrimination and protecting the civil rights of all Americans."
The report said a similar circumstance happened to another Jewish customer, who allegedly was told to leave.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley said the events also have triggered a private lawsuit by the Anti-Defamation League.
"The federal lawsuit notes that, on the first anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel, the Jerusalem Coffee House announced two new drinks: 'Iced In Tea Fada,' an obvious reference to 'intifada.' It also introduced as drink, 'Sweet Sinwar,' an apparent reference to Yahya Sinwar, the former leader of Hamas who orchestrated the massacre," he explained.
The complaint also charges the coffee house's exterior side wall displays inverted red triangles, a symbol of violence against Jews that has been spray-painted on Jewish homes and synagogues in anti-Semitic attacks, he noted.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A rescission package that installs into law President Donald Trump's agenda to cut spending on foreign aid and PBS has been adopted by the U.S. House.
The package cancels money that already had been allowed by Congress in furtherance of the savings plans launched by the Department of Government Efficiency.
Among the billions of dollars being cut is hundreds of millions for PBS and NPR, which Republicans have described as leftist propaganda machines.
A report from Just the News explains the total spending eliminated is $9.4 billion.
It was adopted on a 214-212 vote, and now must go to the Senate.
"The package includes $1.1 billion in cuts for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as the White House has said that NPR and PBS have 'spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news," and $8.3 billion for the United States Agency for International Development, as well as other international assistance programs," the report said.
It Rescissions Act of 2025 slashes not only PBS, NPR and USAID, but other aid programs.
There was concern for the funds being cut from PBS and NPR, with Rep. Mark Amodei, a Republican from Nevada worrying that while he understood cuts to "national stations for their editorial stances against the president," the funding cuts also hit local stations, the report said.
In the Senate, Trump's agenda will need only a simple majority of 50 votes to pass, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has explained his body will do a reconciliation package first, then address rescissions.
"For decades, Republicans have promised to cut NPR, but have never done it, until now," said Trump, on social media.
"NPR and PBS are a Radical Left Disaster, and 1000% against the Republican Party!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has offered some stunning advice to residents of his state, should California's pro-illegal alien riots encompass the streets there.
'You don't have to sit there and be a sitting duck."
His comments came in an interview on the Rubin Report.
"And we also have a policy that if you're driving on one of those streets and a mob comes and surrounds your vehicle, and threatens you, you have a right to flee for your safety.
"And so if you drive off and hit one of these people, that's their fault for impinging on you. You don't have to sit there and be a sitting duck, and let the mob grab you out of your car and drag you through the streets. You have a right to defend yourself in Florida."
Multiple nights have been violated by mobs in California who have been protesting federal enforcement of immigration laws. They actually erupted last weekend when federal agents were delivering warrants and making arrests in a cartel crime investigation that involved money laundering.
Since then, officers have been hurt, vehicles torched and buildings vandalized by the pro-illegal alien radicals.
Senate Democrats have introduced a significant legislative proposal aimed at rescinding a Pentagon policy that restricts military service based on gender dysphoria diagnoses, Breitbart reported.
This measure is a reaction to President Trump's executive orders and faces an uncertain future in a Republican-controlled legislative environment.
In a strategic move, the "Fit to Serve Act" was put forward by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, joined by 12 fellow co-sponsors, including one independent. Together, they aim to eliminate restrictions that prevent the Department of Defense from discriminating against service members based on their biological sex.
The current military policy, which the proposed legislation seeks to overturn, originated from an executive order by President Donald Trump. This policy received judicial backing for implementation earlier this May, following approval from the Supreme Court. However, it has encountered resistance at lower court levels.
Under the policy, service members diagnosed with or exhibiting symptoms of gender dysphoria faced a specific deadline to self-identify by June 6. Those missing this deadline were subject to termination unless they chose to resign voluntarily from service.
Additionally, transgender individuals serving in the National Guard and Reserves have until July 7 to comply with the policy requirements. This extension adds complexity to a policy already under intense scrutiny and debate.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has argued that individuals experiencing gender dysphoria do not meet the military's stringent mental and physical standards. This viewpoint has fueled ongoing debates within and outside the military community regarding the policy’s fairness and impact on national security.
In contrast, Sen. Warren has mounted a strong critique, arguing that the presidential order might compromise military effectiveness, stating it “makes us less safe.” Her stance highlights a profound division in how security and inclusion are perceived in military service.
The response from Senate Democrats illustrates a broader advocacy for transgender rights, challenging systemic barriers and discrimination. As this legislation develops, it underscores the complex interaction of law, policy, and personal identity within national defense.
Despite the vigorous push from its sponsors, the success of the "Fit to Serve Act" remains ambiguous. With Republicans holding a majority in both legislative houses and the presidency, traversing the political landscape to pass this bill presents substantial hurdles.
Furthermore, the intricacies of legal battles in the lower courts present an additional layer of complexity. Ongoing litigation reflects ongoing contention about the extent and implementation of such military policies, and their alignment with broader civil rights principles.
While legislative efforts continue domestically, international attention may also shape perceptions and decisions around this policy. It remains a focal point for advocates on both sides of the debate.
The introduction of the legislation aligns with broader advocacy beyond military policies. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, for instance, has spotlighted the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, emphasizing issues of justice and human rights amidst deportation and smuggling allegations.
This context enriches the discussion around the "Fit to Serve Act," suggesting a broader Democratic strategy to address individual rights within and beyond military contexts. The ongoing legislative and legal dynamics illustrate evolving conversations around identity and governance.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A recently proposed U.S. tax on remittances sent abroad by non-citizens has exposed a truth few Americans have been told – that the United States has become a primary financial engine of the Indian economy.
The provision, quietly included by the House Ways and Means Committee in a broader legislative package introduced on May 12, commonly referred to as the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," initially proposed a 5% tax on international money transfers by non-citizen visa holders and green card recipients. The goal was straightforward: to recoup a small portion of the vast sums of untaxed income being sent out of America every year.
But the backlash from Indian government officials, media outlets, lobbying groups and diaspora advocates was swift and intense. Within weeks, the rate was reduced to 3.5%.
What triggered such fervent opposition? The answer lies in the numbers.
$1 trillion and counting: What Americans haven't been told
According to India's own financial disclosures and public-facing documents, over the past decade the country has received nearly $1 trillion in foreign remittances – that is, transfers of money from a migrant worker back to their home country. A disproportionate share of those remittances originate from Indian workers within the United States. In fiscal year 2023-24, India banked $125 billion in remittances, the U.S. contributing 27.7% or approximately $34.6 billion, making the U.S. India's single largest source of foreign income.
By comparison, India's Foreign Direct Investment inflows during the same period stood at just $62 billion and its entire national defense budget in 2024 was nearly $55 billion less than the remittances it received.
In short, Indian nationals working in the U.S. are sending home more money than India attracts in global investment and more than it spends defending itself.
Financial dependency with strategic implications
Indian officials have acknowledged what few in the U.S. government seem willing to: These remittances serve as a vital "cushion" to cover current account deficits and stabilize the value of the rupee against the dollar. In economic terms, this means India relies heavily on money earned by Indian nationals abroad – particularly in the U.S. – to maintain internal stability.
But this dependency is not passive. It is the product of deliberate policy. The GATI Foundation is one key initiative, which, as WND has reported in-depth, is a state-orchestrated program designed to export millions of Indian workers, skilled and semi-skilled, into high-income economies like America's, with the explicit objective of capturing jobs in the host country. A key purpose of this program is maximizing inward remittance flows to boost the remittance share of India's GDP from 2.5% to 4-5%, resulting in an increase of $300 billion annually.
Marketed as a solution to a projected "global labor gap," GATI seeks to institutionalize India's dominance over international labor markets, reshape global migration policy and position India as the world's "trusted migration partner."
The GATI Foundation and the government of India see this as an opportunity to offload India's mounting youth unemployment and domestic jobs crisis onto the labor markets of the U.S., U.K., Germany, Japan, and others, directly undermining native workers while driving huge remittance flows to fuel India's own growth.
A modest U.S. tax is met with international uproar
The legislative proposal in Washington was modest by any global standard. The reduced 3.5% remittance tax would apply only to non-citizens on temporary work visas or with lawful permanent residency sending money out of the U.S. Yet Indian media outlets, think tanks and government-linked analysts labeled it a "discriminatory measure targeting non-U.S. citizens," "politically motivated" and even an effort to force "self-deportation" among Indian professionals.
This dire narrative, amplified by both foreign and domestic lobbying efforts, suggests the very limited measure is xenophobic and unfairly targeting Indians. India's media outrage reveals the sense of entitlement of that nation and its elites, who believe they are owed unfettered access to U.S. wages, and that any attempt to recoup even a small portion of that wealth is a sure sign of their victimhood. Indian trade groups warned the tax would deter "global talent" and threaten bilateral relations between India and the U.S.
According to economic think tank Global Trade Research Initiative, the Republican-backed proposal to tax remittances would have severe economic impact to key allies to the U.S., like India, who has been the top recipient of U.S. remittances. GTRI further stated, "The proposed U.S. tax on remittances sent abroad by non-citizens is raising alarm in India, which stands to lose billions in annual foreign currency inflows if the plan becomes law."
In other words, the tax threatens a revenue stream that India has quietly come to depend on without compensation to the country that enables it.
An uncomfortable question: Who pays for India's gains?
While Indian nationals abroad are encouraged to remit money back to their homeland and often celebrated for doing so, the economic impact on the host nation remains largely unexamined.
Each dollar sent abroad is one not spent in the U.S. economy, not invested in American infrastructure and not taxed at the federal or state level once it leaves the U.S.
U.S. employers, many of whom sponsor temporary work visas, benefit from lower labor costs. But American workers bear the brunt of wage competition, job displacement and the broader economic hollowing that comes from capital flight through massive numbers of foreign workers in the U.S.
There is also the civic imbalance, with many of the individuals sending billions abroad being protected by American laws, benefiting from American services, and living in American communities while directing their earnings to a foreign government's macroeconomic agenda.
Beyond economics: The geopolitical dimension
India's policy toward its diaspora is not merely economic; it is political. As outlined in official documents from its Ministry of External Affairs, India encourages its overseas nationals to invest in Indian assets, vote in Indian elections, and lobby foreign governments, including the U.S,. to advance India's interests.
This creates a troubling duality where foreign nationals living and working in the U.S. are expected to function as de facto agents of India's domestic and foreign policy, while remaining outside the full obligations of American citizenship.
The remittance tax, then, is more than a financial issue; it is a test of sovereignty, accountability, and national interest.
What comes next? A national conversation is long overdue
The remittance debate has revealed a broader and more urgent question: How should the United States manage the intersection of immigration, labor, and outbound capital? India's response to the proposed tax has shown just how entrenched the expectation of American subsidization has become. But the larger issue is not India's behavior; it is America's inaction.
A trillion dollars in foreign transfers should not go unnoticed. Nor should the policy frameworks that enabled it.
It is time for U.S. lawmakers, economists, and voters to confront the reality that remittances are not neutral. They are not charities. And they are not free. They are a transfer of wealth, often untaxed, frequently unexamined, and increasingly misaligned with the long-term interests of the American people. If America is serious about protecting its economy, labor force, and global position, it must begin by asking a simple question:
How much more can America afford to give away before there's nothing left to protect?
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden used the power of the White House and his presidency to have federal agencies spy on Elon Musk, the billionaire chief of Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink and X, even before President Donald Trump was elected to his second term.
The Daily Mail described the details from the Wall Street Journal as a "bombshell."
It explains how Musk was "trailed" by government agencies during 2022 and 2023, including Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.
The ostensible reason, the report said, was his routine contact with foreign nationals.
The report said the investigations focused on claims and concerns that Musk was "being swayed by foreign powers in Eastern Europe and elsewhere."
The investigations apparently never produced anything to support the concerns, and no charges ever were formulated.
"Sources said the probes highlighted concerns about the number of foreign nationals in Musk's inner circle as he was gaining influence in the U.S. and before he began publicly supporting Donald Trump," the report said. "Last year, Musk poured upwards of $250 million into Trump's campaign through a super PAC, the America PAC, raising questions over the unprecedented level of spending in the 2024 election."
The report said "insiders" in the PAC expressed concern over the number of "outsiders" involved in various discussions.
Musk was born in South Africa but now is a naturalized U.S. citizen whose company, SpaceX, has a number of government contracts. His Starlink organization also has a network of communications satellites that have played key roles in various disputes.
The two publications together said they did not get a comment from Musk, the White House, DHS and SpaceX.
Insiders also were quoted in the report claiming Musk's "proximity to a number of foreign nationsl was a source of tension within Trump's White House."
Musk himself has high-level security clearances.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A surprisingly positive inflation report for May is fueling "hope" that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates later this year, a move that President Donald Trump openly has wanted.
Inflation was put by federal estimates at 2.4%, up fractionally from the 2.3% from April, but still below expectations.
"President Trump has made no secret of the fact that he would like the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates," Nicholas Hyett, investment manager at Wealth Club, told the Daily Mail.
"On the face of it these numbers should ease some of the inflationary worries… the challenge is that while inflation isn't rising as fast as expected, it isn't falling either," Hyett explained.
Inflation was in the low single digits when Joe Biden took office four years ago, but exploded to as high as 9% percent under his failed economic policies.
Inflation was one of the issues on which Trump campaigned for his second term.
The report triggered a surge in stock market prices.
"Longer term there's still concerns about Trump's tariffs being inflationary but this report was better than expected and it fuels hope that the Federal Reserve will be able to step in with rate cuts later on this year," Robert Pavlik, of Dakota Wealth, told the Mail.
Analysts had been expecting a number closer to 3%.
Numbers from the Department of Labor Statistics surprised some economists who thought Trump's tariff battles, intended to bring American consumers and American businesses both a more fair world trade market presence, would have a more inflationary impact.
Major retailers, like Walmart, have said they are raising prices to cover the tariff costs.
"However, the latest report shows that other major consumer prices are down, including smartphones which fell 1.6 percent and airline fares down 2.7 percent from the month before," the report said. "Traders now believe there is a 75 percent chance the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates by September, compared to 60 percent yesterday, Bloomberg reported."
The White House took a victory lap, "Since President Trump took office, inflation has come in below economists' expectations every single month."
Trump has said it will be the "new Golden Age with lower costs, higher pay, and economic opportunity for all."
The White House said, "Under President Trump, core inflation has tracked at just 2.0% on an annual basis – levels not seen since the first Trump administration, when prices were low and stable. … In May, real wages for production and nonsupervisory workers saw the highest monthly increase in nearly a year — rising each month since President Trump took office and up nearly 2% over last year. The average private sector worker is on track to see their real earnings increase by around $1,200, adjusted for inflation."
Responses from the networks:
CNN's Matt Egan: "We got ANOTHER month of positive inflation news. Despite these historic tariffs, the latest numbers do show that inflation remained relatively tame in May … This was better than expected … We did see a drop in energy prices. In particular, gas prices were low."
CNBC's Mike Santoli: "There's no way to look at these numbers and say they're not welcome news."
Fox Business Network's Maria Bartiromo: "That is much better than expected."
The consumer price index is a broad measure of the prices of everyday goods.
"The inflation data this year has been terrific — a welcomed change from the prior four disastrous years," EJ Antoni, chief economist for the Heritage Foundation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. "This bodes very well for the overall economy and indicates that we're headed to the 2.0% inflation target of the Federal Reserve. The Trump administration deserves tremendous credit here because their efforts to reduce government spending while increasing future energy production have reduced input prices throughout the economy, putting downward pressure on consumer prices. What a difference a president can make!"
The CPI report comes after the U.S. economy added 139,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in May, slightly above economists' expectations — while the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 4.2%, the BLS reported on June 6.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats dislike President Donald Trump.
After all, he beat the party's admired icon Hillary Clinton. And their sitting president, Joe Biden.
They've orchestrated years of undermining, of subterfuge, or doubt, of lawfare against him.
So when one Democrat supports a Trump agenda point, it gets attention.
That's what has happened with Janet Napolitano, who was the homeland security secretary for Barack Obama back in the day.
She now is on record explaining that the things Trump has done for America on its border are "useful."
In an interview, she said, "I think the border needs to be secure. … Many of the things that the Trump Administration has done on the border, from an operational standpoint, have been useful in that regard."
The Democrat hate for Trump has spilled out again just recently because of the leftist and pro-illegal alien riots that have developed in Los Angeles, and apparently now are spreading across the country.
They were triggered last weekend when federal officers started delivering warrants and making arrests in an investigation into illegal cartel money laundering, and other charges.
Democrats have said they dislike the violence that is being caused by leftists in the city, but they also dislike Trump's response, which was to send in National Guard troops to quell the violence and restore peace, a project on which forces still are working.
It was ABC that pointed out Democrat senators "were walking a line between criticizing the White House for sending troops to put down protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Los Angeles, and the violence the administration says caused it to act."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
American voters chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for president back in 2008. In 2016 they chose Donald Trump over Clinton.
Since then, she's repeatedly harped on how the election was stolen from her and even these days, sarcastic comments often target her for being "jealous" that Jill Biden was president, not her.
That, of course, plays on the evidence of Joe Biden's mental decline while he was in the White House, and questions about exactly who was making decisions.
But even those scenarios look to end up taking second place to the mockery of Clinton's insistence, in her newest episode, of continuing to tell other people what she thinks.
That's when she went on social media to call the Los Angeles riots, triggered by federal law enforcement warrants and arrests in a criminal cartel investigation of money laundering and more, to say they are "peaceful demonstrations."
Fox News noted it was the first and only comment from Clinton, as of Tuesday morning, about the riots.
"California Governor Newsom didn't request the National Guard be deployed to his state following peaceful demonstrations. Trump sent them anyway," she wrote. "It's the first time in 60 years a president has made that choice. Trump's goal isn't to keep Californians safe. His goal is to cause chaos, because chaos is good for Trump."
Social media watchers noted immediately that while Clinton wanted other people to hear her voice, she was uninterested in others' comments: She turned off that feature on her post.
"Ever notice that only leftists disable comments?" California Republican Liberty Caucus chair John Dennis posted.
And Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican, informed her, "'These are not peaceful Hillary."
Fox said the situation allowed Clinton to be "brutally mocked" for her "delusional" comment.
Because of Clinton's imposed limits on comments, "Social media users were able to respond to Clinton through quote engagements, but not through direct replies as of Tuesday morning," Fox reported.
Another commenter pointed out, "Accusing the National Guard of causing chaos is a serious allegation that requires serious proof. I see none."
Another, posting an image of fire raging as rioters waved a Mexican flag, said, "Hillary Clinton is delusional if nothing else."
When federal officers tried to deliver warrants and make arrests in their criminal investigation, rioters soon targeted them with thrown rocks, physical attacks and worse. Cars were torched.