This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In recent years, discussions around foreign labor and its impact on American workers have intensified, revealing significant challenges for U.S. contractors, particularly in fields such as information technology and consulting. This ongoing situation raises serious questions about the fairness of the competition and the integrity of the labor market.
For decades, American workers, especially those in contracting and consulting, have been vital to the nation's economic framework. These professionals, from IT contractors who fueled the digital revolution to independent consultants who delivered innovative solutions, formed the backbone of the U.S. economy. However, over the past 15 years, many of these individuals have faced mounting challenges as a result of a significant influx of foreign workers, primarily facilitated by firms based in India and supported by various corporate interests.
Major consulting firms, including Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Wipro and HCL, have leveraged connections with the Indian government to navigate the U.S. visa system, effectively. This has resulted in a dramatic shift in the contracting landscape, where foreign workers now dominate a market that once thrived on merit-based competition.
The influx of temporary visa holders, through H-1B, L-1, Optional Practical Training (OPT) and Curricular Practical Training (CPT) programs, has been accompanied by reports of unethical practices, such as shell companies and dubious credentials, which have effectively marginalized American talent.
The landscape has evolved to the point where many U.S. businesses now view American contractors as "too expensive" or "not a cultural fit," often driven by agreements that prioritize cost over quality. Consequently, American professionals find themselves sidelined, receiving fewer opportunities and facing reduced compensation. The reliance on foreign workforce has not only replaced individual workers but has also systematically dismantled local ecosystems that once thrived on American talent and expertise.
Moreover, the prevalence of fraudulent practices among some foreign-operated firms has raised alarms. Instances of falsified resumes, ghost employees and manipulated job postings designed to exclude U.S. applicants reflect a concerning trend that undermines the integrity of hiring practices in the industry.
Corporate entities, including major players in technology and finance, have also been implicated in this shift. By outsourcing roles to lower-wage labor, these companies have optimized profits at the expense of experienced American workers. This trend, coupled with substantial government contracts awarded to these outsourcing firms, raises further concerns about the long-term implications for the American workforce and economy.
As the labor landscape continues to evolve, the need for reform becomes increasingly evident. Advocates argue that addressing visa abuses and reconsidering the role of outsourcing in federally funded contracts are essential steps in protecting American jobs and fostering economic resilience.
The challenges faced by U.S. contractors and independent professionals signify a crucial moment in the conversation about labor, competition, and economic fairness in the United States. It is imperative to acknowledge these issues and push for policies that prioritize the integrity of the American workforce, ensuring that future generations have the opportunity to thrive in a fair and competitive environment.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge appointed by Joe Biden has threatened to order the federal government to return to the United States a list of criminal illegal aliens that were removed from society for their crimes.
And the White House has responded, by releasing to the public the long list of convictions that the eight illegals accumulated.
They include homicide, armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, battery, trafficking, "lascivious acts" with children, sexual assault, aggravated assault, and more
The threat came from Brian Murphy, a district court judge in Massachusetts who previously has made decisions on how the executive branch of American government can deal with border security and issues involving criminal illegal aliens.
His threat came as he said plans to deport people to Libya without notice would violate what he wants.
The Trump administration released a statement on the judge's behavior: "It's another attempt by a far-left activist judge to dictate the foreign policy of the United States – and protect the violent criminal illegal immigrants President Donald J. Trump and his administration have removed from our streets."
Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin added, "We conducted a deportation flight from Texas to remove some of the most barbaric, violent individuals illegally in the United States. No country on earth wanted to accept them because their crimes are so uniquely monstrous and barbaric … Thanks to the courageous work of the State Department and ICE and the president's national security team, we found a nation that was willing to accept custody of these vicious illegal aliens."
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said, "As a career law enforcement officer and a career officer with ICE, I've been dealing with these recalcitrant countries for years — having to see repeated murders, sex offenders, violent criminals re-released back into the United States because their home countries would not take them back. Under President Trump and under the leadership of Secretary Noem, we are now able to remove these public safety threats so they won't prey on the community anymore."
Those deported:
McLaughlin said, "A local judge in Massachusetts is trying to force the United States to bring back these uniquely barbaric monsters who present a clear and present threat to the safety of the American people and American victims. While we are fully compliant with the law and court orders, it is absolutely absurd for a district judge to try and dictate the foreign policy and national security of the United States of America."
Federal officials confirmed that the home countries for each of the illegal alien criminals have refused to take them back.
Another judge previously ordered Trump to turn around two jets loaded with illegal aliens that apparently already had left U.S. airspace and were over international territory.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned order on Tuesday instructing the Maine state legislature to revoke its censure of Republican state Rep. Laurel Libby.
Libby had been in the penalty box of the Democrat majority in the legislature since February when she commented on social media about a boy who won a girls' athletic competition in the state.
Expressing an intolerance for her beliefs about transgenderism, the Democrat majority demanded she apologize before she could speak – or vote – in the legislature again, effectively depriving her constituents of their constitutionally protected right to representation.
Maine House Speaker Ryan Fecteau had demanded an apology from Libby for her beliefs and she refused.
The court's order said, "The application for injunction pending appeal presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is granted pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court."
Two of the extremists on the Supreme Court bench, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Jackson, would have kept the punishment on Libby.
Sotomayor didn't comment on her opinion but Jackson, the justice who as a nominee before the Senate famously was unable to, or refused to, define what is a woman, ranted for pages about what she wanted.
"We have long recognized that this injunctive relief is appropriate only when 'critical and exigent circumstances' exist necessitating intervention," and she didn't consider the fact that thousands of Maine residents were being deprived of their legislative voice important enough.
She claimed there are not "any significant legislative votes scheduled in the upcoming weeks" and the First Circuit already has arguments scheduled.
It had only been reported hours earlier that the U.S. Department of Justice had joined the battle on the side of the Maine lawmaker who was censured by Democrats in the state legislature over her beliefs.
Republican state Rep. Laurel Libby has been banned from speaking in the legislature or representing her constituents by voting since February over her social media posting about a boy who won a pole vault competition in girls track in the state.
She's sued to have that move, which effectively punishes her constituents by depriving them of a voice in the lawmaking body, reversed and her request now is pending before the Supreme Court.
A report at Fox explained the DOJ and Attorney General Pam Bondi now have come out in her support.
The department has filed a friend-of-the-court document supporting Libby's request and Bondi has spoken out personally.
The DOJ explains that the Democrats in Maine are in violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, which allows for "one-person, one-vote," because they have deprived her voters of their rights over a "private act."
"Stripping District 90's voters of their house representation and vote because their chosen representative will not apologize for fulfilling this obligation is well beyond the bounds of an appropriate sanction," the DOJ explains.
Bondi told Fox, "The Department of Justice is proud to fight for girls in Maine and stand alongside Rep. Libby, who is being attacked simply for defending girls in her home state. As our lawsuit against the state of Maine illustrates, we will always protect girls' sports and girls' spaces from radical gender ideology."
Bondi has a separate action going against Maine now as the state's Democrats, led by Gov. Janet Mills, have refused to comply with President Donald Trump's "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports" plans.
Democrats in Maine are demanding Libby apologize, but they have insisted the apology is for her "actions" and their punishment does not affect her "beliefs.
Maine House Speaker Ryan Fecteau and House Clerk Robert Hunt have claimed that the punishment over Libby's beliefs is like punishment for other members at times.
Surveys have revealed that Maine's residents are in opposition to the Democrats' agenda to push transgenderism for children, and in sports.
Fox reported, "A survey by the American Parents Coalition found that out of about 600 registered Maine voters, 63% said school sports participation should be based on biological sex, and 66% agreed it is 'only fair to restrict women's sports to biological women.'"
WND earlier reported Libby's case to the Supreme Court questions whether Democrats can remove the representation rights of thousands of state residents in a dispute over personal beliefs.
The state of Maine also is under investigation and has had federal grants withheld because it refuses to accept the biological reality that men do not become women, or vice versa. The state now is in noncompliance with Title IX.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For years, Democrats have insisted over and over and over that Republicans are a threat to democracy.
Specifically, they have claimed, wildly, that President Donald Trump would set himself up as a dictator, would cancel elections, would, in fact, end "democracy."
Trump's move into the White House for a second term, his adherence to the Constitution and various precedential norms, even his decisions at time to challenge those, all reveal a dedication to the rule of law.
It actually, according to a former Democrat now describing himself as "independent," is the Democratic Party that offers that threat.
That's according to U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who was in a discussion with comedian Akaash Singh.
Sanders was told about how for multiple elections already the Democrat party has not allowed an open selection process for the party's nomination for president.
For example, during the 2020 race, when a feeble and mentally diminished Joe Biden finally bowed out, it was the party elites to picked Kamala Harris as his replacement, without any vote at all.
"Could we not also say if — ostensibly, there hasn't been a fair primary for the Democrats since 2008. Are they not also a threat to democracy?" Biden is asked.
"Yes. Fair enough. That is — yeah, I'm not going to argue with that point. And that's why I'm proudly an independent," Sanders said. "What we're trying to do now … the hatred that we felt in 2016, 2020, from the Democratic establishment … We would do rallies and we had thousands of people — often young people, people of color coming out, working-class people coming out. They were great, full of energy. And then we'd go to Democratic Party events and there'd be a few hundred people, mostly older, whiter, wealthier."
He continued, "Then you saw the clash. And the establishment did not want to open the door. They hated the idea for all these people whose hands were a little bit dirty, who didn't have PhDs or weren't wealthy — imagine walking in: 'It's my party, man. You ain't getting in. We will fight you in the most ruthless ways that we can.' And that's the struggle."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A court fight has developed that ultimately will decide whether pro-abortion state officials "can team up with abortion activists" to censor the speech of those who don't adhere to the ideology of killing the unborn.
"The state's conduct is not just discriminatory – it's unconstitutional," explained the American Center for Law and Justice.
"This case remains one of the most important pro-life and free speech battles in the country. The outcome could set national precedent on whether state governments can team up with abortion activists to suppress the voices of those who offer women hope, help, and life."
The ACLJ reported the fight focuses on a lawsuit filed on behalf of Your Options Medical, which is a pro-life pregnancy resource center run by Christians.
And it has been "targeted" by "a state-sponsored campaign to discredit and shut down life-affirming services for women."
Defendants are Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, Health Commissioner Robbie Goldstein, abortion promoters Reproductive Equity Now Foundation and its chief, Rebecca Hart-Holder.
"Their actions were nothing less than the weaponization of government," the ACLJ has charged.
The state, with tax money, "launched an aggressive public misinformation campaign against pro-life pregnancy centers, accusing them of being 'deceptive' and 'dangerous,' and warned the public against visiting PRCs – even if they are not looking for abortions," the report said.
The misleading claims were all over, on websites, in videos, on posters, on buses, on benches, and included areas adjacent to the resource center's home.
A court recently rejected two separate motions by the defendants to dismiss the case, and instead is allowing the ACLJ to amend its complaint, which now will be expanded.
That's because the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center, which also is working on the case, obtained documents, 8,000 pages, that confirm "a calculated effort by government officials, working hand-in-hand with pro-abortion activists, to silence and discredit Christian ministries that offer real alternatives to abortion."
The report continued, "The evidence is clear – the state's campaign wasn't just political rhetoric or support for abortion. It was an organized effort to suppress the viewpoints of pro-life organizations and intimidate them into silence."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In May 2025, PricewaterhouseCoopers laid off 1,500 American workers, about 3% of its U.S. workforce. This followed another reduction of 1,800 U.S.-based employees just months earlier in late 2024.
Publicly, PwC blamed "historically low attrition rates" and "overcapacity." However, the real narrative reveals a betrayal: While American workers faced layoffs, PwC intensified its investment in India.
"This was a difficult decision and we made it with care … and a deep awareness of its impact on our people," PwC claimed in a statement about the layoffs.
However, this sentiment contrasts sharply with the company's previous commitment in 2021 to create over 100,000 net new jobs over five years in "critical areas such as cyber-security, cloud, climate, transformation and supply chain."
In just three years, PwC reached three-quarters of this target, adding 6,161 jobs in FY24 and a total of 68,681 jobs over the previous two years, bringing its global workforce to more than 370,000. However, this growth appears to exclude American professionals, suggesting that the anticipated "future workforce" is increasingly foreign and displacing U.S. workers. The promise of 100,000 new jobs stands in jarring contrast with their recent U.S. layoffs.
Moreover, PwC has positioned itself within India's government-supported academic and labor framework, shifting critical operations away from the United States, which contributes significantly to its revenue.
Silent cuts, strategic realignment
Laid-off employees reported sudden notifications via vague "Time Sensitive" Microsoft Teams meetings, where they were informed of their termination, often with little to no warning. Some were on track for promotions and raises, only to be let go, while others were dismissed just months after being hired. The firm did not cite any financial crisis, global downturn or similar layoffs occurring elsewhere.
In contrast, PwC is expanding its operations in Indian cities such as Hyderabad, Bengaluru and Mumbai, transferring entire service lines, including technology, audit, tax and consulting, to Indian teams. These changes focus not on growth, but on cost-cutting, offshoring and circumventing U.S. labor standards.
As Global Advisory Head David Maras noted, "India has transformed into a strategic imperative for PwC."
PwC's new "One Consulting" model, anchored in AI, managed services and transformation programs, is now centered in India rather than the United States.
Academic deals and labor pipelines
Underlying PwC's strategy is a collaboration with India's Ministry of Education and corporate policymakers. Through "industry-academia" initiatives, companies directly partner with universities to create low-cost labor pools for global deployment.
PwC has formalized this approach through Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) abroad, such as its agreement with a corporate group in Dubai, which establishes direct pipelines of pre-trained labor for the firm. These backroom "industry-academia" partnerships appear to benefit India and multinational corporations while undermining U.S. graduates and professionals.
To underscore its deepening commitment to India, PwC recently released a report titled "Making the case for global workforce migration: A strategic blueprint to harness India's demographic dividend," outlining its vision to position India as a global labor hub. This blueprint aligns with PwC's broader shift in operations and talent strategy away from the United States.
The financial truth: Made in America, spent in India
In fiscal year 2024, PwC achieved a record global revenue of $55.4 billion, with contributions from various regions: America generated $24.3 billion, a 3.4% growth; Europe, the Middle East and Africa contributed $21.7 billion, an 11.2% increase; while the Asia-Pacific region, including India and 31 other countries, brought in only $9.3 billion, marking a 7.1% decline.
Despite the United States remaining PwC's largest revenue source, it is simultaneously where the firm is cutting jobs. Conversely, during a period of declining revenues, PwC continues hiring and investing in India while establishing new delivery models. Factors such as cheaper labor, lenient regulations, or undisclosed agreements with the Indian government may contribute to this shift.
Regardless of the reasons, one thing is clear: PwC has utilized the revenue generated in the United States to lay off American workers and expand foreign operations that serve the same American clients at lower costs. This is not theoretical capital; it's genuine revenue earned on American soil, then redirected to fund foreign operations, infrastructure and jobs.
This is not expansion; it's extraction.
PwC's U.S. layoffs, like many others, were never about "attrition." They were about labor arbitrage. The United States is being hollowed out to finance the rise of a foreign competitor.
Every U.S. layoff at PwC has a matching investment in India. Whether it's tech hubs, service lines or academic partnerships, the trend is unmistakable: Export the work, import the talent, abandon the Americans.
PwC is not the only firm following this path, but as one of the most influential global consultancies, it sets a precedent for a generation of multinationals that are restructuring labor markets without democratic oversight.
Until Americans confront this extraction model and hold companies like PwC accountable, this wealth and labor drain will not only accelerate, it will become permanent. And American workers will keep paying the price for corporate loyalty that no longer exists.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Only weeks ago, Fox News reported that as the genocide by Muslims against Christians in Nigeria was continuing, there was concern the nation's Christians "are being wiped out."
The report said the Islamists are intent "on creating a Muslim caliphate" and have been killing Christians wantonly for years already.
"Nigeria's Christians are being wiped out; we need to call it what it is — genocide," explained Jeff King of International Christian Concern.
In one slaughter just weeks ago, a Muslim attack on Christians in the Plateau State's Bokkos County left more than 60 Christians dead.
And 383 homes belonging to Christians were torched.
King said, "Families were burned alive, and kids were left homeless. It's gut-wrenching. The worst thing is that there's nothing truly 'special' about this attack. This has gone on for 20 years and has only expanded."
Then it was Christian News that confirmed that Muslim Fulani herdsmen still are killing Christians, with two deaths over the weekend and 10 other victims in recent weeks.
Among the most recent victims of the Muslim extremists was Tony Adejoh, village head of predominantly Christian Odugbeho community, and Jerry John.
"Both were working on their farms in the Otobi-Akpa when they were ambushed and killed by armed herdsmen," explained Marvis Ejeh, a member of the Agatu Local Government Council.
Nigeria, in fact, remains among the most dangerous places on earth for Christians, according to Open Doors' 2025 World Watch List of the countries where it is most difficult to be a Christian. Of the 4,476 Christians killed for their faith worldwide during the reporting period, 3,100 (69 percent) were in Nigeria, according to the WWL.
Why is the outrage level no higher for the indiscriminate slaughter of men, women and children who are Christian?
International Christian Concern suggests part of the reason is that media outlets have suppressed the identities of the perpetrators and victims of the atrocities.
"You would think it's hard to overlook the religious motivation of a massacre when the victims are all Christian and the massacre takes place on Christmas, Palm Sunday, or Easter," the organization reported. "But many people who work in media have proven themselves almost uncannily adept at avoiding the religious motivation behind such violence."
For example, the report said, "When more than 50 Nigerian Christians were murdered in one attack on Palm Sunday, April 13. France's leading newspaper, Le Monde, soon after ran an article mentioning that the attack took place on a Sunday, but neglected to mention that it was Palm Sunday. This factual detail would show a clear religious motivation. Is that why it was omitted?"
Then there was the attack on Christmas Day 2024.
Dozens of Nigerian Christians were slaughtered, as a follow up to Christmas 2023, when hundreds were killed and maimed.
"CNN ran an article on the subject, but did not mention Christmas or the religion of the victims," the report said.
Deutsche Welle, a German media conglomerate, noted the deaths of Christmas 2023, but "also failed to mention anything about Christmas or how the victims were Christians."
"The Guardian, a major U.K.-based media company, also ran an article on Dec. 25 but neglected to mention Christmas or the religion of the victims. Instead, the article mentioned 'competition for natural resources' aggravated by 'climate pressures' — also known as climate change or global warming."
And following a 2022 massacre in a church, "the local Catholic bishop remarked, '40 of my people were not killed because of global warming, but because they were Christians.'"
NPR covered the real issue by calling it a "pastoral conflict."
The report explained, "It might be worth pointing out that if basically all the violence is perpetrated by one side, then it's not so much a 'conflict' as it is an ongoing violation."
Frustrated by the media's deceptions, one Nigerian priest charged, "It's not a clash, it is a slow genocide."
And the BBC talked about the deaths, but blamed only "armed groups," without identifying the Muslim marauders or Christian victims.
The report noted, "Nigeria's current president, Bola Tinubu, is a Muslim, as is the current vice president, Kashim Shettima. The previous president, Muhammadu Buhari, is the son of a Fulani chieftain. This made him a rather unlikely candidate to crack down on persistent Fulani violence that has reportedly become the most severe threat to Nigerian Christians.
For decades now, wealthy Fulanis have supplied their fellow militant tribesmen with AK-47 assault rifles and other weaponry. Many Nigerian Christians view this continued endeavor as part of an overall effort to expand Islamist rule across Nigeria."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Prominent Trump attacker Letitia James now is under investigation by the FBI.
She campaigned for the office of attorney general in New York on the claim she would "get" Trump. In office, she assembled a long list of cases and claims that she brought to court against him.
Leading the way was her wild claim that Trump committed fraud because of the way he valued his companies while taking out and repaying loans.
In fact, in court, those from whom he borrowed money confirmed the loans were repaid in full and on time, and they'd like to do more business with Trump.
However, the case was presented only to a leftist judge, not a jury, and he ended up with the extreme claim that Trump owed a penalty of nearly half a billion dollars, a claim that is now on appeal.
Perhaps it's ironic that now James is facing claims of fraud.
Over her own properties.
A report in the Times Union said U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed the investigation be handled by the Northern District of New York in Albany.
It is James' real estate transactions that appear to have been manipulated, the report said.
Among the claims is that she is listed as the spouse of her own father on one mortgage document. And there's concern she listed a home as her primary residence when it was out of state and could not be. Further, she apparently listed one of the apartment buildings she owns as having four units, instead of the five it is documented to have.
All of the machinations appear to have been in pursuit of better interest rates on home loans.
The report said, "One of the mortgage documents filed in connection with James' purchase of the single-family residence — a notarized power-of-attorney document — was signed as a witness by Jennifer Levy, who is the first deputy attorney general. A spokesman for James did not immediately respond to a question about why Levy would have been asked to sign a document related to the attorney general's purchase of a private residence."
"This is being handled at this time by main (Department of) Justice and the Albany FBI field office," said U.S. Attorney John A. Sarcone III, who oversees the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York's Northern District. "We stand prepared to act in the capacity that we need to when and if we are informed there's a charge to be made. Unlike Letitia James, who unethically ran around the state campaigning on getting Donald Trump… my office conducts itself in a manner that is proper and professional."
James has claimed the evidence against her is "baseless." And she's hired a prominent criminal defense lawyer for her case, which likely will be funded by the taxpayers of the state. That's because Democrats in New York have added a $10 million fund to the state budget for James or others to pay legal fees.
It was William J. Pulte, chief of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency, who sent a referral letter last month to Bondi alleging that James may have ""falsified bank documents and property records to acquire government backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms."
A report at the Gateway Pundit, which long has documented suspicious behavior by James, said one of the key disputes is that James claimed her five-unit apartment building was only four units "in order to get a more favorable loan."
The report explained, "This is not a minor discrepancy. Lying to the bank about the unit count enabled Letitia James to secure more favorable loans, including a 2011 Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) loan that saved her tens of thousands of dollars annually. Letitia James was able to secure a conforming loan through Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac since they are only available on properties up to 4 units."
"This is a person who prosecuted Trump for everything short of ripping a label off a mattress, and among the charges that were brought in New York, in just the civil but the criminal case, was making false or misleading statements to financial institutions," constitutional expert Jonathan Turley said on Fox News. "As for James, if we apply the Letitia James standard that she created, there'd be little question here. This seems pretty straightforward."
Another document evidences that James claimed she was the spouse of her father, in "falsified loan documents back in 1983," the report said.
The publication, in a further special report by Joel Gilbert, explained his own "review of public records and court filings" documented a "range of troubling issues that could pose serious legal and ethical consequences" for James.
"One of the most striking revelations emerges from a 1983 real estate transaction in which Letitia James and her father, Robert James, obtained a mortgage as 'husband and wife,'" he wrote.
"The loan application to Kadilac Funding Corporation listed them as a married couple, despite the fact that Letitia is his daughter. Such a misrepresentation of a relationship to qualify for a loan could constitute mortgage fraud under both federal and New York State law," the report said.
The penalty for that could be up to 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine.
By claiming her building had four units, not five, she was able to apply for and obtain a 2.7% rate loan, paying off a loan at 10%, the report said.
The report said she also claimed financial hardship to obtain the loan, despite her income being around $14,000 a month.
"These discrepancies could trigger legal liability for James under the False Claims Act, which allows the federal government to impose treble damages and fines for false statements made in order to obtain government funds," the report said.
Other claims could include campaign finance violations and misrepresentations.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, said President Donald Trump's ban on transgender service members and ideologies in the U.S. military may stand.
Trump, on taking office for his second term, issued that order because transgender warriors require inordinate amounts of medical and other treatments, are not ordinarily ready for deployment and create other issues for fellow soldiers.
The decision Tuesday halted a lower court's decision that prevented the policy from taking effect.
As expected, the leftist trio of Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Jackson, who infamously was unable to even define "woman" during her Senate confirmation hearing, would have allowed the lower court order to stand, in a move that would have prevented the president of making the U.S. military better and more formidable.
The lower court judge, Benjamin H. Settle, had claimed, "Because the military has operated smoothly for four years under the (pro-transgender) Austin Policy, any claimed hardship it may face in the meantime pales in comparison to the hardships imposed on transgender service members and otherwise qualified transgender accession candidates, tipping the balance of hardships sharply toward plaintiffs."
Trump, as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, had confirmed that "expressing a false 'gender identity' divergent from an individual's sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service."
According to a report from CBS, the ban on transgenders will remain in effect "while legal proceedings move forward."
Trump had determined that the military's "high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity and integrity" are inconsistent with the "medical, surgical and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria."
The president continued, "A man's assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."
Trump already, during his first term, had barred transgenders from the U.S. military, a move that the Supreme Court allowed then.
Joe Biden, whose top agenda ideologies during his one term appeared to be abortion for all and transgenderism for all, especially children, reversed Trump's standards.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, after Trump's order, told the Pentagon to pause admissions for people with gender dysphoria histories, and halt the so-called "gender-affirming" care that involves chemicals and/or body mutilating surgeries.
As people who follow the science know, changing from male to female or vice versa doesn't happen, as being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level.
The CBS report noted the Pentagon disbursed some $52 million on medical "care" to treat gender dysphoria between 2015 and 2024.
The Supreme Court's ruling came in a case from Washington state on behalf of "seven transgender service members" and others.
The Department of Justice had explained the decision was not discrimination based on sex, but was based on "medical condition, gender dysphoria," the report said.
The government has told the high court, "If the separation of powers means anything, the government obviously suffers irreparable harm when an unelected judge usurps the role of the political branches in operating the nation's armed forces."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President says he 'had a very good and productive telephone conversation' with Recep Erdoğan
President Donald Trump on Monday announced he was invited by Turkey's president to head to that nation to help end the "ridiculous, but deadly" war between Russia and Ukraine.
"I just had a very good and productive telephone conversation with the President of Turkey, Recep Erdoğan, concerning many subjects, including the War with Russia/Ukraine, all things Syria, Gaza, and more," Trump said on Truth Social.
"The President invited me to go to Turkey at a future date and, likewise, he will be coming to Washington, D.C.
"During my four years as President, my relationship with President Erdoğan was excellent.
"We worked together closely on numerous things, including the fact that he helped return Pastor Andrew Brunson, who was imprisoned, back to the United States – Immediately upon my request.
"In any event, I look forward to working with President Erdoğan on getting the ridiculous, but deadly, War between Russia and Ukraine ended – NOW!"