The Trump administration is diligently working to find thousands of missing children who may have fallen victim to sex trafficking during the Biden border crisis, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said.
During a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, Kennedy accused the Biden administration of acting as a "collaborator" in the child sex trade.
Unaccompanied alien children (UACs) who cross the border illegally are held by the Health and Human Services' Office Of Refugee Resettlement, which has the responsibility of caring for them and eventually placing them with an adult sponsor.
During the Biden era, standards of vetting declined as the number of unaccompanied minors flooding across the border skyrocketed. It is feared that many of these children fell into the wrong hands.
A former Biden HHS employee, Tara Lee Rodas, testified to Congress last year about HHS sending children to traffickers, likening the set-up to a "white-glove delivery system." Republican Senator Chuck Grassley (IA) obtained internal records showing that Biden's HHS knowingly released two children to a sponsor with ties to MS-13.
Over 600,000 unaccompanied minors have crossed the border since 2019, a recent Inspector General report confirmed. The majority of them entered the U.S. under Biden, although crossings ticked up midway through Trump's first term in 2019 before dropping off with the onset of COVID in 2020.
As of January 2025, 233,000 UACs were released into the U.S. without receiving notices to appear in immigration court, the Inspector General report found. Another 43,000 who did receive notices to appear had failed to show up for their court dates.
An additional 31,000 were released with addresses that were blank, undeliverable, or missing apartment numbers, according to the report.
"Without an ability to monitor the location and status of UACs, ICE is unable to facilitate court appearances and has no assurance UACs are safe from trafficking, exploitation, forced labor, or involvement in criminal activities that may pose a risk to local communities," the report notes.
Since Trump returned to the White House and reinstated tough border policies, illegal crossings have plummeted to record lows.
The number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border has fallen from over 11,000 per month under Biden to less than 700 per month.
Under Secretary Kennedy, HHS is tightening vetting standards, implementing changes like mandatory fingerprinting to keep kids safe.
"We have ended HHS, as the role as the vector — the principal vector in this country for child trafficking,” Kennedy said.
“During the Biden administration, HHS became a collaborator in child trafficking and for sex and for slavery. And, we have ended that, and we are very aggressively going out and trying to find these children — 300,000 children that were lost by the Biden administration.”
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended the judge accused of helping an illegal alien evade an arrest by immigration agents.
The state's highest court - which is dominated by liberals - relieved Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, 65, of her duties as she fights federal obstruction charges.
"It is ordered … that Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah C. Dugan is temporarily prohibited from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge in the state of Wisconsin, effective the date of this order and until further order of the court,” the Wisconsin Supreme Court wrote.
The judge is accused of helping a Mexican citizen, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, evade an arrest on April 18. The man, who was previously deported from the United States, was in Dugan's courtroom to face charges of criminal battery.
Federal agents with the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) planned to arrest Flores-Ruiz in a public hallway after his court appearance.
According to an FBI affidavit, when Dugan learned of ICE's presence, she became "visibly angry, commented that the situation was 'absurd,' left the bench, and entered chambers."
Dugan and another judge then confronted the federal agents in the hallway and told them to leave. Dugan argued with the agents over the arrest warrant and told them to report to the chief judge's office.
When Dugan returned to her courtroom, multiple witnesses, including the court's bailiff, observed the judge direct Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a non-public "jury door." The man and his lawyer started heading for the public courtroom exit when the judge said something like, "Wait, come with me."
The FBI affidavit notes the "unusual" nature of her intervention, since "only deputies, juries, court staff, and in-custody defendants being escorted by deputies used the back jury door."
Dugan also adjourned the hearing without the knowledge or participation of the prosecutor, who was in court that day with the victims.
Flores-Ruiz was able to exit the building, but agents caught him after a brief foot chase down "the entire length of the courthouse."
Judge Dugan is charged with concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest and obstructing or impeding a proceeding.
Many see the judge's alleged conduct as part of a troubling pattern of judicial activism.
Democrats have condemned Dugan's arrest as an act of authoritarian retribution, but the liberal Supreme Court of Wisconsin is taking the allegations against her seriously.
“In the exercise of (the) constitutional authority and in order to uphold the public’s confidence in the courts of this state during the pendency of the criminal proceeding against Judge Dugan, we conclude, in our own motion, that it is in the public interest that she be temporarily relieved of her official duties,” the court ordered.
Alabama Republican senator Tommy Tuberville, a vocal Trump supporter, is considering a run for governor of the state.
There has not been an open race for Tuberville's Senate seat since the 1990s. Tuberville would likely easily win re-election next year, but if he gives up his current job, Senate Republicans will have to defend the seat in the 2026 midterms.
"I'm considering it," Tuberville told reporters. "My wife and I and family, we've sat down once, and we really talked hard about it. I want to do what's best for the people of Alabama. Is it here or is it in the governor's seat back in Montgomery?"
A former Auburn University football coach, Tuberville is a popular figure in Alabama. During his time in the Senate, he has stood out as one of the most outspoken defenders of Trump in the chamber.
The current governor of Alabama, Republican Kay Ivey, is term-limited, setting the stage for a crowded Republican primary.
If Tuberville runs, the primary will shift to a "clash of titans" between Tuberville and Lt. Governor Will Ainsworth, the state's GOP chair John Wahl said.
“Sen. Tuberville is a bold conservative. He is someone that does not mind being politically incorrect and taking the hard stance for conservative values and I think that’s a great trait that our elected officials need in today’s politics,” Wahl told the Daily Caller.
For now, Tuberville is keeping his cards close to the vest. But according to reports, he has been telling colleagues that he wants to come home to Alabama full-time.
Tuberville told WVTM 13 that he will "probably" make a decision in May, and he's leaning towards running for governor. The primary is on May 26.
Tuberville is not the only Senator considering a run for governor next year. Republican senator Marsha Blackburn, of Tennessee, is also weighing a run in her state, and Democrat Michael Bennet, of Colorado, has already launched a campaign.
Unlike Tuberville, Blackburn and Bennet are not facing re-election next year, so they do not have to give up their current jobs to run for governor.
If Tuberville resigns, there will be the first open race for the Senate seat since 1996. Alabama was once a Democratic stronghold but has been reliably Republican in recent years.
Democrats won a major upset in 2017 when Doug Jones defeated scandal-plagued Roy Moore in a special election for Jeff Sessions' Senate seat. Sessions, who resigned to serve in the first Trump administration, later lost a comeback primary battle to Tuberville, who went on to handily defeat Jones in the general election.
Washington Democratic Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez was chased out of a town hall by constituents angered by her support of a Republican bill targeting voter fraud.
Gluesenkamp Perez was one of only four Democrats who voted for the Safeguard American Voting Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which requires proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.
The shouting started immediately and did not let up for an hour, leaving Gluesenkamp Perez unable to speak for most of the event.
She defended her vote on the SAVE Act, arguing that she was voting to uphold election integrity, not to disenfranchise anyone.
"Americans believe that only US citizens should be determining the outcome of American elections. And any idea that I am standing to disenfranchise people is patently false,” she told the crowd.
A local reporter from KOIN6 tried to ask Gluesenkamp Perez questions after the event, but she was quickly escorted out for "security reasons."
Gluesenkamp Perez has cultivated a moderate reputation, sometimes breaking with her party on votes. She won another term in her swing district in southern Washington, even as voters chose Donald Trump in presidential election.
The SAVE Act would require proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, in order to register to vote. Most of Gluesenkamp Perez's fellow Democrats have dismissed concerns about non-citizens voting, however. They argue the bill's requirements will cause Americans to be disenfranchised.
Democrats have turned to familiar rhetoric to attack the bill, comparing it to a Jim Crow poll tax. Some have claimed the SAVE Act will cause married women who changed their names to lose their voting rights due to discrepancies between their IDs and their birth certificates, but Republicans say the bill was written to provide flexibility. Specifically, it instructs states to come up with supplemental forms of proof, which could include marriage certificates.
In addition to facing outrage over the SAVE Act, Gluesenkamp Perez was heckled about DOGE's cuts to the federal workforce and Trump's sweeping deportation agenda. Several constituents expressed disappointment that Gluesenkamp Perez is not being more combative towards the Trump administration.
“There is a really profound demand in our country for an efficient government,” Gluesenkamp Perez said, before being shouted down as a “traitor.”
Even as many Democrats double down on unpopular, "woke" positions, Gluesenkamp Perez is trying to keep the party at arms' length.
“I am committed to being here and present and available and accountable and trying to have as productive of a conversation as we can,” Gluesenkamp- Perez said.
Activist liberal judges have been one of President Donald Trump's worst nightmares since taking office, but after the arrest of activist judge Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, the tides seem to be turning.
According to Breitbart, one experienced former DOJ official Gene Rossi commented on the situation, saying that it appears that Judge Dugan was willfully attempting to hide a defendant from being arrested and deported.
The former DOJ official, who worked at the Justice Department from 1989-2016, said that it appears she was intentional in hiding the defendant but added that he wouldn't paper the case.
Rossie added that it was wrong that "she adjourned the case without telling the prosecutor and without telling the victims."
Rossi held nothing back during a CNN interview, providing his insight on the current situation with the judge.
"What you have here is a Judge who’s just incredibly angry that DEA agents, ICE agents, Custom[s] and Border Protection deportation officers are hovering around like bees for a man that they’re trying to arrest. It’s anger on steroids," Rossi said.
He added, "That prosecutor had this case on his docket. He had the victims there in the audience. For the victims, and I’m a big victim advocate, this was a big deal. And the thing that really bothers me about the Judge, and I think this is a big mess, is that she adjourned the case without telling the prosecutor and without telling the victims."
Rossi said he didn't believe there's enough there to convict her.
"And, whether there’s probable cause or beyond a reasonable doubt could convict her, that, to me, shows that she was willfully trying to hide that defendant from being arrested. And that bothers me a lot.”
Rossi explained that the lack of evidence to get a conviction would have deterred him from taking the case further.
Breitbart noted:
Rossi further stated that Dugan adjourning the case “points towards her trying to conceal and obstruct the arrest of this individual…whether I, as a prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, would have papered this case, probably not.
He also drew on his vast experience with illegal immigration cases.
"I did a ton of illegal immigration cases, a thousand. I tried and I supervised thousands. Would I have papered this case? No. The thing that bothers me about the Justice Department in this case is they made it into a show. They waited a whole week to paper this case, a week."
He also said they "made a spectacle of this case."
President Donald Trump’s bold move to oust two Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners has ignited a fierce legal showdown.
Democratic Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya are suing the administration, asserting that Trump lacks the authority to remove them from their posts, Newsweek reported.
The lawsuit, filed by Slaughter and Bedoya, challenges Trump’s attempt to fire them from the FTC, an agency tasked with consumer protection and antitrust enforcement. On April 25, 2025, a group of Democratic state attorney generals from states including California, New York, and Illinois filed an amicus brief supporting the commissioners.
The brief, addressed to U.S. District Court Judge Loren L. AliKhan, argues that Trump’s actions overstep his legal bounds.
The FTC operates with five commissioners, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, serving seven-year terms. No more than three commissioners can belong to the same political party, ensuring a bipartisan balance. The president designates one as chair, but the law restricts removals to cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
The amicus brief contends that Trump’s attempt to remove Slaughter and Bedoya lacks justification under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It warns that allowing such removals could set a dangerous precedent, likening the move to hypothetically ousting Article III judges, who serve during “good behavior” per the Constitution. The brief emphasizes that courts must intervene to prevent “untenable consequences.”
“The Administration essentially asserts that even if the President has no power to remove an officer, he can do it anyway,” the amicus brief states. It argues that such actions, if unchecked, would undermine the rule of law. The brief insists that federal courts have the authority to block unlawful removals.
The comparison to Article III judges underscores the gravity of the issue. “For instance, all parties presumably agree that the President does not have the power to remove an Article III judge,” the brief notes. If a president attempted such a removal, courts could declare it legally void, ensuring the judge remains in office.
The FTC’s structure fosters collaboration with states, pooling resources to combat fraud and monopolies. Its century-long record of expertise bolsters its credibility in consumer protection and antitrust litigation. The amicus brief argues that removing Slaughter and Bedoya disrupts this bipartisan framework, weakening the agency’s mission.
Alvaro Bedoya, in a March 18, 2025, post on X, defended the FTC’s independence. “The FTC is an independent agency founded 111 years ago to fight fraudsters and monopolists,” he wrote. He criticized Trump’s actions as an attempt to turn the agency into a “lapdog” for his allies.
The lawsuit draws on the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which affirmed the independence of agencies like the FTC. This ruling limits the president’s ability to fire commissioners without cause. However, the Trump administration seeks to challenge this precedent, arguing it hampers executive authority.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, in a letter to the Congressional Judiciary Committee, expressed the administration’s intent to overturn Humphrey’s Executor. “The Department intends to urge the Supreme Court to overrule [Humphrey’s Executor],” Harris wrote, calling it an unconstitutional restriction on the president’s supervisory power. This position signals a broader push to expand executive control over federal agencies.
The administration must respond to the lawsuit by April 23, 2025, with plaintiffs given until May 5, 2025, to reply. A hearing is scheduled for May 20, 2025, before Judge AliKhan. The outcome could reshape the balance of power between the president and independent agencies.
The White House did not respond to requests for comment. Spokespeople for the attorney generals’ offices in Colorado and Illinois also declined to provide additional statements. The silence from both sides leaves the public awaiting the court’s decision.
The amicus brief warns that unchecked presidential removals could extend beyond the FTC, threatening judicial independence. It imagines a scenario where a president attempts to bar a judge from a courthouse, requiring court intervention to restore order. “The district court has the power to vindicate the statutory scheme,” the brief asserts.
The brief further rejects the idea that unlawful actions by the president are automatically effective. “The President cannot expand his powers through adverse possession,” it states, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in upholding legal limits. This argument aligns with conservative principles of checks and balances, even as it critiques Trump’s approach.
As the legal battle unfolds, the case tests the boundaries of presidential authority and the independence of federal institutions. The FTC, a cornerstone of consumer protection, stands at the center of this high-stakes dispute.
The May 20 hearing will be a critical moment in determining whether Trump’s actions hold or are struck down by the courts.
Vice President J.D. Vance confirmed that the United States will walk away from Russia-Ukraine peace talks if the countries do not accept President Donald Trump's offer to end their three-year war.
“We’ve issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and Ukrainians, and it’s time for them to either say yes or for the US to walk away from this process,” Vance told reporters during a trip to India. “We’ve engaged in an extraordinary amount of diplomacy.”
Trump's "final offer" reportedly includes de jure recognition of Russian control over Crimea and de facto recognition of Russian control over most of the territory it has gained since the invasion of Ukraine three years ago.
Ukraine would get some land back and unhindered access to the Dnieper River, as well as aid to rebuild, "robust" security guarantees from Europe, and potential European Union membership, in exchange for abandoning its aspirations to join NATO.
Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff met with Vladimir Putin for another round of talks Friday as Trump teased his proposal in an interview with TIME magazine.
"Crimea will stay with Russia,” Trump said, adding Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky "understands that."
Trump also suggested NATO membership must be taken off the table to achieve lasting peace. Trump has long said NATO's eastward expansion played a significant role in sparking the current conflict.
“I don’t think they’ll ever be able to join NATO. I think that’s been—from day one, I think that’s been, that’s I think what caused the war to start was when they started talking about joining NATO. If that weren’t brought up, there would have been a much better chance that it wouldn’t have started,” Trump said.
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky has long refused to cede territory, including the Crimean Peninsula, which has been under Russian control for more than a decade.
Zelensky's unbending position has frustrated Trump, who has accused the Ukrainian leader of prolonging the war. Trump has repeatedly said Ukraine doesn't have major leverage.
“I just want to do it as fast as possible,” Trump said at the White House on Friday, adding a deal is "pretty close" to fruition.
While Trump is optimistic about a deal, his team clearly wants to keep the pressure on by letting everyone know that the U.S. could back out at any time.
Vance warned that Russia and Ukraine will both have to make territorial concessions to end the bloodshed.
Ashley Biden is facing an IRS complaint after she failed to disclose donations to her charity from wealthy benefactors, including Meghan Markle.
Women’s Wellness Spa(ce), Biden's nonprofit, underreported its income by six figures, according to the Washington Free Beacon.
Ashley Biden, a social worker who wrote about childhood trauma in an infamous diary, started the nonprofit to help women with mental health struggles.
The conservative National Legal and Policy Center flagged a $500,000 discrepancy in the group's IRS filings.
Despite reporting an income of $170,296 in 2023, Biden's charity received $250,000 grants from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Archewell Foundation and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.
Biden's non-profit began in 2023, while her father was still president, which has raised concerns to some about influence peddling.
"Ashley Biden’s failure to disclose to the IRS receiving $500,000 in grants in 2023 raises the question of what other contributions is she hiding," Paul Kamenar, a lawyer with the National Legal and Policy Center told the Washington Free Beacon.
An accountant for the charity told the Free Beacon that the most of the $500,000 was not distributed until 2024. But according to Kamenar, Biden's group is required to report donations when they are pledged, not when they are actually received.
Ashley Biden settled a $5,000 tax bill last year that dated to 2015. She is not the only member of her family with tax woes: her half-brother, Hunter, was facing prison after he pled guilty to evading taxes on over $1.4 million that he received from his international business deals.
President Biden wiped the slate clean with a controversial blanket pardon.
Ashley, the only child of Biden and his second wife Jill, was one of the only family members who did not receive a pardon from President Biden before he stepped down, the Free Beacon noted.
While Ashley Biden has received comparatively little publicity compared to Hunter Biden, the infamous theft of her diary led to scrutiny of her unusual family life. In the book, Biden wrote about "showers with dad" and being "sexualized" at a young age.
Ashley Biden's non-profit bills itself as a "trauma-informed wellness center," but the group's online presence is marginal outside of an Instagram account that has not posted anything since February.
The charity claims to offer guided meditation and psychotherapeutic treatments like Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), which Ashley Biden used after her half-brother Beau died from brain cancer.
Michelle Obama made an appearance with her husband Barack at an Italian restaurant.
The outing comes after months of speculation that the couple was headed for divorce, as Michelle failed to show up at major events.
The former president and his wife were filmed waving to an adoring crowd of diners at Osteria Mozza, where main courses range in price from $34 to $175.
The restaurant is in Washington D.C.'s fashionable Georgetown neighborhood, just a short distance from Obama's mansion in Kalorama.
Barack Obama was previously spotted dining there by himself in January, fueling rumors of a marital rift. His dinner date with Michelle is the first time they have been seen together in months.
The speculation started brewing after Michelle Obama failed to appear at two major state events in January: Jimmy Carter's funeral and President Trump's second inauguration.
Barack Obama appeared to respond to public speculation by sharing a gushing birthday tribute to his wife just days before Trump was sworn in. The post included a photo of the Obamas holding hands awkwardly across a dining table.
Barack Obama also acknowledged recently on a podcast that their marriage needed some work after years spent in public life.
His wife broke her silence on a recent podcast appearance with actress Sophia Bush, in which Michelle Obama, an outspoken feminist, complained about society's assumptions.
"That's the thing that we as women, I think we struggle with disappointing people," she said.
"So much so that this year people were, you know, they couldn't even fathom that I was making a choice for myself that they had to assume that my husband and I are divorcing," she added.
"That this couldn't be a grown woman just making a set of decisions for herself, right?"
Even as she denied rumors of marital trouble, the Former First Lady made clear that she is enjoying new freedom.
“Now is the time for me to start asking myself these hard questions of, ‘Who do I truly want to be every day?’ And that changes,” she said. “So, who do I want to have a lunch with? How long do I want to stay in a place? Do I want to travel? If a girlfriend calls and says, ‘Let’s go here,’ I can say ‘Yes! I can.’ And I’m trying to do that more and more.”
The Supreme Court shut down an effort by Democrats in Minnesota to restrict 18-to-20-year-olds from buying guns.
The court let stand an Eight Circuit ruling that vindicated the rights of young people to carry firearms under the Second Amendment. Minnesota's attorney general, Keith Ellison (D), had asked the court to uphold "modest" restrictions that make it a crime for people under 21 to carry in public.
The ruling is the latest in a cascade of Second Amendment victories to follow from the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen, which requires gun control regimes to be "consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The court later refined the Bruen test in United States v. Rahimi, clarifying that courts do not need to identify a "historic twin" to uphold modern gun restrictions, but instead should look at the "principles underlying historical restrictions on firearms."
Citing Rahimi, Minnesota urged the Supreme Court to reconsider an Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that struck down Minnesota's age limits, but the Supreme Court left the lower court ruling alone. The Eight Circuit found that the age limits do not pass the Bruen test.
“The Second Amendment’s plain text does not have an age limit,” wrote Judge Duane Benton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.
Moreover, the 26th Amendment unambiguously incorporated young people into the political community by granting them voting rights, the appeals court ruled.
Minnesota argued its "common sense" restrictions were necessary to address gun violence among young people. The state called its limits "modest" since young people can access firearms at any age with parental supervision, and by age 14 they may possess guns unsupervised on their property or for hunting.
Groups including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition challenged Minnesota's restrictions.
"Politicians should carefully consider the legal ramifications of infringing on Second Amendment rights,” Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus (MGOC) Senior Vice President & Political Director Rob Doar said.
“The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and its allies will relentlessly pursue legal action against any unconstitutional measures introduced in Minnesota.”
The Supreme Court has been slow to intervene in gun disputes since ruling in Rahimi last year, when the court found that people with restraining orders for domestic violence can be temporarily disarmed.
The court's reluctance to revisit the gun debate has cut both ways. While it has resulted in a win for gun rights in Minnesota, the justices recently declined to upset New York's new gun licensing regime, which was adopted in response to Bruen.