President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday declared Brazil a national security threat and sanctioned the nation's head judge (equivalent to the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) over human rights abuses and censorship of conservative viewpoints both at home and abroad.
Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF) Justice Alexandre de Moraes received sanctions from the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) under the Global Magnitsky Act because he has engaged in a pattern of arbitrary detentions, denial of fair trial guarantees, censorship, punishing free speech, and other abuses.
De Moraes's actions were all in the name of persecuting conservative political activity, which is prohibited by the act. Consequently, his U.S.-based assets are frozen, and he is banned from transactions involving U.S.
“Alexandre de Moraes has taken it upon himself to be judge and jury in an unlawful witch hunt against U.S. and Brazilian citizens and companies,” Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said. “De Moraes is responsible for an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions — including against former President Jair Bolsonaro. Today’s action makes clear that Treasury will continue to hold accountable those who threaten U.S. interests and the freedoms of our citizens.”
“Moraes abused his authority by engaging in a targeted and politically motivated effort designed to silence political critics through the issuance of secret orders compelling online platforms, including U.S. social media companies, to ban the accounts of individuals for posting protected speech,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a separate statement. “Moraes further abused his position to authorize unjust pre-trial detentions and undermine freedom of expression.”
Trump probably feels for Bolsonaro because he was in a similar situation to Trump, being declared the loser of an election while believing that he actually won.
Like Trump, Bolsonaro publicly refused to concede and accused his opponents of voter fraud.
It's probably more likely that Bolsonaro's election was fraudulent than Trump's, but neither one of them could prove it and both ended up having to accept the loss and transfer power eventually.
De Moraes went after Bolsonaro, his family, and his supporters with travel bans, freezing their assets, police raids, and arrests.
He also censored American social media platforms repeatedly, imposing hefty fines for noncompliance so people couldn't see the truth and find out he was wrong.
While de Moraes's actions sound frightfully familiar to how Trump and his allies have been treated, Bolsonaro had no legal remedy against his persecution.
Trump ended up beating all the charges against him, being re-elected by an indignant populace, and being able to pardon all his allies who were unjustly accused of crimes.
The differences highlight the American system's resilience; our democracy just functions better. Trump's sanctioning of de Moraes is an attempt to influence Brazil's government and tell de Moraes he can't get away with his actions consequence-free.
A former ABC News correspondent has finally admitted that the network is “biased” against President Donald Trump due to the newsroom being filled with liberals.
According to Terry Moran, who worked for decades at ABC News in various capacities, the newsroom “lacks viewpoint diversity” due to the almost single-minded ideological makeup of the employees, as Fox News reported.
Moran posted his views in his commentary on Substack, saying, “Let’s talk about bias.”
“I worked at ABC News for almost 28 years, and I’m proud to say that. But: Were we biased? Yes. Almost inadvertently, I’d say. ABC News has the same problem so many leading cultural institutions do in America: A lack of viewpoint diversity."
Moran was previously a foreign correspondent for ABC News and the chief White House correspondent. He also served as the anchor of Nightline during his nearly 30 years at the network.
"We are at the end of our agreement with Terry Moran and based on his recent post — which was a clear violation of ABC News policies — we have made the decision to not renew," the network said in a statement released by a spokesperson.
"At ABC News, we hold all of our reporters to the highest standards of objectivity, fairness, and professionalism, and we remain committed to delivering straightforward, trusted journalism."
Moran was at one time thought of by the executives at ABC News as a potential evening news anchor, reminding many of anchors like Peter Jennings.
Six weeks before being canned by the news outlet, Moran interviewed Trump, something that won him incredible accolades from those inside and outside of the industry.
He didn’t pull any punches either, pressing him about claims regarding a man deported to El Salvador, which caused a kerfuffle amongst immigrant advocates.
Trump went so far as to say Moran was “not being very nice,” and said the interview was a “big break” for him, considering it was a one-on-one sit-down style conversation.
Just months ago, in December of 2024, Walt Disney Co., ABC's corporate parent, reached an agreement to pay a $16 million settlement to Trump following a private suit.
Trump sued over the repeated claims by anchor George Stephanopoulos that Trump was found liable for rape after a sexual abuse suit in New York City.
The company is paying $15 million to a foundation for Trump’s future presidential library and an additional $1 million for legal fees.
The Supreme Court in the state of Alaska has boiled its decision on the campaign of a convicted felon down to just one word, according to the Alaska Beacon.
Last year, the state supreme court issued a headline-grabbing 4-1 decision, saying that Alaska’s U.S. House ballots would allow the felon to attempt to obtain the seat.
Eric Hafner, also known as Inmate 00932-005, campaigned from the Otisville Federal Correctional Institution in New York, which is about 4,000 miles from Alaska.
The 33-year-old candidate is serving 20 years for threatening a public official in New Jersey, where he is from. But in a shocking turn of events, he launched a campaign to be the very thing he threatened: a public official.
According to the state’s high court, their decision came down to the word “fifth.”
A 22-page opinion that explained the court’s decision cited Alaska residents’ approval of 2020’s Ballot Measure 2, in which primary elections were opened to ranked choice voting.
The top four vote-getters would be allowed to be in the primary, regardless of party, and if one of those candidates were to withdraw between the primary and general election, they would be replaced.
The measure said that the Alaska Division of Elections was tasked with replacing the candidate who dropped out “with the candidate who received the fifth most votes in the primary election.”
In the 2024 election, it turned out that two Republican candidates withdrew their candidacy after the primary, and attempted to throw their support behind fellow Republican Republican Nick Begich III, who went on to win the election.
Because of that switch-up, the candidate who got sixth place, which just so happened to be Hafner, or Inmate 00932-005 if you prefer, was put on the ballot in 2024.
Hafner had never lived in Alaska at the time he was a candidate, and if he were elected, he would have been ineligible to take on the office because of his lack of residency.
The case took an interesting turn because, despite the fact that Hafner is a Democrat and running as such, Democrats sued to remove him from the ballot.
The party feared splitting the vote between Hafner and then-incumbent Rep. Mary Peltola, and argued that the measure allowed the Division of Elections to promote the fifth finisher to the ballot, but did not offer any further allowance for the would-be candidate.
Last year, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that an imprisoned felon in New York could remain on Alaska’s U.S. House ballot despite a lawsuit challenging his eligibility. Last week, the court issued an opinion explaining its decision. via @AlaskaBeacon https://t.co/BPnQKuzLd8
— Anchorage Daily News (@adndotcom) July 28, 2025
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi filed an official complaint on behalf of the Justice Department alleging U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg committed misconduct by trying to influence other judges against President Donald Trump.
The complaint was written by Bondi’s Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle at her direction and addressed to the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Sri Srinivasan.
"The Department of Justice respectfully submits this complaint alleging misconduct by U.S. District Court Chief Judge James E. Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Donald J. Trump to the Chief Justice of the United States and other federal judges that have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," Mizelle wrote.
Boasberg is the presiding judge in the high-profile case involving illegal immigrants sent to CECOT prison in El Salvador.
He ordered the Trump administration to turn planes containing migrants around while they were in midair, but that didn't happen and Boasberg has talked about holding DOJ lawyers in contempt for not following his order.
Trump and his team have claimed that the order did not come in time to stop the planes, but that did not satisfy Boasberg.
The complaint focused on two occasions when the DOJ says Boasberg damaged the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
"On March 11, 2025, Judge Boasberg attended a session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which exists to discuss administrative matters like budgets, security, and facilities. While there, Judge Boasberg attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges by straying from the traditional topics to express his belief that the Trump Administration would 'disregard rulings of federal courts' and trigger 'a constitutional crisis,'" the complaint read regarding the first occasion.
"Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis—the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders. Nor did Judge Boasberg identify any purported violations of court orders to justify his unprecedented predictions," it argued.
"Within days of those statements, Judge Boasberg began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders," the complaint continued. "First, although he lacked authority to do so, he issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Government from removing violent Tren de Aragua terrorists, which the Supreme Court summarily vacated."
"Taken together, Judge Boasberg’s words and deeds violate Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and, erode public confidence in judicial neutrality, and warrant a formal investigation."
The DOJ wants Boasberg to face an inquiry by a special investigative committee, which will be tasked with determining whether he engaged in "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts."
Bondi also wants him taken off the case of the Venezuelan migrants deported to El Salvador "to prevent further erosion of public confidence while the investigation proceeds."
It's the second complaint Bondi's DOJ has filed against a federal judge who seemed to be targeting Trump, and there will probably be more where that came from, given the number of judges who seem to be doing the same.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that he will force a vote on releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files after the House's August recess by partnering with Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna (CA) on a discharge petition that would commandeer the Speaker's power over the schedule.
Massie expressed a lack of satisfaction with the information released so far and gave host Jonathan Karl details about what he wanted to see happen.
He said, “Well, I think we should get a lot more than just the book. Let’s get the financial records of the estate, follow the money, as they say up here. We should look at the plea-bargain, open that up, see what was the deal, what was the deal that was cut."
Massie told Karl he thinks the powers that be are holding out on the public in regards to Epstein.
"I think there’s a lot more than just that letter," he argued. "That letter is also sort of representative of something that’s embarrassing but not illegal, another reason why these files may be sealed and stay sealed, but we’re going to force a vote on this when we get back from the August recess. Ro Khanna and I are using a procedure called a discharge petition whereby if we get 218 votes, and we’re well on our way to that, 218 signatures, then we can force the vote.”
Karl pointed out that Massie could not force a vote without some Republican support.
Massie said, “If every Democrat signs this, I have 12 Republican co-sponsors and I only need six to sign it.”
But Karl was somewhat doubtful that he could get that much support because it would take control of the House schedule away from Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and would set up a power struggle within the party.
It's one thing to co-sponsor legislation, but it's another to take the kind of forceful action that would be required.
Massie appeared to be counting on the public pressure that has been manifesting itself since Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled that the administration was trying to move beyond Epstein without releasing any more information.
He said, “I think the pressure will build over August recess. I don’t think it will dissipate like the speaker hopes that it will. If merely just half the people who have co-sponsored this legislation follow through and sign it, then it’s going to come to the floor for a vote.”
The refusal to release the entirety of the Epstein files has led to speculation among people on both sides of the political aisle about whether President Donald Trump is named in the files as an associate of Epstein's.
The two were photographed together several times a few decades ago, but had an apparent falling out at some point before Epstein's first arrest for sexual misconduct in 2006.
Trump said on Monday that he ended his relationship with Epstein because he repeatedly "stole" people who had worked for Trump. “I threw him out and that was it. I’m glad I did, if you want to know the truth,” Trump added.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) just got hit with a massive fine for breaking House ethics rules related to her infamous appearance at the 2021 Met Gala.
The House Ethics Committee ordered the leftist star to pay $2,000 after an investigation found that she broke House rules when underpaying for certain gifts and apparel, constituting a violation of ethics rules.
The Committee's report found that AOC “paid under fair market value for clothing and accessories,” and was ordered to pay $2,733 to vendors for the additional value of her" clothing, including the infamous dress that ironically read, "Tax the rich."
Nothing screams socialism and working class awareness like attending the Met Gala with the nation's elites and wearing a dress worth thousands that most Americans could never afford.
AOC's appearance at the Met Gala was a prime example of nauseating "champagne socialism" that many rich leftists are involved in. Enjoying lavish lifestyles while pretending to be warriors of the working class.
The report explained, "The Committee determined that Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s conduct was inconsistent with House Rules, laws, and other standards of conduct with respect to her acceptance of certain goods and services associated with her attendance at the 2021 Met Gala, and her delay in making appropriate payment for their receipt."
This outcome represents a cathartic moment of justice for conservatives who had to witness AOC's outrageous stunt and watch her get away with it for years.
The report continued by saying, "While the Committee did not find that Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s violations were knowing and willful, she nonetheless received impermissible gifts and must bear responsibility for the other conduct that occurred with respect to the delays in payment."
The "fair market value" of AOC's entire Met Gala outfit came out to an astounding $3,724.04. Talk about bouguisie excess and materialist signalling.
What's worse is that AOC only paid $990.76, which suggests that this extremely expensive outfit was presented mostly as a gift, which is what got the House Ethics Committee involved amid conservatives' fuming outrage.
The ticket to the Met Gala alone was worth $35,000, which prompted the American Accountability Foundation to lodge an ethics complaint against the self-styled far-leftist AOC.
AOC's "Tax the rich" dress was designed by Aurora James, of Brother Vellies, a luxury fashion brand. There is no industry more materialistic and capitalist than high-fashion, and yet AOC saw no irony in wearing a dress with that message.
AOC doesn't seem to understand that she is "the rich," as are the rest of the nation's elite, who attend the Met Gala every year to engage in the typical self-congratulatory celebrations of not being one of the masses.
Socialism is a revolting anti-American ideology on its own, but fashionable champagne socialism is an altogether different monster. It's long past time that AOC be recognized for the fraud that she truly is.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed multiple lawsuits aiming to stop President Donald Trump's move to tear down USAID.
The Trump administration is tearing down USAID, or the U.S. Agency for International Development, as a result of decades of corruption and financial waste of taxpayer dollars.
Furthermore, the Trump administration is moving all of USAID's more valuable functions under the control of the State Department, putting an end to the unaccountable pseudo-independence that USAID has enjoyed since its inception.
Judge Carl Nichols of the US District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed one lawsuit brought by the American Federation of Government Employees, American Foreign Service Association, Personal Services Contractor Association, and Oxfam America.
Those organizations all represented workers affected by the layoffs resulting from USAID's destruction. They argued that the move by the Trump administration was unconstitutional, but this argument was quickly shot down.
USAID has been a source of corruption for decades, wasting American taxpayer dollars on leftist pet projects and funneling money to organizations that are closely connected to powerful politicians.
The organization that is supposed to provide humanitarian aid and help develop third-world countries has likely served as a vehicle to funnel taxpayer dollars to the rich and powerful, which explains the outrage from many rich and powerful Democrats when Trump decided to kill USAID.
However, the fight is far from over, as Judge Nichols's decision doesn't necessarily rule on the merits of the lawsuit but rather invalidates the filing status of the organizations that brought the lawsuit.
Judge Nichols found that three organizations lacked standing to challenge the many discrete actions involved in dismantling USAID.
The Trump administration's actions are complex, and this operation isn't as simple as simply declaring that USAID is no longer, especially considering the State Department is working to absorb parts of USAID.
While another organization could bring a lawsuit on the same merits, this dismissal will likely kill any chance of further litigation stopping USAID's dismantling.
Tearing down USAID is a massive win for the Trump administration, as it destroys a key piece of Washington, D.C.'s corruption as well as a vehicle for the export of the leftist agenda.
USAID has spent billions on insane and corrupt ideas. In one instance, USAID under the Biden administration spent $15 million providing condoms for the Taliban. They also provided $14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at the southern border.
There are countless examples of USAID spending taxpayer dollars promoting LGBTQ initiatives in foreign countries to the tune of millions.
It was long past time for this corrupt organization to be shut down and investigated ,as there is a strong chance that significant sums of cash were distributed to NGO's which then directed funds to the politicians who allowed all of this to happen in the first place.
The death of Food Network chef Anne Burrell on June 17 was ruled a suicide by the City of New York Office of Chief Medical Examiner on Thursday at the conclusion of its investigation; the report found that she died of "acute intoxication due to the combined effects of diphenhydramine, ethanol, cetirizine, and amphetamine."
Burrell apparently mixed two antihistamines with alcohol and amphetamine; the combination can be deadly in the right amounts.
While the combination of medications she had in her system could have been taken mistakenly and caused an accidental death, the fact that she was found unresponsive in the shower with a large quantity of pills near her body led investigators to rule it a suicide.
In the weeks since Burrell died, many of her colleagues and others in the food industry have given heartfelt tributes to her impact on their careers.
Burrell started on Food Network as a sous chef on "Iron Chef America."
She also appeared on "Chopped," "Chef Wanted," "Food Network Star," and "House of Knives," and hosted "Secrets of a Restaurant Chef and "Worst Cooks in America."
The final season of "Worst Cooks" featuring Burrell is still set to air beginning July 28, which will be surreal for her many fans.
She specialized in Italian cooking and trained in Italy for several years before working several stints at prominent Italian eateries in the U.S.
Burrell married Stuart Claxton in 2021; she had previously identified as lesbian and been engaged to a woman.
She was said to be worth $5 million before her death due to her Food Network shows and two bestselling books.
She lived with Claxton and two cats in a 2-bedroom, $1.5 million loft apartment in Brooklyn.
It was not clear what led the 55-year-old to take her own life.
Friends and others who knew her said that while she had struggled in the past, she seemed to have found joy and happiness in recent times.
Burrell's death is a reminder that so often, we don't know what someone is really going through on the inside, even when they look happy on the outside.
President Donald Trump celebrated a legal victory on Wednesday after it was announced that Columbia University took a loss.
The university announced that it would pay $221 million in order to settle several civil rights investigations from the Trump administration, as Breitbart News reported.
Trump went so far as to call the win “historic” and the “right” thing for the iconic university to do.
Columbia’s Office of the President issued a statement, saying that they reached an agreement to resolve the “alleged violations of federal anti-discrimination laws.”
“As part of the resolution, Columbia will pay a $200 million settlement over three years to the federal government. In addition, the University has agreed to settle investigations brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $21 million,” the university president’s office said.
The school, however, was quick to point out what the agreement does NOT do:
“Importantly, the agreement preserves Columbia’s autonomy and authority over faculty hiring, admissions, and academic decision-making.”
The announcement also states that the agreement reinstates a number of federal grants that were terminated in March of this year.
That change alone allows Columbia access to “billions of dollars in current and future grants.”
The agreement said that, “This includes the reinstatement of the majority of grants previously terminated by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services, renewal of non-competitive grants, the release of overdue payments on active, non-terminated grants, and Columbia’s restored eligibility to apply for new federal research funding in the ordinary course.”
Linda McMahon, the Trump administration’s Secretary of Education, called the deal “a seismic shift in our nation’s fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.
“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public by renewing their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate.”
Columbia Board of Trustees Co-Chairs David Greenwald and Jeh Johnson offered up a statement, saying that “Today’s agreement with the federal government affirms Columbia’s unyielding commitment to academic freedom, freedom of expression, and open inquiry.
There also appeared to be a spin reminiscent of the idea that it was part of the university’s plan to make change, saying that the deal, “confirms the changes already underway at Columbia to meaningfully address antisemitism on our campus and allows the University to continue to undertake its transformative research and scholarship.”
A federal court has foiled state plans to circumvent national immigration enforcement, following a push to end the use of detention centers with a July 22 decision.
News broke this week that a federal appeals court ruled that New Jersey’s ban on the use of private immigration detention contracts is unconstitutional, as Fox News reported.
This is a big blow to advocates for illegal immigration who have been trying to diminish the impact of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the Garden State.
The court’s decision pertained to a 2021 law signed by New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, which barred the company CoreCivic from engaging in a contract with ICE.
The contract would have allowed for ICE, which is a subsidiary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to operate its Elizabeth Detention Center.
U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, an appointee of President Donald Trump, weighed in, saying, ”Just as states cannot regulate the federal government itself, they cannot regulate private parties in a way that severely undercuts a federal function.
The judge added that the law "interferes with the federal government’s core power to enforce immigration laws."
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin was not pleased with the circuit court decision and expressed his frustration on X, formerly Twitter.
“We are disappointed in the Third Circuit’s ruling this morning invalidating our law prohibiting private immigration detention.
Near the end of his comments, he promised that the state wasn’t done with the issue, saying, “We will continue to do all we can to defend these important goals and are evaluating our next steps in this case.”
Statement from Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin on the Third Circuit’s Decision in CoreCivic. pic.twitter.com/d0zh3Tru9l
— Attorney General Matt Platkin (@NewJerseyOAG) July 22, 2025
The decision from the 3rd Circuit was a split 2-1 decision, and the attorney general cited one concern from the dissenting judge in his comments:
“As recent events at Delaney Hall underscore, entrusting detention to for-profit companies poses a grave risk to health and safety, and as the dissenting judge noted, states retain broad latitude to protect the health and safety of people within their borders, particularly where, as here, there is no conflict with federal legislation,” Platkin said.
This is at sharp odds with the assertion by DHS and the Trump administration that the removal of illegal immigrants, who entered the nation in violation of current laws or overstayed without proper documentation, is part of their duty and required by federal legislation.