Republicans fought former President Joe Biden tooth and nail when he tried to institute student loan forgiveness plans during his administration, but now President Donald Trump has agreed to remove the pause on established programs that have been in place for years or decades.
Income-driven repayment plans cap the monthly loan amount at a percentage of the borrower's income, and usually forgive the loans after 20 or 25 years of consistent payments.
Trump had paused forgiveness under those plans earlier in the year to review them, and Education Secretary Linda McMahon had argued that the court order blocking Biden's Saving on a Valuable Education plan (SAVE) would allow them to stop offering loan forgiveness under the plans.
Despite this argument, Trump decided to restart them as part of an agreement with the American Federation of Teachers, which celebrated the move.
“This is a tremendous win for borrowers. With today’s filing, borrowers can rest a little easier,” legal counsel Winston Berkman-Breen said.
“The US Department of Education has agreed to follow the law and deliver congressionally mandated affordable payments and debt relief to hard-working public service workers across the country, and will do so under court supervision. We fully intend to hold them to their word.”
Under the agreement, borrowers who receive forgiveness will not owe taxes on the amount forgiven.
“The Biden Administration’s illegal attempts at mass student loan forgiveness impacted all of the Department’s income-driven repayment programs, including Income-Based Repayment. The courts intervened to stop their illegal efforts but that also impacted Department systems and prevented us from processing lawful loan discharges,” a spokesperson for the Department of Education told The Post in a statement.
“Thanks to the Trump Administration’s efforts to separate out the illegal loan cancellation schemes, we are able to process legitimate loan cancellations once again.”
The move is temporary, because Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill will be phasing out the programs by 2028 anyway.
But by agreeing to reverse the pause, Trump will settle the lawsuit by the AFT in March.
It makes sense because the borrowers were told they could access the program when they took the loans, so it doesn't seem fair to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Those paying under income-based repayment plans can end up owing far more than they originally borrowed because of interest over many years, so the forgiveness makes sense at some point.
President Donald Trump said Sunday evening that the ceasefire between Israel and Gaza was still intact after the two sides exchanged fire over the weekend.
Trump seemed to blame civilians in Gaza for opening fire on Israeli soldiers, killing two of them. Israel then launched a series of air strikes on Gaza.
Hamas is being “quite rambunctious,” Trump said from Air Force One, but added he believes its leadership “isn’t involved in that.”
The ceasefire is "still in place," even though both sides accuse the other of violating it, he said.
It's about par for the course in the Middle East, where peace in Israel has never lasted long.
So far, Israel has withdrawn most of its soldiers from Gaza and has allowed food and medical aid to flow in.
Hamas returned all the living hostages it held back to Israel along with remains of 12 of the 28 dead ones. It said before the ceasefire that it would take some time to locate the remains of all the dead hostages.
Israel countered by saying the Rafah border crossing that connects Gaza with Egypt would stay closed until all the remains were returned.
Clearly, there are still tensions between the two sides, and Hamas has not yet disarmed.
Trump threatened last week that if Hamas didn't disarm voluntarily, they would be disarmed by force, though not by American forces.
Part of the peace plan that hasn't yet been implemented calls for Hamas's disarmament, but they haven't agreed to that part yet.
On Saturday, the State Department said it had intel that Hamas is planning an attack on Palestinian civilians in Gaza, which would definitely violate the ceasefire terms.
In that case, the U.S. said it would take action to “protect the people of Gaza and preserve the integrity of the ceasefire.”
“The United States and the other guarantors remain resolute in our commitment to ensuring the safety of civilians, maintaining calm on the ground, and advancing peace and prosperity for the people of Gaza and the region as a whole,” the statement further read.
President Donald Trump has confirmed that two men who survived a military strike on a drug smuggling vessel will be sent to their respective countries.
In an announcement on Saturday, Trump confirmed that the two men on the drug-running vessel will be sent to Ecuador and Colombia to face prosecution for the illegal and nearly fatal drug-running enterprise.
The two men were on board a semi-submersible vessel believed to be transporting fentanyl and other narcotics along a well-known smuggling route toward the United States.
The strike on the vessel marked the sixth strike that the U.S. military has made on suspected drug-running vessels in the Caribbean under the leadership of Trump.
Trump has vowed to crush Central and South American drug cartels both by closing down the southern border, but also by using lethal military force to disrupt the trafficking of deadly drugs that kill countless Americans every year.
For years, drug cartels have had carte blanche to run their deadly cargo through the Caribbean Sea and across the southern border, but those days are over as long as Trump is in the White House.
Trump celebrated the strike in a post on Truth Social saying, "It was my great honor to destroy a very large drug-carrying submarine that was navigating toward the United States on a well-known narcotrafficking transit route. U.S. intelligence confirmed this vessel was loaded up with mostly fentanyl, and other illegal narcotics."
Alongside this post, Trump released the footage of the strike that destroyed the vessel in a similar fashion to the last few strikes on drug smuggling vessels.
For the first time, those participating in smuggling deadly drugs have something to fear. Simply seizing random amounts of smuggled drugs isn't enough to truly deter cartel activity.
Furthermore, Trump has avoided a massive legal headache as he no longer has to worry about detaining prisoners of war who have the legal right to contest their detention in the American court system.
Instead, these smugglers have gone to their respective countries, where their cases will be handled. The cases will likely be open and shut, and those smugglers can expect to spend some time behind bars, which is still better than being dead.
On the home front, Trump is already dealing with growing legal challenges as Democrats have predictably chosen to side with drug-smuggling cartels and launch spurious lawsuits against Trump's use of military force against cartels.
Of course, it's not just Democrats who have an issue with Trump starting a hot war against cartels. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has been a staunch critic of Trump's use of force and claims that the military strikes on drug smuggling vessels are illegal.
It remains to be seen what will happen with these legal challenges, but it's refreshing to see America's trillion-dollar military used to directly defend the homeland instead of waging meaningless wars on the other side of the globe.
Democrats are in trouble in New Jersey, and former President Barack Obama is stepping in to try to reinforce Democrats ahead of a crucial election.
Obama has officially endorsed New Jersey’s Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, as she is caught in a tight race with Republican Jack Ciattarelli, who hopes to flip New Jersey's governor's mansion for the first time since 2018.
While Sherrill leads Ciattarelli by six points, there is genuine fear that Ciattarelli could flip New Jersey due to an overwhelming negative sentiment towards Democrats.
The race in New Jersey is one of two major gubernatorial battles that Democrats are pouring a lot of money and energy into, the other being in Virginia.
Obama has also issued an endorsement of former Democrat Representative Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, as Democrats are working to retake Virginia.
While Obama is a popular figure among Democrats, he doesn't enjoy the universal acclaim he once had all those years ago.
Bringing out Obama to make a political endorsement is a risky measure due to his increasingly divisive image with moderates and center-right conservatives. So this is an all-hands-on-deck moment for Democrats to try and ward off Ciattarelli.
In an ad released on Friday, Obama called on New Jersey voters to come out for Sherrill saying, "Mikie’s integrity, grit, and commitment to service are what we need right now in our leaders. Mikie Sherrill is the right choice for your next governor."
It isn't just Obama who's been called in to shore up Sherrill. Other Democrat Governors, like Maryland Governor Wes Moore and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, have also publicly thrown their political clout behind Sherrill.
Responding to Obama's endorsement, Sherrill stated, "This November, we have an opportunity to chart a different path forward — to reject the chaos in Washington and lower costs in New Jersey — and I’m so grateful to have President Obama’s support and endorsement in this race. President Obama led historic efforts to lower healthcare costs and, now, Jack Ciattarelli is all in on Trump’s plans to raise premiums and kick hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans off their healthcare."
Sherill is wisely focusing on economic issues which is keeping her in the lead and marks a sharp tack away from the typical Democrat playbook of focusing on social issues. Nonetheless, there are fears that Sherrill could lose this race.
Ciattarelli came just three points shy of beating Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy in 2021 when President Joe Biden won the White House. Now with Democrats very much still in retreat, Ciattarelli believes he has what he needs to claim victory.
He explained, “I flipped eight seats in the state Legislature with the wind in our face and despite those challenges, it was the most successful night in 34 years for the Republican Party. In 2023, without me at the top of the ballot, we gave all those seats right back. But I’m telling you, this time around, we’ve got some wind at our back.”
Clearly, Democrats agree with Ciattarelli, and that's why they are pulling out all the stops to rally behind Sherrill to try and avoid the humiliation of losing the Garden State.
President Donald Trump's requirement that truck drivers be proficient in English has led to 6,000 truck drivers being sidelined since it took effect in May.
Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy issued the guidance that roadside inspections would be conducted only in English, and drivers who didn't seem proficient in English would face a two-step evaluation.
If drivers failed the evaluation, they were immediately out of service, rather than just getting a citation and being expected to improve.
Trucking companies and civil rights groups have pushed back on the regulation, saying that research has not shown English proficiency to lower crash risk.
Most recently, the Transportation Department has said it will withhold $40 million in federal highway and safety grants from California, accusing the state of not enforcing the new rules.
The state stands to lose another $160 million if it can't show compliance in the future.
California argued back that its accident rates are below the national average as well as claiming that it is enforcing safety rules.
Other states that have been warned include New Mexico and Washington.
The rule really isn't new, it's just a stronger enforcement of federal regulation 49 C.F.R. § 391.11(b)(2), a statute that has long required commercial drivers to "speak and read the English language sufficiently" that they can hold a conversation with the public, understand highway signage, respond to official inquiries, and complete reports.
Trucking companies have responded by implementing English trainings and assessments to help drivers come into compliance with the rule. They are also implementing contingency plans for if drivers fail inspections and are taken out of service.
Senate Republicans are looking to codify the rule into legislation so that it can't be challenged in the courts--or at least it would be more difficult to do so.
The downside of 6,000 fewer truck drivers could be supply chain problems, because that's 6,000 fewer trucks that could be delivering goods to stores and warehouses.
It does make sense to require English proficiency because road signs are in English and different situations could require a knowledge of English.
Sometimes a new rule is difficult at first, but is a benefit in the long run. It seems like this is one of those rules.
First Son Barron Trump, only 19 years old, has reportedly earned $150 million in only a year from his family's cryptocurrency venture, World Liberty Financial (WLF). His net worth now surpasses his mother, First Lady Melania Trump's, which is reported to be $20 million.
Barron played a prominent part in launching WLF; he is the one who introduced his father to cryptocurrency and explained its potential value to the family business interests.
Therefore, it's only fair that he would share in its profits, which were reportedly $1.5 billion after the launch of several cryptocurrency tokens and currencies.
Barron is only a sophomore at Stern School of Business at NYU, but he is undoubtedly one of the wealthiest students there as he balances his growing business interests with his studies.
The company was launched weeks before the 2024 election and has taken full advantage of Trump's re-election and general popularity with Republicans.
Barron is already a notable figure in digital finance, and a leading cryptocurrency entrepreneur, and he's not even out of his teens yet.
According to Forbes, he still has 2.3 billion locked tokens, which could net him $550 million if he plays his cards right.
Of course, he likely didn't put up any money to start WLF; that was dad's or his brothers' money, but he contributed ideas and strategy that have paid off for all of them in a big way.
Maybe his mother Melania's fierce protectiveness and years of nurturing him are paying off; Barron certainly doesn't seem to be falling prey to a lot of the things other kids his age have.
It's unclear how much control and influence his parents still have over him. He's an adult, but many college students are still pretty dependent on their parents.
The public is really interested in Barron, having seen him grow up while Dad was in his first term even though Mom kept him mostly out of the public eye.
He has a bright future ahead of him and could rapidly catch up to his father's $7.5 billion net worth once he comes fully into his own (while still being involved in the family's businesses).
It really shouldn't take him long to catch up to his brothers, Eric (worth $750 million) and Don Jr. (worth $500 million).
Brother-in-law Jared Kushner is worth a billion now, but even that target may not be out of reach if crypto continues doing well.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has declined to hear a case brought by Colorado parents over the local public middle school's policy to not inform parents about their children's "gender identity" decisions, but not for the reason you think.
The case was declined on procedural grounds, as the high court agreed with lower courts that the case was not brought correctly on the proper grounds.
Lower courts dismissed the case against Wellington Middle School in Poudre School District R-1 on procedural grounds before considering it on the merits.
Parents wanted to challenge “District Secrecy Policies” that said teachers and administrators could keep a child's so-called gender transition a secret from parents and not inform them that the child was identifying as a different gender and even taking on a different name at school.
Parents argued that the policy violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by denying them parental rights to be informed and make decisions for their children.
The school district's attorneys argued that the petitioners were seeking "an advisory opinion that would fail to afford them any relief from the rulings below, and this is the wrong case to consider whether a public school employee’s alleged discouraged disclosure regarding gender identity and expression implicates a fundamental right."
We aren't talking about 16 or 17-year-olds, here, but 12 and 13-year-olds who are generally quite immature and whose ideas about gender identity are often changeable.
In no way, shape, or form should schools be allowed to hide this or any other information from parents, who have the right to make these decisions for their children.
While even the most conservative justices on the court agreed with the ruling, Justice Samuel Alito encouraged lower courts not to avoid similar cases that did not have the procedural hurdles this one does.
“I concur in the denial of certiorari because petitioners do not challenge the ground for the ruling below. But I remain concerned that some federal courts are tempted to avoid confronting a particularly contentious constitutional question: whether a school district violates parents’ fundamental rights when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process,” Alito wrote.
“Petitioners tell us that nearly 6,000 public schools have policies—as respondent allegedly does—that purposefully interfere with parents’ access to critical information about their children’s gender identity choices and school personnel’s involvement in and influence on those choices,” he continued. “The troubling—and tragic—allegations in this case underscore the great and growing national importance of the question that these parent petitioners present.”
A case like this one definitely needs to be heard, either in a lower court or by the Supreme Court if necessary.
It is unfortunate that this case was bungled procedurally and that the courts will have to wait for some other brave parents to get fed up with the schools taking their power away.
Most good parents know that kids this age are not making a long-term decision when they decide to change their gender identity, and they should be the ones deciding how that plays out in their child's life, not the school.
President Donald Trump got a standing ovation from the Israeli Knesset on Monday when he asked Israeli President Isaac Herzog to pardon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of bribery charges he faces.
“Hey, I have an idea. Mr. President, why don’t you give him a pardon? Give him a pardon,” Trump said, after which applause and chants of “Bibi, Bibi!’ broke out.
“By the way, that was not in the speech, as you probably know, but I happen to like this gentleman right over here,” Trump continued.
“It just seems to make so much sense. You know whether we like it or not, this has been one of the greatest wartime presidents. Cigars and champagne? Who the hell cares about that?” he stated.
🚨 BREAKING: President Trump asks the President of Israel ON THE SPOT to give Benjamin Netanyahu "a PARDON."
The Knesset erupts into a standing ovation
"That was NOT in the speech! But I happen to like him, and it just seems to make so much sense. One of the greatest war time… pic.twitter.com/EgdBx2RtEj
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 13, 2025
Trump's on the spot request has put Herzog on the spot, and at a time when both Trump and Netanyahu are being looked at as heroes for reaching a deal to stop the fighting.
Trump has been saying since June that the State of Israel should drop the charges against Netanyahu.
Supporters of the PM say the charges of petty corruption for acts such as receiving cigars from a friend are politically motivated.
The judges in the case even suggested that at least one of the charges should be dropped, but Netanyahu was forced to testify during a time of war anyway.
Trump is riding high on public opinion after brokering an initial peace deal between Israel and Hamas, bringing an end to the fighting and the release of all hostages held by Hamas for the last two years.
Figures on both sides of the political aisle are lauding him for the peace deal, even some who criticized him before.
This includes media figures like CNN's Jake Sullivan, The View co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin, and even his former presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.
"I really commend President Trump and his administration, as well as Arab leaders in the region for making the commitment to the 20-point plan and seeing a path forward for what's often called the day after," Clinton told CBS' Norah O'Donnell on Friday.
Former President Barack Obama praised the peace deal, but did not name Trump in the post that did so, drawing criticism from another CNN figure, host Abby Phillip.
"I think if you can't say that ending a deadly war that has killed so many children and human beings is a good thing, I think you need to take a look at your gut and find out what's going on there. This is, everybody wants this to end and if he's able to get it done, he deserves credit for it," she said.
President Donald Trump on Saturday directed Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to pay the 1.3 million active duty troops on October 15 even though they would not normally be paid while the government is shutting down, using funding earmarked for research and development that has not been allocated in order to do so.
The government has been shut down since October 1 after the House passed a continuing resolution to fund the government at currently legislated levels, but Senate Democrats blocked its passage in that chamber while demanding rollbacks of changes made in the One Big Beautiful Bill over the summer.
“If nothing is done, because of ‘Leader’ Chuck Schumer and the Democrats, our Brave Troops will miss the paychecks they are rightfully due on October 15th,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “That is why I am using my authority, as Commander in Chief, to direct our Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to use all available funds to do this.”
The Office of Management and Budget has let Congress know that it will use the $8 billion in funding to pay the military.
The move comes as last week House Democrats sort of tried to approve funding to pay the military by bringing it up for a unanimous consent vote during a pro forma session.
House Republicans blocked the attempt by Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-MD) when House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost (R-IL) gaveled out the session before she could finish reading her request.
Republicans did this for two reasons: first, they saw it as an attempt to save face while still forcing their demands for another $1.5 trillion in new spending through Congress in an attempt to undo the progress made in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Second, as House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) pointed out afterward, Elfreth's request didn't follow the protocols for bringing up legislation, so it wouldn't have worked even if she had been allowed to finish it.
"You can't do that in a pro forma session. So again, it's just to get attention," Emmer said, calling the attempt a political stunt of "gargantuan proportions."
While the two sides squabble in Congress over whether to come out of the shutdown, Trump did what he had to do to get the military paid, which shows a lot of leadership in my opinion.
He also reallocated other funding to keep WIC, a food program for women during pregnancy and while they have very young children, operating during the shutdown.
So much for the narrative that he is a cold, unfeeling tyrant who wants to see people starve.
Democrats need to come to terms with the fact that elections have dictated their lack of power.
It's unfair to hold the government hostage to get concessions that they could never have gotten otherwise, given the power that they now have.
They are getting the blame for anything bad that happens as a result of the shutdown, and they know it. Their downward spiral will continue until they realize how they are shooting themselves in the foot over and over with their radical left leanings.
A federal appeals court reversed a lower court ruling blocking President Donald Trump from calling up the National Guard in Chicago.
Thanks to this decision, troops stationed at the U.S. Army Reserve Center in Elwood, Illinois, can stay put. However, there is still the question of whether Trump can actually deploy these troops into the city.
The one-page order from the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals read, "Members of the National Guard do not need to return to their home states unless further ordered by a court to do so."
This order reverses a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge April Perry, who barred the White House from federalizing and deploying National Guard troops from Illinois and Texas in Chicago.
She rejected the Trump administration's argument that, because of increasing lawlessness and riots against federal law enforcement, the National Guard was required to ensure federal law enforcement would be able to do its job.
It's also worth noting that Perry was appointed by former President Joe Biden, in case that wasn't immediately obvious.
This latest decision is another win for President Trump, but there are real questions to be settled about whether he has the power to actually use the National Guard in Chicago, a Democrat-run city that has been designated a "sanctuary city."
Under radical leftist mayor Brandon Johnson, Chicago has become home to scores of illegal immigrants who are putting a strain on Chicago's infrastructure and social safety nets. This hasn't stopped Chicago Democrats from fighting tooth and nail to protect these illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have been working in the city, but that is very much in spite of Democrats. In fact, the Chicago Police Department was ordered not to assist federal agents who were under literal siege by violent leftist protestors.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson would rather defend illegal immigrants than make life better for American citizens in Chicago and the state of Illinois and they are willing to let federal law enforcement be besieged like they are conducting operations in a warzone.
Of course, it seems like Trump will come out on top in this particular fight as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also appears poised to authorize Trump's use of the National Guard in Portland, another leftist city committing insurrection by protecting criminals against federal law enforcement.
Democrat cities around the nation have opened their doors for illegal immigrants and other criminals, but refuse to allow federal law enforcement to come in and do their job.
Considering Democrats screeched about Trump committing "insurrection" for questioning the outcome of the election in 2020, one would think Democrats would believe strongly in the rule of law and the federal government's role in keeping the peace.
The actions of Democrats like Brandon Johnson must be viewed as blatant insurrection and rebellion against the federal government's lawful enforcement of immigration law.
Once this National Guard issue is put to rest, the Department of Justice ought to look into what charges could be brought against Democrat politicians who willfully obstruct and endanger federal agents.