Kim Sajet, director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, announced her resignation Friday, just two weeks after President Donald Trump attempted to remove her from her position. The departure marks the end of Sajet's 12-year tenure as the first woman to lead the prestigious institution.
According to the Washington Examiner, Sajet did not directly reference Trump or his public attempt to fire her in her resignation statement. Instead, she emphasized her commitment to putting the museum's interests first.
In a memo obtained by the New York Times, Sajet wrote: "This was not an easy decision, but I believe it is the right one. From the very beginning, my guiding principle has been to put the museum first. Today, I believe that stepping aside is the best way to serve the institution I hold so deeply in my heart."
The resignation comes amid tensions between the White House and the Smithsonian Institution over who has the authority to make personnel decisions at the federally funded but independently operated museum complex.
Trump announced his intention to fire Sajet in May through a post on Truth Social, where he characterized her as "a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI." The move aligned with his March executive order aimed at removing what he termed "improper ideology" from Smithsonian institutions.
The Smithsonian quickly challenged the president's authority, asserting that as an independent organization created by Congress, the president lacks the power to directly fire its employees. This position was reaffirmed in a statement released Monday by the Smithsonian's Board of Regents.
Lonnie G. Bunch III, Secretary of the Smithsonian, acknowledged Sajet's departure in a note to staff, thanking her for her years of service to the institution.
"She put the needs of the Institution above her own, and for that we thank her," Bunch wrote in his message to Smithsonian employees, highlighting the selfless nature of her decision to step down amid the controversy.
Kevin Gover, the Smithsonian's undersecretary for museums and culture, will temporarily fill the role as acting director of the National Portrait Gallery while a search for a permanent replacement is conducted. The transition comes at a delicate time for the institution.
The dispute over Sajet's position has raised broader questions about political influence over cultural institutions that have traditionally operated with a degree of independence from executive branch politics.
The Smithsonian Board of Regents addressed these concerns in their Monday statement, emphasizing their commitment to maintaining the institution's academic independence. "The Board of Regents is committed to ensuring that the Smithsonian is a beacon of scholarship free from political or partisan influence," the statement read.
This conflict emerges as part of a larger pattern of tension between the Trump administration and cultural institutions, particularly those perceived as promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that have become politically contentious.
Sajet's departure represents a significant shift for the National Portrait Gallery, which she has led through major exhibitions and acquisitions since 2013, including the popular presidential portraits that have drawn record crowds.
The resignation highlights the challenges facing cultural institutions in an increasingly polarized political environment, where matters of representation and historical interpretation have become battlegrounds in broader cultural debates.
The Smithsonian now faces the task of maintaining its institutional independence while navigating political pressures. Kevin Gover will lead the gallery while the Smithsonian determines its next steps in finding a permanent director who can guide the institution through these challenging times.
Michael Madigan, once the most powerful politician in Illinois and the longest-serving legislative leader in U.S. history, has received a stunning downfall with his sentencing to prison. The 83-year-old former Illinois House speaker now faces 7 1/2 years behind bars and a $2.5 million fine for corruption.
According to the New York Post, Madigan was convicted in February on 10 of 23 counts after a remarkable four-month trial that featured 60 witnesses and mountains of evidence, including documents, photographs, and taped conversations.
U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey delivered the sentence Friday in Chicago federal court, rejecting both the prosecution's request for 12 1/2 years and the defense's plea for probation. The judge appeared particularly troubled by what he described as Madigan's "nauseating display of perjury and evasion" when testifying in his own defense.
Nicknamed the "Velvet Hammer" for his quiet but effective political style, Madigan dominated Illinois politics for nearly half a century. During his legislative career, he served as House speaker for almost four decades – a national record for legislative leadership.
As chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party for over 20 years, Madigan controlled much of the state's political agenda and handpicked candidates for office. He also frequently controlled political redistricting, drawing boundaries that favored Democrats.
Meanwhile, prosecutors revealed that the Chicago Democrat built a private legal career that allowed him to accumulate a net worth of approximately $40 million. His dual roles as political leader and private attorney became central to the corruption case against him.
The jury found Madigan guilty of ensuring approval of legislation favorable to utility giant ComEd in exchange for kickbacks. The scheme included arranging jobs and contracts for political loyalists, including a Chicago alderman seeking paid employment on a state board after retiring.
Federal prosecutors documented how Madigan traded his immense legislative influence for the enrichment of friends and allies. The case included evidence of bribery, conspiracy, wire fraud and other charges related to these corrupt arrangements.
Though the jury deadlocked on six counts, including an overarching racketeering conspiracy charge, and acquitted him on seven others, the convictions were sufficient to end Madigan's political career and send him to prison in his twilight years.
Before sentencing, Madigan made a brief statement asking to avoid prison so he could care for his ailing wife, Shirley. "I'm truly sorry for putting the people of the state of Illinois through this," Madigan told the court. "I tried to do my best to serve the people of the state of Illinois. I am not perfect."
Madigan's attorneys had called the government's recommended sentence "draconian" and effectively a life sentence given his advanced age. They requested five years' probation with one year of home confinement, community service, and a "reasonable fine."
In a video submitted to the court, Shirley Madigan pleaded for her husband's return home. "I really don't exist without him," she said. "I wish I could say that I do, but I don't know what I would do without Michael. I would probably have to find someplace to live and I'd probably have to find care."
Judge Blakey acknowledged numerous letters supporting Madigan, noting that the former speaker was a good family man who had helped neighbors without hesitation. However, the judge made a clear distinction between personal kindness and public corruption.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Streicker emphasized Madigan's lack of remorse and failure to take responsibility for his crimes. She pointed out that having served as speaker through seven governors, "he had every opportunity to set the standard for honest government." Instead, Streicker said, "he fit right into the mold of yet another corrupt leader in Illinois."
Tried alongside Madigan was his longtime confidant, Michael McClain, on whom the jury couldn't reach a decision. McClain was, however, convicted in a separate trial over the ComEd conspiracy last year.
FBI agents stormed a Los Angeles family home, arresting a Marine veteran and union activist accused of supplying face shields to anti-ICE rioters. The father of the accused expressed disappointment in his son's actions while describing the extensive damage to their property during the raid.
According to the New York Post, Alejandro "Alex" Orellana was arrested on charges of conspiracy to commit civil disorders after allegedly distributing protective equipment to protesters. US Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli announced the charges following the arrest.
Francisco Orellana, Alex's father, told reporters his reaction upon seeing images of his son driving a truck loaded with supplies for protesters was blunt: "What the f–k are you doing?" The elder Orellana, who immigrated to the US in the 1970s, maintained his son wasn't a criminal but questioned his judgment in supporting the demonstrations.
The FBI operation left significant damage to the Orellana family residence, according to Francisco. Agents broke down the front door, damaged interior walls, and even broke a window on Francisco's truck during the early morning raid.
"They broke down my door, broke the window of my truck, they broke my wall. … I woke up, and I heard 'boom boom boom' on the door," Francisco recounted. The entire family, including Francisco's wife and another adult son, were handcuffed and detained for approximately an hour while agents searched the property.
Federal agents confiscated all electronic devices belonging to family members, including phones and laptops. Francisco expressed frustration about the property damage, asking, "Who's going to pay for my house? Who's going to fix these things?"
Alex Orellana, described as a UPS worker and Teamsters Union shop steward, has a history of involvement in social justice causes. His activism includes work with Centro CSO, an organization known for training labor leader Cesar Chavez, according to social media posts reviewed by reporters.
Images from the scene of the riots showed protesters rushing to a truck allegedly driven by Alex to grab "Bionic Shield" transparent masks. These protective items are typically used at construction sites to shield workers from debris and chemical splashes but were repurposed during the demonstrations.
Just days before his arrest, Alex had written enthusiastically for the socialist news site Fight Back! about protesters forcing federal agents to leave the Boyle Heights neighborhood. Video evidence also shows him delivering a May Day speech last year dressed in combat boots and camouflage pants, highlighting his established presence in activist circles.
Despite his son's involvement in anti-ICE protests, Francisco Orellana expressed views critical of certain aspects of immigration policy. He made clear distinctions between immigrants who work and those he perceives as taking advantage of social services.
"It's too many people not working. Who's paying for them? You and me, and everybody working. We're paying to keep those people here," he said. Francisco shared an anecdote about confronting a neighbor with seven children who receive government assistance, telling her, "I am the government. They're taking that money from my check."
The elder Orellana also criticized California's political leadership, stating bluntly that "California is no good. Democratic people left the state really, really bad." His comments reflect a complex perspective on immigration despite his own immigrant background.
The raid on the Orellana home highlights the increasingly tense atmosphere surrounding immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles. Alex's arrest comes amid widespread protests against ICE operations that have led to property damage and confrontations with law enforcement.
Francisco maintained that his son might have become involved innocently, suggesting Alex could have been in the truck because "someone asked him for a favor." However, he still questioned the wisdom of supporting protesters who engaged in destructive behavior, saying, "It's illegal to [help] people fighting with the police, people fighting with immigration."
The case represents a family caught between political ideologies, with a father who immigrated legally decades ago now watching his son face serious federal charges for allegedly aiding protesters opposed to immigration enforcement. As Alex awaits his legal proceedings, the damage to both family property and relationships reveals the personal toll of the ongoing political conflict.
Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson has publicly criticized President Donald Trump, claiming he bears responsibility for Israel's recent military actions against Iran. The unexpected rebuke from one of Trump's most loyal media allies signals potential fractures in their relationship as tensions escalate in the Middle East.
According to The Hill, Carlson wrote in his morning newsletter that Trump was "complicit in the act of war" following Israel's overnight attack on Iranian military targets that killed several high-ranking Iranian military leaders. The political pundit warned that what happens next "will define Donald Trump's presidency" as fears grow of a broader conflict.
Carlson's criticism comes amid heightened concerns that the United States could be drawn into another Middle Eastern war due to its close alliance with Israel. The overnight strike has dramatically escalated tensions between the two regional powers, with many observers anxiously awaiting Iran's response.
The firebrand commentator's criticism marks a notable departure from his typically supportive stance toward the president. Carlson has been one of Trump's most visible media champions throughout his political career.
Their relationship has been particularly close during the 2024 campaign season, with Carlson hosting Trump as part of a speaking tour and sitting alongside him at the Republican National Convention last summer. Trump has repeatedly praised Carlson both during his time at Fox News and after his departure from the network in 2022.
This public break on foreign policy highlights the complex dynamics within conservative media, where some voices like Carlson have long criticized what they term "neo-cons" - hawks they believe have pushed America into unnecessary military entanglements abroad. Carlson has consistently positioned himself as an isolationist voice on the right.
Israel's overnight attack targeted multiple military installations across Iran and resulted in the deaths of several high-ranking Iranian military officials. The precision strikes have significantly elevated tensions in a region already on edge.
The military action represents a major escalation in the ongoing shadow war between the two nations that has periodically flared into direct confrontation. International observers worry that the situation could quickly deteriorate into a regional conflict that might draw in other powers, including the United States.
Carlson's newsletter specifically warned about the potential for American involvement, reflecting his long-standing opposition to U.S. military interventions in the Middle East. He has frequently criticized politicians from both parties for what he characterizes as needless foreign entanglements.
Carlson's stance has placed him at odds with other prominent conservative voices who have urged Trump to take a more aggressive approach toward Iran. These disagreements reflect broader divisions within right-wing media about America's proper role in global affairs.
In recent weeks, Carlson has engaged in public disagreements with fellow conservative commentators who advocate for a more hawkish U.S. foreign policy. These disputes highlight the ongoing debate within Republican circles between more traditional interventionist positions and the "America First" approach championed by some Trump supporters.
The president now faces the difficult task of navigating these competing pressures within his own base while managing a potentially explosive international situation. How Trump responds could significantly impact both his foreign policy legacy and his standing with different factions of his supporters.
President Trump now confronts one of the most consequential foreign policy challenges of his administration as Israel and Iran stand on the brink of all-out war. The criticism from Carlson, one of his most influential media allies, adds another layer of complexity to an already delicate situation.
The president must balance America's traditional alliance with Israel against the risks of being drawn into another costly Middle Eastern conflict. Carlson's warning that the president's handling of this crisis "will define Donald Trump's presidency" underscores the political stakes involved.
As international tensions continue to mount, observers across the political spectrum are watching closely to see how Trump will respond to Carlson's public rebuke and the escalating situation between Israel and Iran. The president's decisions in the coming days could have profound implications for regional stability and America's role in the Middle East.
Former Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin and Alex Soros, son of billionaire investor George Soros, are set to exchange vows in what promises to be one of the summer's most politically star-studded events. The couple's nuptials will bring together a who's who of liberal elite.
According to the New York Post, the wedding will take place Saturday at the Soros family's $14.5 million Southampton estate. The lavish ceremony comes just over a year after the couple became engaged in May 2024.
The pair met at a birthday celebration for Nicky Hilton thrown by her husband, James Rothschild, in fall 2023. Their relationship blossomed quickly, with Soros later admitting to New York Magazine that before Abedin, he hadn't maintained a relationship lasting longer than three months in roughly a decade.
Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea Clinton are expected to attend the ceremony, adding significant political weight to the occasion. The Clintons' presence highlights Abedin's long professional relationship with Hillary, having served as her close aide for many years.
Barack and Michelle Obama are also anticipated guests, along with several European prime ministers connected to George Soros' Open Society foundation. The gathering represents a convergence of influential progressive figures rarely seen outside major political events.
Some guests will arrive by helicopter from Manhattan, demonstrating the high-profile nature of the event. Other notable attendees likely include Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, banker James Rothschild, and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, underscoring the couple's connections across business, media, and politics.
The celebration kicked off Friday with an exclusive rehearsal dinner held at the home of Soros' mother on Shelter Island. The intimate gathering was catered by Marie Eiffel, setting an elegant tone for the weekend's festivities.
The couple sent emerald green save-the-date cards earlier this year, formally announcing their June 14 wedding date. This stylish touch offered a glimpse into the sophisticated nature of their planned celebration.
After becoming engaged in New York City last May, Abedin and Soros celebrated their commitment with a romantic trip to Italy. The European getaway foreshadowed the international flavor of their wedding guest list, which includes dignitaries from multiple countries.
Abedin, 48, brings significant political experience to the relationship, having long served as Hillary Clinton's trusted aide. Her previous marriage to disgraced former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner ended in divorce, though they share a 13-year-old son.
Soros, 39, serves on the investment committee for Soros Fund Management. His father, George Soros, has an estimated net worth of $7.2 billion and has been a major donor to liberal campaigns, organizations, and causes throughout his career.
In discussing their relationship with New York Magazine, Abedin described finding "a certain kind of stability and comfort" with Soros. The sentiment suggests the couple shares not only political values but also personal compatibility that had eluded Soros in previous relationships.
The Southampton ceremony represents a significant social event for both liberal political circles and New York high society. The $14.5 million Soros family estate provides an appropriately luxurious backdrop for the union of these two prominent figures.
Notably absent from the celebration will be Abedin's ex-husband, Anthony Weiner. The former congressman's political career ended in scandal, creating a stark contrast to the successful trajectories of both Abedin and her soon-to-be husband.
With the gathering of so many influential figures from politics, business, and media, the wedding transcends a simple personal milestone. It serves as a reminder of the interconnected nature of America's political and financial elite, particularly within progressive circles where the Soros name carries significant weight.
Active-duty Marines stationed in Los Angeles detained a civilian briefly at a federal site during protests about immigration raids, marking a notable incident involving military personnel in a domestic mission.
According to the New York Post, U.S. Marines detained a civilian outside the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles last Friday, setting a precedent for their involvement in temporary detentions during their mission to protect federal buildings amid ongoing protests.
In recent days, President Donald Trump authorized the deployment of active-duty Marines and National Guard members to Los Angeles as part of his commitment to securing federal sites against damage from protests. The concern over immigration raids has sparked significant public outcry, and demonstrators have gathered at federal properties to express their discontent.
The incident occurred when Marines, positioned to guard the Wilshire Federal Building, briefly held a civilian, Marcos Leao, a 27-year-old veteran of the U.S. Army. Leao was detained after crossing a yellow barrier as he made his way to the Department of Veterans Affairs located inside the building. Although his actions led to the detention, Leao later clarified, "They're just doing their job," acknowledging the responsibilities of the military personnel at the scene.
Leao's detainment was conducted with zip ties used to secure his hands, an action aligned with the Northern Command's regulations. He was then handed over to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents.
The U.S. military’s Northern Command clarified that when troops detain individuals temporarily, it must stop immediately once they can safely pass the detained party to civilian law enforcement.
In confirming the parameters of this mission, a spokesperson for the Northern Command emphasized that there are specific conditions under which active-duty forces may briefly hold an individual. These circumstances are designed to bridge the gap until qualified civilian officials can lawfully take over the situation.
Currently, the deployment in Los Angeles includes 200 Marines alongside over 2,000 National Guard members. They are actively involved in maintaining the security of federal zones during heightened demonstrations. Reports have confirmed that additional reinforcements, including 500 more Marines and another 2,000 National Guard troops, are already scheduled to join this mission to ensure a robust response.
While these troops are empowered to apprehend individuals threatening federal staff or property, they are strictly barred from making arrests. This limitation is a direct consequence of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents military personnel from engaging in law enforcement activities without congressional approval.
To further expand the military's role in civilian law enforcement, President Trump would have to invoke the Insurrection Act, something that has not been done for this situation.
This legal framework is designed to allow military intervention in exceptional circumstances where civilian authorities cannot maintain peace and order.
The use of active-duty military personnel for securing federal property in Los Angeles is a rarity and has sparked notable discourse about the appropriate boundaries of military involvement in civil matters. Critics of the deployment have expressed concerns about the potential for overreach and the implications for civil liberties.
The story of Marcos Leao is an interesting case reflecting both the peculiar dynamics introduced by the military presence and the human element of such encounters. While the situation was diffused without incident, it underscores the tension inherent in deploying troops for domestic responsibilities typically reserved for civilian entities.
The narratives emanating from this deployment in Los Angeles are sure to influence the broader conversation on how federal authorities address civil unrest and the appropriate role of military forces in such scenarios.
Observers and analysts alike will be closely watching the unfolding of these missions and the potential implications for future events.
Since resuming the presidency in January, President Donald Trump's administration has adopted a novel legal strategy by leaning heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s emergency docket to bypass obstacles and push forward its legislative goals.
According to Reuters, the Trump administration has transformed the utilization of the Supreme Court's emergency docket, resulting in notable policy victories and underscoring the influence of a conservative majority on the court.
This tactic marks a departure from previous presidencies, as the administration has frequently requested emergency interventions from the Supreme Court. This approach reflects President Trump’s proactive stance in advancing policies that have encountered resistance in lower courts. The result is an unprecedented surge in the volume of cases the court has had to address on its emergency docket.
The conservative dominance in the Supreme Court, solidified by three justices appointed during Trump’s earlier term, plays a crucial role in this strategy. With a 6-3 majority, the court has become a pivotal battleground for Trump’s policy objectives. This shift positions the bench as a cornerstone in the administration’s legal maneuvers.
The Trump administration has filed a significant number of emergency requests, with six still awaiting a decision. The rate at which these applications are submitted averages one per week. This figure is not only impressive but also equals the total filed under President Joe Biden's tenure, emphasizing the aggressive approach of President Trump’s legal team.
Among these requests are those concerning key issues such as birthright citizenship and deportation policies, which are pivotal to Trump's platform. The strategy also highlights a calculated decision-making process, as observed by Sarah Konsky, director at the University of Chicago Law School's Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic.
The increased reliance on the emergency docket, often referred to as the “shadow docket,” has drawn scrutiny for its lack of transparency. Decisions are often reached without comprehensive briefings or oral arguments. This process has raised concerns about the thoroughness and accountability of judicial outcomes. Some decisions come with minimal opinions, while others are issued unsigned and without explanation.
This lack of transparency has prompted criticism from some within the legal community, including Justice Elena Kagan, who has raised alarms about the potential for error when cases are decided expeditiously. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has equated this approach to a "rushed" handling of cases, suggesting the court's actions may unintentionally exacerbate rather than solve issues. Such remarks underscore a palpable tension surrounding the use of the emergency docket.
The Supreme Court's intervention has led to notable victories for the Trump administration. These victories include enabling the Department of Government Efficiency to access extensive Social Security Administration data and reducing teacher training grants, among others. However, the administration has not been successful in all its pursuits.
The court recently dismissed attempts to deport migrants under an outdated law and reject payments to foreign aid entities, reflecting the mixed outcomes typical in legal battles of this magnitude. The emergency docket cases contribute significantly to the workload of justices. Aside from these rapid decisions, the court remains occupied with major cases, such as Tennessee's legislation on gender-affirming healthcare.
Since his initial term, President Trump’s administration has submitted 41 emergency applications to the Supreme Court. This number starkly contrasts with the eight applications filed by both George W. Bush and Barack Obama combined over their 16 years in office.
Harrison Fields, the White House spokesperson, defends the administration’s stance, emphasizing the use of "every legal basis" to implement the will of the electorate. These sentiments reflect the administration’s determination to utilize all available legal avenues to advance its agenda.
On the other hand, some legal experts express concern about the implications of this strategy. Stephen Vladeck from Georgetown University suggests that justices may feel pressured not to deplete their influence by constantly clashing with the executive branch.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito has previously defended the emergency docket process, asserting that critiques are misinformed. Despite this, the debate continues over the transparency and appropriateness of this expedited judicial method.
As the Trump administration continues to pursue legal victories through the emergency docket, the discourse surrounding the long-term implications of this approach on the judiciary and its processes continues to unfold. The strategy not only reflects significant political and legal maneuvers but also shapes the broader narrative around judicial engagement in government policy.