An all-night session and weeks of bitter infighting left Speaker Mike Johnson grinning in the Capitol halls while President Donald Trump celebrated a razor-thin legislative victory.
In a dramatic early morning vote, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives narrowly approved the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a sweeping legislative package advancing President Donald Trump’s tax and immigration agenda. According to ABC News, the measure passed 215-214, with just one Republican voting present and all Democrats in opposition.
The bill’s passage came after intense internal GOP negotiations, last-minute changes, and a marathon debate that stretched through the night. Speaker Johnson, flanked by Republican allies, declared the moment “morning in America again,” while President Trump took to social media to call it “the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!”
Deep rifts among House Republicans threatened the bill’s survival up until the final moments. Speaker Johnson, holding a fragile three-vote majority, was forced to appease both hardline conservatives and moderate members from high-tax states. The narrow margin reflected weeks of wrangling and highlighted the party’s ongoing struggle to unify behind Trump’s priorities.
Negotiations centered on Medicaid work requirements and the cap on state and local tax deductions, issues that nearly derailed the bill. Some Republican lawmakers, including Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted against the measure, while Rep. Andy Harris, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, voted present. The final tallies triggered an outburst of celebration among supporters, with Queen’s “We Are The Champions” briefly playing on the House floor.
President Trump and his aides worked behind the scenes to secure support, with the White House describing a critical meeting between Trump and House conservatives as “productive.” The president pressed the urgency of passing the bill before Memorial Day, framing it as essential for the nation’s economic and security interests.
The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” delivers on several of Trump’s campaign promises. It features major tax cuts, including the elimination of federal taxes on tips and overtime, expanded tax deductions for Americans who purchase vehicles made in the United States, and the creation of new “Trump Savings Accounts”—a rebranding of the originally proposed “MAGA Accounts.” The bill also raises the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 for households earning under $500,000, a key concession to members from states like New York and California.
Healthcare reforms are central to the package. The legislation accelerates the start of new Medicaid work requirements to no later than December 31, 2026, three years earlier than initially proposed. This change, demanded by budget hawks, is expected to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while a new incentive discourages states from expanding Medicaid coverage.
On immigration, the bill appropriates $12 billion for border security reimbursements to states for costs linked to Biden-era policies, with grants available through September 2029. The Department of Homeland Security gains new authority to assist with enforcement, reflecting a key priority for House Republicans.
House Democrats, unified in their opposition, denounced the bill as extreme and harmful to working-class Americans. They argued that the Medicaid changes would strip coverage from vulnerable groups and that the tax cuts would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Democratic leadership accused Republicans of prioritizing campaign promises over bipartisan solutions.
Some moderate Republicans also voiced concern, especially over the Medicaid provisions and the expedited phase-out of clean energy tax credits originally expanded under President Biden. The bill requires new clean energy projects to break ground within 60 days or be operational by the end of 2028 to access remaining credits, a move designed to offset the cost of other tax breaks.
Despite the House victory, the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where the Republican majority is expected to propose revisions in the coming weeks. Senate Republicans have signaled that Medicaid work requirements and state tax deduction changes may be points of contention. President Trump and Speaker Johnson have called for swift action, but the path forward remains fraught with political risk.
Speaker Johnson relished the moment after the vote, addressing the media alongside top House Republicans and committee chairs. He insisted that the bill’s passage proved doubters wrong and signaled a return to conservative priorities in Washington. “The bill gets Americans back to winning again, and it's been a long time coming,” Johnson said. “It quite literally is again morning in America, isn't it, all right?”
President Trump’s public praise for Johnson and House Republicans underscored the high stakes of the legislative battle. Trump wrote in a social media post: “Great job by Speaker Mike Johnson, and the House Leadership, and thank you to every Republican who voted YES on this Historic Bill!”
The House vote marks only the first stage of the legislative process. As the reconciliation bill moves to the Senate, both parties prepare for another round of debate and amendment. Republicans hope for a quick Senate turnaround, but Democrats have vowed to fight provisions they view as punitive or regressive.
An unexpected discovery near one of the world’s most mysterious landmarks has reignited the age-old debate over crop circles, extraterrestrials, and human trickery.
According to the Daily Mail, new crop circles were found in the English countryside in May, just miles from the iconic Stonehenge, with another formation appearing days later in Dorset. The geometric designs have drawn UFO enthusiasts and skeptics, each determined to prove the origin of these strange patterns.
Wiltshire, often dubbed England’s UFO hotspot, has become the center of attention once again. The latest crop circle, featuring an intricate Celtic knot or four-pointed star, was discovered on May 15 in the village of Sutton Veny. Only days later, on May 19, a second elaborate design appeared 30 miles away. As speculation swirls, farmers, researchers, and conspiracy theorists weigh in with competing explanations.
For local farmers such as the owner of the Sutton Veny field, the crop circles are anything but a harmless mystery. The sudden appearance of large, flattened sections of valuable crops represents a tangible loss. The most recent formation—described as “perfectly crafted”—left its owner “very upset,” as reported by the Daily Mail. Despite the frustration, the farmer has chosen to capitalize on the attention by allowing crop circle enthusiasts to visit for a small donation.
Many in the agricultural community are skeptical of supernatural claims and see crop circles as nothing more than an elaborate form of vandalism or artistic prank. Tools such as wooden planks and ropes have long been used to create these patterns, a process that, while time-consuming, has been demonstrated to be possible by human hands.
Yet, the annual appearance of crop circles during the growing season, when crops are tall enough to be flattened, continues to cause tension between farmers and those who treat the formations as tourist attractions or spiritual phenomena.
On the other side of the debate, UFO researchers and enthusiasts remain convinced that not all crop circles can be explained by human activity. Wiltshire has seen more than 380 crop circles since 2005, with many believers claiming the designs are simply too complex to be created overnight by pranksters. Theories suggest extraterrestrials use crop circles to communicate, leaving cryptic messages for humans to decipher.
UAP researcher Holly Wood took to social media, writing, “Who or what is trying to get our attention?” Another ufologist claimed that viewing the symbols “makes them ‘download’ certain information to their subconscious mind.” The internet is awash with images and videos of the latest formations, fueling speculation and debate.
Some witnesses have even reported seeing orbs of light or mysterious beams in the sky above fields just before the circles appeared. These sightings, along with the speed and precision of the formations, are cited as evidence that something beyond human capability is at work.
Skeptics and scientists, however, point to decades of confessions and demonstrations showing that crop circles can indeed be man-made. In 1991, Englishmen Doug Bower and Dave Chorley admitted to creating over 200 crop circles using simple tools, a baseball cap with a wire loop, and careful planning. Their revelations were backed by televised experiments, including a 2002 test by MIT graduate students who successfully replicated the mysterious designs.
Monique Klinkenbergh, founder of a crop circle exhibition in Wiltshire, acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding some formations. She told the BBC in 2023:
If you listen to eye witness accounts, the unexplained circles have one thing in common – they were formed in minutes, or seconds, by an invisible source. There is definitely a mystery going on, but it’s very hard to label the source, whether it is extra-terrestrial, paranormal or just nature.
Skeptics also note that crop stalks in many circles are bent, not broken, which they attribute to careful human effort rather than advanced technology. Yet, cases like the 2001 Milk Hill circle, which involved over 400 circles spanning 787 feet, continue to challenge easy explanations.
The debate over the true origin of crop circles remains as fierce as ever, with Wiltshire at the epicenter. Farmers, frustrated by damaged crops, are left balancing their losses against the influx of curiosity seekers. UFO enthusiasts continue to document and analyze each new formation, searching for patterns they believe could reveal messages from beyond Earth.
While skeptics and academics point to decades of hoaxes and artistic stunts, believers argue that some designs are far too complex and sudden to be dismissed so easily. The presence of unexplained lights and the rapid formation of certain circles ensure that the mystery endures.
As the summer growing season continues, Wiltshire and surrounding counties are likely to see more crop circles—and more debate. Whether these formations are the work of mischievous artists, elaborate hoaxes, or something not of this world, the fascination with crop circles is unlikely to disappear any time soon.
An influential voice in Washington is raising fresh alarms about the nation’s shifting demographics.
Vice President JD Vance has warned that “too much immigration too quickly” risks unraveling America’s social cohesion, a concern he detailed in a recent interview and echoed by several academic studies, according to Breitbart.
Vance, who has become a leading figure in national populist circles, argued that recent waves of immigration are eroding the shared bonds that hold American communities together. He pointed to research suggesting that civic trust and communal involvement decline as ethnic diversity increases—a trend he believes threatens the nation’s foundations.
Vance’s remarks focused on the importance of “social cohesion” in the United States, describing it as essential for raising families and maintaining vibrant local institutions. He expressed concern that current immigration trends are straining these bonds, making it harder for Americans to feel connected to their neighbors and to broader civic life. In his view, this is not about resentment toward migrants but about protecting what he sees as core elements of American identity.
Citing the work of social scientists, Vance said, “I really do think that social solidarity is destroyed when you have too much migration too quickly.” He emphasized that his stance is motivated by a desire to preserve unity, not animosity. “That’s because I’m trying to preserve something in my own country where we are a unified nation. And I don’t think that can happen if you have too much immigration too quickly.”
Vance’s concerns echo findings from the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory and other researchers, who have documented a negative correlation between diversity and trust. These studies suggest that as American neighborhoods become more diverse, levels of interpersonal trust and civic participation tend to decline.
Several academic studies were cited by Vance and supporters of his position. Research from the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory notes, “most of the empirical literature on this subject finds that the relationship between diversity and trust is negative—the more diverse a community is, the less likely individuals in it are to be trusting.” This trend appears particularly strong in the United States, according to these findings.
Older studies, such as those by Costa and Khan (2003), found that people in more diverse neighborhoods trust their neighbors less and are less involved politically or communally. Alesina and La Ferrara’s research concluded that trust, especially interpersonal trust, is lower in more racially heterogeneous communities. Political scientist Robert Putnam famously argued that diversity drives people to “hunker down,” leading to increased social isolation.
A 2020 review in the Annual Review of Political Science reinforced these concerns. It found the negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust is strongest for neighbors, less for in-group and generalized trust, and weakest for out-group trust. Meanwhile, a recent Pew Research Center report documented a decline in social trust among Americans, coinciding with record levels of foreign-born residents and increased diversity.
Critics of Vance’s position argue that the issue is more complex than the vice president suggests. Some social scientists caution against drawing direct causal links between diversity and declining trust, noting that other factors—such as economic inequality, political polarization, and historical segregation—also play significant roles. They point out that societies with high levels of immigration, such as Canada and Australia, have managed to maintain strong civic institutions and social trust.
Many advocates for immigration reform argue that immigrants contribute significantly to the nation’s economy, cultural vibrancy, and global competitiveness. They suggest that focusing on integration and mutual understanding can address concerns about social cohesion rather than restricting immigration numbers.
Others warn that framing immigration as a threat to social trust can fuel xenophobia and undermine the country’s tradition of welcoming newcomers. They emphasize that diversity itself is not inherently problematic but that how communities respond to change is crucial. Some researchers have even suggested that increased contact and interaction between groups can help neutralize the negative effects on trust.
For supporters of tighter immigration controls, the statistics are alarming. According to Breitbart, nearly 52 million foreign-born residents now live in the United States—a historic high. Annually, about a million legal immigrants arrive, alongside an estimated 11 to 22 million undocumented residents. These numbers, Vance and others argue, are reshaping the country’s social fabric at an unprecedented pace.
Immigration’s role in driving nearly all current U.S. population growth has further fueled calls for a moratorium or a significant reduction in arrivals. Supporters of this approach contend that a pause would allow society to “catch up” and rebuild a sense of shared identity.
However, immigrant advocacy groups and civil rights organizations counter that such measures would harm families, restrict economic growth, and contradict American values. They call for comprehensive reform that balances border security with pathways to citizenship and robust support for integration.
An unexpected Oval Office confrontation left South African President Cyril Ramaphosa visibly unsettled during his diplomatic visit.
President Donald Trump played a video montage for Ramaphosa, claiming to show evidence of “white genocide” against South African farmers—a move that escalated already tense relations and stunned onlookers. As reported by the Daily Mail, the dramatic episode unfolded during a Wednesday meeting intended to improve bilateral ties.
Ramaphosa, accompanied by prominent South African figures including champion golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen and luxury tycoon Johann Rupert, found his overtures for friendship met with a pointed rebuke from Trump, who has long accused South Africa of targeting its white minority population. The confrontation included video clips of Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema singing a controversial song and a display of news clippings on farm attacks, creating a charged atmosphere rarely seen in such diplomatic settings.
Trump, seeking to make his case, asked White House aides to dim the lights before rolling a “supercut” of speeches and rallies by Malema, whose song “Shoot the Boer, Shoot the farmer” has sparked fierce debate in South Africa. The video, which included images of white crosses and alleged burial sites, was intended to show the danger faced by white South Africans and reinforce Trump’s claims of race-based violence.
Trump then produced a stack of media reports, including a Daily Mail article by Sue Reid about white South Africans fleeing violence and “racist” laws for new lives in the United States. “These are articles over the last few days—a death of people, death, death, horrible death, death, death,” Trump said, paging through the clippings for the cameras. “White South Africans are fleeing being of the violence and ‘racist’ laws,” he continued, reading from a headline.
The president turned to Ramaphosa, saying, “And I’ll give these to you. So when you say, ‘What would you like to do?’ I don’t know what to do for this—white South African couples say that they were attacked violently.”
Confronted with the video and news reports, Ramaphosa attempted to explain South Africa’s policy landscape, emphasizing the nation’s constitutional democracy and rejecting the notion that government policy supports racial violence. He acknowledged that Malema’s party is a minority and not reflective of government positions.
Ramaphosa stated, “That is not government policy. We have a multi-party democracy in South Africa that allows people to express themselves. And in many cases, or in some cases, those policies do not go along with government policy.”
He further argued that violence in South Africa affects all racial groups, saying, “There is criminality in our country. People who do get killed, unfortunately, through criminal activity are not only white people, a majority of them are black people.” Trump, however, was unconvinced, pressing Ramaphosa on land seizures and the government’s handling of violent incidents. He questioned, “Why would you not arrest this man? That man said ‘kill the white farmers, kill the white farmers’ and then he danced.”
The meeting drew even more attention with the presence of Elon Musk, the South African-born tech billionaire, who stood silently among the reporters during the tense exchange. Musk has previously agreed with Trump’s claims about violence against white farmers in South Africa.
Johann Rupert, a well-known South African businessman, sought to broaden the discussion, noting that violence is not limited to white farmers. Addressing the room, Rupert said, “We need technological help. We need Starlink at every little police station. We need drones. I actually got drones donated for the peace parks to stop elephant and rhino poaching and his predecessor stopped the importation because he said the United States would spy on us.”
The already heated meeting took another turn when NBC News’ Peter Alexander questioned Trump about his policy of welcoming white South African refugees while not extending the same invitation to Afghan and Venezuelan asylum seekers. Trump lashed out, labeling NBC “fake news” and accusing Alexander of missing the gravity of the situation.
Trump’s frustration boiled over when Alexander shifted to a separate topic involving a Qatari jet being transferred to the Department of Defense. Trump responded sharply, “There are all white farmers being buried and he asks about a jet that was given. You outta be ashamed of yourself. You are so bad, you’re such a bad reporter.”
Ramaphosa, seeking to break the tension, joked, “I’m sorry I don’t have a plane to give you.” Trump replied, “If your country offered the United States Air Force a plane I would take it.”
The high-profile confrontation left a lasting impression on those present and observers worldwide. Ramaphosa described the meeting as having gone “very well” as he exited the West Wing, maintaining a diplomatic tone despite the uncomfortable exchange. Asked if he believed President Trump had listened to his concerns, Ramaphosa reiterated, “Yes he did, it went very well.” His measured comments contrasted sharply with the combative tone inside the Oval Office.
Tom Cruise, 62, found himself at the center of viral debate after clips surfaced showing him eating popcorn in a way that left audiences both startled and amused.
According to Daily Mail, the Mission Impossible star was filmed picking up individual pieces of popcorn with his left hand and tossing them into his mouth one at a time, a technique that quickly set social media ablaze.
Cruise, who was attending a special screening for “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” seemed unfazed by the attention, yet his method sparked widespread fascination and mockery. Social media users described the scene as “freaking me out,” with many claiming they had never seen anyone consume popcorn in such a manner.
Short video clips of Cruise’s popcorn ritual at the British Film Institute in London quickly made the rounds on platforms such as X, formerly known as Twitter, and TikTok. Users were quick to voice their opinions, often in incredulous and humorous tones. One user wrote, “The way Tom Cruise eats popcorn is freaking me out.” Another chimed in, “I’ve never seen another human being eat popcorn like Tom Cruise.”
Some users found the display oddly relatable, comparing Cruise’s actions to those of a stereotypical “dad.” Others speculated playfully about his behavior, suggesting that it might be a sign of his well-known perfectionism or even a result of “doing his own stunts” outside of action scenes.
The official IMAX account joined the discourse, remarking, “This might be the most Tom Cruise way to eat popcorn.” The comment further fueled the viral storm, with fans and detractors alike dissecting the implications of Cruise’s snack habits.
Cruise’s public popcorn escapade was not the only moment to capture attention during his promotional tour. At another screening, the actor reportedly called out a fan for finishing their popcorn before the movie began, leading to a wave of secondhand embarrassment online. Witnesses described the moment as cringe-inducing, with one social media user declaring, “This dude can never go to the movies again. Just embarrassing.”
The unusual popcorn-eating technique even sparked more philosophical musings. One X user commented, “He’s kind of like AI. Copies human behavior well but often in some uniquely off ways.” The comparison underscored the sense of novelty and strangeness that many felt upon seeing Cruise’s approach.
Others, however, wondered if maybe the Hollywood superstar had it right all along. “Maybe we are all eating it the wrong way?” asked one online observer, highlighting the divide between critics and the curious.
Beyond the popcorn spectacle, Cruise used his promotional appearances to reaffirm his commitment to his career and his willingness to take risks. Speaking at the New York premiere of “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” Cruise insisted he plans to continue making movies “well past his 100th birthday.” He told The Hollywood Reporter, “I will never stop doing action, I will never stop doing drama, comedy films — I’m excited.”
Cruise is renowned for performing his own stunts, having previously shattered his ankle leaping between skyscrapers and undertaking underwater sequences and biplane wing-walking for the current Mission Impossible film. He credits his lack of fear and careful preparation for his success and longevity.
Cruise told The Hollywood Reporter, “How do I feel about fear? Oh, that’s exciting. I like the feeling. It’s not paralyzing, it doesn’t bother me. I enjoy it. In any endeavor people can be afraid, I don’t mind confronting it and going in. I wanted an interesting life that’s very dynamic.”
While Cruise hoped to focus attention on “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” the popcorn incident has arguably become one of the most talked-about moments of his press tour. Fans who witnessed his unconventional eating style were divided, with some expressing admiration for his individuality while others found it unsettling.
Many questioned whether the intense scrutiny was warranted or if it simply reflected the public’s fascination with celebrity quirks. The viral moment has even prompted some to reconsider their own popcorn habits, with lighthearted debates breaking out across social media as to the “correct” way to enjoy the classic movie snack.
Regardless of the controversy, “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” is set for theatrical release on May 23, promising more high-octane action and, perhaps, more unexpected moments from its fearless star.
Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, admitted on her podcast that her hopes for royal motherhood were derailed by external pressures and unforeseen challenges, prompting renewed scrutiny of the Sussex family’s decisions from royal experts and commentators.
According to Fox News, Markle shared that her carefully laid dreams for raising her children within the royal family did not materialize, while experts debate the impact of the couple’s choices on their children’s future ties to the monarchy.
During the Tuesday episode of "Confessions of a Female Founder," Markle, 43, spoke candidly about the stark contrast between her expectations and the reality she faced. She reflected on wanting to embrace motherhood publicly but said “external things” disrupted her vision, especially during her pregnancies. Her comments have reignited a fierce public discussion about the Sussexes’ break from royal life, their ongoing rift with the British royal family, and the implications for their two children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.
Meghan Markle told listeners that she always wanted motherhood to be a central and visible part of her royal role. She described an image of herself “giving a speech with a baby on my hip,” a scene she hoped would symbolize a modern, hands-on approach to royal parenting. Instead, Markle said, “It was not the way I envisioned it,” citing the stresses of public life and the couple’s eventual withdrawal from royal duties.
Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams, speaking to Fox News Digital, said the royal family had their own expectations for Harry and Meghan’s children, hoping they would be immersed in their British heritage and maintain strong ties to their royal relatives. Fitzwilliams noted that the Sussexes’ public criticisms and their decision to step back from royal duties have made it difficult for Archie and Lilibet to have regular contact with members of the royal family.
Markle and Prince Harry’s exit from royal life began in 2020 when they announced they would no longer serve as senior royals due to what they described as unbearable press intrusion and a lack of institutional support. The family relocated to California, and since then, the couple has fiercely guarded their children’s privacy, rarely sharing photos or taking them to public events.
Markle’s reflections on motherhood arrive amid ongoing criticism of the Sussexes’ approach to privacy and media relations. Fitzwilliams recalled that Markle’s initial desire for privacy during Archie’s birth led to tension with the British press, souring relations that have only worsened in the years since. As the couple became more vocal in their criticism of the royal institution—most notably in their interview with Oprah Winfrey and Harry’s memoir "Spare"—the public rift deepened.
Hilary Fordwich, another British royal commentator, told Fox News Digital that the distance between the Sussex children and their English roots “didn’t originate with the royal family.” Fordwich argued that the monarchy has consistently chosen the “high road” despite ongoing criticism from Harry and Meghan, and recent polls have shown both at the bottom of public approval rankings in the U.K.
Hilary Fordwich said:
[The royal family] have done their utmost to take the high road, despite a constant bombardment of criticism. Over time, the ‘proof is in the pudding,’ as the British say. The dedication to duty by all the senior royals has won over the public.
Meanwhile, Prince Harry has spoken openly about his desire to reconcile with his family, especially after losing a legal battle over taxpayer-funded security. He told the BBC that security concerns have made it impossible to safely bring his family back to the U.K., and he expressed frustration that palace officials—rather than independent experts—control decisions about his protection.
Some royal experts believe the Sussexes’ grievances with the royal institution were inevitable, pointing to longstanding tensions and cultural differences within the family. Ian Pelham Turner, a commentator interviewed by Fox News Digital, said sources told him they were not surprised by Markle’s decision to leave the royal fold, suggesting it was only a matter of time.
The couple’s critics argue that their repeated public airing of grievances—through interviews, documentaries, and memoirs—has made reconciliation with the royal family nearly impossible. Harry’s memoir, in particular, included blunt criticism of royal courtiers and has been cited as a significant factor in the ongoing estrangement.
Despite these challenges, Turner suggested that it is now up to King Charles III to find a way to allow the Sussexes and their children to reconnect with the royal family. The king, currently undergoing treatment for an undisclosed cancer, has not publicly commented on Meghan’s latest statements or on the family’s strained relationship with Harry and Meghan.
With Prince Archie being raised in California and Princess Lilibet born in the United States, questions remain about how closely the Sussex children will be connected to their British heritage. Markle has chosen to share only selective glimpses of her children, keeping them largely out of the public eye and away from royal events.
Both Harry and Meghan have said they want their children to know their homeland and family, but security and personal safety concerns have made regular visits to the U.K. unlikely. Harry told the BBC he now only returns for funerals and court cases while expressing hope for a future reconciliation.
As the Sussexes continue to raise their children in Montecito, California, experts and commentators remain divided on whether the family will ever mend its fractured ties with the royal institution. The implications for Archie and Lilibet’s place in royal history remain uncertain, with both sides blaming the other for the ongoing estrangement.
An unexpected review of a controversial military decision is underway, and the families of fallen American troops are at the heart of the debate involving Secretary of State Pete Hegseth.
According to Breitbart, Hegseth has directed the Pentagon to conduct a “comprehensive review” of President Joe Biden’s hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan, focusing sharply on the failures surrounding the deadly suicide bombing at Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport. The August 2021 attack killed 13 American service members and as many as 170 Afghan civilians.
Hegseth’s order comes after an initial review by the Department of Defense concluded there were significant mistakes in the Biden administration’s approach, particularly its decision to extend the U.S. military presence beyond a deadline negotiated by then-President Donald Trump. The chaotic evacuation, culminating in a mass-casualty attack at Abbey Gate, continues to spark fierce debate in Washington and among military families.
The decision by President Biden in April 2021 to disregard the Trump administration’s agreement with the Taliban—designed to end America’s two-decade military involvement in Afghanistan—set off a cascade of violence and instability. Biden had hoped to mark the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks with a continued troop presence, but Taliban advances rapidly crippled Afghan defense forces and led to the flight of President Ashraf Ghani.
Within four months, the Taliban launched more than 22,000 attacks, prompting Afghan soldiers to flee and resulting in the unchecked Taliban takeover of Kabul on August 15, 2021. Amid the chaos, thousands of Afghans and foreign nationals crowded into Hamid Karzai International Airport, desperate to escape the Taliban’s return to power.
The tragedy reached its peak on August 26, when a suicide bomber—identified as an Islamic State terrorist—detonated an explosive device near the airport’s Abbey Gate. The attack killed 170 Afghans and 13 American service members, marking the deadliest day for U.S. troops in Afghanistan in a decade. The names and hometowns of those killed have since become a rallying cry for accountability and answers.
Hegseth, in a letter released Tuesday, emphasized the need for full transparency regarding the military withdrawal, promising a thorough examination of the events leading up to and following the Abbey Gate bombing. He pledged to provide “justice for those killed” and a complete accounting to the American public.
Hegseth wrote, “Biden’s administration led a chaotic withdrawal of U.S. military and embassy officials from Afghanistan that led to the deaths of 13 U.S. Service members and 170 civilians in a suicide bombing at Kabul International Airport’s Abbey Gate. President Trump and I have formally pledged full transparency for what transpired during our military withdrawal from Afghanistan.”
Department of Defense officials have already spent three months reviewing the events, but Hegseth believes a more expansive investigation is necessary. Sean Parnell, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and a decorated Afghanistan veteran, has been appointed to lead a new panel. Hegseth has framed the probe as a matter of restoring trust and accountability within the upper ranks of military and civilian leadership.
Critics of the Biden administration have seized on the withdrawal as an example of mismanagement and avoidable tragedy. In statements and public appearances, both Hegseth and President Trump have highlighted the suffering of the families whose loved ones died at Abbey Gate.
Relatives of the fallen have spoken out, accusing Biden of failing to honor their sacrifices. At the 2024 Republican National Convention, Christy Shamblin, mother-in-law of Marine Corps Sgt. Nicole L. Gee, contrasted Trump’s personal outreach with what she described as indifference from the Biden White House. Shamblin said:
While Joe Biden has refused to recognize their sacrifice, Donald Trump spent six hours at Bedminster with us. He allowed us to grieve. He allowed us to remember our heroes. Donald Trump knew all of our children’s names, he knew their stories, and he spoke to us in a way that made us feel understood — like he knew our kids.
The Biden administration, for its part, has pointed to the unprecedented challenges of the evacuation, including rapidly shifting threats and limited time. Still, the U.S. Embassy had warned Americans to stay away from the airport in the days before the attack, raising questions about whether more could have been done to prevent the tragedy.
The Trump administration has touted recent progress in bringing those responsible for the Abbey Gate bombing to justice. In March, American authorities captured and extradited a terrorist known as “Jafar,” identified as the mastermind behind the attack. According to Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Trump’s Senior Director for Counterterrorism, Jafar has confessed to orchestrating the bombing and dozens of other attacks.
Hegseth remains adamant that the new investigation will not only examine the tactical failures but also seek out those responsible for security lapses and intelligence breakdowns. He has stressed that the probe will cover all aspects of the withdrawal, from policy decisions at the highest level to actions on the ground in Kabul.
Sean Parnell’s personal connection to Afghanistan—having served 485 days in combat and been wounded along with the majority of his platoon—has been cited as evidence that the review will be both thorough and empathetic to the experiences of troops and their families. Hegseth has promised the panel will deliver “ACCOUNTABILITY to the American people and the warfighters of our great Nation.”
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem faces widespread criticism after displaying a surprising lack of understanding about a fundamental constitutional concept during a congressional hearing.
According to the Daily Mail, Noem incorrectly defined habeas corpus when questioned by Senator Maggie Hassan during a recent congressional hearing. The embarrassing mistake has gone viral on social media, with critics questioning her qualifications for her position.
The DHS Secretary attempted to describe habeas corpus as "a constitutional right that allows the president to remove people from the country, suspend their right to..." before being cut off by Senator Hassan. This fundamental misunderstanding of a basic constitutional principle has sparked intense debate about her fitness for office.
Senator Hassan took the opportunity to educate Noem on the true meaning of habeas corpus, explaining that it ensures the government cannot arbitrarily detain individuals without providing a public reason. The principle serves as a cornerstone of democratic societies, distinguishing them from authoritarian regimes.
DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin attempted to defend Noem's position, noting that several presidents, including Lincoln, Grant, FDR, and Bush, had suspended habeas corpus during times of crisis. However, Hassan clarified that such suspensions required congressional approval.
Social media users were quick to criticize Noem's gaffe, with one stating that this wasn't merely a slip-up but demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of basic constitutional rights by someone in a position of significant power.
Democrats have expressed concerns about Trump's immigration policies, particularly targeting Noem and "border czar" Tom Homan's aggressive approach to handling undocumented migrants. They argue that migrants are being denied due process in the legal system.
The controversy has intensified following the deportation of eight migrants to South Sudan, including five murderers and a pedophile. Only one of the deportees was actually a citizen of South Sudan, while others came from various countries, including Cuba, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Laos.
A Massachusetts judge has responded to these deportations by ruling that U.S. officials must maintain custody and control of migrants in case their removals are deemed unlawful.
Adding to the controversy, a pitch for a reality TV show titled "The American" has surfaced, proposing a competition where immigrants would compete for expedited citizenship. The show would feature contestants participating in regional cultural contests while traveling across the country by train.
Rob Worsoff, known for producing shows like Duck Dynasty and Millionaire Matchmaker, submitted a 35-page pitch to Noem. The proposed series would culminate in a citizenship ceremony on the U.S. Capitol steps for the winner.
DHS spokesperson McLaughlin strongly denied any connection to the show, stating that Noem was unaware of the pitch and emphasizing that the department receives hundreds of television show proposals annually.
The controversy surrounding Noem's constitutional knowledge has raised serious questions about the Trump administration's handling of immigration policies and border control measures. Her misunderstanding of habeas corpus, a fundamental legal protection, has become a focal point of criticism.
The situation has drawn attention to the broader implications of having key officials who may not fully grasp essential constitutional principles. Critics argue that such a lack of understanding could lead to potential violations of immigrants' rights and due process.
The deportation controversy and the reality show proposal have further complicated matters, highlighting the complex intersection of immigration policy, entertainment, and constitutional rights in contemporary American politics.