An ordinary Monday on the University of Wisconsin-Platteville campus turned tragic for two graduating seniors, Kelsie Martin and Hallie Helms.
According to Daily Mail Online, the two young women were found dead in Wilgus Hall, a university dormitory, in what police described as a “targeted and isolated event.” The incident, which occurred just days after the university’s commencement ceremonies, has left the entire campus community reeling and searching for answers.
Police have released few details, but local media, citing unnamed sources, reported that a shooting occurred around 4 p.m. on Monday. University officials immediately instituted a campus-wide lockdown, which was lifted approximately an hour later after law enforcement determined there was no ongoing threat to students or staff.
The victims, both 22, had recently graduated—Helms with a degree in elementary education and Martin in psychology. University Chancellor Dr. Tammy Evetovich shared their names late Monday night, emphasizing that the incident involved only the two women. “It is with deep sadness that we mourn the loss of two UW-Platteville students, Kelsie Martin, 22, of Beloit, Wisconsin, and Hallie Helms, 22, of Baraboo, Wisconsin,” Evetovich stated.
Martin served as the assistant resident director of Wilgus Hall, where the incident occurred. She was known for her dedication to campus life and her passion for supporting fellow students. According to a university post, Martin had worked in residence life for three years and was motivated by her own positive experiences as a freshman.
Police Chief Joe Hallman addressed the media but explained that the investigation was still in its early stages. “I have to point out that this is an ongoing, active law enforcement investigation, and I really don’t have a lot of specific details at this time as it’s still very fluid,” Hallman said. He declined to speculate on a motive or confirm the nature of the relationship between the two women.
Students and staff at the university, which enrolls about 6,500 people, were shocked by the sudden lockdown and the subsequent news. Many expressed frustration at the lack of information from authorities, with rumors quickly spreading across campus and online forums.
Sophomore Kirra Kamp described her reaction:
I was kind of terrified for a second, honestly. It's kind of something you hear happens but nothing that you actually think is gonna happen to you in your school until it happens. It's insane to see stuff like this happen.
University officials responded by canceling the remaining final exams for both the Platteville and Baraboo campuses, citing the need for students and faculty to grieve and prioritize their mental health. Provost Laura Reynolds acknowledged the toll the tragedy has taken, noting that both students and staff require time to process and support one another.
As news spread, friends, classmates, and faculty members began to share memories of Martin and Helms. Martin, who once joked about owning over 400 books and aspiring to have her own library, was remembered as warm and helpful. Helms, known for her commitment to education, had just celebrated her graduation with family and classmates two days earlier.
University counseling services were made available, and several informal gatherings were held to allow students to mourn together.
Chancellor Evetovich reiterated the university’s commitment to support:
We are deeply saddened, and know this event has negative impact on our Pioneers, and we know students will want to be able to focus on their own well-being and spend time with friends and families.
However, frustration mounted among students who felt updates from police and university leaders were insufficient. Junior Andrew Roubinek, echoing the concerns of many, said he sought concrete information but left disappointed, stating, “There are a lot of open-ended questions with a lot of things... I came here to hopefully get some actual, don’t want to say closure, but some actual news about it, which ended up being quite uneventful tonight.”
On Monday, May 19, Kelsie Martin and Hallie Helms died in Wilgus Hall at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville in what police described as a targeted and isolated event. Authorities have stated that there is no ongoing threat to the public, but the investigation continues as students, faculty, and families demand clarity and closure.
The campus community, still in shock, has come together to mourn the loss of two promising graduates, support each other, and await further details from law enforcement. As the story develops, many are left grappling with grief, confusion, and a need for answers about the circumstances that led to this devastating incident.
The Trump administration has cleared the way for construction to resume on a major offshore wind farm off the New York coast after a month-long halt.
According to Fox Business, the $5 billion Empire Wind project, led by Norwegian energy company Equinor, has been allowed to re-commence work following the lifting of a federal stop-work order originally issued in April due to environmental analysis concerns.
On April 16, 2025, U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum halted all construction on the Empire Wind project, citing an environmental review that he said lacked adequate analysis. The decision surprised stakeholders and raised fears of financial instability within the renewable energy sector.
Empire Wind, which aims to supply electricity to half a million New York homes, had already completed 30 percent of its development when the stop-work order was issued. During the suspension, Equinor reported losses of $50 million per week to keep the project on standby.
The project had initially been granted its lease in 2017, during President Donald Trump’s first term. It later received final federal approval in 2023, while President Joe Biden was in office, as part of a broader effort to increase renewable energy capacity nationwide.
When issuing the stop-work order, Burgum referenced concerns from an internal report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The report raised possible risks to marine mammals and fishing activity in the region, leading the department to pause offshore work until additional assessments were completed.
Although President Trump has been critical of wind energy, describing some projects as costly eyesores that endanger wildlife, his administration eventually decided to allow construction on the Empire Wind site to resume. Equinor leadership actively engaged with both U.S. and Norwegian officials during the suspension to seek a resolution.
Equinor CEO Anders Opedal praised the Trump administration’s decision, saying it prevented further job losses and sustained critical infrastructure investments. Opedal also thanked Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere and Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg for advocating on behalf of the project.
Equinor noted that the project's offshore installation is still scheduled to begin later in 2025. The company plans to reach full commercial operation by 2027 despite the temporary delay in development caused by the federal pause.
The energy firm is currently conducting an updated economic evaluation of the Empire Wind effort during the second quarter of 2025. This review aims to better understand the long-term financial and operational impacts brought on by the government-mandated interruption.
The company is also coordinating closely with both suppliers and regulatory agencies to minimize the long-term effects of the construction delay. Officials say this collaboration will help maintain the project’s overall momentum without compromising compliance and safety standards.
According to Equinor, New York Governor Kathy Hochul played a vital role in restarting the project by working alongside state and federal authorities during negotiations. The company said her efforts helped bridge concerns between environmental regulators and energy developers.
The Empire Wind initiative is part of a broader growth of offshore wind in the U.S., although Trump has largely excluded wind power from his new domestic energy strategy. On January 20, 2025, the president signed an executive order pausing new leases and permitting wind developments nationwide.
Despite that order, there are currently four offshore wind farms operating in the U.S., with three additional ones under construction: Sunrise Wind and Revolution Wind in the Northeast, both led by Orsted, and the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project managed by Dominion Energy.
The Empire Wind project represents one of the largest renewable energy investments on the East Coast. Totaling $5 billion in value, the project is expected to transform the clean energy outlook for New York, reducing dependency on fossil fuels and creating new employment opportunities. Even with the resumption of work, the temporary shutdown added significant challenges. Equinor warned early in May that the pause could lead to losses amounting to billions of dollars if a timely resolution was not reached.
An explosive legal development involving Ashli Babbitt and the Trump administration has triggered debate in Washington.
The Trump administration has agreed to settle a wrongful death lawsuit with the family of Ashli Babbitt, paying nearly $5 million over her fatal shooting during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, CNN Politics has reported.
The arrangement, once finalized by the court, will end a $30 million civil suit filed by Babbitt’s family. Babbitt, a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump, was shot and killed by a U.S. Capitol Police officer as she tried to climb through a broken window outside the Speaker’s Lobby during the violent breach of Congress. The officer involved was cleared of criminal wrongdoing by both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who found no evidence of unlawful or unreasonable force.
According to information made public on Monday, the settlement comes after months of negotiation between Babbitt’s estate and the Justice Department. In a hearing earlier in May, lawyers confirmed an agreement in principle had been reached, though the specific amount was undisclosed until now. The $5 million payout is contingent upon approval by the court, thus bringing to an end a high-profile civil lawsuit that originally sought $30 million in damages.
The DOJ concluded in April 2021 that the officer’s actions did not violate federal law, citing a lack of evidence that the shooting was willful or unreasonable. Prosecutors emphasized that at the moment the officer fired, he reasonably believed it was necessary to protect himself and Members of Congress from being evacuated from the House chamber. This determination was further reinforced by a public statement from the U.S. Attorney’s office, which underscored the absence of evidence for criminal charges.
While the DOJ and the Capitol Police cleared the officer of wrongdoing, the civil suit operated under a different legal standard. Civil cases, unlike criminal prosecutions, require a lower burden of proof and focus on liability rather than intent. This distinction paved the way for negotiations between Babbitt’s family and the government, ultimately resulting in the multimillion-dollar settlement.
Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger voiced his strong opposition to the settlement. He argued that it undermines law enforcement personnel tasked with protecting government officials during crises. Manger’s statement was unequivocal, expressing deep disappointment and concern about the message the settlement sends to officers nationwide.
Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger said:
In 2021, the DOJ investigation determined no wrongdoing by police. This settlement sends a chilling message to law enforcement nationwide, especially to those with a protective mission like ours.
Critics of the settlement say it could have a lasting impact on the willingness of law enforcement to take decisive action during emergencies. Law enforcement organizations argue that rewarding a civil claim after a criminal exoneration may deter officers from intervening in dangerous situations. They point to the DOJ’s own findings as evidence that the officer acted within the bounds of the law and departmental policy.
Supporters of Babbitt’s family, however, maintain that the civil case was justified and necessary. They argue that regardless of criminal liability, Babbitt’s death raised serious questions about use-of-force protocols and the rights of individuals in volatile situations. For them, the settlement validates the need to scrutinize police conduct, even in chaotic circumstances like the Capitol riot.
Attorneys for Babbitt’s estate and the Justice Department have yet to comment publicly on the specifics of the settlement beyond confirming its existence. The court’s approval will finalize the deal, making it one of the largest wrongful death settlements in a case tied to a political protest.
This outcome arrives in the context of ongoing national debates about the appropriate use of force by police, especially in high-stakes, politically charged environments. The January 6 Capitol riot remains a flashpoint in American discourse, and Babbitt’s death is one of its most scrutinized moments.
Legal experts note that civil settlements do not constitute admissions of guilt, but they often reflect government efforts to manage risk and avoid unpredictable jury verdicts.
Ashli Babbitt’s family, having pursued a $30 million lawsuit, now stands to receive nearly $5 million from the Trump administration in a settlement that ends their wrongful death case. The fatal shooting occurred as Babbitt, a Trump supporter, tried to breach a barricaded area of the U.S. Capitol during the January 6 riot. The officer involved was not charged after multiple investigations cleared his actions.
The settlement awaits final approval by the court, which will conclude months of legal maneuvering between Babbitt’s family and the Justice Department. Both sides have confirmed the agreement.
A dramatic shift in perspective emerges as Tommy Vietor, a former Obama administration spokesman, confronts the reality of President Joe Biden's cognitive state.
According to Fox News, Vietor admitted that previous criticism of Special Counsel Robert Hur's report on Biden's mental acuity wasn't totally fair after newly released audio from Biden's interview with investigators came to light. The admission came following revelations from a new book titled "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again."
Initially a staunch defender of Biden, Vietor had strongly criticized Hur's characterization of the president as an "elderly man with a poor memory." The former Obama aide had particularly objected to Hur's assertion that Biden couldn't remember when his son died, calling it an "outrageous lie" and "cruel."
The released audio recordings from Biden's interview with Hur showcase multiple instances where the president struggled with key memories. During questioning about document storage in 2017 and 2018, Biden incorrectly referenced the timeline of his son Beau's death and deployment, appearing confused about when these events occurred.
Vietor's assessment of the situation acknowledges multiple contributing factors to Biden's performance. He notes that the president was particularly exhausted due to the October 7th attacks occurring around the same time as the interview while also recognizing the inherently stressful nature of a law enforcement interview.
The former spokesman now characterizes the situation as "messy and terrible all around," marking a significant departure from his previous defensive stance.
The revelations from both the book and interview audio have sparked renewed discussions about Biden's fitness for office. Vietor explicitly stated that the audio reveals "a guy who should not be running for reelection."
This shifting narrative among former Biden defenders represents a potentially significant turning point in how the president's cognitive abilities are being discussed within Democratic circles. The conversation has evolved from outright dismissal of concerns to more nuanced acknowledgment of potential issues.
CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson's book provides additional context to the ongoing debate about Biden's mental state, suggesting a broader pattern of decline that has been observed by those close to the administration.
As these discussions intensify, Democratic strategists face mounting pressure to address concerns about Biden's cognitive abilities openly. The situation has become particularly challenging as former defenders like Vietor publicly reverse their positions.
The controversy surrounding Biden's mental acuity continues to evolve as more evidence emerges. Some Democrats maintain that the president's occasional lapses are normal for his age, while others increasingly express concern about his ability to serve effectively.
This development has sparked broader conversations about age and cognitive fitness in political leadership.
Vietor's admission about Biden's cognitive decline, coupled with the release of the Hur interview audio, has added new dimensions to the ongoing debate about presidential fitness.
The former Obama aide's change in position reflects a growing acknowledgment within Democratic circles about the seriousness of Biden's memory lapses and their potential impact on his presidency.
These developments continue to influence public perception and political discourse as the nation grapples with questions about presidential capacity and leadership requirements. The situation remains fluid as more information emerges from various sources, including the recently published book and interview recordings.
More than 30 government scientists abruptly left a town hall meeting Tuesday after newly appointed NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya suggested the agency may have played a part in creating the COVID-19 pandemic, Daily Mail reported.
During his first official address at the National Institutes of Health, Bhattacharya made controversial claims about the origins of the coronavirus and the agency’s past research funding, igniting immediate backlash amid existing tension over budget cuts and layoffs.
The town hall event was held at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, at around 1 p.m., marking Bhattacharya’s first major appearance since being appointed as director by former President Donald Trump. Audience members included NIH staff and researchers, many of whom expressed concern over ongoing administrative changes.
Bhattacharya, known for his opposition to pandemic lockdowns and prior involvement in the Great Barrington Declaration, was quickly challenged by attendees over steep funding reductions under his leadership. He defended the decisions, calling the cuts necessary and criticizing certain projects supported by the NIH, particularly those he described as lacking scientific merit and rooted in political ideology.
The event took a sharp turn when Bhattacharya commented on the origins of COVID-19, saying it was plausible that “research conducted by human beings” could have caused the outbreak, and that the NIH may have “partly sponsored” such work. This reference was widely interpreted as pointing to previous NIH-funded experiments in China.
The NIH had financially supported virus manipulation projects at the Wuhan Institute of Virology before the pandemic’s outbreak. U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI, have pointed to a possible lab leak from Wuhan as the likely origin of the coronavirus.
Immediately following Bhattacharya’s remarks, more than 30 scientists in the audience stood and exited the room in protest. As they left, Bhattacharya responded by saying, “It’s nice to have free speech. You’re welcome, you guys.”
After the walkout, Bhattacharya continued to address the remaining crowd, stating that if it turned out the NIH had funded research that led to the pandemic, it was critical to ensure that similar experiments did not occur again. He emphasized the need to avoid any studies that might pose a public health threat.
He added that many Americans believe the virus stemmed from laboratory research, and he himself was persuaded by mounting scientific evidence supporting that possibility. Notably, in May 2022, he had distanced himself from the lab leak theory, but his recent comments suggest a shift in his stance.
The walkout came amidst broader unrest at the NIH, where up to $2.7 billion in cuts are being implemented under the Trump administration’s policy direction. These reductions are projected to result in more than 1,200 staff layoffs, according to a report by Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Bhattacharya also took aim at specific types of NIH-funded research, criticizing topics such as studies into structural racism. He suggested that work in this area did not contribute to public health and instead damaged scientific integrity and public trust.
He argued that research that aligns too closely with political ideology could undermine the mission of the NIH. This line of reasoning received sharp criticism from many within the scientific community, who view such studies as critical to addressing long-term health disparities.
In discussing the agency’s future, Bhattacharya identified five core priorities he intends to pursue: tackling chronic illnesses, protecting academic freedom, improving research reproducibility, promoting innovative science, and committing to transparency.
The director’s comments on COVID-19 origins contrast with earlier statements he made. In a 2022 post on X, previously known as Twitter, he questioned the lab leak theory, saying, “Who says I believe it was a lab leak? I still don't.” Now, citing increasing volumes of evidence, Bhattacharya appears more open to the theory that lab experiments may have played a role in spreading the virus.
During the pandemic, Bhattacharya drew national attention for supporting targeted public health strategies rather than broad lockdowns. His views were sharply criticized by many leading health officials, including former NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins, who privately referred to Bhattacharya as a “fringe epidemiologist” in 2021 emails.
An emotional courtroom scene unfolded as Lucy Connolly, a former childminder and wife of a local councilor, learned that her appeal against a 31-month prison sentence for an incendiary social media post had been rejected.
A panel of judges in London ruled that Connolly’s sentence for inciting racial hatred must stand, meaning she faces another eight months in prison, according to Daily Mail Online.
Connolly’s case has sparked fierce debate, with supporters calling her penalty excessive and critics underscoring the dangers of hate speech. The controversy centers on a tweet she posted on the day of the Southport murders, which called for “mass deportation” and violence against migrants.
The Court of Appeal heard that Connolly, who is serving her sentence at HMP Drake Hall in Staffordshire, argued she never intended to incite violence and was unaware that pleading guilty would mean admitting she did. However, judges disagreed, saying she was “well aware of what she was admitting.”
Connolly’s tweet, posted hours after three girls were killed in Southport on July 29, read: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care... if that makes me racist so be it.” She later deleted the tweet, claiming it was written in a moment of “extreme outrage and emotion.”
Her husband, Ray Connolly, who was a Conservative councillor until recently, condemned the decision as “shocking and unfair,” highlighting the toll on their 12-year-old daughter. He argued that Lucy had received a harsher sentence than “some paedophiles and domestic abusers.”
Outside the court, Connolly’s supporters, including the Free Speech Union, decried the outcome. The group, which helped fund her legal appeal, described the judgment as “deeply disappointing” and her sentence as “grossly disproportionate.”
Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, said:
How can it be right for Lucy to have been condemned to spend more than two-and-a-half years in jail for a single tweet when members of grooming gangs who plead guilty to the sexual exploitation of children get lower sentences? Lucy should be at home with her 12-year-old daughter and husband, not rotting in jail.
Her legal team, led by Adam King, insisted the case highlighted failings in the justice system, especially around the interpretation of intent in social media posts. Connolly testified that she only realized the implications of her guilty plea when the judge explained it during sentencing.
Prosecutors took a starkly different position, insisting that Connolly’s tweet was not just venting but designed to stir up racial hatred and violence. Naeem Valli, representing the Crown, told the court that Connolly “clearly intended the racial hatred would be stirred up and also intended to incite serious violence.”
Valli pressed Connolly on her views about immigration and whether she believed the country was being “invaded.” Connolly responded that while she thought there were “massive numbers” entering the country unchecked, it was “absolutely incorrect” to say she did not want immigrants in the UK. Police arrested Connolly a week after her post, and further investigation uncovered more racist messages on her phone. She pleaded guilty at Birmingham Crown Court and was sentenced in October.
Supporters argue that Connolly’s emotional state following the Southport tragedy, which involved the murder of three children at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class, contributed to her actions. Connolly referenced the death of her own son in 2011 as a factor in her heightened emotional response.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal judges dismissed claims that she did not understand her plea. They described her as “intelligent and articulate” and rejected the idea that her lawyer failed to explain the consequences. Lord Justice Holroyde, announcing the ruling, stated:
There is no arguable basis on which it could be said that the sentence imposed by the judge was manifestly excessive. The application for leave to appeal against sentence therefore fails and is refused.
Lucy Connolly remains in HMP Drake Hall after losing her appeal against a sentence for inciting racial hatred through her tweet about migrants posted during nationwide unrest following the Southport murders. She maintains she never intended to provoke violence, while her supporters argue her punishment is excessive and politically motivated.
The courts, however, have been consistent in their judgment, finding no grounds for leniency and emphasizing the seriousness of her offense. Connolly’s legal team plans to continue fighting, but for now, she faces another two years behind bars.
Dwayne Adway, best known for his role on NYPD Blue, filed a lawsuit Monday against his late daughter’s former boyfriend, Makar Kirikov, as well as the city and county of Los Angeles, alleging negligence, wrongful death, and civil rights violations.
According to the Daily Mail, the suit claims authorities failed to properly investigate the circumstances surrounding 20-year-old Daelena’s death, which was initially ruled a suicide. On May 23, 2024, just weeks before her 21st birthday, Daelena was found dead in the luxury El Centro Hollywood apartment she shared with Kirikov.
Police reports state her boyfriend discovered her in the shower and attempted CPR until paramedics arrived, but she could not be revived. The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner-Coroner ruled her death a suicide by hanging, citing an external examination as sufficient, and opted not to conduct an autopsy.
Adway’s lawsuit asserts that the Los Angeles Police Department simply accepted Kirikov’s version of events, allegedly overlooking signs of foul play, including bruises and abrasions found on Daelena’s body. He contends that these injuries, as well as other suspicious circumstances, were not properly addressed, raising concerns about a “systemic disregard for properly evaluating suspicious deaths involving young black women.”
According to the legal filing, Daelena and Kirikov had lived together for a year but their relationship was marked by incidents of domestic violence. Adway claims his daughter ended the relationship in January 2024 after repeated abuse and was communicating with another romantic partner at the time of her death. On the night she died, Daelena and Kirikov reportedly argued, allegedly triggered by his jealousy over her reconnecting with someone in Texas.
Kirikov told police he left the apartment after the argument and returned later to find Daelena dead in the bathroom. He said he performed CPR until paramedics arrived, but she could not be saved. The police report reflects his account, but Adway and other family members maintain that crucial evidence was ignored.
Daelena’s mother, Elaine, has been vocal in her belief that her daughter would not have taken her own life and has publicly criticized the authorities’ handling of the case. She pointed to bruises, bleeding, and puncture wounds on Daelena’s body that were not included in the coroner’s report. Elaine said she had to examine her daughter’s body herself because no autopsy was performed.
Elaine, Daelena’s mother, said:
Her body tells a different story than what police are telling us, with bruises and bleeding from two puncture wounds approximately an inch apart that go from the front of her body straight thru to the back and other bleeding. All of these findings that I found because I was left no choice but to have to examine her body myself, the county coroner left out of his report. Only toxicology was done by county coroner, no autopsy.
Elaine also noted that Daelena was about to graduate from university, had plans for the future, and recently won a poetry contest. She insisted her daughter was not suicidal and highlighted that Daelena had been seeing a therapist who reported no signs of depression or suicidal ideation.
Daelena’s brother, Kaevaan, echoed the family’s concerns, stating that he wanted her death to be investigated more fully before being written off as a suicide. He questioned whether she had taken her own life or if there was something more sinister involved.
The lawsuit was filed by Adway, not only by Kirikov but also by the city and county of Los Angeles, accusing them of failing to properly train and supervise officers in handling suspicious deaths. The suit alleges a pattern of systemic failures when it comes to investigating deaths involving young Black women.
Adway is seeking damages and a full investigation into his daughter’s death, stating that the emotional distress from her loss and the authorities’ actions have caused him significant suffering. According to Adway, the LAPD’s lack of a thorough investigation compounded his grief and left the family without closure or justice.
Elaine, meanwhile, has called for a private autopsy, citing the need for further evidence and transparency. She even turned to online fundraising to cover the costs, expressing frustration that the burden of investigation fell on the family rather than the authorities.
Dwayne Adway, heartbroken and still searching for answers, has taken legal action against his late daughter’s ex-boyfriend and Los Angeles authorities, claiming negligence and a failure to pursue justice. The lawsuit comes after Daelena Mackay’s death was ruled a suicide, a finding her family continues to dispute based on evidence they believe was overlooked.
With the family’s lawsuit now filed, the Los Angeles County court system will be tasked with addressing questions about the investigation, the handling of evidence, and whether systemic issues played a role in how Daelena’s case was closed. The fight for answers continues as the Mackay family seeks both accountability and closure.
Millions of travelers hitting the road this Memorial Day weekend will find some welcome relief at the gas pump, with prices reaching a two-decade low. Breitbart News reported that the national average cost of gasoline on Memorial Day 2025 is projected to be $3.08 per gallon—its lowest level, adjusted for inflation since 2003. The drop is expected to continue through the summer, thanks to rising oil production.
Energy data analytics company GasBuddy released a forecast this week predicting that gas prices over the summer travel season will remain well below the highs seen in recent years. Their data points to an average of $3.02 per gallon from Memorial Day through Labor Day, with the chance that drivers might see prices dip under $3.00 per gallon on some days.
Compared to 2024, when the Memorial Day average was $3.58, this year marks a significant 50-cent drop. Consumers are expected to benefit as oil markets stabilize and more supply becomes available. Brent Crude, a major global oil benchmark, currently trades at $65.07 per barrel—down from $83.71 just one year ago. “
American road trip culture remains resilient,” the GasBuddy team stated as part of their 2025 Summer Travel Survey release, which estimates that nearly 70 percent of Americans plan to take a road trip during the summer months.
With prices reaching lows not seen since 2021 in nominal terms, and the cheapest Memorial Day prices adjusted for inflation in over 20 years, analysts point to dynamics within the oil industry as a key driver. Increased production—both domestically and abroad—has helped bring balance to the global oil supply, reducing costs downstream to consumers.
While energy markets have always been influenced by a range of global factors, the recent consistent growth in oil supplies has made a measurable difference in how much Americans are paying at the gas pump. The current cost per barrel of Brent Crude is one of the lowest seen in several years, offering broader impacts beyond fuel prices, including the cost of goods and transportation more generally.
GasBuddy noted that the low price level this summer excludes the extraordinary market collapse of 2020, when travel halted amid the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. That year saw gasoline prices drop to historic levels, but under exceptional circumstances.
President Donald Trump, who made pledges to lower energy costs a central point of his 2024 campaign, is receiving political credit as Americans prepare for a summer of cheaper travel. During the election cycle, Trump focused heavily on energy independence and bringing down fuel costs, a message that resonated with many voters.
At the time, his statements faced strong criticism from political opponents. Among them was Sen. Cory Booker, who sharply dismissed Trump’s affordability pledges using strong language that questioned the integrity of those claims. Booker’s phrasing, widely circulated, was paraphrased to compare the promises to “false excrement.”
Now, with day-to-day prices showing steady declines and projected to stay low, the administration is celebrating what it sees as the fulfillment of one of its more visible campaign promises. Trump advisors have circulated talking points highlighting the significance of these savings for working Americans.
According to GasBuddy's projections, the average price of gasoline between Memorial Day and Labor Day is likely to hover around $3.02 per gallon nationwide. On certain days, particularly when demand softens or supply outpaces expectations, the average could drop below $3.00 for the first time since 2021.
The travel season is often associated with price spikes due to increased demand. However, this year’s consistent supply appears to be counterbalancing those usual upticks. With nearly 7 in 10 Americans planning road trips, consumer fuel demand remains strong, yet steady oil availability has helped keep price increases at bay. For now, industry observers believe the lower pricing trend could continue, barring any disruptions in supply or unexpected geopolitical developments that might constrain oil flow.
The drop in fuel prices could also have a ripple effect on the broader economy. Lower gasoline costs mean more discretionary income for consumers, which can, in turn, boost spending across travel, hospitality, and retail sectors during the crucial summer season.
Additionally, logistics and industries that rely heavily on transportation are seeing savings in operational costs. For small businesses, especially those with delivery and fleet components, this shift offers a temporary reprieve from the inflationary pressures of recent years.
While the direct cause of the lower prices revolves around increased oil production, both domestic policy and global supply chain recalibrations have shaped the current fuel landscape. These changes demonstrate how quickly energy markets can adapt to meet economic demands.
In a major decision affecting more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of the Trump administration's effort to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for that group.
According to Breitbart News, the Court's 8-1 ruling lifted a previous judicial block and allowed the administration to move forward with revoking TPS, a policy that had shielded Venezuelan migrants from deportation and granted them work rights in the United States.
The TPS program offers relief from deportation and work authorizations for foreign nationals from countries experiencing severe crises, such as war or natural disasters. Venezuelans became eligible under TPS due to ongoing turmoil and instability in their home country. The ruling marks a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy regarding this population.
The Supreme Court's decision specifically reversed a March 31, 2025, ruling issued by Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. That ruling had temporarily blocked the administration from ending TPS for Venezuelan nationals under a 2023 designation, citing their positive contributions to the U.S. economy.
The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal earlier this month, asking the high court to lift the district court’s stay. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer described Judge Chen's ruling as “untenable” and urged the Court to act swiftly, arguing the President has broad executive authority over immigration matters.
The appeal was first brought before Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who referred it to the rest of the Court. Jackson was the only justice to dissent from Monday’s decision, which granted the administration’s request to proceed with TPS revocation.
In February 2025, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem moved to formally rescind one of the two TPS designations that had applied to Venezuelan nationals. Her decision directly impacted approximately 350,000 Venezuelans who gained TPS protections under the 2023 designation.
According to federal policy, those affected individuals will lose their work permits and protection from removal two months after the revocation is officially published. Venezuelans who received TPS under an earlier designation from 2021 still retain status until September 2025, though that protection may also end in the near future.
Former Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had previously extended TPS for hundreds of thousands of others until 2026, protecting both unauthorized and semi-authorized workers. Noem's move rolled back that trend and signaled a change in the administration’s broader approach to immigration enforcement.
Judge Chen’s ruling had emphasized the strong economic role played by Venezuelan migrants in the United States. He noted that many possess university degrees—between 40 to 54 percent—and exhibit high workforce participation, ranging from 80 to 96 percent depending on locality. The migrants also contribute to federal programs by paying into Social Security and stimulating local economies.
Opponents of the revocation have called the Supreme Court’s decision one of the most impactful immigration rollbacks in modern years. Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney representing the affected migrants, described the decision as the “largest single action stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status in modern U.S. history.”
Supporters of the Trump administration argue the move aligns with long-standing presidential authority on immigration matters. Dale L. Wilcox of the Immigration Reform Law Institute stated that the president has inherent powers to exclude non-citizens, even in the absence of direction from Congress.
The Supreme Court's decision grants a suspension of Judge Chen’s order while the case moves through the appellate courts. The specifics of the decision noted that the March district court ruling is on hold “pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit” as well as any future Supreme Court consideration if a writ of certiorari is properly filed.
This temporary hold clears the way for the Trump administration to implement the TPS rollbacks unless later judicial interventions reverse the path once again. The long-term legal outcome remains uncertain, as the full merits of the case have yet to be evaluated in higher courts.
The ruling also reflects how emergency applications and high court intervention can significantly alter ongoing policy battles, even before a final legal determination is made.