Democrat megadonor Alex Soros, son of billionaire George Soros, made headlines after a tragic event involving two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington, D.C. His reaction to the killing of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky has drawn fierce backlash online, with critics questioning his philanthropic ties.
According to Fox News, Soros publicly condemned the murder of the two Israeli staffers, calling it "evil in its most basic form" and denouncing it as a "brutal antisemitic act." Detractors, however, quickly pointed to his role as chairman of the Open Society Foundation, which has funded groups often accused of fostering anti-Israel sentiment.
The shooting occurred Wednesday night outside the Capital Jewish Museum, where Milgrim and Lischinsky, who were reportedly set to be engaged, were killed as they left an event. Authorities identified Elias Rodriguez as the suspect, who was heard shouting "Free, free Palestine!" while in custody, according to police and witnesses.
Critics wasted no time condemning Alex Soros’s statement, arguing that his foundation’s financial support for organizations critical of Israel and supportive of Palestinian causes indirectly fuels the kind of hatred that leads to violence. Social media platforms were flooded with comments accusing Soros and his father of enabling anti-Israel activism through their global influence and funding.
One user, Joseph Janecka, responded to Soros’s post by saying, "Alex, you and your father created this problem through the ruthless and international silencing of critics to open borders policies. Their blood is on your hands as much as their murderers. We will never forget." Another, Carl Wheless, echoed similar sentiments, stating, "You are behind the hate, so excuse us if you don't wish to hear from you on the matter."
Some critics went further, alleging links between Soros-backed organizations and more radical elements. Commentator Eitan Fischberger asserted that Soros "funds the revolutionary Marxist group the shooter belonged to," though police had not established Rodriguez’s affiliations at the time.
The Open Society Foundation, chaired by Alex Soros, has a long record of supporting progressive and leftist causes worldwide. Among these are groups such as Human Rights Watch and J Street, both of which have drawn criticism from Israeli officials for their stances on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel’s minister of diaspora affairs and social equality, Amichai Chikli, told Fox News Digital in 2023 that Alex Soros appears set to continue his father’s "anti-Israel agenda." Chikli argued that the OSF funds entities that accuse Israel of apartheid and seek to delegitimize the state. He pointed specifically to Human Rights Watch, accusing it of "attacking Israelis heavily and attacking Israel as an apartheid state and delegitimizing and demonizing Israel."
Chikli also highlighted OSF’s support for J Street, a U.S.-based advocacy group that describes itself as pro-Israel but is frequently criticized for policies perceived as favorable to Iran and the Palestinians. The Soros foundation’s funding of the NGO Adalah was also cited, with Chikli describing it as "denying the vision of Israel as a Jewish state."
The debate over Soros’s influence has reached diplomatic circles as well. In December 2023, Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., Gilad Erdan, blasted the elder George Soros for donating more than $15 million to NGOs that he claims support Hamas and seek the "destruction of the State of Israel as a Jewish state." Erdan charged that Soros-backed organizations have never pursued real peace but instead promote the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement to isolate Israel.
Israel’s ambassador Gilad Erdan told Fox News Digital, "George Soros’ donations to organizations that seek the destruction of the State of Israel as a Jewish state is shameful. However, I am not surprised."
Others, however, defend the mission of the Open Society Foundation as one of promoting human rights and open debate, asserting that criticism of Israeli government policy is not synonymous with antisemitism. Soros’s defenders claim that attempts to link him to violence are politically motivated and misrepresent the foundation’s intent.
The killings of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky outside the Capital Jewish Museum shocked both the D.C. community and the global Jewish diaspora. Police quickly detained the suspect, Elias Rodriguez, who reportedly shouted pro-Palestinian slogans during and after the attack. The victims, both young Israeli Embassy staffers, were about to get engaged, adding a heartbreaking dimension to the tragedy.
Local and international leaders expressed outrage, with Israel’s Consul General in New York, Ofir Akunis, calling the deaths "a result of brainwash" in an interview with Fox News. The attack also reignited debates about rising antisemitism, the safety of Jewish communities worldwide, and the impact of charged rhetoric on real-world violence.
Meanwhile, anti-Israel protests and demonstrations, often supported by groups receiving OSF funding, have become increasingly visible in major U.S. cities, including New York. Critics argue that such demonstrations provide cover for antisemitic acts, while supporters insist they are legitimate expressions of opposition to Israeli policies.
Elon Musk’s digital empire is facing new turbulence—with thousands of Americans suddenly locked out of his prized social media platform, X, on Wednesday. The billionaire entrepreneur, never far from controversy, is once again in the spotlight as critics and supporters weigh in on the latest crisis.
According to the Daily Mail, X, formerly known as Twitter, went offline for much of the U.S. on Wednesday, leaving users frustrated and fueling debate about Musk’s stewardship of the $44 billion platform. The outage is only the latest in a string of setbacks for Musk this year, as he also contends with political defeats and a steep drop in Tesla’s fortunes.
Reports flooded in from the East Coast and major cities—including Dallas, Los Angeles, and Chicago—where users found themselves unable to access X either on the web or via mobile app.
Downdetector, a service that tracks online disruptions, confirmed the widespread nature of the problem. As the outage persisted, users vented their anger and disappointment, questioning Musk’s management and the reliability of the platform under his ownership.
Discontent spread rapidly as Americans lost access to X, sparking heated discussions across the internet. Downdetector began logging complaints around 11 a.m. Eastern, with a significant spike two hours later as more users realized they were locked out. Frustration mounted as roughly 56 percent cited issues with the website, 35 percent reported mobile app failures, and 9 percent experienced server connection problems.
For many, the outage was more than an inconvenience. Social media users rely on X for news, networking, and free speech. One user’s post on Downdetector summed up the anger felt by many:
This is Why Discord and Youtube is Way better Platform than Twitter. There Hardly any Random outages on those Sites. #ElonMuskResign
The technical causes remain unclear, but experts warn that failed server connections can lead to service disruptions, data loss, and even security vulnerabilities. The timing and scale of the crash raised eyebrows, especially as Musk faces mounting pressure on several fronts.
Elon Musk’s woes extend far beyond Wednesday’s outage. Just weeks earlier, Musk and his supporters suffered a political setback in Wisconsin, where Democrat Susan Crawford defeated Republican Brad Schimel in a high-profile Supreme Court race. Musk and his allies reportedly spent more than $20 million backing Schimel in hopes of shifting the state court’s ideological balance.
Adding to Musk’s headaches, Tesla’s stock value plunged in April, with sales dropping 13 percent. Analysts have pointed to Musk’s polarizing social media activity and stiff competition from Chinese automakers as contributing factors. Critics argue that Musk’s outspoken posts on X, including controversial political commentary, may be alienating consumers and investors.
Musk’s international profile has also taken hits. He recently faced allegations—unproven and strongly denied—of making a Nazi salute at President Donald Trump’s inauguration. The controversy has fueled anti-Tesla protests and even vandalism of the company’s vehicles, including the Model 3, Model X, and the Cybertruck.
The outage comes at a sensitive time for Musk, who has made X his principal outlet for sharing views and rallying followers. The platform’s reliability is now in question, with critics seizing the moment to highlight what they see as a pattern of mismanagement since Musk’s high-profile acquisition.
Meanwhile, Musk’s visibility in government has diminished. After spending the first 100 days of President Trump’s new term frequently at the White House—including attending Cabinet meetings and even bringing his young son to budget briefings—Musk is reportedly no longer a regular presence. Trump’s chief of staff revealed that Musk has been absent from the West Wing for several weeks.
Supporters argue that Musk remains a visionary whose bold moves—whether in tech, business, or politics—inevitably attract controversy and resistance. They point to his continued investments and willingness to challenge the status quo as proof of his value to both industry and public discourse.
Elon Musk, the billionaire behind some of the world’s most influential tech companies, was thrust into the headlines this week as X crashed for thousands of users across the United States. The outage, which struck major cities and disrupted daily routines, has intensified scrutiny of Musk’s management amid a year already marked by political and financial setbacks.
Wednesday’s outage left Americans asking tough questions about the platform’s future and Musk’s ability to steer it through turbulent times. As critics and supporters continue to spar, the fate of X—and Musk’s $44 billion gamble—hangs in the balance. For now, the tech mogul faces yet another test of leadership as his digital ambitions collide with real-world challenges.
Democrats and immigration advocates are sounding alarms after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) launched a new operation that targets illegal immigrants at their immigration and asylum hearings, a move driven by President Donald Trump’s administration.
According to Fox News, ICE began rolling out its nationwide effort on Wednesday, aiming to arrest and rapidly deport migrants who have been in the United States for fewer than two years and appear for scheduled immigration hearings. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is instructing agents to drop pending immigration cases, facilitating expedited removals for those arrested.
This new tactic marks a significant shift from earlier enforcement strategies, which had focused primarily on illegal immigrants with criminal convictions. Now, even those whose only alleged offense is crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally are being swept up in the latest round of arrests. The Trump administration’s focus on enforcement and border security continues to be a defining theme as court battles over deportation policies play out.
Supporters of the Trump administration’s strategy argue it is long overdue, citing concerns that loopholes and lengthy court processes allow many illegal immigrants to remain in the country for years. ICE officers, according to sources who spoke with Fox News Digital on condition of anonymity, say Americans should “expect to see a lot more” arrests at immigration and asylum hearings in the coming months.
Critics, however, warn the policy could have far-reaching consequences for families and communities. The expedited deportation process—requiring DHS to drop pending cases before arresting migrants—removes certain legal protections and can leave migrants with little chance to make their case before an immigration judge. Opponents argue this raises due process concerns and risks separating families who have established lives in the U.S.
The policy also comes as the Department of Homeland Security faces legal scrutiny for its deportation practices. On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that DHS violated a court order by sending a plane of eight migrants to South Sudan without proper “credible fear interviews.” These interviews are required to ensure migrants are not sent to countries where they could face danger.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy has emerged as a key figure in the ongoing legal debate. On Wednesday, Murphy ruled that the eight deported migrants—convicted of crimes including homicide and robbery—had not been given the interviews mandated by law. Such interviews allow migrants facing removal to a third country to argue they would be at risk if deported there.
Murphy’s ruling did not immediately halt the deportations but did prompt a review of whether the interviews could be conducted in South Sudan or if the migrants should be returned to the U.S. pending further proceedings. The judge’s scrutiny extends to other cases, such as proposed deportations to Libya, where Murphy previously found that any plans to remove people without notice would “clearly” violate his standing orders.
Legal experts and immigration advocates say these court battles highlight the complexity of immigration enforcement under President Trump. While DHS defends its right to expedite removals for those with no legal status, judges continue to insist that constitutional and humanitarian protections must be respected throughout the process.
Reaction on Capitol Hill has been swift and divided along party lines. House Republicans have expressed strong support for the new ICE initiative, arguing that stricter enforcement is necessary for national security and the rule of law. Some have targeted Democratic officials accused of obstructing ICE operations, pointing to recent controversies at facilities like Delaney Hall.
Democrats, meanwhile, have accused the administration of creating chaos and fear within immigrant communities. They argue that the new policy will lead to more family separations and undermine faith in the justice system. Some Democratic lawmakers have pledged to introduce legislation to limit the administration’s ability to expedite removals without judicial oversight.
The public response reflects this polarization. Advocates for tighter border controls say the administration is finally tackling abuses in the system. Immigration rights groups, however, warn that the policy’s reach could impact thousands of migrants who have otherwise followed legal procedures to seek asylum or relief in the United States.
Legal experts believe that the Trump administration’s expanded enforcement efforts could result in a significant increase in deportations, particularly among migrants who have not committed crimes beyond illegal entry. As more cases are dropped to enable expedited removals, the fate of these individuals will largely depend on ongoing legal challenges and the administration’s willingness to adjust its policies in response to court rulings.
ICE sources have indicated that the public should brace for “a lot more” of these arrests at immigration hearings around the country. For many migrants, the prospect of arrest at their scheduled court appearance adds a new layer of uncertainty as they navigate an already complex and often intimidating immigration system.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, under the direction of President Trump and the Department of Homeland Security, is now pursuing a strategy that could fundamentally reshape the way illegal immigration cases are handled in the United States. The outcome of the current court battles and public debate will determine just how far these new policies go—and what they mean for both the nation’s borders and its values.
Democrats and Republicans alike are watching closely as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt navigates tough questions about President Donald Trump’s response to assassination attempts and the official explanations surrounding them. Leavitt and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino are now at the center of fresh controversy after remarks that have sparked intense speculation in Washington.
According to the Daily Caller, Leavitt sidestepped direct questions about whether Trump is “satisfied” with Bongino’s recent public statements, choosing instead to reference Trump’s own words and offering no further clarification. This response came after Trump himself called the narrative “a little bit strange,” despite expressing trust in his security team.
The questions were prompted by Bongino’s comments during a Fox News interview, in which he insisted there was nothing “explosive” behind the attempts on Trump’s life, saying, “the ‘there’ you’re looking for is not there.” Leavitt’s refusal to elaborate has only fueled further debate among Trump’s supporters and critics alike.
White House correspondent Reagan Reese pressed Leavitt on whether President Trump felt the investigations into the attempts on his life had been thorough or if he suspected more was going on. Leavitt responded, “Well, in the lead up to your question, you answered your own question with the president’s own words, and I’ll leave it at that.” She declined to provide any additional insight into Trump’s personal feelings.
Trump’s previous remarks to Fox News host Bret Baier are now under renewed scrutiny. He acknowledged a level of trust in his advisors, stating, “I’m relying on my people to tell me what it is … The Secret Service, they tell me it’s fine. But it’s a little hard to believe. It’s a little bit strange.” This comment has added fuel to suspicions among some conservatives who believe the official story is incomplete.
Bongino, a former Secret Service agent himself, attempted to shut down speculation by reiterating that nothing was being hidden. He told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, “If it was there, we would have told you.” Despite these assurances, questions remain for those unconvinced by the official line.
Skeptics have pointed to the unusual circumstances of the assassination attempts on President Trump, noting that both the Butler, Pennsylvania, and West Palm Beach, Florida incidents have left a trail of unanswered questions. In July 2024, the FBI identified Thomas Matthew Crooks as the suspect in the Butler shooting, who was killed by the Secret Service on the scene. Federal authorities later charged Ryan Wesley Routh for a separate attempt in September 2024, alleging he was spotted with a rifle while Trump played golf.
Some on the right continue to voice doubts, arguing that the public deserves full transparency about any threat to the president. They point to Trump’s own hesitation to accept the official narrative as evidence that more should be investigated. For these critics, Leavitt’s reluctance to clarify Trump’s views only deepens mistrust.
Others, however, agree with Bongino’s assessment. They argue that conspiracy theories only serve to distract from the facts already uncovered by law enforcement. Supporters of the administration insist that the FBI and Secret Service have acted professionally and transparently and that Trump’s safety is being handled with utmost seriousness.
FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Bongino both addressed public skepticism in their Fox News appearance, addressing not only the Trump attempts but also other high-profile cases. Patel, in particular, responded to widespread doubt about the official account of Jeffrey Epstein’s death, stating bluntly that he believed Epstein had committed suicide based on his own experience in the prison system.
Bongino backed up Patel’s assessment, saying, “He killed himself,” after reviewing the case file. Their directness was meant to draw a line under the rumors, though many in the public remain unconvinced.
Both officials emphasized their willingness to communicate openly with the public, but their insistence that “the ‘there’ you’re looking for is not there” has not been enough for some. Calls for independent investigations and further transparency continue to grow, especially from those who see a pattern of secrecy in high-profile political cases.
For now, Leavitt, Bongino, and Patel face mounting pressure to offer more detailed explanations. Trump’s unique position—both as president and as someone who has openly voiced skepticism—has made the White House’s messaging more complicated than usual.
Leavitt’s handling of the media has drawn mixed reviews. Supporters praise her discipline and consistency, while critics accuse her of stonewalling and evasiveness. The administration must now balance reassuring the public with avoiding any appearance of impropriety or cover-up.
As more details emerge about the suspects and circumstances behind the assassination attempts, all eyes remain on the White House. The coming weeks may bring new revelations or simply more questions.
Joe Biden’s health team is facing sharp scrutiny from Senate Republicans over their handling of critical vaccine safety data. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin is raising explosive new questions about whether Americans were left in the dark about the risk of heart inflammation from the mRNA COVID-19 shots.
According to Fox News, a Senate report alleges that U.S. health officials deliberately withheld and downplayed information on myocarditis risk associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, delaying public warnings for months.
Johnson, who leads the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released a 55-page interim report detailing what he says are failures by the Biden administration to be transparent about vaccine side effects. The report centers on internal records and subpoenaed communications showing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), along with the CDC and FDA, knew about links between the vaccine and myocarditis as early as spring 2021.
Sen. Johnson’s investigation uncovered that as early as May 2021, HHS officials were discussing whether to issue a nationwide Health Alert Network (HAN) message about myocarditis—a form of heart inflammation—after receiving information from Israeli health authorities. Israeli officials had already reported “large reports of myocarditis, particularly in young people, following the administration of the Pfizer vaccine.”
Instead of a broad public warning, the CDC and FDA decided merely to post “clinical considerations” about myocarditis on their website. Records obtained by Johnson’s subcommittee show that U.S. health officials were actively debating the need for a more urgent warning but ultimately chose a less visible approach. According to the documents, CDC officials were already aware of “safety signals” for myocarditis from Department of Defense and Israeli data by April 2021, yet did not inform the public immediately.
Johnson’s report highlights one internal exchange from May 2021, where officials discussed the question, “Is VAERS signaling for myopericarditis now?” The answer: “For the age groups 16-17 years and 18-24 years, yes.” VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is the primary federal database for tracking vaccine side effects. This acknowledgment within the CDC, critics say, underscores the gravity of the information that was not widely shared with the public at the time.
The Senate report draws a striking contrast between the number of adverse events linked to the COVID-19 vaccines and those associated with other vaccines. According to the findings, as of April 25, the VAERS database had logged 38,607 deaths and over 1.6 million adverse events worldwide following COVID-19 vaccination. Of these deaths, the report notes, 25% occurred within two days of injection. For comparison, only 2,663 deaths have been reported to VAERS after flu vaccinations over the past 35 years.
Johnson and his Republican colleagues argue this data should have prompted more immediate and forceful warnings from health authorities. The report criticizes the Biden administration for what it calls a “failure to immediately warn the public about all COVID-19 vaccine adverse events,” asserting this decision “jeopardized the health of young Americans.” Johnson contends that the American people have a right to know about potential risks, especially when public health agencies are funded by taxpayers.
The report goes even further, criticizing officials who, despite knowing about the myocarditis risk, “continue to insist it is safe and effective, without providing the data to prove their claims.” Johnson is demanding that all relevant records be released and that the investigation continue until “the full extent” of the administration’s actions are exposed.
Not everyone agrees with the conclusions drawn by Johnson and his Republican colleagues. Public health experts and Democrats argue that vaccine safety monitoring is a complex process and that decisions about public alerts must be made carefully to avoid unnecessary alarm. They note that the CDC and FDA eventually updated vaccine labels in June 2021 to include warnings about myocarditis and pericarditis, reflecting new information as it became available.
Democrats contend that the Biden administration acted responsibly by waiting for more data before making broad public statements. They point out that myocarditis, while a serious condition, remains a rare side effect and that the benefits of vaccination—especially in preventing severe COVID-19—far outweigh the risks for most people. Critics of the Senate report warn that sensationalizing vaccine risks can fuel vaccine hesitancy and undermine public health efforts.
Still, the Republican-led report argues that waiting months to update labels and warnings represented an unacceptable delay. Johnson and his supporters believe that parents, especially those of young adults and teenagers, deserved full transparency much earlier in the vaccination campaign.
Johnson’s interim Senate report is not the end of the story. The senator has issued more than 70 oversight letters since 2021, many of which, he says, have been “either completely ignored or inadequately addressed” by federal agencies. His subcommittee continues to seek additional records from HHS and other agencies, with the promise to “provide transparency and let the American public see what is their right to see” as more documents become available.
The report’s release comes as vaccine safety remains a politically charged topic in Washington. Johnson’s investigation is expected to continue, with Republicans pressing for further disclosures and Democrats defending the administration’s handling of the pandemic. The debate highlights the ongoing struggle to balance transparency, public safety, and trust in medical science.
Democrats and Republicans are bracing for a seismic political clash after the Supreme Court issued a rare warning to President Donald Trump about his power to remove top federal officials.
Trump and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell have repeatedly clashed over interest rates and economic strategy, fueling speculation about whether Trump could remove Powell before his term ends. According to the Daily Mail, the nation's highest court just made it clear: Powell is the one official President Trump cannot fire at will.
The Supreme Court’s ruling comes in the wake of a separate legal fight over Trump’s controversial dismissal of two federal labor board members. The decision, however, has much broader implications, as it puts a hard stop on the president’s authority over the Federal Reserve’s leadership. Powell, whose term runs through May 2026, is now effectively shielded from presidential removal without cause, setting up a dramatic standoff between the White House and the central bank.
For Trump, the timing is politically explosive. He has frequently targeted Powell, whom he appointed in 2017, accusing the Fed chief of keeping rates high to damage his presidency and boost Democratic rival Joe Biden. Critics say Trump’s attacks on the independence of the Federal Reserve risk undermining a cornerstone of U.S. economic stability.
Tensions between Trump and Powell have simmered for years, but the feud reached new heights after Trump returned to the White House. Powell refused to lower interest rates despite Trump’s repeated public and private demands, citing concerns over inflation and the economic impact of Trump’s escalating tariffs. The president’s frustration boiled over in April, when he vented on social media about Powell’s performance.
Trump wrote on Truth Social, “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough,” signaling fresh anger at the Fed chair’s refusal to bend to his wishes. Despite the public outburst, Trump later insisted to reporters that he had “no intention of firing him,” blaming the press for exaggerating the confrontation. Still, the president continued to criticize Powell’s reluctance to cut rates, calling it “bad timing” for the American economy.
Powell, for his part, has not shied away from openly challenging Trump’s economic policies. He warned that Trump’s tariffs would fuel higher inflation and slower growth, stating, “The level of the tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated… Tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation. The inflationary effects could also be more persistent.”
The Supreme Court’s decision does more than settle a personal grudge between Trump and Powell—it establishes legal boundaries for presidential authority over the Federal Reserve. In a pointed reminder, the justices invoked the unique status of the Fed as a “quasi-private entity” rooted in the traditions of the earliest U.S. banks. Their ruling emphasized that Powell cannot be fired except “for cause,” meaning only in the case of serious misconduct or malfeasance.
This legal firewall is a direct result of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which was designed to insulate monetary policy from political interference. All seven members of the Fed’s Board of Governors, including the chair, serve fixed terms and require Senate confirmation. Trump’s habit of ousting officials with fixed terms had already caused legal headaches and mass protests across the federal government, but the Supreme Court has now drawn a firm line in the sand.
Lawyers for recently dismissed federal officials had argued that if Trump could fire Powell at will, it would erode crucial protections for independent economic policymakers. The Court’s ruling sends a strong message that the Fed’s independence remains intact, regardless of political pressure from the Oval Office.
The Supreme Court’s intervention is reverberating through Washington, with lawmakers and legal experts debating the consequences of executive power. Supporters of the decision say it protects the integrity of U.S. monetary policy and prevents presidents from turning the Federal Reserve into a political tool. Detractors, especially some Trump allies, argue the ruling hampers the president’s ability to control the executive branch and deliver on campaign promises.
Trump has a history of removing officials who cross him, often shrugging off legal threats and political backlash. His supporters argue that such actions are necessary to drain the so-called “deep state” and enforce accountability. But critics say the pattern has left vital government agencies in turmoil and weakened public trust in nonpartisan institutions.
With Powell’s term set to expire in May 2026, Trump’s next move is being closely watched. Many expect him to nominate a loyal successor, but until then, the current chair will remain insulated from presidential wrath. This is a rare instance in which even Trump’s aggressive tactics have run up against an immovable obstacle.
President Donald Trump, locked in a bitter conflict with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, has been told by the Supreme Court that Powell cannot be removed without cause. The high court’s warning came as Trump sought to assert his authority over key government posts, but the justices made clear that the independence of the Fed is protected by law.
Powell, whose term continues until May 2026, will remain in his post, insulated from Trump’s efforts to force him out over policy disagreements. As economic and political pressures mount, Washington will be watching closely for the next chapter in this unprecedented power struggle.
An unexpected announcement from the Miami Dolphins has thrust the legacy of Randy Crowder back into the spotlight.
The Miami Dolphins confirmed Wednesday that former defensive lineman Randy Crowder has died at the age of 72, prompting an outpouring of tributes and a renewed look at his storied yet turbulent NFL career. As reported by the Daily Mail, the team made the news public in the morning, but no immediate cause of death was provided.
Crowder, drafted by the Dolphins in the sixth round of the 1974 NFL Draft, quickly made a name for himself as a tough, physical presence on Miami’s defensive line. He played two seasons with the Dolphins before a sudden, controversial hiatus interrupted his career. Crowder later returned to the league to play for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, concluding his NFL tenure in 1980. His passing has evoked strong reactions from both the football community and fans who recall his highs and lows.
Randy Crowder’s career was not without controversy. In May 1977, Crowder’s NFL trajectory was derailed after he and former Dolphins first-round pick Don Reese were arrested by Miami Police for selling a pound of cocaine to an undercover officer. The arrest, detailed in contemporaneous reports, was the result of an eight-day investigation and involved roughly 15 officers from the Miami Police Department’s special investigations section. The substance sold had an estimated street value of $233,000 at the time.
Crowder ultimately pleaded guilty and served a year in jail, marking a dramatic and public fall from grace. His absence from the league in 1977 was a direct result of this conviction. Many critics and observers at the time argued that Crowder’s actions not only jeopardized his own career but reflected poorly on the NFL’s public image, which was already under scrutiny for off-field incidents involving players.
Despite the scandal, Crowder found a path back to professional football. After his release, he resumed his career with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, spending two more seasons in the league before stepping away from the field for good in 1980. Crowder’s ability to return to the NFL after his conviction was seen by some as a testament to the league’s willingness to offer second chances, while others argued it demonstrated a troubling tolerance for criminal behavior among athletes.
Following his official retirement from professional football in 1982, Crowder returned to his alma mater, Penn State, as a defensive line coach under legendary head coach Joe Paterno. He served in this role for two years, hoping to impart lessons learned from both his successes and his mistakes to a new generation of players. His time as a coach was marked by a commitment to discipline and a desire to help players avoid the pitfalls that nearly ended his own career.
Crowder’s influence extended beyond the playing field. He became a father to three children, including Channing Crowder, who would follow in his footsteps and carve out his own NFL career. Channing was selected by the Dolphins in the third round of the 2005 NFL Draft and played for the team through the end of the 2011 season, further solidifying the Crowder family’s connection to Miami football.
The elder Crowder’s coaching tenure at Penn State was brief but impactful. Colleagues and former players have credited him for his straightforward approach, candidly sharing his experiences with drugs and the law as cautionary tales. While his coaching career never reached the notoriety of his playing days, it became a vital chapter in his ongoing search for redemption and meaning after football.
Reactions to Crowder’s passing have been varied, reflecting his complicated legacy. Many in the Dolphins organization and the broader NFL community have focused on his athletic achievements and perseverance, noting his 19 career sacks and three fumble recoveries. Supporters remember Crowder as a colorful, sometimes controversial figure whose fierce competitiveness made him a formidable opponent on the field.
Critics, however, continue to highlight his role in one of the more notorious drug scandals in league history. The debate over how Crowder should be remembered remains ongoing, with some emphasizing his ability to overcome adversity while others argue that his criminal conviction cannot be overlooked. The NFL has long faced criticism for its handling of player misconduct, and Crowder’s story is often cited in discussions about the league’s policies on discipline and rehabilitation.
No official statement regarding Crowder’s cause of death has been released, and the Dolphins have asked for privacy for the family during this time. Observers note that the league’s response to Crowder’s death has focused on his contributions to the game rather than the controversy that plagued his career.
Randy Crowder’s death marks a significant moment for both his family and the Miami Dolphins organization. As the team and his loved ones mourn his passing, attention has turned to his legacy—on the field, as a coach, and as a father. Channing Crowder’s own NFL success is seen by many as a continuation of the family’s impact on the sport.
The Dolphins have encouraged fans to remember Randy Crowder for his competitive spirit and dedication to the game while also acknowledging the challenges he faced. His story, with its highs and lows, serves as a reminder of the complexities that often surround professional athletes and the lasting influence they can have on their teams and communities.
As tributes continue and the team prepares to honor his memory, questions linger about how the Dolphins and the NFL will address his legacy in the years to come. For now, Crowder’s family and former teammates are left to grieve, reflect, and celebrate a life that was as turbulent as it was memorable.
An explosive new poll is casting a harsh spotlight on top media figures and their coverage of former President Joe Biden’s mental health.
According to Breitbart, a Rasmussen survey found that 63 percent of likely voters believe “major media journalists were aware of Joe Biden’s declining mental condition, but covered it up.” The poll, conducted from May 19 to 21, surveyed 1,012 likely voters about their perceptions of both the media and Biden’s inner circle.
The poll’s results come at a tense moment in American politics under President Donald Trump, with debates over press credibility intensifying. The findings suggest a broad skepticism toward mainstream media’s handling of Biden’s presidency and highlight divisions not just among political parties but also within demographic groups.
A significant majority—63 percent—of respondents told Rasmussen they believe prominent journalists, including CNN anchor Jake Tapper, actively concealed information about Biden’s alleged cognitive decline. Only 27 percent called such a cover-up “unlikely,” suggesting widespread distrust in mainstream newsrooms. Breitbart’s coverage emphasized that this skepticism is not limited to traditional Republican bases.
The breakdown is striking: 57 percent of Black voters and 66 percent of Hispanic voters polled agreed with the claim that media knowingly hid information on Biden’s health. Even among Democrats, 43 percent said they thought major media outlets participated in a cover-up. Such cross-demographic agreement is rare, especially in today’s polarized environment.
Media critics argue that the press had a duty to thoroughly investigate and report on Biden’s fitness for office. They point to persistent rumors, viral video clips, and speculation about Biden’s memory and acuity as evidence that legitimate questions went unasked or underreported by establishment journalists.
The issue of a media cover-up was not the only area of concern for voters. When asked about the seriousness of claims that Biden’s own staffers were aware of his decline and actively worked to hide it, 72 percent of respondents said this was a serious matter. Just 23 percent downplayed its significance.
Observers note that the gap between public trust and media self-assurance continues to widen. Breitbart’s John Nolte wrote that “the corporate media damaged Democrats a whole lot more than Republicans with this gaslighting campaign,” arguing that had the press been more forthcoming, Democrats would have had time to prepare a new candidate for the 2024 presidential race.
Nolte further asserted that the situation has created difficulties for potential 2028 Democratic presidential hopefuls, such as Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, and Gavin Newsom, who had publicly defended Biden’s capabilities. Navigating the fallout from these allegations could become a major challenge for their political futures.
Beyond the Biden controversy, Breitbart’s coverage listed a series of what it called “media hoaxes”—stories or narratives promoted by major outlets that critics allege were exaggerated, misleading, or outright false. Examples cited included the “Russia Collusion Hoax,” “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot,” and the “Covington KKKids Hoax.”
Nolte accused mainstream outlets of repeatedly “gaslighting” the public, sometimes in service of political agendas. He wrote, “Look at how the media have shamelessly whored out their credibility, and to what end?” He went on to suggest that the next Gallup poll on media trust would be “interesting,” given the mounting skepticism.
The poll’s findings and the accompanying critical commentary underscore a broader crisis of confidence in American journalism. Supporters of legacy media insist that coverage of Biden was fair and based on available evidence, while critics accuse outlets of sacrificing objectivity for political expedience. The debate over what constitutes responsible journalism has rarely been more intense.
The revelation that 63 percent of likely voters believe major journalists concealed President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline is reverberating through both the media world and political circles. Critics argue that this perceived lack of transparency not only undermined trust in journalists but also may have affected the Democratic Party’s ability to prepare for future elections.
With the Rasmussen poll showing skepticism across demographic and partisan lines, the controversy over Biden’s health and the media’s responsibility is unlikely to fade soon. Claims about a cover-up by both journalists and Biden’s staffers are now fueling wider questions about accountability and transparency at the highest levels of American politics and media.
As the nation looks ahead, the issue of trust—both in elected officials and those tasked with holding them accountable—remains central. The poll’s results and the sharp reactions they have provoked suggest that debates over press integrity and political honesty will continue to shape public discourse in the months and years to come.
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.