President Donald Trump has announced a significant restructuring of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) as part of his administration's effort to enhance the nation's border safety.
The new council, led by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, now includes Fox News host Mark Levin among other notable individuals, with a focus on strengthening national security, as the Daily Mail reports.
The announcement was made by Trump, who emphasized the expertise of the newly appointed members. "I am proud to announce the formation of my revamped Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC)," he stated. Levin, a prominent figure on Fox News and an author, is the third person from the network to join Trump’s administration, showcasing the continued influence of Fox personalities in government roles.
Levin joins the HSAC as part of an ongoing trend of Trump appointing Fox News hosts to significant positions within his administration. His appointment follows those of Pete Hegseth and Sean Duffy, both former Fox News hosts who have taken on roles as Defense secretary and Transportation secretary, respectively.
The council itself has been entrusted with the critical tasks of advising on and crafting policy for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Emphasizing this mandate, Trump expressed confidence in the council's potential impact, highlighting its role in securing borders, combating illegal drug flow, and deporting dangerous criminals.
In addition to Levin, the council features recognizable names such as South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, Bo Dietl, and Joseph Gruters. Each brings unique credentials to the panel. McMaster is noted for his early and staunch support of Trump during the 2016 campaign, which included delivering a keynote speech at the Republican National Convention. His presence in the council reinforces the administration’s ties with regional political figures who have been longstanding allies.
Dietl, a former NYPD detective, adds a law enforcement angle to the council’s perspective. He is also known for his appearances in media, including a notable cameo in the film The Wolf of Wall Street, indicating a well-rounded background beyond policing. Gruters, a key figure in Florida’s GOP voter registration efforts, adds political experience from a state crucial to recent national election outcomes.
Trump has articulated a robust vision for national security, one of the central themes driving the formation of the new HSAC. He envisions the council as being instrumental in "making America safe again" through its various initiatives. The council is expected to tackle critical issues, including the fight against drug trafficking and the deportation of criminals, which remain priority areas for the current administration.
The presence of Levin, who called his selection an "honor," underscores the blending of media influence with policymaking. Levin’s role aligns with that of his fellow Fox News veterans, suggesting a cohesive strategy within the administration. The significance of these appointments may reflect the administration's emphasis on media-savvy individuals capable of shaping public discourse in favor of policy initiatives.
The inclusion of such a diverse group of advisors indicates a strategic approach, leveraging various backgrounds to enhance the council’s advisory and practical capabilities. Trump's comment that the members will “do an incredible job” highlights his confidence in their collective abilities to address and alleviate national security concerns.
Under Kristi Noem's guidance, the council is poised to give structured input and develop actionable strategies, aligning with the DHS’s broader objectives. This promises to blend insights from political, media, and security sectors to form coherent, actionable security policies.
As the council begins its operations, a watchful eye will be on the initiatives rolled out under its guidance. Public and media attention will likely focus on the success of the strategic objectives outlined by Trump and Noem, particularly in reducing crime and illegal drug issues.
The revamped HSAC represents a bold step by the Trump administration to incorporate media personalities in shaping national security policy, further blurring the lines between broadcasting and governance. This development continues to reflect Trump's reliance on trusted Fox News figures, aiming to leave a legacy of robust national security policy well into his term.
Republican Rep. Jim Jordan has endorsed Kevin Coughlin in Ohio's closely contested House race, boosting Coughlin in his quest to unseat Democratic incumbent Rep. Emilia Sykes.
Jordan's endorsement underscores the significance of this contest as a Republican target in the upcoming midterms, as the Daily Caller reports.
The congressman, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, announced his support for Coughlin on Thursday. The announcement comes in the midst of a politically charged competition for Ohio's 13th Congressional District. This district gained attention in the last presidential election when Vice President Kamala Harris narrowly edged out Donald Trump, indicating its potential as a battleground.
Coughlin, the only Republican declared in the race so far, previously challenged Sykes in 2024, where he lost by a narrow margin of fewer than 10,000 votes. His campaign this year seeks to overturn that result, armed with Jordan's endorsement.
In his campaign, Coughlin has been critical of Sykes, accusing her of putting party priorities above constituent needs. He cites her voting record on several key issues, such as government shutdowns and efforts to establish a NASA facility in Northeast Ohio, as evidence of what he views as her failure to address district interests.
Coughlin remarked on Sykes' decisions in office, stating, "In the first days of her second term, she voted to shut down the government and refused to join bipartisan efforts to bring the NASA headquarters -- and thousands of jobs -- to Northeast Ohio."
The Cook Political Report has recognized Sykes' seat as one of the top ten "toss-up" districts for Democrats. This rating signifies the race's potential volatility and the likelihood of a fierce contest in the upcoming elections.
Meanwhile, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has targeted Sykes, among 26 total Democrats, in its efforts to gain seats in 2026. Launching a digital ad campaign, the NRCC accused Sykes and fellow Democrats of opposing a GOP budget intended to enhance border security and prolong Trump-era tax cuts.
Additionally, Coughlin emphasized the importance of supporting Trump, noting, "We need a Member of Congress who will stand with President Trump to fight for our community, our safety and to provide reliable leadership with real solutions." Coughlin's statements reflect the campaign's broader themes of safety and standing with Republican leadership. Sykes has been actively involved in her own campaign activities, including forming a joint fundraising committee with firebrand Democrat Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett.
Ohio's political landscape may face further shifts depending on possible mid-decade redistricting, which could significantly alter district demographics. This adds another layer of complexity to an already dynamic contest, potentially impacting the strategies of incumbents and challengers alike. House Speaker Mike Johnson and other prominent Republicans had supported Coughlin in his previous run against Sykes. This Republican unity could stand as an influential factor in the race.
Expressing gratitude for the support from his fellow Republicans, Coughlin said, "I’m honored by Congressman Jordan’s support, and by the unity Republicans in Ohio are demonstrating behind our campaign." He remarked on the need for principled individuals in Congress, highlighting Jordan as an example of such leadership.
Coughlin's campaign is expected to continue focusing on local issues, party alignment, and presenting himself as an alternative to Sykes' alignment with the Democratic Party. The race will likely remain a focal point for both parties as they prepare for the upcoming midterms.
As the only declared candidate from his party, Coughlin will carry the Republican banner with a clear endorsement from a significant party member. The race in Ohio's 13th congressional district thus remains one of the key areas to watch as the political tide shifts toward election season.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling to uphold Governor Tony Evers' use of veto power to extend educational funding for 400 years has ignited a constitutional debate.
The court's decision highlighted the contentious interpretation of the governor's veto authority and its implications for policy and legislation in Wisconsin, as the Washington Examiner reports.
In July 2023, Evers exercised his veto by modifying elements of the state budget to extend a $325 per student funding increase mandated for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years, extending this increase to the year 2425. This move stirred controversy, leading to a legal challenge from the Republican Party, which questioned the constitutionality of altering the budget's timeline so drastically.
The Republican-led lawsuit argued that the governor's actions were an overreach, suggesting that changing the budget's text in such a significant way circumvented the legislative process. Despite these assertions, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of Evers' veto, with a narrow 4-3 decision. The court's liberal justices formed the majority, underscoring the ideological divide within the state’s high court.
The majority opinion acknowledged the startling nature of a 400-year modification. However, it justified the decision by stating that the state’s constitution does not constrain the extent to which vetoes can influence policy change, regardless of magnitude. This interpretation of the constitution sparked differing opinions among the justices.
The conservative wing of the court expressed strong concerns about the implications of the ruling. They indicated that the decision grants the governor excessive power to reshape policy without proper legislative endorsement. One dissenting opinion painted a picture of legislative process disruption, highlighting that by altering the bill's text, the governor could essentially enact law independently of the legislature. This depiction underscores the tension between different branches of the state government.
Evers celebrated the court's decision as a triumph for the state’s educational system. He highlighted what he said was the benefit for Wisconsin's children and public schools, aligning his actions with historical precedents of veto use by previous governors. His statements emphasized continuity in gubernatorial practice rather than a break from tradition.
The Republican Party of Wisconsin, however, criticized the ruling as an example of "judicial activism." They voiced dissatisfaction with the court's decision, arguing that it prioritizes political outcomes over constitutional fidelity. According to them, residents of Wisconsin expect the Supreme Court to serve as a check on executive power, not as an enabler.
The current decision brings Wisconsin's unique partial veto power into focus, which has been a topic of debate for decades. The governor can modify appropriations by changing text and numbers presented in bills, an authority that has historically been wielded by both parties.
The ruling establishes a precedent that might influence future interpretations of gubernatorial power in Wisconsin. With four liberal justices supporting the veto, the decision reflects the intricate balance between executive authority and legislative intent. It raises questions about the separation of powers and the extent to which one branch can revise the outcomes of another.
Critics of the decision fear that this opens the possibility of more extreme modifications in future budgetary exercises. The tension between ensuring effective governance and maintaining legislative participation remains a crucial issue that the state continues to navigate.
As the dust settles, both supporters and opponents of the decision are likely to examine its implications closely. For proponents, it offers stability for public schools, ensuring consistent long-term funding that aids in educational planning and development. For opponents, it signals a need to reassess the constitutional guidelines governing veto powers.
The legal intricacies of the decision might lead to further legislative attempts to redefine or limit the governor's partial veto power. As both parties interpret the ruling's impact, further dialogue and potential legal reforms could emerge to address concerns raised by the dissenting justices.
President Donald Trump made a swift change in the leadership of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), replacing acting commissioner Gary Shapley with Michael Faulkender, who was a deputy under Treasury Secretary Bessent.
This swift reshuffling by Trump follows complaints within the administration about appointment methods that some said bypassed conventional channels, as Breitbart reports.
The IRS, critical for tax collection, has seen a rapid succession of leaders in recent days, reflecting internal policy debates and administrative disputes. The New York Times reported the latest change, citing five individuals familiar with the situation. This replacement follows tensions caused by Bessent's objections over perceived maneuvering by Elon Musk to install Shapley as the temporary head of the IRS.
Shapley’s tenure was short-lived amid the controversy mentioned above. One of the administration's internal grievances was how Musk allegedly influenced Shapley’s appointment, which did not adhere to standard protocols. This has been a point of contention since the IRS is a key federal agency under the Treasury Department, which Bessent leads.
Bessent commented on Shapley’s ouster by reiterating the necessity of establishing trust at the IRS. He said he had full confidence that Faulkender was the ideal choice for this crucial position. Bessent described Faulkender's new role as an opportunity to restore stability to an agency crucial for American governmental operations.
The decision to replace Shapley comes not long after the previous acting commissioner, Melanie Krause, resigned. Krause left following a controversial agreement allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement access to IRS data for deportation enforcement. This agreement was a source of significant friction within the agency, leading to her departure.
In Bessent's public statement, he acknowledged the contributions of Shapley to the agency. According to him, Shapley's dedication and innovative thinking are vital elements in the ongoing reform of the IRS's longstanding policies. Bessent reassured stakeholders that Shapley would continue to play an essential role as a senior advisor within the Treasury Department.
Further, Bessent disclosed that Shapley and another senior advisor, Joseph Ziegler, have been engaged in a year-long probe. Upon the completion of this investigation, Bessent intends to position both advisors in high-level government appointments to implement policy reforms effectively.
Under the growing scrutiny of the IRS’s leadership dynamics, the agency's future remains a subject of national interest. Leaders from various spheres observe how Bessent navigates these issues and whether new initiatives will arise from this leadership shuffle. While the IRS has existed for decades as the country’s main tax collection body, recent shifts in leadership have sparked questions about the effects of executive influence and advisory roles within essential government agencies.
The Musk-Bessent discord over Shapley demonstrated the palpable tensions between influential figures in shaping federal appointments. Whether such events will motivate reforms in appointment protocols within the administration remains uncertain. As part of his statement, Bessent emphasized the enduring significance of advisory positions. He noted that the work of Shapley and Ziegler is vital to enacting changes that would outlast individual tenures within the services structure.
This latest episode underscores broader narratives within the Trump administration about how leadership appointments are decided. It’s also a reminder of the challenges faced in bringing consensus on IRS reforms, a salient topic for policymakers.
As Faulkender steps into his new role, he inherits both challenges and opportunities, with hopes pinned on his leadership to restore confidence in the IRS’s operations. His approach to reforms and administrative strategy will be closely watched in the coming months.
The rapid turnover within the IRS signifies larger debates at play regarding the best path forward for the agency. Various stakeholders await the long-term strategies that Faulkender and his appointed team will introduce. Amid these shifts, Americans remain keen to see if the appointed leaders will meet the high expectations of restoring what Bessent describes as "trust and confidence" in national institutions.
The entertainment world mourns the loss of a versatile performer who brought charm and talent to both television and musical theater.
According to Daily Mail, Patrick Adiarte, known for his recurring role as Ho-Jon in the first season of MAS*H and his performances in classic Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals, passed away on Tuesday at age 82 from pneumonia in Los Angeles.
The Philippines-born actor's career spanned decades, showcasing his remarkable range from Broadway to television. His niece Stephanie Hogan confirmed his death, marking the end of a journey that began in Manila in 1943 and led him to become a celebrated figure in American entertainment.
Adiarte's path to stardom emerged from challenging circumstances during World War II. As a young child, he survived internment on an island with his mother Purita and sister Irene, enduring a harrowing escape attempt where Japanese forces threw grenades at them, leaving both children with burns.
The family's arrival at Ellis Island after the war marked a turning point in their lives. By 1951, both Patrick and his dancer mother had secured roles in the Broadway production of The King and I, with Patrick performing as one of the royal children just before his eighth birthday.
Their immigration status remained uncertain until 1956 when then-Senator John F. Kennedy helped the Adiartes obtain U.S. citizenship, ending years of deportation concerns.
Adiarte's talent caught the attention of legendary performer Gene Kelly, who praised the young actor's potential during a television appearance. Kelly was quoted saying:
Patrick is a mighty fine dancer. If there's gonna be another Fred Astaire, I think it might well be Pat.
His television career flourished throughout the 1970s with appearances on popular shows like Bonanza, The Brady Bunch, Hawaii Five-O, and Kojak. However, it was his role as Ho-Jon in MAS*H that would become his most enduring television performance.
The character's storyline in the pilot episode revealed Ho-Jon's acceptance into an American college, with the doctors organizing a fundraising rally for his tuition. This plot point reflected the show's ability to blend comedy with meaningful character development.
Adiarte's contribution to musical theater included significant roles in film adaptations of Rodgers and Hammerstein productions. His performances in The King and I and Flower Drum Song demonstrated his versatility as both an actor and dancer.
His later career included teaching dance at institutions like Santa Monica College, passing on his expertise to new generations. This transition from performer to educator showcased his commitment to preserving the art form he loved.
The actor's work in the 1965 Cold War comedy John Goldfarb, Please Come Home! further demonstrated his range, as he portrayed the prince of a fictional Arab country alongside established stars.
Patrick Adiarte's passing represents the loss of a groundbreaking figure in American entertainment. His journey from war-torn Manila to Broadway and Hollywood success helped pave the way for future Asian American performers. The actor's death from pneumonia at a Los Angeles hospital marks the end of an era that saw him transition from child performer to respected television actor and finally to dance educator. His contributions to both stage and screen created a lasting legacy in American entertainment history.
President Donald Trump intensifies his criticism of Jerome Powell's leadership at the Federal Reserve, indicating potential plans for removal despite legal protections.
According to Breitbart, Trump expressed his frustration with Powell's reluctance to implement aggressive interest rate cuts, declaring that the Federal Reserve chair's "termination cannot come fast enough."
The president's comments followed Powell's speech at the Economic Club of Chicago, where he addressed the impact of Trump's broad-based tariffs on monetary policy decisions. Powell emphasized the Fed's need for clarity regarding policy changes in various areas, including immigration, taxation, regulation, and tariffs, before making decisions about interest rates.
Powell maintained his position on the Federal Reserve's independence, asserting that political pressures would not influence their decision-making process. He emphasized the legal protections surrounding his position and the Fed's commitment to serving the American people's interests.
The Federal Reserve chair highlighted the institutional safeguards protecting the central bank's autonomy. These protections include fixed terms for Fed officials and specific conditions for their removal, which Powell noted are established by law.
Trump's criticism centered on Powell's approach to interest rate management, particularly in comparison to the European Central Bank's policies. The president pointed to declining oil and grocery prices as indicators supporting his position on rate cuts.
The tension between Trump and Powell has a complicated history, beginning with Trump's nomination of Powell in 2017. Despite initial support, their relationship has deteriorated over monetary policy disagreements.
President Biden reappointed Powell to another four-year term in 2022, demonstrating bipartisan support for his leadership. This appointment came despite ongoing criticism from Trump during his presidency.
Powell's November press conference addressed potential scenarios of presidential interference, where he firmly stated he would not resign if asked to do so by Trump.
In his Chicago speech, Powell delivered a strong message about the Federal Reserve's commitment to independence. He stated:
Our independence is a matter of law. We're not removable except for cause. We serve very long terms, seemingly endless terms. So we're protected into law. Congress could change that law, but I don't think there's any danger of that. Fed independence has pretty broad support across both political parties and in both sides of the Hill.
The Federal Reserve's position on political neutrality was further reinforced when Powell declared:
That's the only thing we're ever going to do. We're never going to be influenced by any political pressure. People can say whatever they want. That's fine, that's not a problem. But we will do what we do strictly without consideration of political or any other extraneous factors.
Trump's latest attack on Powell's leadership at the Federal Reserve represents an escalation in the ongoing tension between the White House and the central bank. The president's criticism stems from disagreements over monetary policy decisions, particularly regarding interest rate management and the Fed's response to economic indicators. The Federal Reserve maintains its stance on independence, supported by legal protections and bipartisan congressional backing. Powell continues to lead the central bank, focusing on data-driven decision-making while navigating complex economic challenges and political pressures.
A heated confrontation between President Donald Trump and tech mogul Elon Musk has sparked controversy in Washington's political circles.
According to Daily Mail Online, Trump personally intervened to prevent Musk from attending a classified government briefing about China after the Tesla CEO's presence provoked concern among White House officials.
The incident led to the suspension of two senior Pentagon officials, Dan Caldwell and Darin Selnick, who were removed from their positions by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth following an investigation into who leaked information about the briefing to Musk.
The president's decision came amid growing tensions over Musk's extensive business interests in China, particularly Tesla's Gigafactory Shanghai, which produced approximately half of all Tesla vehicles last year.
Trump reportedly erupted in anger upon learning of Musk's planned attendance at the briefing. A top official revealed the president's forceful response to staff. Trump said: "What the f**k is Elon doing there? Make sure he doesn't go."
The president's reaction stemmed from concerns about potential conflicts of interest, given Musk's significant business ties to China through Tesla's operations. Despite Trump's previous support for Musk's involvement in government matters, the administration drew a clear line regarding sensitive information about China.
Musk's position as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has come under scrutiny as White House officials express growing frustration with his frequent presence and controversial social media activity. The Tesla CEO's involvement in government affairs was supposed to exclude areas where he might have conflicts of interest, according to Trump's earlier pledges.
The New York Times initially reported on March 20 that Musk would receive a briefing about U.S. military plans regarding potential conflict with China. Trump swiftly denied this on Truth Social, insisting China would not be discussed at the meeting. Sources later revealed this denial came after the president had already ordered officials to exclude Musk from China-related discussions.
The incident occurs against a backdrop of escalating trade tensions between the United States and China. Trump recently implemented a dramatic 125 percent tariff on Chinese imports, combined with a 20 percent fentanyl-related levy, bringing the total effective rate to 145 percent. China retaliated by raising its tariffs on U.S. goods from 84 percent to 125 percent.
Despite the controversy, Musk still attended a modified version of the Pentagon meeting on March 21, meeting with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for 80 minutes. When questioned about the meeting's contents, Musk deflected, responding tersely to reporters.
Trump later addressed the situation at the White House, emphasizing the sensitivity of military planning information. He specifically highlighted the risks of sharing such details with business leaders having significant interests in China.
The controversial briefing incident has exposed growing rifts between Trump's administration and Musk's expanding influence in government affairs. While Musk remains head of DOGE and maintains ties to the administration, his role faces increased scrutiny over potential conflicts with his business interests, particularly concerning China.
The Pentagon officials' suspension and ongoing investigations into the leaked information demonstrate the serious nature of the security breach. The incident highlights the delicate balance between private sector involvement in government affairs and national security concerns, especially regarding relations with China.
A contentious dispute surrounding President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship has reached the nation's highest court.
According to CBS News, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next month to determine whether the Trump administration can partially enforce its executive order limiting birthright citizenship while legal challenges proceed through lower courts.
The Justice Department seeks to modify three nationwide injunctions that currently block the implementation of Trump's directive, which aims to deny automatic citizenship to children born to mothers who are either unlawfully present in the U.S. or temporarily residing on legal status, as well as those whose fathers are neither citizens nor permanent residents.
The executive order, signed during Trump's first day back in office, has faced immediate legal opposition from multiple fronts. Three federal district courts in Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts issued nationwide injunctions preventing the government from executing the order.
Federal appeals courts in San Francisco, Boston, and Richmond subsequently denied the administration's requests to partially lift these injunctions. The administration's emergency appeals to the Supreme Court aim to limit the order's enforcement to 28 states and individuals not involved in ongoing litigation.
Then-acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris emphasized the administration's concerns about the widespread use of nationwide injunctions, arguing they impede executive branch functions and Trump's ability to address border security issues.
Eighteen states, along with the District of Columbia and San Francisco, have strongly condemned the administration's request to the Supreme Court. They characterize the move as an unprecedented attempt to strip citizenship rights from American-born children.
Two prominent immigrants' rights organizations, CASA Inc and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, submitted filings questioning the urgency of the government's request. The groups emphasized the historical precedent of birthright citizenship.
From the immigrants' rights groups' filing:
The Executive Branch has been complying with the settled interpretation of the Citizenship Clause for 125 years, and the government has demonstrated no urgent need to change now. Whether a child is a citizen of our nation should not depend on the state where she is born or the associations her parents have joined.
The Justice Department's stance against nationwide injunctions has become increasingly aggressive. Harris articulated the administration's position in court documents:
Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration. Courts have graduated from universal preliminary injunctions to universal temporary restraining orders, from universal equitable relief to universal monetary remedies, and from governing the whole nation to governing the whole world.
The administration argues these broad injunctions create incentives for illegal immigration by maintaining the prospect of American citizenship for children of unlawful migrants and subsequent immigration benefits for the parents themselves.
The Supreme Court's upcoming hearing on May 15 will determine whether the Trump administration can partially implement its controversial birthright citizenship executive order. The directive seeks to fundamentally alter the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has guaranteed citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil for over a century.
As the case moves forward, more than 800,000 members of immigrants' rights groups across all states await a decision that could dramatically impact the future of American citizenship and immigration policy.