Justice Sonia Sotomayor has ignited a fierce debate within the Supreme Court, launching a scathing criticism against her conservative colleagues over a controversial deportation policy that has Washington's attention focused squarely on the nation's highest court.
According to Newsweek, the Supreme Court's conservative majority handed the Trump administration a significant victory on Monday by allowing the deportation of individuals to third countries, prompting a forceful 19-page dissent from the liberal justices.
The 6-3 ruling has exposed deep divisions within the court, with Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, condemning what they view as an unprecedented overreach of judicial authority that could put thousands of lives at risk.
The ruling comes in the wake of a May incident where eight migrants from various countries, including Myanmar, Vietnam, and Cuba, were nearly deported to South Sudan despite existing legal protections. The attempted deportation violated a standing order from U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy.
The migrants were ultimately diverted to a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where they were housed in challenging conditions while their legal status remained in limbo. This incident highlighted the growing tension between the administration's aggressive deportation policies and judicial oversight.
Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin defended the Supreme Court's decision, characterizing it as a victory for national security. She emphasized the administration's commitment to removing what she termed "criminal illegal aliens" from American soil.
The conservative majority's decision came without detailed explanation, a move that has drawn criticism from legal experts and immigration advocates. The ruling effectively suspends a lower court order that had required migrants to have an opportunity to challenge their removal to third countries.
In her powerful dissent, Justice Sotomayor accused the government of acting "unconstrained by law," warning that the decision could expose vulnerable individuals to severe risks. She emphasized the potential consequences of allowing deportations without proper legal safeguards.
The Trump administration has increasingly relied on agreements with countries like Panama and Costa Rica to facilitate deportations, particularly when migrants' home countries refuse to accept them. This strategy has raised concerns about the safety and human rights implications of third-country deportations.
DHS officials maintain that the policy is necessary for maintaining border security and public safety. McLaughlin issued a strongly worded statement defending the administration's position, emphasizing the criminal backgrounds of some deportees.
Judge Murphy's original ruling had sought to establish important protections for migrants, requiring them to have a meaningful opportunity to present their cases. The judge specifically cited the risks of sending people to countries experiencing civil unrest and violence.
The case has drawn parallels to other recent immigration disputes, including a notable instance involving a gay Guatemalan man who was wrongly deported to Mexico and subsequently faced severe persecution.
This Supreme Court ruling represents a significant shift in immigration enforcement capabilities, giving the administration broader authority to implement its deportation policies. The decision adds to a growing list of cases where the conservative majority has supported the administration's immigration agenda.
The ruling's immediate impact will affect thousands of migrants currently in deportation proceedings, potentially expediting their removal to third countries. Legal advocates are scrambling to understand the full implications of this decision and develop new strategies to protect vulnerable immigrants.
These developments signal an increasingly complex battle over immigration policy, with the Supreme Court's conservative majority showing strong support for expanded executive authority in deportation matters.
Steve Bannon has launched an unprecedented assault on Fox News following a private lunch with President Donald Trump, suggesting the network may be secretly working as an agent of foreign interests in their coverage of the Israel-Iran conflict.
According to the Daily Mail, Bannon called for a thorough investigation into Fox News under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) while dismissing the network's influence, claiming their audience consists mainly of "geriatrics" over 70 years old.
The escalation comes after Bannon, Trump's former chief White House strategist, met with the president for lunch on Thursday ahead of U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. During this meeting, Bannon reportedly argued against American involvement in Israel's conflict with Iran.
Bannon took direct aim at the Murdoch family, suggesting they prioritize foreign interests over American ones. His comments reflect growing tensions between Trump-aligned conservatives and mainstream media outlets over coverage of Middle East policy. The former presidential advisor called for an investigation into whether Fox News should register as a foreign agent under FARA regulations.
On his War Room show Monday, Bannon intensified his criticism, stating, "I think we need to see if they represent a foreign government as an agent." He questioned the network's motives, asking "What are they pushing on the American people? Where'd this information come from?"
While acknowledging Iran should not obtain nuclear weapons, Bannon insisted there were alternatives to military action, declaring "there are many paths to do that" that don't involve "kinetic warfare." His statements came as he attempted to distance himself from the network's hawkish stance on Middle East intervention.
Despite Bannon's vocal opposition, Trump proceeded with significant military strikes against Iran, deploying six 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs and 30 Tomahawk missiles to destroy nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. The president characterized the operation as a "spectacular military success."
In an address to the nation, Trump claimed Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities had been "completely and totally obliterated." He also issued stern warnings about potential future strikes if peace was not achieved, showing his resolve to take military action despite counsel from close allies like Bannon.
Bannon had earlier predicted on his podcast that such military action could trigger "World War III," stating "anyone that's telling you that the Third World War is not here absolutely does not understand the development and evolution of kinetic energy."
Following the U.S. attack, Iran launched retaliatory strikes targeting the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, America's largest military installation in the Middle East. However, Trump claimed no Americans were harmed due to advance warning allowing for evacuation.
The president took to Truth Social to taunt Iran's "very weak response" while simultaneously calling for peace in the region. He urged both Iran and Israel to work toward "Peace and Harmony in the Region," suggesting a potential diplomatic resolution.
World leaders quickly condemned Iran's retaliatory strikes and expressed support for Qatar, which has not ruled out its own response to Iranian aggression. The international community remains watchful as regional tensions continue to simmer.
In a surprising turn of events, Steve Bannon's warnings about escalating conflict have been overshadowed by diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East. His unprecedented attack on Fox News has highlighted growing divisions within conservative media over foreign policy approaches.
The ceasefire agreement announced by President Trump marks a potential end to what he called "the 12-day war," though neither Iran nor Israel has officially confirmed the deal. This development comes after two weeks of intense military exchanges between the nations.
As attention turns to implementing the ceasefire, Bannon's accusations against Fox News underscore broader debates about media independence and foreign influence in American foreign policy. The impact of these discussions on future U.S. military decisions remains to be seen.
A surprising shift in Washington's political landscape emerged as Brett McGurk, a former Biden National Security Council Coordinator, delivered unexpected praise for President Donald Trump's handling of the recent Iran-Israel crisis.
According to The Daily Caller, McGurk appeared on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" where he gave "extremely high marks" to Trump and his National Security team for their management of the escalating situation between Iran and Israel. The former Obama official's endorsement comes as Trump announced a "total ceasefire" agreement between the warring nations.
The development follows a series of intense military exchanges that began on June 12 when Israel launched preemptive strikes against Iran, targeting their nuclear weapons program sites and resulting in the deaths of several top military officials. This action prompted concerns about potential U.S. involvement and led to Trump issuing stern warnings to Iran about possible American intervention.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt had initially indicated that Trump would take two weeks to decide on U.S. involvement in the conflict. However, events accelerated rapidly when Trump announced successful strikes against three Iranian nuclear sites on his Truth Social platform.
McGurk revealed that extensive backchannel diplomacy had preceded the U.S. military action against Iran. The former official also noted that European allies were prepared to reinstate international sanctions against Iran if necessary, with a deadline set for October.
The ceasefire announcement came after Iran launched a retaliatory strike against the Al Udeid U.S. Air Base in Qatar, though Trump acknowledged and expressed gratitude for Iran's advance warning, which resulted in zero American casualties. This diplomatic gesture marked a significant turning point in the crisis.
The exchange of military strikes between the nations demonstrated the effectiveness of regional defense systems. McGurk highlighted that most Iranian missiles were successfully intercepted by both Qatari and U.S. defense systems.
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced their military operations would continue until 4 a.m., though the Israel Defense Forces reported missile launch sirens after the deadline. The choreographed nature of Iran's response suggested a calculated approach to de-escalation.
The successful intervention by U.S. forces and the subsequent diplomatic negotiations showcased the administration's ability to balance military strength with diplomatic finesse. This approach earned praise from both supporters and previous critics of Trump's foreign policy.
McGurk emphasized the potential for broader diplomatic progress, noting ongoing discussions regarding the situation in Gaza. The presence of Hamas delegations in Cairo suggested a possible breakthrough in multiple regional conflicts.
The former Obama official expressed optimism about the current situation, stating it represented "about the best place we can be." He stressed the importance of following through with diplomatic initiatives to maintain the progress achieved.
The unexpected alliance between Trump's approach and Obama-era officials' approval has created a unique moment of bipartisan agreement on foreign policy. This development could potentially influence future diplomatic efforts in the Middle East and reshape political dynamics in Washington.
The successful negotiation of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Iran represents a significant diplomatic victory for the Trump administration, earning praise from unexpected quarters, including former Obama official Brett McGurk. The resolution of this crisis through a combination of military deterrence and diplomatic channels has set a new precedent for handling regional conflicts.
European allies remain poised to enforce sanctions if necessary, while diplomatic channels continue to explore opportunities for peace in Gaza. The involvement of various regional players and the successful coordination of defense systems demonstrated the effectiveness of multilateral approaches to conflict resolution.
The surprising endorsement from McGurk, coupled with the successful implementation of the ceasefire, suggests a potential shift in how future Middle Eastern conflicts might be addressed. This development could lead to more bipartisan support for decisive yet measured responses to international crises.
California insiders are buzzing over a familiar name cropping up in talks of the state’s next top office. Kamala Harris’s potential entry into the gubernatorial contest has sparked both excitement and skepticism across party lines.
According to Breitbart News, the former vice president is seriously weighing a bid for governor of California, though no final decision has been made.
Sources close to Harris say she’s given herself a self-imposed deadline at the end of summer to decide whether to launch a campaign. Supporters argue her national profile and fundraising prowess could reshape the race, while skeptics question whether she can navigate a sprawling primary field.
Insiders report Harris “hasn’t made a final decision yet and is still considering all her options,” according to the outlet. That uncertainty has given her team the urgency to weigh pros and cons before the self-imposed deadline.
One source added that talks of her candidacy have “given her a renewed sense of excitement,” noting “a glimmer in her eyes” when discussing public service. These comments suggest Harris views a potential campaign as more than just another run for office.
Another confidant cautioned against reading too much into early chatter, insisting some advisers have “pushed back on the idea” that she is “inclined to enter the contest.” That pushback highlights internal debate over her next political move.
Among Democratic activists, Harris’s possible bid has drawn applause for her proven fundraising network. Many believe she can quickly outpace opponents in early money and endorsements.
Conversely, some party strategists worry her national ambitions could overshadow local issues. They argue California voters may prefer candidates with deeper state experience or fresh perspectives over a high-profile national figure.
Critics also note the crowded Democratic field already includes figures like former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, raising concerns about vote splitting and potential runoff complications.
A February survey by Emerson College Polling, Inside California Politics, and The Hill placed Harris at 57 percent support among Democratic primary voters. That lead dwarfed former Rep. Katie Porter’s nine percent and Villaraigosa’s four percent.
California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis matched Villaraigosa at four percent in the same poll, while Xavier Becerra trailed further behind. These numbers suggest Harris’s name recognition gives her a substantial early edge.
However, pollsters caution that early surveys often shift once campaigns launch and candidates begin advertising. Voter preferences can change significantly once debates and primary campaigns intensify.
Should Harris decide to enter the race, her Senate term would overlap with a gubernatorial run, prompting coordination with state officials on campaign logistics. California’s primary is scheduled for March 2026, with the general election in November.
A formal announcement before her end-of-summer deadline would allow Harris ample time to build a statewide campaign infrastructure, secure endorsements, and finalize her platform on issues like housing, climate and public safety.
Kamala Harris, former vice president and U.S. senator, is weighing a run for California governor, with an end-of-summer decision looming. She’s drawn support for her fundraising strengths but faces questions over her state experience and a crowded Democratic field. Her campaign calculus will hinge on whether advisers’ optimism outweighs internal doubts and if early polls sustain her front-runner status. Should she move forward, Harris must navigate primary deadlines, build a campaign team, and present a clear agenda to voters.
Fans worldwide are reflecting on the guitar wizardry and songwriting that defined an era alongside Paul Rodgers and Simon Kirke. They’re revisiting the riffs and melodies that turned Bad Company into a ’70s rock staple.
According to The Daily Mail, his passing at the age of 81 sent shockwaves through the music community. Ralphs was best known as the co-founder and lead guitarist of Bad Company.
Ralphs had last taken the stage with Bad Company in October 2016 before suffering a stroke the following month. He is survived by his wife, Susie Chavasse, two children and three step-children, according to a statement on the band’s official website.
Bad Company was formed in 1973 when members of Free, Mott the Hoople, and King Crimson joined forces. Their 1974 self-titled debut album featured hits such as “Can’t Get Enough” and “Movin’ On,” propelling the record to number three on the U.K. albums chart.
The album went five times platinum in the U.S., cementing Bad Company’s reputation for straightforward, hard-rock anthems. Their follow-up, Straight Shooter, and the third release, Run With The Pack, both reached the top five in album charts on both sides of the Atlantic.
Ralphs’s distinctive style—blending melody with grit—became a blueprint for countless guitarists. Songs like “Ready For Love” and the title track “Bad Company” showcased his ability to craft riffs that were both catchy and powerful.
Singer Paul Rodgers paid heartfelt tribute, saying, “Our Mick has passed, my heart just hit the ground. He has left us with exceptional songs and memories.” He recalled their last conversation, noting they shared “a laugh” days before Ralphs’s death.
Drummer Simon Kirke reflected on their decades-long partnership: “He was a dear friend, a wonderful songwriter, and an exceptional guitarist. We will miss him deeply.” Kirke revealed on the Bob Lefsetz Podcast in 2023 that Ralphs’s stroke had left him paralyzed on his left side.
Rodgers and Kirke both highlighted Ralphs’s humor and versatility. They described how his sharp wit and musical range kept Bad Company’s live shows vibrant, honoring the chemistry that began when they met in the early 1970s.
Before Bad Company, Ralphs played in Mott The Hoople, famous for their 1972 hit “All The Young Dudes,” written by David Bowie. His work helped shape the glam-rock sound that still resonates today.
He also contributed to King Crimson in its early lineup, adding depth with his chords and solos. His adaptability across genres made him a sought-after collaborator and influenced the development of British rock.
Younger generations of musicians cite Ralphs as a key inspiration. His approach to melody and tone can be heard in the playing of modern rock and alternative bands aiming to recapture that classic ’70s power-rock feel.
Mick Ralphs, co-founder of Bad Company, passed away at age 81 following health complications stemming from a 2016 stroke. His death leaves a void in the band’s lineup and among the fans who cherished his contributions.
The surviving members—Paul Rodgers and Simon Kirke—are set to accept Bad Company’s induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame later this year. That ceremony will celebrate the band’s enduring catalog and honor Ralphs’s pivotal role.
As tributes continue to pour in from across the industry, the legacy of Ralphs’s songwriting and guitar work will live on through the countless artists he inspired. His family and bandmates plan a private memorial, with public celebrations of his life expected in the coming months.
Marjorie Taylor Greene surprised observers on Saturday, commenting on her bond with President Donald Trump in a sharply worded social media post.
According to the Daily Mail, Greene dismissed allegations of disloyalty as baseless and inflammatory, labeling them “nasty lies.” She asserted that rumors of any break between her and President Trump were completely unfounded and designed to foment division within the GOP.
In a bid to underscore their unity, Greene posted a graphic pairing her initials “MTG” and “DJT” with a heart emoji, followed by an American flag. She later shared a video call clip in which she abruptly ended an interview after a reporter pressed her on the matter.
On Saturday, the Georgia congresswoman lashed out at news outlets, suggesting she was distancing herself from the president. She accused the press of fabricating false narratives to drive clicks, insisting they were spreading “dirty rumors” about her allegiance to Trump’s agenda.
Greene wrote on her popular social media channel, “The press and some other nasty people would love to write lying headlines and create dirty rumors that there’s a break between me and President Trump. WRONG.” That emphatic message was meant to quash any notion of a political split.
After reaffirming her loyalty, Greene widened her critique to U.S. engagement abroad, arguing that taxpayer dollars would be better spent on pressing domestic challenges. She pointed to illegal immigration and cartel-related drug violence as immediate threats demanding attention from the federal government.
Greene’s vigorous defense of Trump came days after she voiced opposition to the president’s precision strikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites. She argued that Washington had no Americans directly harmed by Iran, contrasting it with the domestic toll of cartel violence and illegal crossings.
“I don’t know anyone in America who has been the victim of a crime or killed by Iran,” she wrote, “but I know many people who have been victims of crime committed by criminal illegal aliens or murdered by cartel and Chinese fentanyl/drugs.” Her blunt language highlighted her policy priorities.
Critics from within her own party accused Greene of undercutting Trump’s foreign policy at a time of heightened global tensions. But her supporters praised her willingness to voice independent views, arguing that elected officials must answer to domestic concerns before overseas conflicts.
The firebrand’s post generated a surprising wave of bipartisan responses, drawing unexpected praise from some liberal commentators. Podcast host Tommy Vietor of Pod Save America remarked that Greene’s empathy for the Iranian people had caught many Democrats off guard.
On Monday, President Trump announced on Truth Social that Iran and Israel had agreed to a ceasefire, declaring the “12 day war” would end within 24 hours. Although neither Tehran nor Jerusalem formally confirmed the deal, Trump touted it as a historic step toward regional stability.
Domestic policy advocates also seized on Greene’s emphasis on homefront issues, highlighting her calls for low inflation, affordable housing, and enhanced border security. Analysts suggested her stance could broaden her appeal among voters fatigued by perpetual foreign interventions.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, representing northwest Georgia, reiterated her allegiance to President Trump while unveiling a domestic agenda aimed at easing the cost-of-living crisis. She emphasized the need to secure housing affordability, lower interest rates, and bolster American manufacturing through smarter trade deals.
She insisted that federal dollars be devoted to veterans’ care, infrastructure upgrades, and improved public safety rather than regime-change operations abroad. Greene signaled plans to introduce or support legislation focusing on border enforcement, economic security, and local job creation in the next congressional session.
Observers will monitor whether Greene’s pivot influences GOP debates on war powers and domestic policy priorities. As a prominent Trump ally known for her outspoken tactics, she is poised to shape both party strategy and public discourse in Washington for months ahead.
A 22-year-old with no formal background in national security is now managing a key domestic terror prevention office—and critics are raising alarms.
According to the Daily Mail, Thomas Fugate, a former gardener and campaign staffer for President Donald Trump, is now running a major counterterrorism unit within the Department of Homeland Security. His appointment has triggered scrutiny, especially amid rising fears of retaliation following U.S. airstrikes in Iran.
Fugate was named special assistant at the DHS's Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3), an office that oversees efforts to counter domestic terrorism threats through community-based strategies. He was hired in February, just months after graduating from college, and reportedly holds significant influence over how CP3 operates.
Several officials familiar with DHS operations expressed deep concerns about Fugate’s rapid promotion. A former CP3 counterterrorism researcher said the appointment "sounds like putting the intern in charge," pointing to Fugate’s inexperience in the field.
Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, also blasted the hiring decision, calling attention to Fugate’s previous jobs as a landscaper and grocery clerk. “22 years old. Recent work experience: landscaping/grocery clerk. Never worked a day in counter-terrorism,” Murphy said in a social media post. “But he’s a BIG Trump fan. So he got the job.”
Online reaction mirrored those worries, with some commentators suggesting the appointment was more about loyalty than expertise. “Trump didn’t appoint Thomas Fugate to protect Americans from terrorism,” tweeted Steven Hassan, CEO of the Freedom of Mind Resource Center. “He appointed him to ensure loyalty to him.”
While DHS declined to make Fugate available for comment, a department spokesperson defended the move by attacking prior administrations. According to the spokesperson, CP3 had been “weaponized against political opponents” under President Joe Biden, accusing it of funneling funds to progressive groups.
The spokesperson did not directly address Fugate’s qualifications but implied his appointment was part of an effort to reform the agency’s approach to terrorism prevention. “Unfortunately, under the Biden administration, CP3 was weaponized,” the spokesperson said. “We’re focused now on returning the agency to its core mission.”
Despite the backlash, the Trump administration has not walked back the decision. Photographs of Fugate posing in front of Trump’s campaign plane have resurfaced online, highlighting his previous campaign involvement. Critics say this visual reinforces the idea that loyalty to Trump, not experience, was the deciding factor in his appointment.
The controversy over Fugate’s role comes at a sensitive time for national security. Following President Trump’s approval of stealth bomber strikes targeting three nuclear facilities in Iran, DHS issued an alert about possible terror threats to the U.S. homeland.
The department stated there were “no specific credible threats” but cautioned about the likelihood of low-level cyberattacks and the potential activation of so-called “sleeper cells.” That warning has only intensified concerns about placing an inexperienced official at the helm of an office designed to prevent such threats.
Fugate’s office, CP3, is responsible for collaborating with local and state agencies to build community resilience against radicalization. Given the increased tension with Iran, experts argue this work is more important than ever—and requires steady, informed leadership.
Despite bipartisan criticism, the Trump administration has not signaled any intent to reverse the appointment. Officials have maintained that Fugate’s hiring aligns with their larger effort to reshape the federal bureaucracy and prioritize political alignment.
Supporters of the move argue that prior DHS leadership had allowed the CP3 office to become politicized. They view Fugate’s fresh background as a positive, claiming he brings a clean slate unburdened by ties to the “deep state” or Washington establishment.
Still, Fugate’s name is now at the center of a growing debate over qualifications versus loyalty in national security roles. As Iran tensions escalate, the stakes for DHS—and for Fugate—could not be higher.