Treasury Department officials have dramatically increased efforts to capture two remaining sons of notorious Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman. The hunt intensifies as authorities seek to dismantle what they describe as a hyperviolent faction of the infamous Sinaloa Cartel.
According to Daily Mail, the Treasury Department is offering $10 million per fugitive for information leading to the arrest or conviction of Archivaldo Ivan Guzman Salazar and Jesus Alfredo Guzman Salazar, both believed to be hiding in Mexico.
The brothers lead the "Los Chapitos" faction of the Sinaloa Cartel, which officials say is responsible for fentanyl production and trafficking into the United States. The dramatic escalation in reward money underscores the Biden administration's determination to combat the fentanyl crisis that continues to claim thousands of American lives annually.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized the dangerous nature of the organization in his statement about the rewards. "Los Chapitos is a powerful, hyperviolent faction of the Sinaloa Cartel at the forefront of fentanyl trafficking into the United States," Bessent declared.
The Treasury Department has also imposed sanctions on the brothers, their faction, and a network of associates and businesses based in Mazatlan, Mexico. These entities are accused of engaging in drug trafficking, extortion, and money laundering operations that facilitate the cartel's criminal enterprise.
Officials are deploying "all available tools" in their arsenal to combat the fentanyl crisis and save lives. The rewards and sanctions represent a comprehensive approach to dismantling the organization's financial infrastructure while simultaneously hunting its leadership.
The fugitive brothers represent only half of El Chapo's sons, who have been targeted by American authorities. Two other sons, Joaquin Guzman Lopez and Ovidio Guzman Lopez, are already in custody in the United States, facing serious charges.
Federal prosecutors announced in May that they would not seek the death penalty for Joaquin Guzman Lopez, who faces multiple charges in Chicago. His arrest came under unusual circumstances in July when he and longtime Sinaloa leader Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada landed on a private plane in Texas.
Ovidio Guzman Lopez, who was arrested in Mexico in 2023 and subsequently extradited to the United States, is expected to plead guilty to drug trafficking charges at a court hearing scheduled for July 9. Court records indicate he had originally pleaded not guilty to fentanyl trafficking charges after his extradition.
In a surprising development last month, El Chapo's ex-wife and 16 other family members presented themselves to border agents and crossed into the United States. Video footage captured the family walking across the border from Tijuana with their suitcases to waiting US agents.
The family's decision to enter the US comes at a time of increased pressure on cartel operations. Their arrival raises questions about whether they might be cooperating with authorities or simply seeking safety amid escalating violence and law enforcement actions.
Their patriarch, Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, continues to serve a life sentence at a maximum security prison in Colorado following his 2019 drug trafficking conviction. The once-powerful drug lord, who twice escaped from Mexican prisons, now spends his days in one of America's most secure facilities.
The massive bounties for the Guzman brothers highlight the ongoing challenge posed by Mexican cartels despite significant law enforcement victories. American authorities view the disruption of the Sinaloa Cartel's leadership as crucial to stemming the flow of deadly drugs.
The search for Archivaldo Ivan and Jesus Alfredo comes amid broader efforts to dismantle transnational criminal organizations. Authorities hope the substantial reward money will incentivize those with information to come forward despite the dangers of betraying such violent organizations.
With two sons in custody and two still at large, the legacy of El Chapo continues to impact US-Mexico relations and drug enforcement policies. The Treasury Department's decisive action signals that dismantling the Sinaloa Cartel remains a top priority for American authorities.
The Supreme Court is preparing for a busy June as justices race to deliver opinions on several high-profile cases before their summer recess. With decisions expected on cases ranging from transgender healthcare to religious freedoms in schools, the coming weeks promise significant legal developments that could reshape American policies.
According to CBS Colorado, the high court has already ruled on several notable cases this term, including a 7-2 decision upholding Biden-era regulations on ghost guns and a split 4-4 ruling that blocked the nation's first religious charter school in Oklahoma. But more than two dozen cases remain undecided as the justices prepare for their summer break.
The flurry of upcoming decisions comes amid a steady stream of emergency appeals from the Trump administration seeking relief from lower court rulings that have impeded the implementation of the president's second-term agenda. The court's attention to these matters suggests their summer recess is unlikely to be a quiet one.
The Supreme Court's upcoming ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti represents the first time the justices have waded into the contentious debate over healthcare for transgender youth. The case challenges Tennessee's law prohibiting medical treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender adolescents under 18.
Tennessee is among 25 states that have enacted similar restrictions on gender-affirming care for young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria. During December arguments, the court's conservative majority appeared sympathetic to Tennessee's position, suggesting the ban might be upheld.
The Biden administration, three families, and a physician have argued that Tennessee's ban violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The decision could have far-reaching implications for similar laws across the country and establish a precedent for how states can regulate medical care for transgender youth.
President Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship faces serious legal scrutiny at the Supreme Court. In a rare May argument session, justices considered whether to allow partial enforcement of the policy while challenges proceed through lower courts.
The Justice Department has asked the court to permit implementation against states and individuals not directly involved in the three pending lawsuits. If granted, the administration would still be prevented from enforcing the policy against 22 states, seven individuals, and two immigrants' rights organizations that are parties to the litigation.
The case also raises important questions about nationwide injunctions, which have blocked several Trump administration policies. During arguments, justices appeared divided on whether district court judges should have the authority to issue such broad orders, with several conservative members expressing skepticism about their use.
The Supreme Court appears sympathetic to parents challenging a Maryland school district's policy requiring students to participate in lessons featuring LGBTQ-inclusive content regardless of religious objections. The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, examines whether Montgomery County unconstitutionally burdened parents' First Amendment religious freedom rights.
The dispute began when the school board introduced LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks into its elementary curriculum in 2022. Initially allowing parents to opt their children out, the board reversed course in March 2023, eliminating the exemption option for families with religious objections.
During March arguments, justices seemed inclined to require public schools to provide religious opt-outs for such instruction. The ruling could significantly impact how public schools nationwide balance inclusive education with religious accommodation requirements.
Other major cases awaiting decisions include a Louisiana congressional redistricting dispute that could affect voting rights nationwide, South Carolina's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood's Medicaid participation, and Texas's age-verification requirements for pornographic websites.
The court will also rule on challenges to the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Fund and the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which recommends which preventive care services must be covered by insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act.
With the summer recess approaching, the Supreme Court faces mounting pressure to resolve these consequential cases. The justices' decisions will likely reshape policies affecting healthcare access, religious freedoms, and executive authority in ways that could impact Americans for generations.
President Trump's budget proposal containing steep cuts to the National Park Service has sparked significant pushback from members of his own party. Several key Republican lawmakers have expressed worry about the administration's plan to slash NPS operations by 30 percent and transfer certain park sites to state control.
According to The Hill, the administration has proposed reducing the park service's operations and staffing budgets by nearly a third while also suggesting that some NPS sites be transferred to state management.
The budget plan includes a 19 percent reduction in visitor services, a 39 percent cut to facility operations and maintenance, and a staggering 51 percent decrease in resource stewardship, which covers the protection of unique natural and historical features within the park system.
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who chairs the House appropriations subcommittee responsible for NPS funding, described the administration's proposed cuts as "concerning" and indicated his committee needs more information about how the changes would affect park operations.
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Montana), who represents a state home to Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks, emphasized his position as a "strong supporter" of national parks and his desire to ensure they receive adequate funding. Daines, facing reelection next year, suggested the congressional appropriations process would ultimately "sort all this out."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Interior Department funding, questioned how the cuts align with the administration's stated economic priorities, saying it's "hard to square it with the claims that DOI is focused on fostering the American economy."
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has attempted to reassure lawmakers that the proposed cuts would not eliminate park rangers or wildland firefighters, instead focusing on reducing administrative positions.
Burgum stated his priorities during a recent Senate hearing, emphasizing his desire to maintain frontline park workers while reducing overhead costs. "I want more people in the parks, whether they're driving a snowplow in the wintertime or whether they're working with [an] interpreter in the summertime or they're doing trail work. … I want more of that. I want less overhead," he said.
The Interior Secretary has also clarified that none of the nation's 63 "crown jewel" national parks would be transferred to states. Instead, he indicated that sites under consideration for transfer are primarily "historic sites, cultural sites that … have got low visitation … that might better fit into a state, historic society site or some other designation."
Former NPS employees have warned that the proposed cuts to administrative staff could have serious consequences for park operations, particularly during emergencies like wildfires when displaced workers need immediate assistance with accommodations and other support.
The dramatic 51 percent reduction in resource stewardship funding could directly affect visitor experiences, according to a former park service employee. This funding ensures clean air and water in parks, impacts the safety of activities like swimming and fishing, and supports planning for climate change and other future challenges.
The cuts come as parks are already experiencing staffing shortages. At Yosemite National Park, seasonal hiring delays have reportedly forced scientists, IT workers, and rangers to clean bathrooms, while other parks have had to close visitor facilities.
The Trump administration's proposed cuts to the National Park Service are part of a broader effort to reduce federal spending and create what officials describe as leaner, more efficient agencies.
The National Parks Conservation Association estimates that 13 percent of NPS staff positions are already vacant due to previous administration initiatives like buyouts, early retirement, and deferred resignation programs. Critics warn that additional cuts would only worsen existing operational challenges.
Phil Francis, chair of the Coalition to Protect America's Parks and a 41-year NPS veteran, predicted widespread impacts if the proposed cuts are implemented. "There won't be as many rangers, won't be as many maintenance people. … There will be some closures in picnic areas," he said, adding, "It's a widespread issue that's going to affect every park, I think, in the country. I don't think it will be popular."
Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman, a former White House physician to ex-President Barack Obama, has voiced his concerns regarding neurocognitive evaluations of President Joe Biden, questioning whether proper tests were administered during his time in office.
Despite undergoing thorough physical examinations, Biden's lack of detailed neurocognitive testing has raised concerns about his cognitive health among experts and political figures, including Dr. Kuhlman, as the Daily Mail reports.
Kuhlman, who previously served as the chief medical officer to Obama, expressed his belief that Biden should have been subjected to yearly neurocognitive assessments. Despite his age and the stress associated with the presidency, only physical evaluations were performed, omitting assessments like the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), which Kuhlman deems crucial for elderly leaders.
Dr. Kevin O'Connor, who currently oversees Biden's medical care, also chose not to conduct formal cognitive tests during the duration of his patient's presidency. In June 2024, Biden's debate performance against Donald Trump raised eyebrows, ultimately ending his campaign for re-election and intensifying concerns about his cognitive health.
Amid these developments, the White House defended Biden, asserting that he was "fit for duty." However, Kuhlman’s remarks have prompted further scrutiny of these statements. Notably, White House records revealed that Biden consulted with Dr. Kevin Cannard, a specialist in Parkinson’s disease, in early 2024.
Further doubts emerged when former special counsel Robert Hur decided against recommending charges against Biden over the mishandling of classified documents, citing his failing memory and elderly status. Furthermore, the House Oversight Committee under chair James Comer is actively demanding testimony regarding Biden's cognitive capabilities.
Comer’s initiative has been fueled by suspicion over possible monetary connections between Biden's physician, Dr. O'Connor, and the Biden family, potentially indicating an attempt to veil the president's mental health issues. Meanwhile, former Biden White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre could testify as she continues promoting a book on the prior administration’s challenges.
A recently published book by journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson intensifies claims of a possible cover-up regarding Biden's cognitive deterioration. The release of this book coincided with Biden’s announcement of his prostate cancer diagnosis, which has led to questions about the thoroughness and transparency of his health assessments. Kuhlman criticized the potential omission of certain cancer-related examinations, which might have been considered important for a man of Biden's age and status.
Kuhlman also argued that both Trump and Biden, due to their advanced ages, could benefit from neurocognitive assessments. He said, “Sometimes those closest to the tree miss the forest," implying that those nearest to the president might overlook signs of mental decline that might be evident to external observers. A neurologist, Dr. Tom Pitts, shared similar sentiments, noting that he might have been able to discern cognitive issues from a distance.
Kuhlman further articulated that President Biden should have had annual conversations with his physician, emphasizing the importance of documenting any potential cognitive decline in medical records. He has also expressed dissatisfaction with the decision to withhold PSA testing data from the public.
In an era where the mental and physical health of leaders is under close scrutiny, these revelations regarding Biden's cognitive evaluations have stirred a public debate on the transparency and rigor of medical assessments for high-ranking officials.
The details surrounding President Biden’s health and the decisions made by his medical team continue to foster widespread discussion and concern about the information available to the public. As conversations proceed within political and medical communities, the need for transparent disclosure of health evaluations remains a significant issue, warranting careful consideration and action moving forward.
The importance of thorough cognitive evaluations is now under the spotlight, reigniting discussions about the procedures required to adequately assess and ensure the mental fitness of those serving at the highest level of government.
Robert Choi, a central figure in a controversy that engulfed the Obama administration, has stepped into a prominent position at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the appointment has stirred concerns, as Choi was part of an IRS team accused of heightened scrutiny of Tea Party-affiliated groups a decade ago.
The prior Obama-era IRS scandal erupted when officials were accused of targeting conservative entities applying for tax-exempt status, as the Daily Caller reports, and the ascension of a key player in that probe to powerful role at the agency is sparking worry.
Choi's involvement dates back to when he was the director of the IRS's Tax-Exempt Organizations Rulings and Agreements division from 2007 to 2010. In 2010, the IRS faced accusations of examining applications from groups linked to the Tea Party movement more stringently than others. This alleged misconduct became public three years later under explosive circumstances.
In 2013, then-IRS official Lois Lerner made a shocking admission, acknowledging that applications containing certain conservative terms were being scrutinized. Her disclosure not only validated earlier accusations but also escalated the controversy into a full-blown scandal.
Following the scandal's exposure, Lerner resigned amid intense criticism over her role and the conduct revealed in her emails. Among the revelations was disdain for Republicans, further complicating the IRS's image of impartiality.
During this time, Choi was revealed to have been engaged in email discussions surrounding the processing of Tea Party cases. Yet, later investigations did not result in disciplinary actions against him.
Choi's new role as acting commissioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities division has reignited the debate over biases within the IRS. Though involved in past controversies, no penal measures were taken against Choi, prompting questions about accountability and oversight at the agency.
His appointment comes as Holly Paz, another official linked to the earlier scandal, now leads the IRS's Large Business and International division. Like Choi, Paz faced scrutiny during the investigation and was placed on administrative leave when the scandal broke. Despite this, Paz has since been promoted.
Further complicating the narrative is Choi's political affiliation as a registered Democrat in Maryland. This detail feeds ongoing discussions about the neutrality of IRS actions during and post-scandal.
Neither the IRS nor Robert Choi commented on recent developments. Likewise, the White House has remained silent on the matter, leaving the public and political watchdogs seeking transparency. The current IRS website and a chart dated May 8 confirm Choi's current employment status, amplifying attention on this anticipated lack of commentary.
Critics argue this silence may signal an unwillingness to confront past issues. The appointments of Choi and Paz have prompted calls for systemic reforms within the agency. A recent statement by the American Action Forum emphasized the need to purge any remnants of "long-standing left-wing bias" from the tax-exempt sector of the IRS.
The Trump administration previously faced calls to ensure the organization's impartiality, an ongoing concern given the liberal affiliations of some of the involved personnel.
The ascent of Choi and Paz presents a challenging path for IRS leadership that balances the necessity of effective oversight with demands for impartiality. While past incidents have cast a long and complicated shadow, how the IRS chooses to address potential biases will be pivotal.
Critically, the ability of IRS officials to move forward without the taint of previous accusations will determine the agency's reputation and credibility. With public trust in government institutions at stake, these developments underline a crucial period for transparency and reform.
Future moves by the IRS will likely be analyzed through the lens of these appointments, as they grapple with historic perceptions and contemporary expectations of equity. The unfolding narrative rests not only on past controversies but on future action and integrity.
Demid Khakimov’s name has surfaced in Philadelphia, and it’s not for a good reason. Brian McShane, director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations in Philadelphia, is already speaking out about the arrest.
According to Breitbart, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents took a Russian national into custody on May 23. The man, reportedly 39 years old and originally from Tajikistan, is accused of being involved with Al Qaeda and was previously considered a fugitive.
Federal officials said the arrest took place after a series of events stretching back more than a year. The suspect first entered the United States at the San Ysidro Pedestrian West port of entry in March 2023, where he was detained for lacking the necessary immigrant visa. He was then paroled into the country pending a hearing before an immigration judge but was later declared a fugitive in Tajikistan and flagged for alleged terrorist links.
Officials are emphasizing the significance of the arrest, framing it as part of ongoing efforts to protect national security. Brian McShane issued a statement underscoring the importance of this operation.
“Arresting individuals linked to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda reaffirms our unwavering commitment to safeguard the homeland,” said McShane. “Through close collaboration with our outstanding partners at the FBI, we have taken decisive action to make our communities safer and prevent potential threats to the American people.”
The suspect, whose name has not been publicly released by authorities, is currently in ICE custody. He is expected to remain detained pending removal proceedings from the United States, according to the agency.
Fox News reporter Bill Melugin added another layer to the story, noting that Tajikistan authorities only declared the man a fugitive and suspected Al Qaeda member last month. This development, Melugin suggests, raises questions about how much the Biden administration could have known about the man’s background at the time he entered the country.
Critics are not holding back on their assessment of the situation. Some are pointing directly at the Biden administration’s border policies, arguing that leniency at the border has created vulnerabilities.
Melugin, who has followed the case closely, suggested that the incident “highlights the extreme national security concerns associated with the Biden admin’s open border policies to mass catch and release millions of foreign nationals who arrived at the border during their tenure.” This statement reflects the growing criticism from those who believe that current practices are too permissive and allow dangerous individuals to slip through.
Supporters of stricter immigration enforcement argue that this case is not an isolated incident. They believe it exemplifies the risks associated with admitting foreign nationals without full background checks or adequate vetting. For these critics, the arrest is evidence that the system requires urgent reform to prevent terrorist infiltration.
On the other hand, defenders of the administration insist that ICE’s action in this case demonstrates that federal agencies are capable of identifying and intercepting individuals who pose threats—even after they have entered the U.S. They argue that law enforcement cooperation remains effective and that the system, while not perfect, is responsive when credible threats emerge.
As the story continues to develop, calls for accountability from both sides of the political spectrum are getting louder. Lawmakers and advocacy groups are demanding more transparency about how foreign nationals with alleged terrorist connections can enter and remain in the country.
Some immigration advocates caution against using this isolated incident to push for broad, restrictive changes that could negatively affect legitimate asylum seekers or immigrants. They urge policymakers to distinguish between addressing real security threats and enacting harsh rules that could harm innocent individuals.
Meanwhile, ICE and the FBI are under pressure to provide further details about their collaboration in this arrest. Observers want to know what intelligence led to the most recent detention and how the agencies plan to prevent similar incidents in the future. The public is looking for assurances that national security remains a top priority and that gaps in the system will be addressed.
Discussion about border policy and national security continues to dominate headlines, with this case serving as a flashpoint for the ongoing debate. The arrest’s timing, just as authorities in Tajikistan raised their own concerns, has only fueled calls for a deeper review of current protocols.
Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has ignited a bitter new fight in Washington, sharply escalating rhetoric around immigration enforcement. At a press conference this week, Jeffries made comments that have left critics and supporters alike stunned.
According to Breitbart, Jeffries threatened to reveal the identities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents involved in federal immigration law enforcement. These agents, many working undercover, are tasked with arresting, detaining, and deporting illegal aliens—often those convicted of violent crimes.
Jeffries’ declaration, coming amid rising attacks on ICE agents, sent shockwaves through the law enforcement community and Congress. The remarks have been described by critics as inflammatory and unprecedented, while his supporters argue transparency and accountability are overdue for federal agencies.
During the press conference, Jeffries made it clear that Democrats are determined to unmask ICE agents they accuse of “aggressive overreach.” He asserted that efforts by these agents to conceal their identities from the public would ultimately fail, fueling outrage from law enforcement groups.
Jeffries said, “Every single ICE agent who is engaged in this aggressive overreach and are trying to hide their identities from the American people will be unsuccessful in doing that.” He continued, invoking comparisons to oppressive regimes of the past, stating, “This is America. This is not the Soviet Union. We’re not behind the iron curtain. This is not the 1930s.”
The Democratic leader insisted that identifying ICE agents is a matter of law and transparency. He claimed that revealing their names would hold agents accountable for “crossing the line” in their duties and ensure the American people have the information they need.
Jeffries’ remarks come at a time when ICE agents report a dramatic 413-percent increase in assaults, according to recent Department of Homeland Security figures cited by Breitbart. The surge in violence has raised concerns among rank-and-file agents who already face dangerous situations daily.
Critics of Jeffries’ approach argue that exposing ICE agents’ identities would endanger their safety and compromise ongoing investigations. Many ICE agents work undercover or in sensitive roles targeting dangerous criminal networks. Law enforcement advocates warn that “doxxing” these officials could make them targets for retaliation.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, also a Democrat, drew even sharper criticism recently by labeling ICE as “Trump’s modern Gestapo,” a reference to Adolf Hitler’s secret police. That comparison has been widely condemned by conservatives and police groups as inflammatory and irresponsible.
Conservatives in Congress and law enforcement leaders have blasted Jeffries’ comments as reckless and politically motivated. They argue that ICE agents are simply enforcing the nation’s immigration laws and protecting communities from violent offenders.
Supporters of ICE maintain that transparency should not come at the expense of agent safety or national security. They say publicizing the identities of law enforcement officials who operate in high-risk environments is “crossing a dangerous line” that could have fatal consequences.
Jeffries and his allies, however, argue that unchecked federal power must be scrutinized. They believe that when agents “cross the line,” the public has a right to know who is responsible. Transparency, they say, is essential for holding government accountable—particularly when allegations of misconduct arise.
The controversy over ICE agent identities highlights deep divisions in American politics over immigration and law enforcement. While Democrats push for more openness and reforms, Republicans warn of the dangers of demonizing federal officers.
Jeffries’ remarks have fueled debates over the boundaries of accountability, privacy, and the limits of political rhetoric. As assaults on ICE personnel rise, the stakes are growing for both agents in the field and politicians in Washington.
Law enforcement unions and conservative lawmakers promise to fight any effort to “doxx” ICE personnel. They say such actions would undermine morale, chill recruitment, and force agents to choose between their safety and their jobs.
Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni are once again at the center of headline-making drama, but this time, it’s the courtroom—not the movie set—fueling the fire. These two Hollywood figures, known for their roles in the upcoming film "It Ends With Us," are now locked in a bitter legal fight that has the entertainment world watching closely.
According to Fox News, Lively has withdrawn her emotional distress claims against Baldoni after his legal team requested her therapy records. The move comes as part of an increasingly tense legal battle that has seen lawsuits, countersuits, and escalating public statements from both camps.
Lively’s decision to drop the emotional distress claims, at least for now, raises new questions about the direction of her lawsuit, which still contains multiple other serious allegations. Meanwhile, Baldoni’s team accuses Lively of trying to avoid transparency, while Lively’s lawyers insist the withdrawal is a routine legal maneuver, not an admission or retreat.
The conflict began when Blake Lively filed a lawsuit against Justin Baldoni and producer Jamey Heath, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and emotional distress. Her complaint, first brought before the California Civil Rights Department and then in federal court last December, quickly made waves in the entertainment industry.
Shortly after, Baldoni and his team responded aggressively—not just denying the allegations but filing a staggering $400 million lawsuit against Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds. Baldoni accuses the couple of civil extortion and defamation, ratcheting up the stakes in a case already thick with Hollywood intrigue.
On Monday, the drama took another turn. Baldoni’s lawyers demanded access to Lively’s therapy notes and identification of her mental health providers to challenge her emotional distress claims. Instead of complying, Lively’s counsel informed the court that she would withdraw those specific claims, but only "without prejudice," meaning she could re-file them later.
Baldoni’s team immediately pushed back against Lively’s decision to withdraw without prejudice, arguing that she wanted to sidestep providing evidence while keeping the option to revive her claims at a more opportune moment. In their court filing, Baldoni’s lawyers said:
Instead of complying with the Medical RFPs, Ms. Lively’s counsel recently advised us, in writing, that Ms. Lively is withdrawing her [infliction of emotional distress] Claims. However, Ms. Lively has refused the Wayfarer Parties’ reasonable request that the withdrawal of such claims be with prejudice. She is only willing to withdraw her claims without prejudice.
Lively’s lawyers, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, swiftly dismissed the accusations as nothing more than legal theatrics intended for the tabloids. They insisted that their client’s legal strategy is standard procedure and that Baldoni and his team are simply trying to score points in the court of public opinion.
"Once again this is a routine part of the litigation process that is being used as a press stunt. We are doing what trial lawyers do: preparing our case for trial by streamlining and focusing it; they are doing what they do: desperately seeking another tired round of tabloid coverage," they stated.
Despite the withdrawn claims, Lively’s lawsuit continues. She is still pursuing allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, and other damages, which she and her legal team argue are more than sufficient to prove her case. According to Lively’s lawyers, Baldoni’s supposed "retaliatory" lawsuits have only opened him up to even greater legal risk.
"The Baldoni-Wayfarer strategy of filing retaliatory claims has exposed them to expansive new damages claims under California law, rendering certain of Ms. Lively’s original claims no longer necessary," her lawyers said. They maintain that Lively still "continues to allege emotional distress, as part of numerous other claims in her lawsuit, such as sexual harassment and retaliation, and massive additional compensatory damages on all of her claims."
Meanwhile, Baldoni’s camp has taken their defense to the public. In addition to releasing a timeline of their own and unedited footage from the set of "It Ends With Us," they argue that the evidence supports their side of the story. Both parties claim that the footage bolsters their respective cases, further muddying the waters for any outside observer.
The high-profile legal confrontation has also seen both sides attempt to control the media narrative. Following Baldoni’s release of footage and public statements, Lively’s team demanded a gag order on Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman. Baldoni’s legal team fired back, calling the request "an intimidation tactic" and "tactical gamesmanship."
A judge ultimately ordered both parties to follow the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, effectively restricting their ability to speak to the press and escalating the public feud. Despite this, public interest in the case continues to grow, fueled by each new revelation and legal maneuver.
Lively has spoken publicly about the toll the past year has taken on her, telling Seth Meyers that she’s experienced both the "highest highs" and "lowest lows" of her life as she fights her legal battle. She used her platform to highlight the challenges women face when speaking out, saying, "fear is by design, it's what keeps us silent," and crediting other women for giving her the strength to continue.