Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives have secured a narrow victory on legislation that would rescind $9.4 billion in federal spending, including significant cuts to public broadcasting. The contentious bill codifies actions previously taken by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

According to a New York Post report, the bill passed by a razor-thin margin of 214-212 on Thursday, with four Republicans breaking ranks to vote with Democrats against the measure. The legislation targets approximately $8.3 billion previously allocated to the US Agency for International Development and $1.1 billion to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund NPR and PBS.

The rescissions package now heads to the Senate, where it will need only a simple majority to advance to President Trump's desk for signature. This rare congressional maneuver allows lawmakers to cancel funding that had been previously appropriated for fiscal year 2025.

Republican Leadership Celebrates

House Speaker Mike Johnson praised the Department of Government Efficiency for its work identifying potential cuts, framing the legislation as necessary fiscal discipline. The Louisiana Republican has positioned the bill as fulfilling GOP promises to formalize DOGE initiatives into law.

"I want to thank DOGE for their heroic and patriotic efforts," Johnson told reporters after the vote. "What we're trying to do is ensure that every dollar spent by the federal government is used efficiently and effectively."

The bill comes amid pressure from fiscal conservatives to address government spending, though the $9.4 billion represents only a fraction of the federal budget. President Trump had previously described the measure as a "no-brainer" and urged all House Republicans to support it.

Democrats Defend Public Broadcasting

House Democrats mounted a passionate defense of public broadcasting, with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries dramatically brandishing an Elmo doll during floor debate. The New York Democrat characterized the legislation as harmful to educational programming for children.

"It actually represents an attack on children. This is extraordinary to me," Jeffries said during the debate. "We're on the floor of the House of Representatives, not debating legislation that is designed to make this country and our economy more affordable, but actually debating legislation that targets Elmo and Big Bird and Daniel Tiger and Sesame Street."

The four Republicans who voted against the bill were Representatives Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York, and Mike Turner of Ohio. Two other Republicans initially voted no but switched their votes under pressure from party leadership.

Targeted Programs Revealed

The rescissions package targets what Republicans describe as wasteful spending, including $3 million for an Iraqi version of "Sesame Street," $6 million for constructing "Net Zero Cities" in Mexico, and $2 million for educating children on environmentally friendly reproductive decisions.

A White House budget memo reported in April accused the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of having a "lengthy history of anti-conservative bias." The document, drafted by White House budget director Russ Vought, specifically cited NPR CEO Katherine Maher's past criticism of Trump as a "fascist" and "deranged racist" – statements Maher told Congress last month she now regrets.

The bill represents the first major legislative victory for DOGE, which was established to identify inefficiencies in government spending. Tech billionaire Elon Musk had previously criticized Congress for failing to codify DOGE recommendations, prompting Republican leadership to accelerate legislative action.

Budget Battle Continues

The House vote sends the bill to the Senate with a 45-day timeline for action under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Unlike previous administrations, the Trump White House has embraced the rarely-used rescissions tool to cancel already-appropriated funding.

Trump had attempted only one rescissions package during his first term, totaling about $14.7 billion, which failed in the Senate by a 50-48 vote. Former Presidents Biden, Obama, and Bush all declined to pursue such measures, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The effort represents just one front in the ongoing fiscal battle in Washington. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act features $1.25 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, though the Congressional Budget Office estimates it would add $3 trillion to the deficit during that same period.

President Donald Trump revealed he had prior knowledge of Israel's preemptive military strikes against Iran before they were executed. The military operation targeted Iranian nuclear facilities and killed several top Iranian military commanders, raising tensions in the Middle East.

According to Fox News, Trump told the network's chief political anchor Bret Baier that he was aware of Israel's planned strikes on Iran beforehand, stating there were "no surprises" when the operation unfolded. The president has maintained frequent communication with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent days.

During his conversation with Baier, Trump emphasized his position on Iran's nuclear ambitions, declaring, "Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, and we are hoping to get back to the negotiating table. We will see. There are several people in leadership in Iran that will not be coming back."

Key Iranian leaders eliminated

The Israeli military operation resulted in significant casualties among Iran's military leadership. Three of Iran's top military commanders were killed during the precision strikes that targeted military installations across the country.

Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Hossein Salami was among those killed, along with Chief of the Iranian Armed Forces Mohammad Hossein Bagheri and Commander of Iran's Emergency Command Gholam-Ali Rashid. These losses represent a major blow to Iran's military command structure.

The Trump administration reportedly reached out to at least one key Middle Eastern ally to inform them that the strike would occur while clarifying that the United States was not directly involved in the operation. This communication strategy appears designed to maintain diplomatic channels while supporting Israel's security objectives.

Massive Israeli operation unleashed

Israeli forces deployed approximately 200 fighter jets in the coordinated assault on Iran. The operation targeted and destroyed dozens of radar installations and surface-to-air missile launchers, significantly degrading Iran's air defense capabilities.

Several nuclear facilities were also struck during the operation, though specific details about damage to Iran's nuclear program remain unclear. The scale of the assault represents one of the largest Israeli military operations against Iran in recent history.

Iran responded by launching approximately 100 drones toward Israel hours after the initial strikes. Israeli defense forces indicated they were working to intercept these retaliatory attacks, highlighting the continued risk of escalation between the two nations.

US diplomatic efforts disrupted

The military strikes have complicated ongoing diplomatic initiatives between the United States and Iran. U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and his team had scheduled negotiations with Iranian counterparts in Oman for Sunday, but Iran has now signaled its intention to withdraw from these talks.

President Trump expressed hope that Iran would return to negotiations despite the recent hostilities. His administration has been attempting to forge a diplomatic solution to tensions with Iran while simultaneously preparing for potential military contingencies.

In recent weeks, the United States has replenished Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system, underscoring American commitment to Israeli security. Trump noted that U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) remains on high alert for any further escalation in the region.

Monitoring for escalation risks

President Trump stated that he is closely watching for any retaliatory actions from Iran following the Israeli strikes. He affirmed that the United States stands ready to defend both itself and Israel should Iran launch additional attacks.

The president is scheduled to attend a National Security Council meeting on Friday morning to assess the situation and determine appropriate responses to the evolving crisis. This meeting will likely evaluate intelligence regarding Iran's military capabilities and intentions.

The strikes and subsequent drone attacks highlight the volatile nature of Middle East security dynamics. With key Iranian military leaders eliminated and nuclear facilities damaged, the potential for further escalation remains a significant concern for U.S. policymakers and regional allies.

A once-celebrated mall fashion brand is dramatically scaling back its physical presence. Plus-size retailer Torrid has announced plans to shutter nearly 200 locations nationwide following disappointing sales figures in an increasingly challenging retail environment.

According to Daily Mail, Torrid will close approximately 180 stores after experiencing a 4.9 percent decrease in net sales. The closures represent nearly a third of the company's current 658 locations, bringing their total store count down to around 450.

CEO Lisa Harper framed the decision as part of a strategic pivot toward e-commerce, noting that 70 percent of Torrid's customers already shop online. The company aims to eventually generate 75 percent of its sales through digital channels, with physical stores accounting for just 25 percent.

Celebrity partnerships couldn't prevent decline

Torrid, founded in 2001, built its reputation as a pioneer in the plus-size fashion market with high-profile collaborations and fashion industry milestones. The brand partnered with celebrities, including Rebel Wilson, who launched the "Rebel for Torrid" collection in 2015.

The retailer made history in 2014 when it featured Georgina Burke as its first official face, further cementing its status in the fashion world. Three years later, Torrid broke new ground again by becoming the first plus-size label to present at New York Fashion Week.

Despite these achievements and collaborations with designers like Betsey Johnson and models like Tara Lynn, the company has struggled to maintain sales growth in recent years. Retail expert Neil Saunders told Daily Mail that Torrid's declining sales have put "store productivity under pressure," ultimately damaging profitability.

Employees blindsided by closure announcements

The store closure announcement has reportedly left many Torrid employees feeling shocked and betrayed. Some staff members claim they first learned about the closures from customers who asked questions after seeing news reports.

One employee expressed frustration on Instagram, writing: "When customers started asking me during my shift if our location was the one closing, I had nothing to say... because I didn't know either. I was completely in the dark and had to go online to see what they were talking about."

Another employee described the situation as "confusing, disheartening, and honestly just sad," adding: "We're the ones holding the stores together, and yet we're the last to know? It shouldn't be like this." The company has not yet released a complete list of which locations will be shuttered.

Part of broader retail apocalypse

Torrid's downsizing comes amid what many industry observers have labeled a "retail apocalypse" affecting brick-and-mortar stores across the United States. The trend has accelerated dramatically over the past year, with retailers closing approximately 7,300 stores through mid-December 2024—nearly 60 percent more than in 2023.

Department store giant Macy's is currently in the process of closing 150 underperforming locations, including its Center City, Philadelphia store. Several other well-known retailers have filed for bankruptcy protection, including Forever 21 and pharmacy chain Rite Aid, which entered its second bankruptcy in two years.

Home improvement and decor retailers have been particularly hard hit. Bed Bath & Beyond, Christmas Tree Shops, Bargain Hunt, Conn's, and LL Flooring all announced bankruptcies and store closures, though The Container Store and LL Flooring have since emerged from bankruptcy proceedings.

Digital transformation strategy

Retail analyst Neil Saunders believes Torrid's store closures represent a sensible strategy that will free up capital for marketing and product development. The company will also invest in remaining stores that show growth potential.

Beyond store closures, Torrid has made other operational changes, including discontinuing its shoe line. The company cited rising costs from tariffs imposed under President Trump as the reason for this decision.

Harper's strategy appears focused on adapting to changing consumer habits rather than simply cutting costs. With most Torrid customers already shopping online, the company aims to strengthen its digital presence while maintaining a more targeted physical footprint.

 

President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of hundreds of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles as anti-immigration riots continue to intensify across the city. The decision comes after days of violent protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

According to Breitbart, approximately 700 Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Division will "seamlessly integrate with the Title 10 forces under Task Force 51" to protect federal personnel and property in Los Angeles. This military reinforcement follows Trump's earlier decision to federalize 2,000 California National Guard members over the weekend.

The troops are being dispatched from the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Camp Pendleton, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirming the deployment on social media. Officials emphasized that while the Marines will protect federal buildings and personnel, they are not expected to directly engage with protesters.

Violent demonstrations spread

Rioters have intensified their actions across Los Angeles, with social media footage showing protesters throwing rocks at law enforcement officers and Border Patrol vehicles. The unrest has escalated to include looting businesses, burning vehicles and American flags, and shooting fireworks at mounted police officers.

Multiple news outlets have confirmed the deployment figures, with the Wall Street Journal initially reporting "roughly 500" Marines would be sent, while CNN and Reuters later cited figures closer to 700 troops. A U.S. Northern Command press release detailed that these forces would augment existing federal personnel protecting government property.

Though Trump federalized 2,000 National Guard members, reports indicate only about 300 have been deployed to Los Angeles streets so far. One source explained to CNN that the initial guardsmen were already on a routine drill weekend when mobilized, allowing for their quick deployment, while additional troops typically require up to 72 hours to mobilize.

Democratic leaders condemn federal response

California's Democratic leadership has strongly criticized Trump's decision to deploy federal forces, with Governor Gavin Newsom announcing legal action against the administration. The governor has characterized the president's actions as "purposefully inflammatory" and is suing the Trump administration for what he calls illegally federalizing the National Guard.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris issued a statement Sunday condemning the National Guard deployment as a "dangerous escalation" of the situation. Her statement reflects growing tension between Democratic leaders and the Trump administration over the appropriate response to the civil unrest.

Both Harris and Newsom have suggested that the federal intervention is politically motivated rather than a necessary public safety measure. Their opposition highlights the partisan divide over immigration enforcement that has intensified during Trump's presidency.

Protests gain momentum

The anti-ICE demonstrations have begun spreading beyond Los Angeles, with reports indicating similar protests emerging in Texas and San Francisco. The Department of Homeland Security has responded by highlighting criminal records of individuals arrested during recent immigration operations in Los Angeles.

Protesters have been seen waving foreign flags during demonstrations, a detail that has drawn particular attention from conservative media outlets covering the unrest. The imagery has become a focal point in discussions about the nature of the protests and their underlying motivations.

Several prominent celebrities have spoken out regarding the situation, with actors John Cusack and Mark Ruffalo reportedly denouncing the ICE raids and urging people to "resist at all costs." Meanwhile, leftist groups in Florida have reportedly pledged to organize street demonstrations "in solidarity with L.A."

Federal forces converge on Los Angeles

President Trump's decision to deploy Marines represents a significant escalation in the federal response to the civil unrest gripping Los Angeles. The approximately 700 Marines from Camp Pendleton will join National Guard forces already on the ground in what appears to be a growing federal presence.

Defense officials have emphasized that the Marines' role will be limited to protecting federal buildings and personnel rather than engaging directly with protesters. This deployment comes as part of a broader federal strategy that began with Trump's weekend memorandum federalizing thousands of National Guard troops.

Secretary Hegseth cited "increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings" as the primary justification for the Marine deployment. As tensions between protesters and authorities continue to rise, both state and federal officials remain at odds over the appropriate response to what has become one of the most significant civil disturbances of Trump's presidency.

President Donald Trump left UFC star Kayla Harrison visibly shocked when he greeted her victory celebration with a kiss on the cheek following her championship win at UFC 316. The intimate gesture came after Harrison exited the octagon to interact with the president, who was sitting cage-side.

According to a Daily Mail report, Harrison had just defeated Julianna Pena to claim her first UFC world title when she approached Trump, who was attending the event with his daughter, Ivanka Trump, and other family members.

The surprisingly personal interaction didn't stop at a kiss. Trump pulled the 34-year-old fighter in for a hug and placed his left hand on her exposed stomach during a photo opportunity. Harrison later draped her new championship belt over the president's shoulder as the pair pointed at each other to elicit cheers from the New Jersey crowd.

Olympic Champion's UFC Success

Harrison brings an impressive athletic pedigree to her MMA career. The two-time Olympic gold medalist represented the United States in judo, winning top honors in both the 2012 and 2016 Olympic Games before transitioning to mixed martial arts.

Her fighting career has been nothing short of remarkable. With 19 victories in 20 professional MMA bouts, Harrison has quickly established herself as a dominant force. Despite only making her UFC debut in April 2024, she has maintained an undefeated record within the promotion and rapidly climbed the rankings.

Saturday's championship victory over Julianna Pena at UFC 316 represented a significant milestone for Harrison. The submission win marked her third fight with the UFC and earned her first world title with the promotion, cementing her status as one of the organization's premier athletes.

Trump's UFC Appearances Continue

The president's attendance at UFC 316 represents the continuation of his close relationship with the mixed martial arts promotion. Trump was greeted with applause from fans upon his arrival at the New Jersey venue.

Before taking his seat near the cage, Trump stopped to shake hands with podcasters and former Tennessee Titans teammates Will Compton and Taylor Lewan. The presidential entourage included Trump's son Eric, son-in-law Jared Kushner, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with whom Trump shared a fist bump for nearby cameras.

Trump's previous UFC appearance came in April when he attended an event in Miami alongside billionaire Elon Musk. However, their relationship has reportedly deteriorated since then, with Trump recently warning that Musk would face "very serious consequences" if he began supporting Democratic candidates after a disagreement over Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill."

Celebrity Entourage Ringside

Ivanka Trump made a striking appearance at the event, wearing a long white dress as she joined her father for the evening of UFC action. The president's daughter was part of a high-profile group watching the fights from premium seats.

The presidential family members weren't the only notable figures in attendance. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was spotted alongside Trump, with cameras capturing the two sharing a fist bump during the event. Other family members, including Eric Trump and Jared Kushner, rounded out the president's entourage.

UFC fans and fighters alike showed enthusiasm for Trump's presence. Kevin Holland, who won his welterweight bout against Vicente Luque by submission, celebrated his victory by giving the president a high five, demonstrating the warm reception Trump typically receives at UFC events.

Presidential UFC Connection

President Donald Trump's appearance at UFC 316 highlighted his ongoing relationship with the mixed martial arts promotion. The 78-year-old commander-in-chief was treated to an impressive performance by Harrison, who defeated Julianna Pena to claim her first UFC championship.

The victory celebration took an unexpected turn when Harrison approached Trump after exiting the octagon. Rather than receiving a standard handshake, the fighter was pulled in for a hug and a kiss on the cheek, creating a moment that left Harrison visibly surprised.

Their interaction continued with a photo opportunity that saw Trump placing his arm around Harrison and his hand on her stomach, followed by Harrison draping her newly won championship belt over the president's shoulder as they acknowledged the cheering crowd together.

Elon Musk has voiced his opposition to the escalating pro-migration riots in Los Angeles, California, describing the situation as "not ok" as protesters wave foreign flags and clash with law enforcement. The billionaire entrepreneur's comments come amid growing tensions following immigration raids conducted by federal officials.

According to Breitbart, Musk shared screenshots of social media posts from President Donald Trump, who called on California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to apologize for their handling of the violent demonstrations. Trump accused the Democratic officials of doing an "absolutely horrible job" in quelling the unrest.

The tech mogul also reposted content from Vice President JD Vance, which referenced Trump's announcement directing the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and Attorney General Pam Bondi to "take all such action necessary to liberate Los Angeles" as the situation deteriorates.

Musk's shifting political stance

Musk's apparent support for the Trump administration's response to the riots marks a notable shift in his public positioning. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO had previously engaged in a highly publicized feud with President Trump, stemming from disagreements over legislation.

Their conflict centered around Musk's strong opposition to what he termed a "pork-filled" and "disgusting abomination" piece of legislation known as the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill." During the height of their dispute, Musk went as far as threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft.

The billionaire's criticism of Trump had escalated to serious allegations, including claims that Trump was "in the Epstein files" and even calls for the president's impeachment. This context makes Musk's current alignment with the administration's approach to the Los Angeles riots particularly noteworthy.

Federal response intensifies

Trump signed a presidential memorandum on Saturday deploying 2,000 National Guard troops to address the violence in Los Angeles. The decision represents a significant escalation in the federal response to the civil unrest.

Social media has been flooded with images and videos documenting protesters setting fire to California Highway Patrol vehicles, throwing rocks at Border Patrol units, and defacing federal buildings. The demonstrations have grown increasingly destructive as they continue to spread throughout parts of the city.

The riots erupted following immigration enforcement actions, with more than 40 people arrested on Friday as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents conducted raids and served search warrants. Federal authorities have indicated that many of those detained include individuals with serious criminal backgrounds.

Law enforcement warning

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino issued a stern warning to potential rioters, stating that federal law enforcement would be actively investigating any assaults on federal officers amid the ongoing unrest.

"If you choose violence," Bongino warned, the FBI would be "investigating and pursuing all available leads for assault on a federal officer, in addition to the many arrests already made." The statement signals a tough stance from federal authorities as they attempt to restore order.

Meanwhile, Democratic officials in California have taken a different approach. Governor Newsom has reportedly challenged Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Tom Homan to arrest him for opposing the raids, while Mayor Bass suggested that "if immigration raids had not happened here, we would not have the disorder."

Ongoing immigration tensions

The violent demonstrations in Los Angeles represent the latest flashpoint in America's contentious immigration debate, with federal enforcement actions triggering significant backlash from pro-migration activists and some local officials.

President Trump's decision to federalize National Guard troops and threat to deploy Marines indicates the administration's determination to assert federal authority in response to the riots. The president characterized his actions as necessary to "liberate" Los Angeles, language that has intensified the political divisions surrounding the crisis.

These events unfold as Musk appears to be repositioning himself after his previous criticism of Trump. The billionaire's father reportedly characterized his son's earlier "betrayal" of Trump as a "mistake," suggesting family pressure may be influencing Musk's current stance.

In a decisive move, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles on Saturday, and the deployment came as a reaction to riots sparked by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the city, leading to a clash between local and federal authorities over the response, as the Daily Caller reports.

The unrest began following an ICE raid conducted at a Home Depot in Los Angeles County, escalating tensions in the area. This incident, highlighted in a report by Fox News, quickly spiraled into widespread riots. As the situation deteriorated, the White House issued a statement denouncing the chaos and emphasized its zero-tolerance stance toward the violence directed at law enforcement officers.

On Saturday night, Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum authorizing the military deployment. This decision aimed to curb the disturbances ignited by actions the federal government considered essential for combating illegal immigration. Trump directed strong words at state officials, demanding action and expressing frustration over perceived inaction by California's leaders.

Federal, local leaders clash

The conflict between the Trump administration and California's Democrat officials surfaced prominently with comments on various platforms. Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles publicly criticized the ICE operations, expressing concerns that such tactics instill fear within her city's immigrant communities. Similarly, Gov. Gavin Newsom voiced his opposition to the National Guard deployment, suggesting that the move could exacerbate tensions rather than calm them.

Newsom's opposition was part of a larger pattern of disagreement with the federal government's approach. Unyielding, President Trump used social media to chastise Newsom and Bass, suggesting federal intervention was inevitable if they could not manage the situation themselves.

Amid these criticisms, the Department of Homeland Security and other federal officials defended their position. They insisted that the operations were critical to national security and emphasized that the recent violence against law enforcement could not be tolerated.

Democrats decry federal intervention

Assistant secretary of Homeland Security for public affairs, Tricia McLaughlin, vocally condemned the violence targeting ICE and federal agents. She placed partial blame on Democrat leaders, alleging that their negative portrayal of ICE contributed to the volatile environment. McLaughlin stressed the need for state and local leaders to prompt an end to the aggressive actions of rioters.

In contrast, Trump’s statement on Truth Social underscored his administration's stern position regarding the unrest. The president's remarks implied skepticism toward the ability of Los Angeles and California’s leadership to handle such incidents effectively. The federal stance was articulated further by border czar Tom Homan, who supported ICE's initiatives during a televised appearance.

Homan argued that the backlash against ICE stemmed from false narratives about their mission and that their operations were essential for public safety. He maintained that these efforts were not an overreach but necessary measures to manage immigration-related concerns along the southern border.

Historical context of Trump stance

Trump's first term in office marked a significant policy shift with his issuance of executive orders focused on immigration. These included radical measures that labeled certain gangs and cartels as foreign terrorist entities, reflecting a broader agenda aimed at tightening border security.

In this context, Trump's deployment of the National Guard was consistent with his administration’s overarching policies that aim to curtail illegal immigration through strict enforcement strategies. The latest step was presented as a continuation of this strategy, albeit one greeted by sharp division among state and federal entities.

The ongoing tension between federal directives and state responses highlighted a profound divide on how best to address complex immigration challenges without creating further instability. As the situation develops, it remains unclear how the conflicting approaches will be reconciled to restore order in Los Angeles and beyond.

Ultimately, the immediate focus remains on quelling the violence and riots incited by the recent ICE operation. Moving forward, the discourse between federal and state leadership will play a crucial role in determining the outcome of this ongoing conflict. Whether collaboration or continued discord will dominate remains a pressing concern for policymakers and citizens alike.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed two significant legislative bills targeting sanctuary cities amid a blend of partisan and bipartisan activity.

In closely watched deliberations, the House managed to advance two new measures, garnering some support from Democrats for the effort aimed at reshaping policy on sanctuary cities, as Fox News reports.

On Thursday, the House passed the first bill by a margin of 211 to 199. This legislation mandates the shift of Small Business Administration (SBA) offices from areas designated as sanctuary jurisdictions. Sanctuary cities, known for policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, have faced criticism from Republican quarters. Five Democrats, despite their party's leadership urging opposition, joined the GOP in supporting this relocation measure.

The five Democrats were Reps. Henry Cuellar, Laura Gillen, Don Davis, Jared Golden, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. Their support lent a bipartisan sheen to the passage of the bill amid noticeable internal conflict within the Democratic Party. The leadership had firmly directed their members against supporting this initiative, yet the vote underscores varying individual positions on the issue.

Second bill targets SBA loans

The House passed a second bill the following Friday morning. This legislation prohibits illegal immigrants from accessing loans through the SBA, and it garnered slightly broader bipartisan support, with eight Democrats in favor. This significant addition to financial policy was aimed at curtailing any federal economic benefits to unauthorized immigrants.

The Democrats supporting the second measure included Cuellar, Gillen, and Davis, along with Tom Suozzi, Josh Harder, Marcy Kaptur, and Kristen McDonald Rivet. Notably, there was no clear directive from the Democratic leadership regarding how lawmakers should vote on this particular bill, representing a perhaps telling lapse in party cohesion.

Republican reactions have been broadly positive. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer praised the efforts, stating, "House Republicans are holding these cities accountable for their refusal to follow immigration law and protect their citizens." This sentiment reflects a concerted push from the GOP to secure what they perceive as adherence to strict immigration enforcement.

Bipartisan support, controversy emerge

The passage of these bills occurs within the broader political context of the Trump administration's hardline stance on immigration. This administration asserted its commitment to ending illegal immigration. Support from both Democrats and Republicans signaled alignment with this overarching agenda, at least regarding sanctuary city policies.

Another figure voicing support was Kelly Loeffler, administrator of the SBA. In alignment with the legislative move to relocate SBA offices, she remarked on the intention to shift federal resources "into safer, more accessible communities that comply with federal law." Her comments echo the core arguments behind the legislation: upholding the law and safeguarding American citizens.

Rep. Brad Finstad introduced the first bill focusing on the SBA office relocation. While Rep. Beth Van Duyne introduced the follow-up measure dealing with SBA loan accessibility. The legislative duo underscores their motto, encasing multi-faceted policy approaches to ensure that sanctuary city policies align with broader federal immigration laws.

Varied reactions, future implications

The passage of these bills remains contentious within political debates, echoing concerns and accolades. Emmer castigated sanctuary cities for allegedly prioritizing illegal aliens, underscoring the philosophical divide driving forward such legislation.

Meanwhile, supporting Democrats seems to represent a nuanced viewpoint, balancing district concerns and broader national policy considerations. This dynamic unveils the varying dimensions of partisanship, encouraging a more bipartisan consideration beyond simple party lines.

Strong sentiments prevail in reinforcing federal control in immigration matters, with these bills emphasizing what proponents consider integrity and prioritizing American resources for citizens.

Broader impact awaited

These legislative developments mark a potential shift, setting the stage for possible changes in how federal infrastructure interacts with sanctuary cities. By attempting to push economic and logistical resources away from these jurisdictions, the legislation could tangibly pressure cities maintaining sanctuary policies.

The bipartisan vote on these issues is a clear sign of nuanced political landscapes where party lines are sometimes crossed. As these bills progress legally, their long-term efficacy in adjusting sanctuary city strategies will be closely monitored. Regardless, these measures reflect a compelling intersection of immigration enforcement, local governance, and federal oversight, pledging to impact several dimensions of American policy formulation.

Senator Chuck Grassley has raised serious concerns that former FBI Director Christopher Wray misled Congress about the extent of a controversial memo targeting "radical traditionalist Catholics." According to Just the News, this may represent part of a broader pattern of Biden administration officials obstructing congressional oversight.

The Iowa Republican's recent letter to current FBI Director Kash Patel reveals that, contrary to Wray's 2023 congressional testimony describing the memo as "a single product by a single field office," newly released documents show the memo was widely distributed throughout the bureau and followed by at least 13 additional documents using similar terminology.

FBI documents indicate the Richmond Field Office memo was accessed by nearly 20 intelligence analysts from 13 different field offices and distributed to more than 1,000 FBI personnel in February 2023, raising questions about whether traditional Catholic groups were placed under wider suspicion than previously acknowledged.

Wray testimony under scrutiny

Grassley directly challenged Wray's previous statements to Congress in his letter to Director Patel, suggesting the former director may have been deliberately deceptive about the scope and distribution of the controversial memo.

"The FBI under Director Wray obstructed my investigation by not providing these answers for many months," Grassley wrote. "Congress needs to know who participated in this obstruction and why the FBI obstructed an inquiry into a memo it had already repudiated."

While the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz ultimately cleared the bureau of malicious intent, his investigation found the memo "lacked sufficient evidence" and "evinced errors in professional judgment" in linking traditional Roman Catholicism with violent extremism.

Pattern of Biden administration obstruction

The FBI memo controversy represents just one example of what congressional Republicans characterize as a pattern of Biden administration officials providing misleading testimony or obstructing legitimate congressional inquiries.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas faced allegations of perjury after telling Congress the border was secure from illegal aliens with terrorist ties, despite reports the FBI was "struggling to locate more than 12 migrants" smuggled into the country by an ISIS-tied smuggler.

House Republicans attempted to impeach Mayorkas with charges alleging he willfully failed to comply with federal immigration law and "breached the public trust" over his statements to Congress, though Senate Democrats successfully dismissed the articles without a trial.

Autopen controversy raises constitutional questions

House Republicans are now investigating the Biden administration's use of an autopen to sign official documents, including pardons, raising questions about who was actually making presidential decisions.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer announced his committee would gather testimony from former senior Biden advisors, including Michael Donilon, Anita Dunn, Ron Klain, Bruce Reed, and Steve Ricchetti, to determine "President Biden's cognitive state and who was calling the shots."

President Trump has also ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether individuals "conspired to deceive the public about Biden's mental state and unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the President."

Congressional accountability efforts intensify

Despite these various oversight efforts, Republicans have faced challenges in holding Biden administration officials legally accountable for alleged misrepresentations to Congress.

The House failed to hold former Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt after he refused to produce audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur's interview with President Biden that had been subpoenaed by congressional committees.

Biden pushed back against the autopen investigation on Wednesday, stating: "Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false."

A rising social media star’s career just came to a shocking halt. Guava Shuishui, who gained fame online for her unconventional beauty product reviews, is making headlines for reasons nobody expected.

As reported by Daily Mail, Guava Shuishui, a Taiwanese beauty influencer known for eating makeup products during her videos, died last week at just 24 after a “sudden illness.” Her family made the announcement on her Instagram account.

Followers of Guava Shuishui, also known as Guava Beauty, were familiar with her unique approach to beauty content—she would not only test makeup products but also taste them, sometimes consuming entire items in front of the camera. Her death has sparked heated debate over the risks and ethics of content creation in the age of social media.

Mukbang trend pushes boundaries

Guava Shuishui’s videos were part of the “mukbang” trend, a genre where online creators record themselves eating large quantities of food, or in her case, non-food items like lipstick and face masks. Her willingness to eat makeup products, blush, and even cotton pads drew thousands of followers and curious viewers.

Critics raised concerns as her popularity soared. Many are worried about the potential toxicity of cosmetics when ingested, especially by impressionable young fans. Some of her most viral videos included warnings stating that her content was not suitable for children under six. Still, critics and concerned viewers regularly urged her to stop, warning she was setting a dangerous example.

In one late 2024 video that gained particular attention, Guava Shuishui used a fork to scoop out and eat an entire jelly blush product. Fans flooded the comments section, expressing fears about the consequences of such stunts.

Fans and family react

News of Shuishui’s death hit her community hard. Her family shared a statement on her social media account, expressing gratitude for the support she received throughout her career. They described her as hard-working, serious, and shining even in difficult moments and thanked everyone who had supported and interacted with her online.

Many followers left messages of love and concern, reminiscing about her dedication to her craft. Her final post, published on May 24, signaled an abrupt end to her online presence: “Logging out from the world. Setting off on a new journey. All business collaborations are suspended.”

Her pinned videos continued to receive attention even after her passing, with commenters debating whether such risky content should ever have been allowed on social platforms.

Debate grows over influencer responsibility

Guava Shuishui’s death has reignited debates about the responsibilities of online influencers. Critics argue that creators who push boundaries for views and attention can unintentionally encourage risky, unhealthy, or outright dangerous behaviors. Some experts warn that normalizing the ingestion of non-food items, especially in the name of entertainment, poses significant health and ethical risks.

Supporters of content regulation point to Shuishui’s case as a clear example of social media’s darker side. They believe platforms should do more to enforce age restrictions and content warnings, particularly in genres like mukbang, which have become increasingly extreme in recent years.

Yet others defend the freedom of online creators, stressing the importance of personal choice and warning against overregulation. They argue that viewers carry responsibility for their own actions and that creators like Shuishui should be remembered for their creativity rather than blamed for broader social trends.

Online influencer’s legacy and next steps

Guava Shuishui, a 24-year-old Taiwanese beauty influencer, became known for eating makeup products on camera, a practice that ultimately led to controversy and concern from fans and critics. She died on May 24 after a sudden illness, according to her family, ending a career defined by her unconventional content and devoted following.

Her passing took place just as debates around influencer responsibility and the limits of online entertainment reached new heights.

As her family and followers mourn, calls are growing for clearer guidelines and greater accountability on social platforms to protect both creators and their audiences in the future.

Independent conservative news without a leftist agenda.
© 2025 - American Tribune - All rights reserved
Privacy Policy
magnifier