Twenty-four anti-ICE protesters stormed Trump Tower in Manhattan Monday, staging a demonstration that ended with arrests after they refused police orders to vacate the building's lobby.
According to Breitbart, the protesters occupied the Trump Tower lobby while demanding the return of illegal immigrants who had been deported to El Salvador's CECOT maximum security prison.
The demonstrators chanted "Bring them back" and refused multiple orders to leave the premises, prompting the New York Police Department to intervene and remove them from the property.
NYPD officers arrived at the scene around 1 p.m. after protesters refused to leave the Trump Tower lobby despite several warnings.
Police eventually restrained the demonstrators using plastic zip ties before escorting them outside and loading them into police vans. Officials have not yet announced what charges, if any, the protesters might face.
A woman leading the protest articulated their demands clearly, calling for immediate action from the Trump administration. "We are demanding that the administration bring back everyone from CECOT to the United States, release them from ICE custody, return them to their homes and families and allow them their day in court," she stated, according to reporting from the New York Post.
Monday's demonstration at Trump Tower was just one of several protests that took place across New York City on the same day.
Additional demonstrations occurred outside courts in Lower Manhattan while another group attempted to disrupt traffic elsewhere in the city. These coordinated actions suggest an organized effort to protest immigration enforcement policies.
The New York demonstrations follow violent anti-ICE protests that erupted in Los Angeles last week, indicating a spreading movement against the administration's immigration enforcement actions.
Several high-profile celebrities have publicly expressed opposition to recent ICE operations, adding their voices to the growing protest movement.
Kim Kardashian has criticized ICE, characterizing the agency's actions as "ripping innocent people from their families." Her statement reflects growing concern among public figures about current immigration enforcement policies.
Actors John Cusack and Mark Ruffalo have also spoken out, calling on Americans to "resist at all costs" the ongoing ICE raids. Their comments highlight the increasingly polarized national debate over immigration enforcement.
The spreading demonstrations have triggered responses from political leaders and activist groups across the country, with some pledging to continue protests. Leftist organizations in Florida have announced plans to "take to the streets in solidarity with L.A.," suggesting the protest movement may continue to expand to additional cities in the coming days.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has taken formal action, announcing that the state is suing the Trump administration over what he described as an "illegal" National Guard deployment related to immigration enforcement.
The Trump Tower protest highlights growing tensions over immigration policy as demonstrations spread from Los Angeles to New York City. The 24 protesters who were detained Monday had occupied the lobby while demanding the return of deportees from El Salvador's CECOT facility.
Democratic State Rep. Kaohly Vang Her of Minnesota sparked controversy during a floor debate when she declared herself and her parents "illegal" in the United States, only to later clarify that she is actually a U.S. citizen. Her comments came during a heated discussion over legislation that would declare undocumented immigrants ineligible for MinnesotaCare, the state's Medicaid program.
According to The Daily Caller, Her made the startling claim on the floor of the Minnesota House of Representatives on Monday as Democrats nearly unanimously voted against the bill. "I am illegal in this country. My parents are illegal here in this country," She stated during the debate.
The legislation passed despite Democratic opposition and will prevent undocumented immigrants from accessing MinnesotaCare benefits. The statement from Her, who represents a district in Minnesota, immediately raised questions about her immigration status and eligibility to hold elected office.
Following her floor speech, Her quickly sought to clarify her comments in an interview with the Minnesota Reformer, explaining that both she and her parents are American citizens. The legislator appeared to walk back her previous statement that explicitly claimed illegal status.
In the interview, Her provided context about her family's immigration journey, revealing that her father had claimed a false family relationship to expedite their entry into the United States. "Technically, you would say my father broke the law, right? But we would have come anyway," Her told the Minnesota Reformer.
Her explained that her father claimed to be related to a family friend who worked for the United States Agency for International Development. This claim was made to hasten the family's entry into the United States in order to avoid potential reprisals from communist forces, presumably in Laos, though the specific country of origin was not explicitly mentioned in the article.
Her defended her comments as an attempt to humanize the immigration debate and encourage empathy from her Republican colleagues. She suggested that sharing her personal story might help lawmakers see beyond political divisions on immigration policy.
"The truth is until people see a face with somebody and a situation, it is really easy for us to other each other, and, as somebody who's been marginalized because of who I am my whole life, I never want to do that to somebody else," Her explained to the Minnesota Reformer when discussing her intentions.
The representative's comments come at a time when immigration remains a deeply divisive issue in American politics. Her statement on the House floor appeared designed to create an emotional connection to the real-world impacts of legislation targeting undocumented immigrants' access to healthcare services.
The Minnesota debate mirrors similar discussions happening at the federal level, where Medicaid eligibility for undocumented immigrants has become a contentious issue. The Daily Caller noted that a reconciliation bill currently moving through Congress includes reforms to Medicaid.
These federal reforms reportedly include efforts to end the use of Medicaid by undocumented immigrants. Medicaid provides health coverage for low-income people throughout the United States, and determining eligibility requirements has become a partisan flashpoint.
The timing of Her's comments and subsequent clarification comes as states and the federal government continue to wrestle with questions about public benefits for undocumented residents. The debate in Minnesota reflects broader national tensions over immigration policy and social services.
Democratic State Rep. Kaohly Vang Her's statement on the Minnesota House floor that she and her parents are "illegal" in the country, followed by her quick clarification that they are actually U.S. citizens, has created significant confusion about her family's immigration story.
Her later explanation revealed that while her family may have entered the country through means that included misrepresentation of family relationships, they are now legal U.S. citizens. The controversy centers on Her's initial characterization of herself as "illegal" during an official legislative debate on Monday.
The incident occurred as Minnesota lawmakers voted on legislation that would restrict undocumented immigrants' access to the state's Medicaid program, a measure that ultimately passed despite opposition from Her and nearly all of her Democratic colleagues in the state legislature.
In what reads like a plot from a spy thriller, UFO conspiracy theories surrounding Area 51 were deliberately planted by Pentagon officials to divert attention from classified military technology. The revelation comes from a bombshell Department of Defense review that uncovered decades of government disinformation campaigns.
According to a New York Post report, a Pentagon investigation found that in the 1980s, an Air Force colonel visited a Nevada bar near Area 51 and provided the owner with fabricated flying saucer photos. The retired colonel later admitted to investigators that he was carrying out an official mission to conceal the true purpose of the site.
The covert operation aimed to hide the development of the F-117 Nighthawk, the world's first stealth warplane. Military strategists determined that burying their advanced technology beneath layers of alien conspiracy theories would effectively shield it from Soviet intelligence during the Cold War.
The bombshell findings emerged from the work of Sean Kirkpatrick, who in 2022 became the first director of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). His team was tasked with investigating decades of UFO reports and theories that had circulated throughout American culture.
Kirkpatrick's investigation revealed that several prominent UFO conspiracy theories originated within the Defense Department itself. The report details how government agencies intentionally amplified extraterrestrial narratives to create smokescreens around sensitive military projects and testing sites.
The Pentagon even maintained a bizarre hazing ritual where new officers received fake briefings about a nonexistent "Yankee Blue" unit that supposedly investigated alien aircraft. Recipients were ordered never to discuss the information, with many never learning they had been deceived. This practice continued until the DOD finally ordered it to stop in 2023.
Robert Salas, a former Air Force captain, presents a particularly striking case of how government secrecy created UFO believers. In 1967, Salas witnessed what he believed was a UFO descending over a Montana nuclear missile testing site, where it supposedly disabled ten nuclear missiles and all electrical systems.
Ordered to never discuss the incident, Salas maintained for decades that he had witnessed alien visitors intervening in Cold War tensions. However, Kirkpatrick's team discovered the truth: Salas had actually witnessed a failed electromagnetic pulse test designed to assess whether American missile silos could withstand radiation from nuclear attacks.
Military officials, concerned about revealing this vulnerability, deliberately left Salas and other witnesses in the dark. Without explanation, these witnesses were left to form their own conclusions, which inevitably led to theories about extraterrestrial intervention.
The 2024 report by the Pentagon confirms multiple instances where government agencies exploited UFO mythology to protect military assets. However, many details remain classified, with officials acknowledging that not everything discovered by the AARO has been made public.
The Department of Defense has issued a statement affirming its commitment to greater transparency moving forward. "The department is committed to releasing a second volume of its Historical Record Report, to include AARO's findings on reports of potential pranks and inauthentic materials," the statement reads.
These revelations raise significant questions about newly released Pentagon UFO footage, including 2020 recordings from Navy pilots that garnered substantial public attention. The findings suggest that some modern-day UFO reports may similarly serve as cover for classified technology.
The Pentagon's strategic disinformation campaign centered around Area 51 succeeded in creating one of America's most enduring conspiracy theories. By fabricating evidence of alien visitation, military officials effectively concealed the development of stealth technology that would revolutionize modern warfare.
The investigation found that the best way to hide sensitive military projects was often in plain sight, buried beneath fantastical theories that most serious observers would dismiss. This strategy proved remarkably effective, protecting the F-117 Nighthawk program from Soviet intelligence throughout its development.
As more details emerge from the Pentagon's review, the public may soon learn about additional instances where government agencies deliberately fueled conspiracy theories for national security purposes. The upcoming follow-up report, scheduled for release later this year, promises to reveal even more about how military officials manipulated public perception around unexplained phenomena.
FBI Director Kash Patel's home was the target of a swatting incident, a dangerous prank involving false emergency calls that can lead to heavily armed police arriving unannounced.
Fortunately, as the high-ranking Trump FBI official recently explained, the authorities were able to determine the false nature of the call before any officers were dispatched to Patel's residence, as Breitbart reports.
During a conversation with podcast host Joe Rogan, Patel revealed that his home was subjected to the aforementioned swatting incident. As the FBI director, it is not common to be a victim of such acts, raising concerns about the increasing boldness of individuals or groups behind these hoaxes.
The event occurred on a Tuesday at approximately 11:00 a.m. when the swatting call was allegedly made. Swatting, often targeting public figures, is a serious and dangerous hoax that can result in traumatic experiences and potential harm to those being targeted.
In this instance, however, the police successfully identified the call as fake before deploying any response teams, preventing what could have been a hazardous situation. Swatting poses risks not just to the residents of the home but also to the officers responding to what they believe is an emergency.
Amid increasing numbers of swatting incidents against media and political figures, Patel emphasized that the FBI is actively investigating the trend. He has urged for accountability and action against those perpetrating these alarming hoaxes.
"The FBI is aware of this dangerous trend," stated Patel, highlighting his agency's commitment to addressing these crimes. He assured that the FBI is working closely with local police forces to curb such incidents and ensure the safety of all individuals involved.
These events underline broader concerns regarding the weaponization of law enforcement in the form of false reports. Patel pointed out that such actions are not about politics but represent a deeper problem of moral accountability and safety.
"This isn’t about politics," Patel asserted, urging that weaponizing law enforcement against any citizen is not only wrong but also endangers lives. The FBI director made it clear that such actions would not go unchecked during his tenure.
Since assuming his role as the head of the FBI in February, Patel has faced challenges and opposition yet remains committed to tackling dangerous trends like swatting. With experiences of such incidents hitting close to home, Patel has firsthand insight into the urgency of addressing these false reports.
He noted that there is a noticeable rise in such incidents, especially targeting individuals in the public eye, and emphasized the need for robust investigative measures to counteract the trend. Patel's dedication to his responsibilities reflects a focus on law enforcement integrity and public safety.
Patel’s approach involves collaboration at various levels of government and community policing, enhancing the response and preventative measures against swatting. This teamwork is crucial in building trust and reducing the frequency of these hoaxes.
The FBI director’s remarks suggest that updates on the issue will continue as the agency deepens its investigations into swatting incidents. Patel promises a thorough approach, ensuring that those responsible will face justice and appropriate consequences for their reckless actions.
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to allow Pennsylvania voters to recast their vote if their mail ballot was problematic marks a significant moment in election law disputes.
The court denied the RNC's attempt to block the use of do-over voting in Pennsylvania, a decision that alights with the state Supreme Court's earlier ruling, as The Hill reports.
In a case that has captured national attention, especially as the 2024 election approached, the Supreme Court revealed its ruling on a Friday. This ruling supports the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to allow voters to vote in person if their mail ballots are rejected for technical reasons. Notably, this development arises despite Pennsylvania state law suggesting ballots that do not meet technical standards should be invalidated.
The announcement of the court's decision was released earlier than planned, an occurrence explained by a court spokesperson as due to a "software malfunction." This mishap inadvertently brought the spotlight onto how decisions of such magnitude are managed and released. As the nation comes to terms with this decision, the role of technology in judicial processes has also been examined with increased scrutiny.
The ruling's significance is further amplified by the backdrop of the 2024 presidential election in which former President Donald Trump won against Kamala Harris in Pennsylvania -- a battleground state of paramount importance.
In the lead-up to the election, the Supreme Court had previously refused an emergency appeal from the RNC aiming to halt the do-over voting practice.
The RNC had ambitions extending beyond altering a single state's voting procedure. Their petition challenged the influential role of state courts in federal election legislation, urging the Supreme Court to recognize limits on these courts' interventions. However, the Supreme Court decided not to address this broader issue.
The controversy links back to the "independent state legislature" theory, which suggests that state legislatures should have exclusive authority over federal election rules -- a theory that the Supreme Court dismissed two years ago. The RNC's arguments heavily referenced this theory, seeking to establish its relevance in the current legal contest.
Members of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania and the Butler County Board of Elections joined the RNC in this legal action, aiming to shape the future landscape of Pennsylvania’s voting regulations. Together, they advocated for a strict interpretation of election laws, emphasizing legislative over judicial control in federal elections.
The case also highlights individual voter stories that underscore the practical implications of these legal battles. Faith Genser and Frank Matis, Pennsylvania residents, initially voted via mail in the 2024 Democratic Party primary, only for their votes to be invalidated due to "naked" ballots, which lacked mandatory secrecy envelopes.
Subsequently, Genser and Matis attempted to secure their votes by casting provisional ballots at their polling place. Despite this effort, the Butler County elections board refused to count their ballots, bringing the issue into the courtroom. Their predicament has been at the heart of the legal arguments surrounding the RNC's challenge.
While this Supreme Court decision may not alter the dynamics of the 2024 election, it does set a precedent for future battles over voting rights and procedures. Voter access and the balance of power between state legislatures and judiciary bodies are expected to remain hotly debated topics.
The uncertainty over how election laws are determined and altered continues to foster discussion across the country. This case throws into sharp relief the ongoing tension between state legislative power and judicial interpretation in shaping election policy.
Looking ahead, stakeholders on all sides are likely to keep a close eye on how this decision influences similar disputes and potential future cases involving electoral law. Each resolution contributes to shaping the election landscape and the democratic process for millions of voters.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's blocking of the RNC's efforts underscores the complexity and contentiousness surrounding electoral laws in a divided political environment. By permitting Pennsylvania voters the chance to rectify faulty mail ballots, the court has reaffirmed judicial precedent while spotlighting the evolving dynamics of state and federal electoral interactions. As these issues continue to evolve, the court’s role as an arbiter in electoral law disputes remains pivotal.
Hollywood icon Tom Hanks has stepped into the spotlight with heartfelt comments about a deeply personal family matter that’s capturing public attention. His words, shared on a red carpet, offer a glimpse into a story of resilience and raw honesty that’s resonating with many.
Hanks recently addressed his daughter E.A. Hanks’ memoir, The 10: A Memoir of Family and the Open Road, which sheds light on her challenging childhood. As reported by Daily Mail, the actor expressed admiration for her bravery in sharing such intimate struggles during a premiere of his new film, The Phoenician Scheme, on Thursday.
Beyond the headlines, this memoir, released in April, unpacks the life of 42-year-old E.A. as the child of two Hollywood figures—Hanks and his late first wife, Samantha Lewes, who passed away in 2002 from bone cancer. Growing up, E.A. faced a turbulent family dynamic, marked by her parents’ divorce in 1987 when she was just five. Her story, filled with both pain and reflection, provides a window into the complexities of fame and personal hardship that often remain hidden behind the glitz of celebrity life.
Navigating her early years, E.A. recounts a jarring move from Los Angeles to Sacramento, orchestrated by her mother without prior notice. This abrupt change, alongside her brother Colin, now 47, set the stage for a childhood rife with instability. Her memoir paints a vivid picture of a home environment that deteriorated over time, reflecting both emotional and material neglect.
Delving deeper, E.A. describes a stark contrast between her early memories and later struggles in Sacramento. She writes of a once-idyllic white house with a pool that eventually became overrun with filth and decay, mirroring the unraveling of her mother’s mental state. The memoir doesn’t shy away from detailing Samantha’s struggles, which E.A. believes may have stemmed from undiagnosed bipolar disorder, marked by paranoia and delusions.
One particularly harrowing account stands out as a turning point in her young life. At a critical moment, E.A. faced physical violence from her mother, prompting a custody shift back to her father in Los Angeles during seventh grade. This transition, while offering a reprieve, underscored the deep scars left by years of turmoil, shaping her journey into adulthood.
Samantha Lewes, known for her role in the 1984 film Mr. Success, emerges as a complex figure in E.A.’s narrative. Passing away at 50, her life and challenges are pieced together by her daughter through memories and journal entries. E.A.’s quest to understand her mother’s pain led her on a six-month road trip after Samantha’s death, seeking answers to lingering questions.
Among the most disturbing revelations are Samantha’s writings, which allege witnessing a horrific crime by her own father, E.A.’s grandfather. These accounts, described as stream-of-consciousness rather than dated entries, suggest a profound trauma that may have haunted Samantha until her final days. E.A. reflects that if these claims hold any truth, her mother “never stood a chance” against the mental anguish that followed.
Heart-wrenching in its honesty, the memoir captures a daughter grappling with a mother’s unseen battles. E.A. shares the poignant memory of Samantha’s call during her senior year of high school, revealing she was dying. This moment, layered with unresolved emotions, underscores the depth of loss and the search for closure that permeates the book.
Reflecting on his own past, Tom Hanks met Samantha Lewes while studying theater at California State University in Sacramento. Their relationship blossomed quickly, leading to the birth of their son Colin in 1977 before marriage. Struggling as young parents, they moved to a modest, cockroach-infested apartment in Manhattan in 1978, a testament to their early financial and career challenges.
Their union, formalized in 1979, welcomed E.A. in 1982, but cracks soon appeared as Hanks’ acting career gained traction. Extended absences due to filming strained the marriage, culminating in a legal separation in 1985 and divorce in 1987. This period marked a significant shift for the family, with custody arrangements reshaping E.A.’s formative years.
Later, Hanks found love again with actress Rita Wilson, whom he married in 1988 after meeting on the set of Bosom Buddies and reconnecting during Volunteers.
Together, they raised two sons, Chet and Truman, building a new chapter. Yet, his reflections on E.A.’s memoir show a lingering connection to the past, acknowledging the strength it took for his daughter to confront these shared histories.
Tom Hanks, a beloved figure in Hollywood, has openly supported his daughter E.A. Hanks as she unveils her memoir detailing a childhood marked by upheaval and loss. The book, centered on her experiences with Hanks and her late mother, Samantha Lewes, explores a deeply personal narrative of family struggles in the shadow of fame.
Focused on Sacramento and Los Angeles, E.A.’s story reveals the impact of her mother’s mental health challenges and a pivotal move that altered her life’s trajectory. The memoir’s raw honesty, praised by Hanks, aims to foster understanding, while future discussions may continue as readers and family alike process these revelations.
Pamela Bach-Hasselhoff, the “Baywatch” and “Knight Rider” actress, left her family and fans stunned and grieving after a sudden tragedy. While her name has long been associated with the glitz of Hollywood, her final moments revealed a private struggle that few expected.
According to Fox News, Bach-Hasselhoff’s last words to her daughter came just moments before her death, shedding light on a devastating personal battle. The Los Angeles Medical Examiner’s report confirms that the actress died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound on March 5, with prescription medications found in her system.
Family members and fans are now grappling with the revelations while tributes pour in from across the entertainment world. The story underscores the hidden turmoil that can exist behind even the brightest public personas.
The medical examiner’s report, obtained by Fox News Digital, details the circumstances surrounding Pamela Bach-Hasselhoff’s death. Authorities determined that she died by suicide at her Los Angeles home. The autopsy found benzodiazepines, including clonazepam and its metabolite 7-aminoclonazepam, in her system—medications commonly prescribed for panic disorders.
At approximately 7:45 a.m. on March 5, Bach-Hasselhoff called her daughter and told her that she “loved her very much.” Following this emotional call, her daughter attempted to follow up with numerous calls and messages throughout the day but received no response. Concerned, she went to her mother’s home and discovered her unresponsive on her bed.
The loss has hit the Bach-Hasselhoff family especially hard. Pamela was a mother to two daughters, Taylor and Hayley, whom she shared with her ex-husband David Hasselhoff. As the details of her death have come to light, those closest to her have expressed both heartbreak and gratitude for the support from friends and fans.
David Hasselhoff, Pamela’s ex-husband and “Baywatch” co-star, issued a statement in the wake of her passing. He acknowledged the shock and pain felt by the family while requesting privacy as they navigated this difficult period.
David Hasselhoff shared on social media:
Our family is deeply saddened by the recent passing of Pamela Hasselhoff. We are grateful for the outpouring of love and support during this difficult period but kindly request privacy as we grieve and navigate through this challenging time.
Pamela’s battle with depression was noted in the official report, which mentioned that she had discussed suicide in the previous year but had never made a prior attempt. Friends and colleagues have since recalled her dedication to her family and her efforts to remain positive, even amid personal struggles.
On New Year’s Eve, Pamela posted a heartfelt message on Instagram celebrating her family and expressing gratitude for her new grandchild, London. She wrote about her hopes for health and happiness in 2025, a poignant reminder of the love she felt for those closest to her.
Pamela Bach-Hasselhoff’s career spanned decades, with memorable roles in hit series like “Baywatch,” “The Young and the Restless,” “The Fall Guy,” and “Sirens.” She and David Hasselhoff were married for 16 years, divorcing in 2006 after sharing the spotlight on “Baywatch” for ten seasons. The couple’s split was highly publicized, but both spoke of their enduring respect for one another.
During their marriage, Pamela and David welcomed two daughters. After the divorce, they shared joint custody, remaining active in their children’s lives. Pamela’s commitment to her daughters never wavered, and her social media presence in recent years reflected her pride in her family.
Despite her success, Pamela faced significant challenges in her personal life. The medical examiner’s report highlighted her history of depression and the presence of prescription medications, painting a picture of ongoing mental health struggles that ultimately proved overwhelming.
Pamela Bach-Hasselhoff, a prominent figure in television and mother to Taylor and Hayley, died at her Los Angeles home after a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Her final call to her daughter and the circumstances of her passing have left her family and the entertainment community grieving.
Her daughters, supported by ex-husband David Hasselhoff, are now navigating the aftermath of this tragedy. As the family requests privacy, attention has turned to honoring Pamela’s life and raising awareness about mental health support in memory of the actress.
President Donald Trump and his administration challenge Joe Biden’s handling of Iran, setting off a new round of fierce debate in Washington. Trump’s latest remarks have both his critics and supporters talking as he weighs in on a controversial report about the future of Iran’s nuclear program.
According to the Daily Mail, President Trump has flatly denied that any new U.S. nuclear deal with Iran would permit the regime to enrich uranium, even at low levels. The president’s sharp rebuke came after Axios reported a proposal allegedly allowing some enrichment for a limited time, sparking immediate backlash from both sides of the political aisle.
As the story continues to unfold, Trump’s pointed criticism of Biden and his insistence on a tough approach toward Iran have placed American foreign policy in the spotlight. Questions remain about the details of the deal, the intentions of Iran, and the true stance of the White House as negotiations move forward.
President Trump wasted no time in pinning the blame on Joe Biden for what he called America’s “Iran woes,” reviving his familiar criticism of the Democrat’s leadership. Trump used the nickname “autopen” for Biden, mocking him for allegedly being disengaged and letting others sign off on major decisions, a jab that has become a staple of Trump’s rhetoric.
Trump’s remarks came after Axios published reports claiming a “secret” U.S. proposal would allow Iran to enrich uranium to low levels for an undefined period. This would mark a significant shift from Trump’s own hardline position after he withdrew from President Obama’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which placed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear activities.
Notably, the White House did not immediately dispute the Axios report, leaving room for speculation about whether the administration’s public statements match ongoing negotiations. Publicly, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have insisted any deal would bar Iran from enrichment, but critics remain unconvinced.
Details from the reported proposal reveal a complex approach to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions while allowing for some domestic enrichment under tight restrictions. The proposal, presented by Envoy Witkoff, would reportedly prohibit Iran from constructing new enrichment facilities and require dismantling “critical infrastructure” used for uranium conversion and processing.
Iran’s research and development of advanced centrifuges would have to stop, with above-ground facilities limited to producing fuel for civilian nuclear reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversight. Iran would also need to reduce its enrichment concentration to 3 percent upon signing, a level far below weapons-grade but still contentious among critics.
Sanctions relief would only follow if Iran demonstrated “real commitment” to compliance, both to the U.S. and the IAEA. Still, even the possibility of limited enrichment has triggered alarm for some American allies, particularly Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long demanded the strictest possible terms on any nuclear agreement with Tehran.
The Trump administration has maintained that any deal with Iran will include robust safeguards to prevent the regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Axios the president’s position was unambiguous: Iran must never be allowed to build a bomb.
“President Trump has made it clear that Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb,” Leavitt said in a statement. “Special Envoy Witkoff has sent a detailed and acceptable proposal to the Iranian regime, and it’s in their best interest to accept it.”
A White House official echoed this view in an email to the Daily Mail, defending the administration’s negotiating stance. “President Trump is speaking the cold, hard truth,” the official said. “The terms we gave Iran were very tough and would make it impossible for them to ever obtain a nuclear bomb.”
Despite the administration’s assurances, critics argue the deal’s reported terms are a departure from Trump’s original “maximum pressure” policy, which aimed to deny Iran any path to enrichment. Some see the willingness to allow even minimal enrichment as an unnecessary concession that could embolden Iran and jeopardize regional security.
Meanwhile, Biden's allies contend that little was achieved during Trump’s first term after the U.S. exited the Obama-era deal in 2018. They blame Trump for weakening America’s leverage and creating a diplomatic vacuum that made it harder to rein in Iran’s nuclear advances.
Tensions have only escalated since the U.S. targeted and killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020, with Iran allegedly plotting assassinations against Trump and his former administration officials. As new talks proceed under Witkoff’s leadership, the administration faces pressure from both hawks and doves to prove its approach will deliver real results without handing Tehran unnecessary advantages.
Former President Joe Biden struggled to complete the most famous phrase from the Declaration of Independence during a Memorial Day speech in Delaware. During what marked his first public address since his office revealed his prostate cancer diagnosis on May 18, Biden attempted to recite the document's iconic passage but trailed off before finishing.
According to The Daily Caller, Biden stumbled when trying to pronounce the final words of the well-known phrase about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" during his address to the Memorial Day crowd.
The event also held personal significance for the former president as it coincided with the ten-year anniversary of his son Beau's death. Biden acknowledged the emotional weight of the day during his remarks, expressing gratitude to those in attendance for allowing him to share in their collective grief.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal, endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty, pursuit of ha — we made it!" Biden exclaimed during the speech. He immediately followed the verbal stumble by shouting, "That's who we are! That's what makes America the most unique nation in the world. Literally, not figuratively."
This isn't the first time Biden has struggled with this particular line. During a 2020 campaign speech in Texas, he reportedly had difficulty recalling the famous phrase, saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by you know, you know the thing."
The former president's speech patterns and verbal missteps were frequently scrutinized during his presidency, with critics pointing to such moments as evidence of cognitive decline – an allegation Biden has consistently denied.
Biden's Memorial Day appearance comes less than two weeks after his personal office publicly disclosed his prostate cancer diagnosis. The statement released on May 18 detailed that Biden was diagnosed on May 16 after being evaluated for increasing urinary symptoms.
The former president's cancer was characterized as having a Gleason score of 9 with metastasis to the bone, indicating a more aggressive form of the disease. However, his office noted that the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive, which "allows for effective management."
The timing of the health announcement came just two days before the publication of a book titled "Original Sin," which reportedly covers Biden's physical and mental decline during his presidency and alleged efforts to conceal it from the public.
Since leaving office, Biden has maintained a relatively low public profile. His Memorial Day speech represents one of just a few major public appearances in recent months.
Prior to the Delaware event, the former president had delivered one major speech focused on Social Security and participated in interviews with "The View" and BBC since concluding his presidency.
During his May 8 appearance on "The View," Biden directly challenged reports about his cognitive abilities, rejecting claims that he experienced mental decline while serving as president. The Memorial Day event provided an opportunity for Biden to connect with supporters while honoring fallen service members, including his late son Beau, who served in Iraq before his death ten years ago.
Former President Biden used the Memorial Day platform to acknowledge the painful anniversary of his son's passing. The event offered a moment of personal reflection amid the collective remembrance of fallen military personnel.
"This day is the 10th anniversary of the loss of my son Beau, who spent a year in Iraq. And to be honest, it's a hard day," Biden told attendees. He added, "Being with all of you quite frankly makes things a little bit easier, it really does. So thank you for allowing me to grieve with you."
Biden's appearance at the Memorial Day event came shortly after his cancer diagnosis became public knowledge. The former president faces significant health challenges as he navigates treatment options for his aggressive form of prostate cancer.