Tennessee Rep. Mark Green has shocked Washington with a sudden resignation announcement that will shake up Republican leadership in Congress. The Homeland Security Committee chair revealed Monday his plans to leave his position and congressional seat as soon as lawmakers complete their work on a major Republican economic package.
According to The Hill, Green has accepted a private sector opportunity that he described as "too exciting to pass up," prompting his decision to step down after completing work on the GOP's reconciliation bill. The Republican lawmaker had previously announced retirement plans before changing his mind.
Green's statement indicated he specifically stayed in Congress to ensure President Trump's border security priorities made it through the legislative process. His work overseeing border security elements of the reconciliation package appears to have satisfied this commitment, paving the way for his departure.
Green's decision to remain until the final reconciliation vote provides critical relief for Republican leadership facing razor-thin margins in the House. His continued presence ensures Republicans maintain their current voting strength for the upcoming summer vote on the revised legislation.
This strategic timing matters significantly as the initial version of the Republican tax and spending package passed by just a single vote last month. Senate Republicans are expected to make numerous changes to the bill before returning it to the House for final approval.
The resignation marks Green's second retirement announcement in less than two years. In February 2024, he had indicated plans to leave Congress before reversing course, citing encouragement from constituents and President Trump as factors in his decision to seek reelection.
Green's departure will leave House Republicans with 219 members compared to 212 Democrats, maintaining the party's narrow three-vote cushion on partisan legislation when all members are present and voting. This continues the precarious math that has defined the current congressional session.
The resignation creates a significant leadership vacancy on the Homeland Security Committee, which oversees many of President Trump's signature immigration initiatives. Green has used his chairmanship to scrutinize immigration policies and border security measures across two administrations.
Under former President Biden, Green conducted numerous hearings focused on fentanyl deaths and border concerns, often featuring testimony from parents who attributed their children's deaths to immigration policies. Since Trump's return to office, the committee has continued examining Biden-era border policies while reviewing budget proposals for expanded deportation operations.
Green's rapid ascent to committee leadership came after just two terms in Congress. The Tennessee Republican, a physician by training, brought significant military experience to his role, having served tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
His committee chairmanship represented a significant achievement early in his congressional career. Taking the gavel after only two terms in office, Green will now depart during his fourth term, cutting short what many viewed as a promising legislative career.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee's ranking Democratic member, offered a measured response to the announcement, stating: "While he was only chair for a couple years, I join our colleagues in wishing him well in the private sector."
Green's unexpected departure creates both challenges and opportunities for House Republicans as they work to implement President Trump's policy agenda. The resignation opens a coveted committee chairmanship that will need to be filled promptly.
The Homeland Security Committee holds jurisdiction over many of the administration's most visible priorities, particularly relating to immigration enforcement and border security. Green's successor will immediately face responsibility for oversight of expanded deportation operations proposed by the White House.
The timing of Green's announcement allows Republican leadership to begin succession planning while maintaining their voting margin through the crucial reconciliation package. A special election will be required in Tennessee to fill Green's congressional seat following his official resignation.
The House of Representatives has advanced two bills focused on sanctuary cities, with notable contributions from several Democrats crossing party lines to co-sponsor the measures.
With bipartisan backing, the House approved one bill to relocate Small Business Administration offices and another to block loans to undocumented immigrants, as Fox News reports.
The legislative actions came amid a backdrop of debate over sanctuary cities, which are jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The first bill requires the Small Business Administration (SBA) to relocate its offices away from these areas. Initiated by Rep. Brad Finstad of Minnesota, this legislation successfully passed the House with a narrow majority of 211 to 199 votes. Democratic members Henry Cuellar, Laura Gillen, Don Davis, Jared Golden, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez were instrumental in crossing the aisle in support.
Despite opposition from House Democrat leaders, support for the first bill showcases a division within the liberal ranks on the issue of sanctuary cities. Republicans have voiced strong support for the legislation. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer underscored that Republicans are determined to hold cities accountable due to their perceived failure to adhere to federal immigration laws.
The second bill, spearheaded by Rep. Beth Van Duyne of Texas, takes concrete steps by preventing individuals who are without legal status in the U.S. from obtaining loans from the SBA. This measure received backing from an even larger group of Democrats. In addition to Cuellar, Gillen, Davis, and Perez, the bill garnered votes from Tom Suozzi, Josh Harder, Marcy Kaptur, and Kristen McDonald Rivet.
The legislation has been met with approval from the Trump administration, which emphasizes the bipartisan complexion of the resulted vote. The administration believes these actions are integral to its broader domestic agenda concerning immigration law and resource distribution.
Kelly Loeffler, the administrator of the Small Business Administration, emphasized the importance of moving SBA offices to more compliant areas. She underscored the belief that sanctuary cities “jeopardize both the lives of American citizens and the livelihoods of our small businesses” due to their policies. Loeffler also expressed her gratitude toward the lawmakers who supported the measures, aligning with the administration's stance on safeguarding American communities and businesses.
The announcement of these bills has triggered a discussion about the impact sanctuary policies have on local communities and nationwide. Proponents of the measures argue that they are necessary to ensure the enforcement of federal immigration laws, while detractors contend that sanctuary policies can protect immigrant communities from unfair targeting.
House Democrats refrained from issuing formal voting guidance for the second bill, which seemed to empower members to vote according to their own perspectives. Amid this legislative push, the conversation around sanctuary cities remains a hot-button topic, reflecting wider national conversations about immigration policy, local autonomy, and public safety.
The narrative has brought to light the complex relationship between federal immigration enforcement and local jurisdictions, spurring a wider conversation on how resources should be allocated to different communities. Concerns over public safety, economic opportunity, and federal compliance continue to circle the debate.
Ultimately, the legislation reflects ongoing efforts by the current administration to curtail what it perceives as “lawlessness” in sanctuary jurisdictions. These moves are aligned with broader executive goals to prioritize compliance with federal laws at all levels of government while removing incentives for non-compliance.
The way forward will continue to spark debates as both national and local entities attempt to reconcile diverse viewpoints on how to balance the enforcement of immigration laws with the autonomy of local jurisdictions. As the bills continue to progress, the focus will remain on how these decisions affect communities nationwide and the precedent they set for future legislative endeavors in immigration policy.
These developments signify a moment of crucial interpretation of federal versus local government roles, especially in areas directly impacting small businesses and local governance. The outcome of these legislative measures, also, points towards a path of politically charged discourse expected to unfold in the following legislative sessions.
The United States Supreme Court issued two pivotal rulings on Friday in favor of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), enhancing its operational capabilities in handling sensitive social security information and protecting its internal documents from public disclosure.
These rulings from the high court, decided along ideological lines, offer substantial victories for the Trump administration's ambitions to reshape federal operations and uphold the confidentiality of DOGE's procedures, as The Hill reports.
The decisions emerged as part of two separate cases that hold significant implications for the agency. The first case involved a challenge from government organizations and Democracy Forward, which sought to restrict DOGE’s access to Social Security Administration (SSA) databases containing sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers, medical records, and banking details. Initially, a Maryland-based judge, Ellen Hollander, appointed during the Obama administration, had blocked DOGE's access, stipulating that any data shared must be anonymized.
As this legal battle escalated, the government argued that the intervention hindered DOGE's mission. Solicitor General D. John Sauer emphasized that DOGE’s inability to access these databases was counterproductive to eliminating waste and fraud, stating, “The government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs.”
The Supreme Court's decision to lift the block thus enables DOGE to fulfill its operational duties more effectively. The second significant Supreme Court ruling concerned a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit aiming to determine whether DOGE qualifies as an agency subject to FOIA requirements.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper had previously mandated DOGE to disclose certain internal documents and undergo deposition as part of this lawsuit. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, labeling it "not appropriately tailored."
In addressing the FOIA aspect of the case, Solicitor General Sauer contended that DOGE should not be subject to FOIA as it functions as a "presidential advisory body," which typically enjoys such exemptions. Sauer argued that the lower court’s order, which seemed to offer the lawsuit's respondent a favorable decision under pretenses of determining FOIA applicability, was fundamentally flawed, asserting, “That order turns FOIA on its head.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the three Democrat-appointed justices who dissented, criticized the Supreme Court’s rulings, emphasizing the extraordinary nature of DOGE's request. She articulated her concerns, saying, “The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration.”
Justice Jackson further noted that her approach would have been to expect DOGE and the government to meet the same legal standards as any other litigant.
These cases mark the first instances where DOGE was involved as a respondent in Supreme Court proceedings. This series of outcomes suggests the potential for further legal scrutiny and defines new boundaries regarding the agency's operational scope and transparency obligations.
The presence of notable organizations like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington accentuates the overarching significance of these decisions. Their involvement in the legal challenge reflects broader concerns about transparency and accountability within federal agencies.
While the Supreme Court’s rulings address immediate operational challenges and clarify DOGE’s position concerning FOIA requests, it also reignites ongoing debates about the limits of executive power. These cases not only underscore the judiciary's role in interpreting such powers but also highlight the contested terrain over privacy versus administrative efficiency.
The outcomes in both cases reaffirm the prevailing influence of ideological boundaries in the judiciary and suggest that future litigations involving DOGE and similar governmental entities might encounter similarly contentious paths.
As DOGE moves forward with its duties, emboldened by these legal resolutions, the broader implications for federal bureaucracy and public oversight will continue to unfold. The decisions provide momentum for the continued implementation of policies aimed at enhancing efficiency, echoing the Trump administration’s bureaucratic realignment goals.
Legal analysts and observers now await how these precedents will affect future court cases concerning governmental transparency, data privacy, and administrative authority.
A dramatic shift is unfolding at the U.S.-Mexico border, and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is facing mounting pressure as millions in remittances suddenly vanish. President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown and new tax proposals are now at the center of a fierce political and economic debate.
According to Breitbart, remittances sent from the United States to Mexico dropped by over $250 million in April—marking the lowest level in more than a decade and sparking urgent concern in both countries. The drop was confirmed by Banco de México and follows sweeping new enforcement measures and a controversial remittance tax proposal from the Trump administration.
For many Mexican families, these transfers are a lifeline. Now, with mass deportations, enhanced workplace raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and fears of a new 3.5% “Big Beautiful Bill” tax, uncertainty hangs over the future of cross-border support.
President Sheinbaum addressed the stunning drop at her daily press conference, urging calm but offering few immediate solutions. She announced that a delegation of Mexican officials will travel to the United States to confront the proposed remittance tax, which could funnel billions into U.S. coffers but devastate Mexican households.
The Mexican government is particularly concerned about the potential impact of the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which seeks to impose a 3.5% tax on remittances sent to Mexico. With more than $60 billion transferred in 2024 alone, such a tax could generate well over $2 billion for the U.S. treasury each year, but at the expense of both legal and undocumented workers’ families.
Sheinbaum’s call for patience comes as critics demand clarity. Many in Mexico are alarmed by what they see as a double blow: the Trump administration’s crackdown on undocumented workers and a looming tax that could cut even deeper into family incomes.
The Trump administration’s surge in ICE enforcement is already being felt nationwide. Worksite raids have increased sharply, targeting multiple industries and leading to significant layoffs, especially of migrants whose legal status has been revoked. According to reports, some of the largest employers in the country have started terminating workers in response to the threat of federal penalties.
A New York Post report cited by Breitbart highlights that Walmart has begun firing mostly Venezuelan workers after their Department of Homeland Security work authorizations were rescinded. Disney has also responded to legal changes by putting dozens of workers on leave following a Supreme Court ruling in May that allowed the Trump administration to revoke Temporary Protected Status for more than 350,000 Venezuelans.
These actions have sparked an outcry from immigrant rights groups, who argue that the Trump administration’s approach is both punishing and destabilizing for families on both sides of the border. Protests are erupting in cities like San Antonio, where activists condemned the wave of deportations and arrests.
Supporters of President Trump insist that strict enforcement of immigration laws and the remittance tax are necessary to protect American jobs and generate needed revenue. They argue that companies must comply with federal law and that any resulting decline in remittances is an unavoidable consequence of restoring order at the border.
Opponents, however, see a strategy designed to intimidate and impoverish immigrant communities. Groups like the Party for Socialism and Liberation have joined with local organizations to protest outside federal courthouses, warning of the humanitarian fallout from mass job losses and deportations.
Worksite enforcement operations have reportedly uncovered unauthorized workers at high-profile locations—including a construction site at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). Critics claim that such raids can devastate communities, disrupt local economies, and undermine trust in law enforcement.
As the remittance crisis deepens, both governments face tough choices. Mexican officials are preparing for talks in the United States, hoping to stave off the “Big Beautiful Bill” tax and restore confidence in the remittance system. For now, families on both sides of the border are bracing for further disruption.
President Sheinbaum’s administration is under pressure to deliver answers as the economic shock ripples through Mexican communities accustomed to steady financial support from relatives in the United States. Meanwhile, the Trump administration remains committed to its enforcement agenda, signaling that further layoffs and deportations could be on the horizon.
With billions at stake and livelihoods hanging in the balance, the fight over remittances is shaping up to be a defining issue in the ongoing battle over immigration, employment, and cross-border relations.
Tech mogul Elon Musk has unleashed a fiery critique that’s shaking up the political landscape, targeting none other than President Donald Trump. What could have sparked such a harsh reaction from a figure often seen as aligned with conservative priorities?
Musk has publicly condemned Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” labeling it a “disgusting abomination” due to its extensive congressional spending, as detailed by Breitbart News. This sharp rebuke has caught many by surprise, given Musk’s previous support for certain Trump initiatives.
Diving deeper, Musk expressed his frustration on X, where he didn’t hold back in criticizing the multi-trillion-dollar tax and spending package passed by the House in May with a razor-thin 215-214-1 vote. He specifically called out the bill for being laden with what he sees as wasteful “pork,” a term often used to describe excessive or unnecessary government expenditures. His outspoken disdain raises questions about the bill’s content and its broader implications for fiscal responsibility.
Zeroing in on Musk’s reaction, his post on X minced no words, reflecting a deep frustration with the legislative process that birthed this bill. “I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore,” he wrote, signaling a breaking point over what he perceives as fiscal irresponsibility. His follow-up jab, “Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong,” directly challenges lawmakers who supported the measure.
Supporters of Musk’s stance argue that his critique highlights a critical issue often ignored in Washington: unchecked spending that burdens future generations. Many fiscal conservatives echo his sentiment, pointing out that such massive bills often hide pet projects and unnecessary allocations under the guise of necessity. For them, Musk’s voice amplifies a call for transparency and restraint in government budgets.
Yet, not everyone sees Musk’s outburst as constructive, with some suggesting it oversimplifies a complex piece of legislation that includes popular measures. Critics within conservative circles note that while the bill may have flaws, public shaming of lawmakers could undermine party unity at a crucial time. Balancing principled critique with political pragmatism remains a tightrope for figures like Musk.
Shifting focus to the other side, President Trump has championed this legislation as a cornerstone of his agenda, dubbing it a “historic opportunity” to reverse economic damage from the Biden era. He has pushed for its passage by the Fourth of July, emphasizing its potential to reshape America’s fiscal landscape. His enthusiasm contrasts starkly with Musk’s condemnation, revealing a rift among influential conservative voices.
Breaking down the bill’s contents, it extends tax cuts from 2017, eliminates taxes on tips, boosts defense and border security funding, and aims to make government healthcare programs more accountable. Trump has highlighted provisions like the largest mandatory spending cut and significant tax relief for Americans, including no taxes on overtime or Social Security for seniors. For his supporters, these elements represent a bold step toward economic recovery and fairness.
Still, detractors within Trump’s base question whether the bill’s sheer size and scope align with promises of limited government, a concern Musk seems to share. They worry that the “pork” Musk decries could dilute the bill’s intended benefits, turning a potential victory into a bloated compromise.
Examining the broader context, the House vote in May revealed just how divisive this bill is, with a near-tie exposing fractures even among Republicans. Advocates argue that its passage, despite the slim margin, shows determination to enact Trump’s vision after years of perceived economic mismanagement. However, opponents see the close vote as evidence of warranted skepticism about the bill’s merits.
Opposition from figures like Musk also fuels Democratic criticism, as they seize on the “abomination” label to argue the bill prioritizes corporate interests over ordinary Americans. They contend that the tax breaks disproportionately favor the wealthy, while spending cuts could harm essential services. This bipartisan discontent, though from different angles, paints the bill as a lightning rod for broader fiscal policy debates.
Navigating this divide, lawmakers who backed the bill defend their votes as necessary to support Trump’s transformative agenda, even if imperfect. They argue that compromise is inherent in such sweeping legislation, and rejecting it outright risks stalling critical reforms.
Revisiting this high-profile clash, Elon Musk has taken a bold stand against President Trump’s prized “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” decrying it as a wasteful spending disaster from his platform on X. His criticism, rooted in concerns over fiscal excess, targets a multi-trillion-dollar package passed by a divided House in May, spotlighting a rift in conservative circles.
What’s next is unclear, but Musk’s outspokenness could influence public and political opinion as the bill awaits Trump’s signature by the Fourth of July target.
Based in Washington’s legislative arena, this dispute may prompt further debate or amendments, with both Musk’s critique and Trump’s advocacy shaping the narrative around America’s economic future.
Former White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has leveled serious accusations against Jill Biden and her senior adviser, Anthony Bernal, regarding their alleged involvement in concealing President Joe Biden's cognitive decline during his term.
According to the New York Post, Bernal, often referred to as Jill Biden's "work husband," wielded unprecedented power within the Biden administration and may have played a crucial role in shielding the president from public scrutiny.
The White House press briefing brought these allegations to the forefront when Leavitt stated that the former first lady "needs to answer" for "lying to the American people" and "shielding her husband away from the cameras."
Bernal's influence extended far beyond his official title of "special assistant to the president." As one of only two staffers permitted to relocate to Wilmington during Biden's 2020 campaign basement strategy, he maintained strict control over access to the first family.
Former Democratic National Committee vice chair David Hogg and ex-White House staffer Deterrian Jones have come forward in a Project Veritas video, describing Bernal as a powerful "Wizard of Oz-type figure" who operated behind the scenes with remarkable authority.
According to Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's book "Original Sin," Bernal's close relationship with Jill Biden granted him unprecedented influence among the "Politburo" that controlled her husband's affairs.
White House sources paint a picture of Bernal as a feared and controversial figure. Despite his outward obsequiousness toward the Bidens, he reportedly created a toxic work environment for other staffers.
Multiple sources claim Bernal "bullied and verbally sexually harassed colleagues over more than a decade" but remained "untouchable" due to Jill Biden's unwavering support. His behavior allegedly included making inappropriate comments about colleagues' anatomy.
Bernal enforced strict loyalty tests, interrogating staff members and maintaining a list of allies and enemies with Jill Biden. He controlled everything from the first lady's wardrobe to her Vogue magazine appearances.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer has launched an investigation into what he terms a "historic scandal." The probe focuses on whether President Biden was fit to authorize the use of an autopen for signing executive orders and pardons.
Comer has requested interviews with five former Biden aides, including Bernal and Dr. Kevin O'Connor. All have retained legal counsel, with O'Connor's interview scheduled for late June.
The investigation carries significant implications for Trump's agenda, as Comer suggests these executive orders were designed to "Trump-proof" the White House. If Biden's competency during signing is questioned, these orders could potentially face legal challenges.
James Comer's investigation targets multiple figures in the Biden administration, focusing on their potential roles in concealing the president's alleged cognitive decline during his term.
The House Oversight Committee chairman is considering subpoenas for both Jill Biden and Hunter Biden as part of the expanding investigation into the alleged cover-up of President Biden's mental fitness.
Recent developments have raised questions about the true power structure within the White House during Biden's presidency, with particular focus on the influence of Jill Biden and her trusted adviser, Anthony Bernal.
The MAHA Commission report, recently issued by the Trump administration, is facing significant scrutiny for its references to studies that do not appear to exist.
The integrity of the report's findings -- issued under the auspices of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has come under the spotlight, raising doubts about its overall authenticity, as the Daily Caller reports.
Released on May 22, the report aimed to analyze various factors impacting children's health in America. However, the alleged inclusion of non-existent studies has stirred a debate on the merits and reliability of the reported evidence.
Details have emerged suggesting that multiple studies cited within the report are not only missing but cannot be verified. A prominent example involves Katherine Keyes, a recognized epidemiologist, who was listed as the primary author of a purported analysis on adolescent anxiety. Keyes refuted any involvement, clarifying, "The paper cited is not a real paper that I or my colleagues were involved with."
One significant citation allegedly involved a study titled "Changes in mental health and substance use among US adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic." Intended as an article from JAMA Pediatrics, it was said to be featured in the 176th issue. Notably, links to this study are broken, and it was not located in the cited edition.
The report also touched on media-related issues opposing two specific studies on corporate influence. Again, the studies were untraceable, their existence unverifiable. The first study, "Direct-to-consumer advertising of psychotropic medications for youth: A growing concern," was attributed to the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology. Robert L. Findling was mentioned as leading the study, but representatives from Virginia Commonwealth University, linked to Findling, confirmed his non-involvement.
The subsequent study, "Direct-to-consumer advertising and the rise in ADHD medication use among children," further faced questions. Not only did the supposed author lack a Google Scholar presence, but the study itself remained elusive. Collectively, evaluations of seven citations appear indefensible, according to critiques asserting their absence.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under whose umbrella oversight occurred, responded to this controversy. A department representative acknowledged some inaccuracies within the cited sources, explaining that with adjustments made, "the substance of the MAHA report remains the same."
The department insists that despite these citation blunders, the report stands as a crucial effort, spearheaded by President Donald Trump and HHS Secretary Kennedy, to battle the national health challenges faced by children.
The call for media to shift its emphasis aligns with the HHS's narrative surrounding a larger crisis. Critiques over trivial errors mirror the politically charged dialogue surrounding the report. Despite these errors, the HHS seeks a more in-depth examination of children's health crises over isolated missteps.
This incident sheds light on the complex nature of verifying scientific references, spotlighting the necessity of rigorous standards. Reports, especially dealing with public health, demand accuracy and accountability to avoid public mistrust.
Concerns about publication authenticity further stress the balance between administrative efforts and empirical verification. The narrative underscored by the MAHA report embodies these dynamics, where intent meets scrutiny in the public eye.
With ongoing criticism and clarification from various involved entities, public attention to both the validity of data and broader implications of children's health remains vital. As the situation evolves, it may prompt new methodologies in governmental reporting, thereby enhancing credibility moving forward.