Politics
Mayors Stand Firm on Sanctuary Policies Despite Threats
Four major city mayors testified about their sanctuary policies, facing heat from House Republicans
read more
Rep. Tiffany discusses priorities this term
Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) has been focused on confirming President Donald Trump's cabinet nominees for the first months of this Congressional term. Now he's focusing on his priorities, both nationally and for his northern Wisconsin constituents. Jeremy Fredricks sat...
read more
President Trump to address Congress
President Donald Trump will give an annual address to Congress on Tuesday night. Trump is expected to talk about his priorities for the administration: immigration, foreign policy and the economy. Jeremy Fredricks has more from the White House. Watch the video report...
read more
Supreme Court examines a prisoner’s right to a jury trial in specific exhaustion cases
The outcome of the case could impact the type of prisoner litigation cases seen by juries.
read more
White House grants one-month exemption to tariffs on Canada, Mexico for US automakers
President Trump is granting a one month-exemption to any tariffs on automakers associated with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
read moreSen. Slotkin preaches bipartisanship, protecting democracy in the Democratic response
WASHINGTON – Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) delivered the Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s joint address to Congress Tuesday night, providing a sharp contrast to the partisanship displayed by Trump.
Unity was the theme of the address, with Slotkin saying that “whether you’re from Wyandotte or Wichita, most Americans share three core beliefs: that the middle class is the engine of our country, that strong national security protects us from harm, and that our democracy, no matter how messy, is unparalleled and worth fighting for.”
Slotkin spoke directly to the middle class, a term that was never mentioned in Trump’s over 90-minute speech. She addressed the nation from Wyandotte, Michigan, a working-class city south of Detroit. She narrowly won her seat in 2024 despite President Trump winning the state in the election.
“It might not seem like it, but plenty of places like this still exist across the United States, places where people believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should do well and your kids should do better,” she said.
The freshman senator from Michigan’s appeals to the middle class represents the larger push by the Democratic party to win back this demographic that has shifted right in recent years. She pushed the message of bipartisanship throughout her speech last night, referencing growing up in a split-party household.
“It was never a big deal,” said Slotkin. “We had shared values that were bigger than any one party.”
In her speech, Slotkin criticized Trump’s economic policy, a sentiment shared by Common Cause, a liberal-learning government watchdog think tank.
“We’re continuing to see those billionaires and multi millionaire donors line their own pockets at the expense of everyday Americans, which is just astounding, given that so many Americans are facing the increased cost of living and increased cost of food,” said Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs at Common Cause.
Slotkin referenced Michigan’s historical role in American manufacturing as the birthplace of the auto industry.
“Michigan literally invented the middle class, the revolutionary idea that you can work at an auto plant and afford the car you are building. That’s the American dream,” she said.
The senator also discussed national security, touching on her time in the CIA as well as advising on national security to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. She noted the importance of allies across the globe, referencing the heated meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on Friday.
“That scene in the Oval Office wasn’t just a bad episode of reality TV, it summed up Trump’s whole approach to the world,” she said.
The decision by the Democrats to select Slotkin for this address speaks to Michigan’s crucial role as a battleground state during national elections.
“I think this is the Democratic Party yet again, signaling how important Michigan is for our future presidential races and keeping eyes on us as well as we head into the midterm elections in 2026,” said Kalamazoo County Democratic Party chair Justin Mendoza.
Slotkin ended her speech with a call to action and stressed the importance of preserving American democracy.
“So as much as we need to make our government more responsive to our lives today, don’t for one moment fool yourself that democracy isn’t precious and worth saving,” said Slotkin.
In address to Congress, Trump declares ‘the golden age of America has just begun’
WASHINGTON – In an address to both chambers of Congress, President Donald Trump on Tuesday praised his government’s actions during the first 43 days of his second administration, highlighting a crackdown on illegal immigration, erasing what he considers wasteful spending, levying tariffs on U.S. allies, and bringing Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table.
While Republicans cheered and clapped throughout the speech, Democrats remained seated. Some held up signs with phrases such as “FALSE” and “Save Medicaid.” When Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) stood up and told Trump he had “no mandate,” Republicans shouted for Green to be removed. Green was escorted out of the chamber by law enforcement minutes after the speech began.
“I look at the democrats in front of me and I realize there is absolutely nothing I can say or do to make them happy or to make them stand, smile, or vote,” Trump said.
The address, which took the place of the annual State of the Union, showed Trump’s determination to take the country in unprecedented directions and fulfill his MAGA agenda. Congress is divided markedly along party lines after both the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a slim majority, and the Senate, shifted to the right after the November 2024 election. Trump emphasized divisive issues like ending DEI initiatives and banning transgender youth from women’s sports.
“I heard two hours of pitting one group of Americans against another and stoking division and bigotry,” said Rep. Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.)
President Trump’s speech focused on his “incredible wins for America,” the “unlimited promise of the American Dream,” and highlighted recent crackdowns on immigration.
Trump praised “record low” border crossing numbers under his administration and blamed Former President Biden for immigration across the US-Mexico border.
“The Democrat party kept saying we needed new legislation, we must have legislation to secure the border, but it turned out that all we really needed was a new president,” Trump said, to cheers and a standing ovation from Republicans.
During his first six weeks in the White House, Trump levied tariffs against Mexico and Canada to reduce the movement of fentanyl, a lethal drug, across the border.
“Tariffs are about making America rich again and making America great again,” Trump said, receiving applause from congressional Republicans.
During the address, Trump unveiled a new tariff strategy. On April 2, “reciprocal tariffs will kick in.” Describing the strategy, Trump said, “whatever they tariff us…we will tariff them.”
Howard Lutnick, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, speaks to reporters in National Statuary Hall following President Trump’s joint address to Congress. (Joshua Sukoff/Medill News Service)
“Reciprocity is the name of the game,” Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick told reporters in the Capitol’s Statuary Hall. “Let’s create amazing growth for America.”
“This is a time for big dreams and bold actions,” Trump said. “Upon taking office, I imposed an immediate freeze on all new federal hiring, a freeze on all new federal regulations, and a freeze on all foreign aid.
As he touted government funds slashed by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Trump rattled off a long list of programs he claimed were “wasteful,” which earned applause and a standing ovation from congressional Republicans.
“The days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over,” Trump said.
In response, some Democrats on the chamber floor ironically pointed to Musk, an unelected presidential advisor leading DOGE, and one Democrat could be heard audibly laughing.
Further promoting his economic actions, Trump advocated for increasing oil and natural gas production to access America’s “liquid gold.” Trump said, “it’s called ‘Drill baby drill!’”
Near the end of his address, Trump said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was ready to “come to the negotiating table” to end the war there. He also said he was having “serious discussions” with Russia.
“It’s time to stop this madness, it’s time to halt the killing, it’s time to end the senseless war,” he said. “If you want to end wars you have to talk to both sides.”
Just days before, Trump berated Zelenskyy and ended the meeting without signing a deal.
Republican members of Congress enjoyed the speech. They exited the chamber through Statuary Hall, praising the speech. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) called it “epic” and “beautiful,” and Rep. Julie Fedorchak (R-N.D.) called it “positive.”
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) liked Trump’s confident and decisive tone.
“He took the gloves off tonight. I think it was still an optimistic one for America, putting America first,” he said.
Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) also liked the speech. He said that what’s important for Republicans moving forward is supporting the president and having his back. He wants to show Americans and congressional Democrats that “we believe in getting America into the golden age.”
After the speech, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) gave the Democratic response.
“Donald Trump’s actions suggest that in his heart, he doesn’t believe we’re an exceptional nation,” Slotkin said.
Many Democratic congresswomen wore pink in broad protest of Trump administration policies. Several Democrats, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), boycotted the address. Others left the chamber throughout the address. Democrats in attendance criticized the president’s rhetoric pointing to his portrayals of immigrants and transgender people.
“It’s absolute bulls— from this administration and this president,” said Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) after the speech. “I couldn’t take it any longer at the end.”
Supreme Court considers when U.S. courts have jurisdiction over foreign disputes
WASHINGTON – Two Indian companies argued before the Supreme Court Monday about whether the U.S. legal system can rule over their case.
In 2005, Devas, an Indian multimedia company, and Antrix, a government-owned Indian space company, signed a space and satellite agreement that would have given Devas access to two satellites owned by Antrix.
Antrix broke the agreement in 2011, due to national security concerns. Devas is now seeking $552.5 million plus interest, an amount set by an international mediator.
“[The award is] worth little if no courts can enforce it,” said Aaron Streett, a lawyer for Devas.
The outcome of this case could influence which foreign cases can be brought to U.S. court in the future. It could also impact whether foreign corporations can confirm compensation from a foreign dispute in the U.S., which could potentially overturn 67 years of precedent. If the court rules in favor of Antrix, the U.S. could initiate a reinterpretation of how foreign compensation would be enforced, encouraging other countries to follow.
Antrix argued that this dispute does not belong in the U.S. legal system because Antrix and Devas are both private Indian companies. Antrix is owned by the Indian government but is legally separate from the government under the Indian Companies Act.
“[The conflict arose] exclusively between Indian citizens in India under an Indian contract with a dispute resolution system in India [that was] to be decided by an Indian court,” said Carter Phillips, one of the lawyers for Antrix.
The Indian Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Antrix citing fraud on Devas’ side of the original agreement. However, Devas brought the case to a U.S. district court, which confirmed their award. Antrix appealed, taking the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the lower court and ruled in Antrix’s favor.
The 9th Circuit is the only circuit to state that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act requires foreign states to have sufficient connections to the U.S. for a U.S. court to hear the cases.
“There’s nothing really in the [law] that you can point to that requires minimum contacts [connections]… So it’s not really a very well grounded argument,” said Robert Kry, a lawyer who wrote a brief in support of Devas.
Devas appealed again, and the case was sent to the Supreme Court.
In CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., the Supreme Court could determine whether Devas has to show that the case and its participants have enough connections to the U.S. in order to sue Antrix in U.S. court.
During the oral arguments Monday, the Supreme Court considered two main points of contention: First, whether foreign states are “persons” protected by the U.S. Constitution. This would determine whether Antrix, a company incorporated in India, can be considered a “person” under the U.S. legal system.
“Antrix is the alter ego of India,” said Matthew McGill, counsel for Devas, who said Antrix is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. “India is not a natural or artificial person under the [U.S. Constitution].”
The second point of contention is whether foreign states have to prove sufficient connections to the U.S. to bring their case to the U.S. legal system.
According to Phillips, this is “beyond the limits of what Congress can regulate” and the Supreme Court could “disrespect” the Indian Supreme Court if it were to continue “intruding” and rule against Antrix.
Phillips said Antrix should be protected by the U.S. Constitution as a “person,” and under the Fifth Amendment, Devas would be required to prove that Antrix is sufficiently linked to the U.S. before the case can be seen by the U.S. court.
However, the justices raised concerns about inconsistencies in Antrix’s argument. Their claims, based on the U.S. Constitution, were different from their claims in the lower courts, which were based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan said the case may not be ready for the Supreme Court if Antrix chooses to argue the case based on the U.S. Constitution instead of their previous argument based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
“We are not the people to evaluate this in the first instance when neither the 9th Circuit nor any other circuit has done so,” Kagan said.
If the Supreme Court decides to proceed with the case, there could be two possible outcomes.
One could be that the Supreme Court sides with Devas, which would overturn the appeals court.
The second could be that the Supreme Court sides with Antrix, which could require foreign entities to prove a connection to the U.S. before their cases are heard in U.S. courts. Other countries could apply similar standards.
“That would be a narrow interpretation,” Kry said. “The concern would be that that would then encourage other countries to reach that same interpretation.”
Lawyers for Antrix however, argued that this narrow interpretation would be a good thing for the U.S.
“Why would U.S. courts want to waste their resources resolving a dispute of another country?” Phillips asked. “The U.S. courts don’t have the power to dictate to the world what’s fair and just.”
A ruling is expected before October 2025.
VA crisis line workers say mission will be harmed by in-office mandate
WASHINGTON — There was a fear festering in Dean’s mind even before she found out late February that she and all other VA crisis line responders had been ordered to return to work at their Atlanta satellite office in the coming months.
Still, the news came as a shock. Almost five years earlier, during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, she was sent home to work. Every day, she would wake up early, slip on her headset and start answering calls from distressed veterans.
Dean has taken calls from veterans expressing suicidal ideations and many others experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder. Like all other national call center responders, her job is to guide them through their distress.
“Someone’s life can be saved,” Dean said, who was granted the use of a pseudonym in fear of retribution.
The order that Dean and her colleagues received to return to in-person work followed President Donald Trump’s announcement on his first day back in office that federal workers would no longer be allowed to work from home.
In a Feb. 3 statement, then-acting VA Secretary Todd Hunter wrote that, “most VA clinical staff don’t have the luxury of working remotely, and we believe the performance, collaboration and productivity of the department will improve if all VA employees are held to the same standard.”
Sweeping rounds of layoffs at various federal outfits followed, including the VA.
In a statement, VA press secretary Pete Kasperowicz said that current department policy is to bring as many employees back to the office as space permits.
“VA will make accommodations as needed to ensure employees have enough space to work and will always ensure that veterans’ access to benefits and services remains uninterrupted as employees return to in-person work,” he said.
Different agencies have had their own timelines to enforce the return-to-office policy. But come May 5, Dean will have to commute to work again, which could mean two hours each way in snarled traffic.
Even before she was sent home during the pandemic, Dean felt that the work space was too small for its swelling operations.
In her two years in the office, Dean remembers the workforce almost doubling. What started as a single office floor, where about 100 employees crammed into cubicles, expanded to two levels.
“I cannot imagine how we’ve grown since 2020, everybody on one shift reporting to that shift in that same office,” Dean said. “It’s going to be a lot of unanswered calls … it’s going to be a big problem and a delay to services.”
Dean’s story is not unique. Many other veteran crisis line responders were forced to give up remote work after building their lives around the flexibility working from home provided in the wake of the pandemic. There was no reason for them to change that now, some say, with the crisis lines’ workforce continuing to multiply and the number of calls they receive showing no signs of abating.
A 2024 report from the VA Suicide Prevention Program found that since the launch of a new crisis call line in 2022, there was a 22.7% increase in calls per day. The system answered more than 1.6 million calls in those two years.
Today, the crisis line answers more than 60,000 calls each month.
Responders are charged with everything from offering emotional support and guidance to arranging medical assistance during calls with a veteran, sometimes with civilians as well. The lengths of calls can stretch from minutes to hours.
Besides Atlanta, there were two other in-person crisis line agencies across the country before the pandemic — one in Canandaigua, New York, and the other in Topeka, Kansas.
After crisis line operations went remote, there were more opportunities for expansion, according to Erika Alexander, the president of AFGE Local 518 union, which represents about 1,000 crisis line employees in Atlanta.
For one, the VA no longer needed to worry about hiring people who lived far from one of the call centers.
“Our home address became our duty station,” said Alexander, who previously worked as a crisis center responder for eight years.
Carmen, who similarly asked to use a pseudonym in fear of retribution, was among the new round of responders hired in Florida during the pandemic. She comes from a military family and previously worked in social services. So, when the job opportunity arose, she jumped.
“It was perfect. … I didn’t need to leave the house, I got my headset on, and I was very comfortable with that,” said Carmen, who also needs to balance her job with caring for her father, a Vietnam War veteran. “It’s been really a blessing for a very stressful job.”
Up to this point, there have been few clues, if any, of where she might work next. While she suspects the VA will eventually find a federal office for her to work, she said she has seriously weighed whether it might be better to leave her job.
“Are they going to send me to work in a closed building? Are they going to send me far away? I have no idea how this is going to work out,” Carmen said. “I am not going to relocate my entire family.”
Alexander said she’s met many other members in her union, who, like Carmen, are located hours away from the three major crisis line agencies. The responses from crisis line workers while working from home seemed only positive, she said.
Many responders echoed sentiments to her that they’d found a better “life balance” in a job that means long hours and the delicate task of guiding callers away from despair.
Regardless, Alexander has been juggling too much. She’d been sent to inspect federal buildings for crisis line operations in Atlanta, many of which were not well-equipped, per her assessments. Other times, union members planning to hand in their resignations have gone to her.
“It’s really just chaotic,” Alexander said. “There’s a lot of people already calling out from work. … They can’t handle the stress.”
On Monday, all call center supervisors were ordered to return to work in-person, even though many of their employees were not in the same office space — let alone the same city. It is also unlikely the same office spaces they used prior to the pandemic can handle most crisis line operations, Alexander said.
For responders who don’t end up moving within a certain radius of their new work space in the coming months, they could have no choice but to face termination.
Dean said she can’t imagine what it’ll be like when she goes back to work.
Everyday, she still wakes up near the crack of dawn to start answering calls. Now, she can be home to say goodbye to her kids and embrace them when they come home from school. Her husband also shows her more appreciation now, she joked, because of her “home-cooked meals.”
Like many crisis line responders, Dean comes from a family of veterans, including both her husband and brother. She understands the need for a responder to be there in time for someone in crisis.
And despite the work order, she still plans to return to her work station.
“Being able to work remotely has been my saving grace with being able to do what I love,” Dean said. “Just to be available on the other end of that phone when they call and they really need help — it really means a lot to me.”
Published in conjunction with 
Watch: What CPAC 2025 told us about Trump and the Conservative Party
OXEN HILL, Md. – Last weekend President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, international leaders, and a chainsaw all shared one stage. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) saw the largest crowd in its history, and one very much in support of the President and his agenda.
Trump claims that seventy percent of Americans believe “that what we are doing is right, and we are keeping our promises.”
Watch the video report here:
Navy secretary nominee John Phelan grilled by Senate Armed Services Committee Democrats
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 (UPI) — John Phelan, President Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of the Navy, faced a tense confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday as Democratic lawmakers scrutinized plans to improve the Navy’s operations amid budget cuts to the armed forces.
Phelan, an investor and businessman with no prior military experience, argued that his experience in managing large teams of professionals would translate into managing the U.S. Navy, which has a workforce of more than 900,000 people and a budget that exceeds $210 billion.
He pointed to his experience in the private sector — he is the founder and chairman of Rugger Management LLC — and the key role it would play in reducing costs and increasing shipbuilding, which he said was one of Trump’s priorities.
Phelan, who originally is from Coral Gables, Fla., also is chairman of Spirit of America, which works with troops and diplomats to meet needs around the world and support the U.S. mission. The group backs Ukraine in its war with Russia.
“President Trump was right,” Phelan said in his opening statement. “Achieving peace through strength is essential to deterrence and protecting our freedom and our way of life.”
Phelan, who said Trump would text him “at like one in the morning,” outlined his goals if confirmed.
“Extended deployments, inadequate maintenance, huge cost overruns, delayed shipbuilding, failed audits, subpar housing and, sadly, record high suicide rates are systemic failures that have gone unaddressed for far too long, and frankly, this is unacceptable,” he told the committee.
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the committee’s ranking member, expressed concern that Phelan might struggle to understand the Navy’s complex structure concerning armed services’ internal issues and international threats.
“I think you’ll quickly come to discover that … the cultures of the Navy are interesting and will present a challenge to understand,” Reed told him.
Republican senators pushed back against doubting his background, portraying his business experience as an asset instead of a liability.
“If we threw a zillion dollars at the Department of the Navy today, we couldn’t build the ships because we don’t have the industrial base,” said Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.
“We’ve got to fix that. And I think that’s why the president looked to an entrepreneur and an experienced business person.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., pressed Phelan on the recent wave of Department of Defense firings, which included chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. C.Q. Brown and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti.
“Have you spoken to [Franchetti]?” Blumenthal asked.
“I have not, senator,” said Phelan, before hesitating on whether he planned to do so. “If confirmed, senator, I’m happy to hear her views and understand her perspective on things.”
The exchange preceded Blumenthal’s concerns over the Trump administration’s spending and personnel cuts to the armed forces, during which he cited Phelan’s business experience.
“Would you walk into a situation in a deal — you’ve done many, you’ve turned around corporations — where there was a 10% slash in workforce?” Blumenthal asked.
“It’s a hard question to answer,” Phelan replied.
Phelan did not respond to the harms the Department of Government Efficiency could pose to the Navy when Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, D-Hawaii, asked whether “Elon Musk with his chainsaw, cutting government programs and eliminating positions without any transparency or criteria” would negatively impact the strength and readiness of the Navy as a yes or no question.
“It’s a hypothetical question. I don’t actually know what DOGE is doing, how they’re doing it, I’m not privy to that,” Phelan answered.
“OK, that’s kind of amazing because you’re going to lead the Navy and not to insult you or anything, but I don’t think you need a lot of information to conclude that a slash-and-burn approach to programs and personnel is the way to go,” Hirono countered.
Phelan vowed to review contracts that deny sailors information necessary to conduct their own repairs, which resulted in “millions in travel costs” that included taxpayer money, according to a ProPublica investigation.
If confirmed, Phelan would be the first person in 15 years to lead the Navy without military experience in any branch of the U.S. armed forces.
Published in conjunction with 
Trump supports Musk, DOGE at first Cabinet meeting of second term
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump held his first Cabinet meeting of his second administration Wednesday, where he supported Elon Musk and discussed issues central to his agenda.
Here are four key takeaways from the Cabinet meeting:
- Musk clarified intention of emails sent to federal workers
Although Musk is not in the Cabinet, President Trump made it clear he belonged.
“Is anybody unhappy with Elon?” Trump asked his Cabinet. “If you are, we’ll throw them out of here.”
Wearing a black “Make America Great Again” hat and a t-shirt that said “tech support,” Musk was the first invited to speak after Trump’s initial remarks and a prayer. During his remarks, Musk projected savings of $1 trillion through the Department of Government Efficiency.
Musk acknowledged that the flurry of actions had resulted in mistakes. He mentioned Ebola prevention efforts, which DOGE “accidentally canceled very briefly.”
“We will make mistakes,” said Musk. “We won’t be perfect, but when we make mistakes, we’ll fix it very quickly.”
Musk took credit for emails sent to hundreds of thousands of federal employees over the weekend, demanding they explain their work during the week in five bullet points or risk their employment.
Musk said that the emails were more of a “pulse check review” than a “performance review.”
“We think there are a number of people on the government payroll who are dead, which is probably why they can’t respond, and some people who are not real people,” said Musk.
Trump defended Musk’s emails, saying, “It’s possible that a lot of those people will be actually fired, and if that happened, that’s okay because that’s what we’re trying to do. This country has gotten bloated and fat and disgusting and incompetently run.”
- Plans for $5 million “gold cards” and economic strategy
Trump further detailed the strategy behind granting wealthy foreigners the right to live and work in the U.S. by charging $5 million for “gold cards.”
Unlike his first full Cabinet meeting during his first term, in June 2017, Trump did not invite Cabinet members to introduce themselves. He only called on Musk, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to speak.
Trump asked Lutnick to discuss the gold card program, a revamped version of the EB-5 visa program, which requires substantial investments in the United States.
“Scott (Bessent) and I will design the EB-5 investment model because Scott and I are the best people together to do that,” said Lutnick.
- Russia-Ukraine war and NATO
Trump claimed he was making progress on a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, saying that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would visit Friday to sign an agreement.
He framed the conflict as a financial burden for the U.S. and inaccurately said former President Joseph Biden spent $350 billion on the war compared to $100 billion from Europe.
According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the U.S. allocated less than half of this amount, providing $114.2 billion compared to $132.3 billion from Europe.
“I believe that, because we got elected, that war will come to an end. And I also believe if we didn’t get elected, if this administration didn’t win the election by a lot, that that war would go on for a long time, and he would want to take the whole thing,” Trump said.
- Afghanistan withdrawal and military plans
Trump criticized the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan under the Biden presidency, and suggested he would fire generals who were involved.
Hegseth said he would conduct a full review of the withdrawal and everyone involved.
“I think they’re going to be largely gone,” said Trump.
Supreme Court seems likely to rule for straight woman in reverse discrimination case
WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared nearly unanimously aligned during oral arguments Wednesday that lower courts applied an unfair burden of proof to an Ohio woman who filed a reverse discrimination claim against a state employer.
Having worked at the Ohio Department of Youth Services for 21 years, Marlean Ames applied for a promotion in April 2019. After she was denied the promotion, her supervisor demoted her to an entry-level position, slashed her salary and threatened to terminate her.
A lesbian woman secured the position for which Ames had applied, while a gay man was placed in her previous job. Ames is a straight woman. Ames then filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, alleging discrimination because of her sex and sexual orientation.
“I’ve worked 30-plus years to get the knowledge, skills and ability to be where I was.” Ames said while testifying during one of her lower-court hearings. “I want to feel whole again.”
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Ames’ first sex discrimination claim and held that Ames had not fulfilled her burden of proof in arguing her second allegation about sexual orientation discrimination.
At issue before the high court is whether the lower court held Ames to a higher burden of proof by requiring her to provide evidence, referred to as “background circumstances,” that the defendant acted as an “unusual employer” in discriminating against the majority.
Ohio Solicitor General Elliot Gaiser, representing the defense, argued that the “background circumstances” requirement is not a higher burden, but simply a different one compared to the standard for minority-group plaintiffs.
Repeatedly stating the importance that all plaintiffs are held to the same standard, Gaiser’s arguments teetered on siding with Ames.
Laughing on the bench, Justice Neil Gorsuch exclaimed, “We’re in radical agreement today on that, it seems to me! Counsel before us seem to be in total agreement.”
When commencing a Title VII lawsuit, most plaintiffs must present evidence that demonstrates unfair discrimination before the case goes to trial, a practice known as a prima facie requirement.
This information typically includes proof of belonging to a minority, qualification for a certain job despite being denied for the position and continuous efforts from the employer to solicit applicants with similar qualifications as the plaintiff.
Four out of the 13 appellate courts currently require a plaintiff from a majority group who claims discrimination to demonstrate “background circumstances” to bolster his or her case. Circuit judges dismissed Ames’ cases, stating that she did not meet this requirement.
Justice Elena Kagan seemed perplexed by the argument that the requirement did not hold Ames to a higher standard, referencing the lower court’s opinion that suggested that if Ames were part of a minority group, the evidence she brought forth would have been enough to establish the legitimacy of her case.
Gaiser said his counsel was “not defending the exact language” of the lower court’s decision.
Kagan said that Gaiser’s somewhat wavering position on the lower court’s ruling presented a “peculiar situation.” “I don’t exactly know what to make of this,” she said.
In response to the discrimination lawsuit, many legal organizations opposed to identity-based policies and programs filed briefs supporting of Ames.
“It is strategically unwise to try to defend the standard just because courts, especially the Supreme Court, have been very, very explicit on the fact that race ought not matter in life,” said William Trachman, an attorney from Mountain States Legal Foundation, which filed a brief on behalf of Ames.
In the respondent’s brief, the Ohio department said that if the court finds that majority-group plaintiffs are, in fact, held to a higher burden of proof under the “background circumstances” requirement, the court should hold all plaintiffs to a higher burden, rather than lower the standards.
During the oral arguments, Ames’ attorney, Xiao Wang, conceded 10 minutes of his time to Assistant to the Solicitor General Ashley Robertson, after the Biden administration submitted a brief supporting Ames.
“That heightened standard risks screening out cases with merit and complicates litigation,” Robertson said.
Wang emphasized that a prima facie case only requires a petition to bring forth some amount of evidence that can raise suspicion of discrimination and that more specific evidence may be brought once the case reaches the court.
When Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Wang if such loose requirements would open the “floodgates” to Title VII lawsuits, Wang replied that the other circuits without the “background circumstances” requirement do not experience that issue.
As the Trump administration axes diversity, equity and inclusion programs, Ames’ appeal marks the first reverse discrimination case to go before the highest court since the president took office last month.
Christopher Barnewolt, an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed a brief supporting Ames, said the question before the court incorrectly assumed that it is “unusual” for majority groups to face discrimination.
“DEI and affirmative action policies are extremely strong evidence against this theory of majority group privilege,” he said. “It’s a very concrete example of people in our society being treated differently based on their background and being given benefits based on minority membership.”
The court is expected to reach its decision in the summer.
“We’re fairly optimistic that almost everyone on both sides of the political aisle here are more or less on the same page,” Barnewolt said when predicting the court would rule in favor of Ames.
Published in conjunction with
Advocates Call on Congress to Pass Laws to Protecting Children Online
WASHINGTON — Brandon Guffey’s 17-year-old son Gavin died by suicide in 2022 after a sexual predator blackmailed him online. The father and Republican member of the South Carolina House of Representatives sprang into action over the next year and spearheaded the passage of Gavin’s Law, a statewide measure that criminalized blackmailing minors over sexually explicit photos or videos.
Guffey and four other people testified before the US Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday about the need for legislative action to protect children.
The experts and advocates said online abuse had continued to increase in recent years, while Congress failed repeatedly to pass any legislation. Witnesses called on Congress to pass laws that help families and law enforcement to protect children against online exploitation.
In the last term of Congress, numerous bills that would have strengthened protections for children online fell short of becoming law. The Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (which combined two child safety bills, KOSA and COPPA 2.0) passed 91-3 in the Senate but died in the House. Another bill, the STOP CSAM Act of 2023, which would have made it easier to sue social media companies for not protecting kids online, failed to get a full vote in the Senate after it passed the Judiciary Committee.
“We have a US Senate that actually wants to create change,” John Pizzuro, CEO of the exploitation prevention organization RAVEN, told Medill News Service after the hearing. “We need to push the House in order to pass [legislation to protect children]. The bottom line is we’ve had hearings in the House, we’ve had great engagement, but at the end of the day we have to pass laws.”
Congress’s failure to act has consequences. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s CyberTipline received “36.2 million reports of suspected child sexual exploitation” in 2023. Law enforcement can do little to stop this, especially if the material comes from IP addresses outside of the US. Less than 1% of cases involving child pornography have been investigated over the last three months, according to data from RAVEN.
It can be difficult to tell the difference between child pornography created by real people and generative AI, Pizzuro said. AI tools can manipulate people’s age and gender in images, making it easier to create sexually explicit content involving children. Now people can create pornography using AI.
Witnesses also discussed Section 230, a 1996 law that largely shields online platforms from legal liability for content posted by its users. The law has made it harder for families to hold tech companies accountable in court, several experts said.
On Tuesday, a federal appeals court affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a case involving Grindr, a dating app for queer people. The lawsuit had sought to hold Grindr liable for defective design, among other claims, as a result of the app matching adults and children for illegal sexual activity, but the court found that Section 230 barred all those claims.
“Section 230 was supposed to incentivize responsible content moderation. Instead, it did the opposite,” said Carrie Goldberg, a lawyer who argued that case and others seeking to hold tech companies liable for sexual and other physical harm to minors.
Committee members in both parties said they would continue pushing for legislation that protected kids. Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced Tuesday that they would reintroduce the Stop CSAM Act, and Democrats on the committee wrote on X that they would introduce another bill to “remove Big Tech’s legal immunity” later this week.
South Carolina state representative Guffey, who also testified before the committee in 2024, called on Congress to pass legislation to protect children like he did in South Carolina after his son’s tragic death.
“Big Tech is the Big Tobacco of this generation,” Rep. Guffey said at the hearing. “Politicians worry about their next elections, and leaders worry about the next generation.”
Published in conjunction with 
Watch: Young faces at CPAC 2025
OXEN HILL, Md. – The 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference attracted the usual lineup of high-profile conservative figures, but this year’s conference saw several college Republicans and young conservatives in attendance.
“I think what we provide is that we’re young,” said Xavier College Republicans president James Long. “We’re active where we feel passionate about these issues that are affecting us.”
Although a Tufts University Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement research analysis shows younger voters as a whole went for Kamala Harris, more younger voters cast a ballot for President Donald Trump in 2024 than they did in 2020.
Watch the video report here:
Musk showcased a chainsaw, sci-fi art at CPAC
OXON HILL, Md. — The painting sailed across the crowd to Elon Musk’s waiting hands. Depicting Musk rising from a futuristic Martian-like city while staring stately ahead with multicolored waves radiating from his head, artist and event attendee Seth Leibowitz’s painting helped augment Musk’s unexpected appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday.
Musk entered amid dramatic electronic music to cheers from the crowd as he walked around the stage and threw in a small jump with his arms in the air. Moments later, he brandished a bejeweled chainsaw gifted to him by Argentinian president Javier Milei.
Elon Musk lifts a sci-fi painting by artist and event attendee Seth Leibowitz. (Valerie Chu/MNS)
“This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy,” Musk said as he lifted it into the air and shook it.
The chainsaw referred to Musk’s task at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to slash U.S. federal government spending, a symbol Milei had previously used on the campaign trail to promote cost-cutting measures in his own country. The chainsaw was engraved with Milei’s slogan, “Viva la libertad, carajo,” which is Spanish for “Long live liberty, damn it.”
Artist Seth Leibowitz holds up a painting he created of Elon Musk. (Valerie Chu/MNS)
Musk talked with Newsmax host Rob Schmitt about his views on government spending and illegal immigration, laughed that he can’t be an asset to Russian president Vladimir Putin because “he can’t afford me,” and described the inside of his mind as “a storm.” When he left, he showcased Leibowitz’s painting together with the bejeweled chainsaw.
In 2019, Leibowitz first released a teaser on Instagram about giving the painting to Musk, describing it as a gift “to honor all he’s doing for humanity.” Leibowitz told the Medill News Service he was excited to see Musk receive the painting, but since it’s only 30 to 35% complete, he hopes to get it back, finish it, sign it and return it to Musk.
Artist Seth Leibowitz showcases the creative process behind painting Mike Lindell. (Valerie Chu/MNS)
“I’m also painting political heroes and people that are making differences in the world,” Leibowitz said as he gestured to stylized portraits of Mike Lindell and Donald Trump resting on easels in the convention hall opposite to Mike Lindell’s booth, which he had been invited to be part of. “I call them the Hero Card Series.”
Waltz asserts ‘fighting on both sides,’ ignores question of Putin dictatorship
WASHINGTON — National Security Advisor Michael Waltz reinforced the White House’s finger-pointing at Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy at Thursday’s White House press briefing, opting not to condemn Russia for starting the almost three-year-long war in Ukraine.
“There has been ongoing fighting on both sides,” said Waltz, in response to a question about who was responsible for the Russian invasion.
This press briefing comes after U.S. and Russian officials, including Waltz, held negotiations in Saudi Arabia over ending the war in Ukraine, with Ukrainian officials not invited to the talks. On Wednesday, Zelenskyy criticized these talks being held without Ukraine’s input. Simultaneously, President Donald Trump falsely blamed Ukraine for the war Wednesday, stating Ukraine “should have never started it” and dubbed Zelenskyy a “dictator” after Zelenskyy said Trump was “living in a disinformation space.”
Waltz’s statements about Ukraine represented a dramatic shift in the U.S. foreign policy approach toward Russia, taking a much friendlier stance toward the Kremlin. During the briefing, Waltz said the U.S. had become a more dominant global figure, who can deter wars from happening and will go “toe to toe” with figures such as Putin. Yet, Waltz’s statements illustrated the administration’s contrary attitude about authoritarian figures, after Waltz ignored a question about whether or not the president considers Putin a dictator.
During the briefing, Waltz stood by the president’s statements, emphasizing Trump’s desire to end the war.
“This is a president of peace,” Waltz said. “Who here would argue against peace?”
He stated that the administration hoped to move past what had happened in the past and work towards stopping the fighting.
However, the demands toward Ukraine have gone beyond simply ending the war. Trump had pushed for Ukraine to give the U.S. $500 billion in minerals in return for a continuation of U.S. support.
Waltz said Zelenskyy, who rejected the deal, would need to come back to the table. He characterized the offer as an “opportunity” for Ukraine and a way to have the U.S. invested in their long-term prosperity.
Waltz also went on the offensive against Trump critics who expressed concern over these negotiations without European or Ukrainian involvement, stating European allies had been consulted and referencing communication between Trump and Zelenskyy.
Waltz further attacked critics, pushing that those who had called for a ceasefire in Gaza had been hypocritical.
“So many people in Washington were demanding, pounding the table for a ceasefire in Gaza are suddenly aghast that the president would demand one … when it comes to Ukraine,” Waltz said.
.
Medill Today | March 4, 2025