Trump Asserts Authority Over Potential Payouts

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Trump said he would have “the final say” on any decision related to compensation, suggesting the matter would ultimately “go across my desk.” He did not confirm specific figures, though The New York Times reported that two administrative claims were filed before his reelection bid seeking financial damages over prior federal inquiries.

Trump claimed he had not discussed the details with officials but reiterated his belief that “they would owe me a lot of money.” He also joked that if any taxpayer money were awarded, he could donate it or use it toward a new ballroom being built at the White House.

Claims Linked to Mar-a-Lago and Russia Investigations

The New York Times reported that Trump’s filings include two separate claims. One, submitted in August 2024, requests compensatory and punitive damages for what his lawyers described as a “malicious prosecution” tied to the 2022 FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago estate. That investigation led to criminal charges alleging he mishandled classified documents and obstructed government recovery efforts.

The second claim reportedly seeks damages related to the now-closed investigation into possible links between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. The long-running inquiry concluded without charges against Trump but remains a political flashpoint that he has repeatedly denounced as baseless.

Justice Department Protocols and Potential Conflicts

The Justice Department follows established procedures to evaluate such administrative claims, often aiming to resolve disputes before they reach the courts. However, Trump’s assertion that he could personally decide on any payout raises questions about executive oversight and ethical boundaries.

One of Trump’s former defense attorneys in the Mar-a-Lago case, Todd Blanche, now serves as deputy attorney general. Another lawyer, Stanley Woodward—who represented Trump’s co-defendant and former aide Walt Nauta—is currently the associate attorney general.

“In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement. The White House deferred all inquiries to the DOJ.

Trump’s Past Comments on Legal Claims

During a recent White House appearance alongside Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump revisited his ongoing disputes with the Justice Department. He described the situation humorously, saying, “I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said: ‘I’m suing myself.’”

He added, “I’ll say, ‘Give me X dollars,’ and I don’t know what to do with the lawsuit. It’s a great lawsuit and now I won—it looks bad. I’m suing myself, so I don’t know.”

The Times reported that the claims were filed through a formal DOJ process that enables settlements to avoid prolonged litigation.

Legal and Political Implications

The Justice Department’s review of Trump’s claims could take months, with any potential settlement requiring internal approval and ethical review. Legal experts note that a sitting president’s involvement in personal claims against federal agencies could present a complex conflict of interest, as it blurs lines between executive authority and personal financial interest.

Trump’s previous legal battles with the federal government, particularly over classified documents, were among the most high-profile investigations of his presidency. Special counsel Jack Smith, who led the Mar-a-Lago probe, dropped related criminal charges in November 2024, citing DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president.

While Trump has framed the cases as politically motivated attempts to derail his return to office, Justice Department officials maintain that their actions followed established legal standards and internal oversight.

Ongoing Review and Public Transparency

As of Wednesday, the status of Trump’s claims and any potential settlement discussions remain unclear. Neither the Justice Department nor the White House has provided a timeline for resolution. Analysts suggest the outcome could influence broader discussions on presidential accountability, executive privilege, and the handling of federal investigations involving elected officials.

Source: AP News – Trump says he’d have final say on money he seeks over past federal investigations into his conduct

The post US President insists any settlement decision must go through him, citing ongoing claims tied to Mar-a-Lago search and Russia inquiry. appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

President Donald Trump has won a key legal victory that allows him to maintain control over National Guard troops deployed in Los Angeles, following widespread protests sparked by controversial immigration raids.

In a unanimous ruling Thursday, a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision that had previously blocked the deployment. The panel found it likely that Trump acted within his legal authority in federalizing the National Guard — even without the consent of California Governor Gavin Newsom, who strongly opposed the move.

The court acknowledged that presidents don’t have unlimited power to seize control of state-based Guard forces. However, the judges said the Trump administration presented enough evidence to justify its decision under current federal law. They also ruled that Governor Newsom lacked the power to override the president’s order.

Other Key Developments We’re Watching

Trump Eyes Iran Strike Decision Within Two Weeks

As tensions between Israel and Iran continue into their second week of open conflict, the White House signaled Thursday that President Trump has given himself two weeks to decide whether the U.S. will strike Iran. His press secretary noted that there’s still a “substantial chance” for renewed nuclear negotiations with Tehran — but emphasized that military options remain on the table.

Republicans Open Hearing on Biden’s Mental Fitness

The Senate Judiciary Committee held its first hearing Wednesday to scrutinize Joe Biden’s mental capacity during his presidency. Notably, none of the three witnesses had served in Biden’s administration. Democrats boycotted the hearing, calling it a political stunt with no legitimate basis.

Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee’s Ban on Gender-Affirming Care

In a 6–3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors. The ruling allows the state to continue prohibiting puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender youth — even though the same medications remain legal for other medical purposes. Legal experts say the decision could shield similar laws in other states from future challenges.

Source: AP News – Live updates: Trump can keep the National Guard deployed in LA, appeals court rules

The post Appeals Court Backs Trump’s National Guard Deployment in Los Angeles appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

WASHINGTON — Just six months into his new role as Senate Majority Leader, Sen. John Thune is facing a defining moment — and the pressure is on.

Thune’s first big challenge? Navigating President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and spending bill through a sharply divided GOP Senate, all while racing against a July 4 deadline set by Trump himself.

The stakes are sky-high: Thune can only afford to lose four Republican votes to pass the bill, and several GOP senators have already raised serious concerns. Meanwhile, Democrats are united in opposition.

“This is when John’s leadership is going to be desperately needed,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), one of the skeptics of the bill’s fast phaseout of certain energy tax credits.

A Tightrope Walk for Thune and the GOP

To get the legislation across the finish line, Thune must strike a delicate balance. He needs to keep his conference unified without alienating House Republicans, who barely passed the bill by a single vote last month after intense internal wrangling.

It’s a complex and risky endeavor — one that could define Thune’s first year as leader and cement his working relationship with Trump.

Despite their rocky history, Thune has stayed in close touch with the White House, making multiple visits to discuss the bill with the former president.

“Individual pieces of it people don’t like,” Thune acknowledged this week. “But in the end, we have to succeed.”

A New Style of Senate Leadership

Thune’s leadership marks a stark contrast to his predecessor, Sen. Mitch McConnell, known for his tightly controlled inner circle and often icy relationships with colleagues.

Thune has taken a more open-door approach, hosting small group and one-on-one meetings with senators to hear their concerns.

“It’s very much a change,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND). “He’s already made a lot of people happier just by listening.”

Even Florida Sen. Rick Scott — a former rival who ran against Thune for the leadership post and remains critical of the bill’s lack of deeper spending cuts — has praised Thune’s willingness to listen.

“I’d be very surprised if anybody doesn’t believe he’s receptive to their ideas,” Scott said. “And when people feel heard, there’s a greater chance they’ll go along with something.”

Mending Fences with Trump

Thune and Trump have had a complicated relationship. Thune was one of the few Republicans who criticized Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Trump didn’t endorse Thune’s reelection bid in 2022, and Thune initially backed Sen. Tim Scott in the 2024 primary.

But the two have since reconciled, finding common ground as Thune works to shepherd Trump’s legislative priorities through the Senate.

Running a Tighter Ship in the Senate

While Thune has earned goodwill for his collaborative style, he’s also shown he’s not afraid to crack the whip.

He’s shortened Senate vote times from hours to just 15 minutes — a move that surprised some lawmakers and caused a few to miss key votes at first. But the message was clear: punctuality matters.

“Did he get yelled at a little bit? Yeah,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD). “But once they got cut off once or twice, they realized — if you want to vote, make it on time.”

Can Thune Deliver?

With less than a month to meet Trump’s July 4 deadline, Thune’s ability to bridge ideological divides and keep his party together will be tested like never before.

The outcome of the tax bill won’t just determine the fate of a major piece of Trump’s economic agenda — it may also define John Thune’s legacy as a Senate leader.

“Everybody wants to work with John,” said Rounds. “He’s not making anybody mad right now.”

For now, Thune has the goodwill of his colleagues and the confidence of the president. Whether that’s enough to pull off a political balancing act of this scale remains to be seen.

Source: AP News – Thune’s first big test as Senate leader has arrived with Trump’s tax bill

The post Senate Majority Leader Thune Battles GOP Divide Over Trump’s Tax Plan appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

House Republicans have pushed through a massive tax and spending bill, championed by former President Donald Trump, after an intense all-night session and last-minute revisions. Nicknamed the “one big, beautiful bill,” this sweeping package promises deep tax cuts—mostly benefiting the wealthy—while slashing aid programs like Medicaid and food stamps, which millions of lower-income Americans rely on.

The Big Picture: Who Gains, Who Loses

At the heart of the bill is a controversial trade-off. Wealthier Americans will enjoy the lion’s share of tax relief, while low-income families face reduced support through major cuts to social safety nets.

• Top 20% of earners would receive 60% of the total tax cut, with the top 5%—those making over $460,000—getting more than a third of it.
• Middle-income households would see modest tax savings, averaging about $1,840.
• Lower-income Americans would see the smallest benefit: an average tax cut of just $160.

But those modest tax breaks may be wiped out by deeper spending cuts. The bill slashes nearly $1 trillion from federal aid programs over the next decade, with Medicaid losing about $700 billion and food assistance (SNAP) facing a $267 billion cut.

Deficit-Fueled Cuts and Expiring Promises

Despite the cuts, the bill is projected to add $3.1 trillion to the national debt over 10 years. That’s because it leans more heavily on tax reductions than spending restraint.

Many of the bill’s promises—including eliminating taxes on tips and increasing standard deductions for seniors—are set to expire after 2028. Critics say these temporary measures are designed to hide the true cost of the bill.

If Congress later makes all of these tax breaks permanent, it could balloon the deficit by an additional $5.1 trillion.

Who Feels It the Most?

Low-income Americans are expected to bear the brunt of the trade-offs:

• Those earning up to $17,000 annually could see their income drop by 14.6%, or about $820 next year, when both tax changes and benefit cuts are factored in.
• People earning between $17,000 and $51,000 would lose about $430 in annual income.
• In contrast, those earning over $174,000 would gain over $12,000, or a 2.6% boost in income.

“These cuts will hit not just adults, but also children, seniors, and people with disabilities,” said Kent Smetters, director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model. “For many, the loss of benefits far outweighs the modest tax relief.”

The Political Road Ahead

The bill now heads to the Senate, where it faces a tougher path. Though Republicans can bypass a Democratic filibuster using budget reconciliation, they can only afford to lose three votes.

• Some GOP senators want deeper cuts.
• Others are uneasy about Medicaid restrictions.
• One senator is pushing for a bigger child tax credit.

Plus, Senate rules may force the removal of any provisions unrelated to the federal budget.

If the Senate makes changes, the revised bill will return to the House for another vote. Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson have proved effective in corralling support, but all eyes are now on new Senate Majority Leader John Thune to navigate the next phase.

A Debt Solution? Not Likely

Despite growing concerns over the $37 trillion national debt, lawmakers are still avoiding the hard conversations about long-term entitlement reform. The real drivers of federal spending—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—remain largely untouched.

While this bill does trim Medicaid, it does so in tandem with generous tax breaks, resulting in more debt, not less. Meaningful changes to entitlement programs are considered politically dangerous, and both parties continue to sidestep the issue.

Bottom Line: Trump’s megabill may offer short-term relief for some taxpayers, but it does so at a high cost—both in terms of national debt and support for America’s most vulnerable. As the Senate takes up the legislation, the stakes couldn’t be higher for millions of Americans.

Source: CNN – How Trump’s megabill transfers wealth in the US

The post Who Wins and Loses in Trump’s New Tax and Spending Plan appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

McALLEN, Texas — Despite warning shelters that providing aid to undocumented migrants could be illegal, the Trump administration quietly continued to release people into the care of those very shelters along the U.S.-Mexico border — placing humanitarian groups in a legal and ethical bind.

For years, border shelters have served as a vital lifeline for migrants, offering meals, temporary housing, and help with transportation. But a March 11 letter from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) cast a shadow over that work. The letter raised “significant concerns” that offering such aid might violate anti-smuggling laws, and demanded detailed records as part of a sweeping federal investigation.

“It was pretty scary. I’m not going to lie,” said Rebecca Solloa, executive director of Catholic Charities Diocese of Laredo.

Shelters Asked to Help — Then Threatened

Even after FEMA’s warning, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — a fellow Department of Homeland Security agency — continued to ask shelters in Texas and Arizona to take in migrants. The conflicting messages left nonprofit groups walking a tightrope.

Catholic Charities in Laredo hosted 8 to 10 migrants daily from ICE after the FEMA letter, until it was forced to close on April 25 due to financial losses and lack of federal reimbursement. “We were asked to help — and we did,” Solloa said. “But we just couldn’t keep going.”

Who Are the Migrants?

The people being released come from all over the world — India, China, Turkey, Russia, Iran, and Latin America — and many were held in detention centers for weeks. Some crossed the border illegally and were flown in from places like San Diego. Others were arrested within the U.S. and later released by immigration judges while their deportation cases played out.

“We get families from as far as Papua New Guinea,” said Michael Smith, a Methodist pastor and executive director of the Holding Institute Community Center in Laredo. Despite the risks, he continued accepting families. “There are some things that are just right to do,” he added.

Tensions with the Biden Comparison

Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin pointed out the contrast with the Biden administration’s approach. Under Biden, ICE typically verifies a sponsor — such as a family member or an NGO — before releasing someone, rather than letting them out at public bus stops.

Still, deportation remains complicated due to diplomatic and logistical hurdles. When countries won’t take people back, ICE sometimes sends them to third countries — or, if that’s not possible, releases them within the U.S.

Families Add More Complexity

Families with children pose another challenge. ICE is generally barred from detaining minors for more than 20 days under a court settlement. The Trump administration announced plans to challenge that limit — another signal of its hardline stance.

Despite the public messaging, data show that ICE under Trump still released significant numbers of people, even as Border Patrol drastically reduced so-called “catch-and-release” at the border. From February through April, Border Patrol released just seven people — down from over 130,000 during the same period under President Biden. But ICE’s release numbers are not publicly disclosed.

Aid Groups Face Financial Fallout

The government’s contradictory policies have had real consequences for shelters. FEMA awarded over $640 million to support shelters in fiscal year 2024 — but froze payments amid its legal review. To resume funding, shelters must submit extensive documentation and certify they haven’t broken smuggling laws.

Catholic Charities in Laredo, which had hosted over 120,000 people since 2021, expected up to $7 million in FEMA reimbursements. Instead, it shut down after losing nearly $1 million. “We simply ran out of money,” Solloa said.

The Holding Institute has gone from 45 staff and volunteers to just seven. To save costs, they now serve mostly meatless meals, despite continuing to receive families each week.

The International Rescue Committee (IRC) in Phoenix, which didn’t receive a FEMA letter, continues to help. In a statement, IRC said it remains committed to providing food, water, hygiene kits, and information to those in need.

A Fragile but Crucial Relationship

Despite the scrutiny and funding freezes, many shelter directors say their working relationships with ICE agents on the ground have remained professional.

“We’ve always worked well with our federal partners,” Solloa said. “But at some point, we just have to say: we’re hurting. We can’t do this anymore.”

Source: AP News – Trump administration releases people to shelters it threatened to prosecute for aiding migrants

The post Trump Officials Released Migrants to Shelters They Warned Were Breaking the Law appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Former President Donald Trump was personally involved in internal discussions about suspending habeas corpus—a cornerstone legal right that allows people to challenge their detention in court—according to two sources familiar with the matter.

The idea, which would dramatically expand the government’s power to detain individuals without judicial review, has reportedly been under serious consideration during Trump’s time in office. Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s closest advisers, confirmed publicly that the administration was “actively looking at” suspending the right, depending on how the courts responded to the administration’s immigration agenda.

Trump Hinted at Drastic Action

Though Trump never publicly used the phrase habeas corpus, he hinted at it during an April 30 press briefing while discussing nationwide injunctions blocking his immigration policies.

“There’s one way that’s been used by three very highly respected presidents,” he said, alluding to historical suspensions of habeas corpus. “Hopefully we don’t have to go that way, but there are ways of mitigating it.”

This cryptic reference, sources say, was aimed at the legal hurdles his administration faced in enforcing stricter deportation policies.

Legal Experts Push Back

Experts were quick to criticize the idea. CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig called Miller’s statements “wrong,” noting that habeas corpus can only be suspended in extreme circumstances—specifically during “cases of rebellion or invasion,” as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

“There is no law that allows deportations without any court involvement,” Honig emphasized.

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, added that such suspensions have historically only occurred during actual wars or invasions. “The idea that illegal immigration constitutes an invasion has been rejected by the courts every time it’s been tried,” Somin noted.

Framing Immigration as an “Invasion”

The Trump administration repeatedly framed the surge in illegal border crossings as an “invasion,” a narrative it used to justify bypassing due process for migrants. The administration made similar claims while invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used 18th-century statute, in an attempt to fast-track deportations without legal proceedings. Courts—including judges appointed by Trump—rejected those efforts, saying the law did not apply to the current situation.

In another controversial move, the administration explored designating suspected cartel or gang members as “enemy combatants,” a classification typically reserved for wartime detainees. This would make it easier to detain individuals without trial and severely limit their ability to contest imprisonment in court.

A Threat to Judicial Independence?

The administration’s broader frustration with the judiciary has been evident. Trump frequently lashed out at judges who ruled against him, while Miller went as far as calling court decisions a “judicial coup.”

Amid this rising tension, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public statement defending judicial independence. Speaking in Buffalo, New York, he emphasized that the judiciary is a coequal branch of government tasked with interpreting the Constitution and holding both Congress and the president in check.

“The judiciary’s role,” Roberts said, “is to decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive.”

Will This Move Resurface?

While it remains unclear whether Trump—or any future administration—will seriously pursue suspending habeas corpus, the idea alone has raised alarms among legal scholars and civil rights advocates. Any attempt to revive it would almost certainly face intense legal challenges and public backlash.

For now, the White House has declined further comment beyond Miller’s initial statement.

Source: CNN – Trump involved in discussions over suspending habeas corpus, sources say

The post Trump Considered Suspending Key Legal Right in Immigration Crackdown appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

VILLA CALETA, Panama (AP) — A remote stretch of jungle, once bustling with migration and economic activity, now faces a sharp downturn as migration slows drastically under new policies.

For years, the Darien Gap, a treacherous, nearly impenetrable rainforest along Panama’s border with Colombia, served as a migratory highway. More than 1.2 million migrants braved this dangerous path, seeking a better life in the United States. The area saw an economic boom, as communities profited from transporting these migrants, selling goods, and providing essential services.

But that boom has quickly vanished. After Donald Trump’s administration imposed stricter asylum policies, migration through the Darien Gap has plummeted. The once-thriving economy that relied on this flow of people has now collapsed, leaving locals scrambling for new ways to survive.

Luis Olea, 63, a former boat pilot who ferried migrants across the Darien River, remembers the prosperity of those days. He installed solar panels, bought a television, and even improved his home, all with the money he earned transporting migrants.

“Before, we lived off of the migration. But now that’s all gone,” Olea says, standing in his now-quiet home in Villa Caleta.

During the height of migration, boat pilots like Olea made up to $300 a day, a stark contrast to the $150 a month they once earned from growing crops like plantains. Towns along the river began to rely almost exclusively on the income from migration, abandoning their agricultural work.

However, when migration slowed following Trump’s immigration crackdown, the local economy began to collapse. Migrants no longer flood the region, and businesses that once thrived are now struggling to survive.

Manuel Orozco, director of the migration program at the Inter-American Dialogue, calls it “like discovering a gold mine, but once it dries up, you’re left with nothing.”

Many locals like Olea are left with few options. Olea has returned to growing plantains, but it will take at least nine months before he can see any income. His boat sits unused, and there’s little market for it.

Pedro Chami, 56, another former boat pilot, also faces an uncertain future. He used to make steady income transporting migrants, but now he carves wooden pans and hopes for a lucky break.

“Before, I had $200 a day without fail. Now, I don’t even have a cent,” Chami says.

At the height of the migration crisis, an estimated 2,500 to 3,000 people crossed the Darien Gap every day. But now, that number has dwindled to just 10 people per week. As a result, some Venezuelan migrants are even traveling in the opposite direction, returning home along Panama’s Caribbean coast.

The Gulf Clan, a criminal group that once profited from transporting migrants north, has now begun scouting the coast to see if they can profit from the reverse migration.

One of the hardest-hit areas is Lajas Blancas, a port town that once bustled with activity as migrants arrived after their harrowing jungle trek. Shops selling food, SIM cards, and other necessities for the journey have shut down. What was once a thriving community now feels like a ghost town.

Zobeida Concepción, 55, is one of the few who hasn’t abandoned the town. Her family once sold food and drinks to migrants, earning enough to buy a new bed, washing machine, and even three freezers to store supplies. But with the sudden drop in migration, she’s uncertain what’s next.

“When Donald Trump won, everything came to a screeching halt,” Concepción says. Despite the downturn, she’s holding on to her savings—and her freezers—hoping that future opportunities will come with a change in U.S. leadership.

For communities like Villa Caleta and Lajas Blancas, the loss of migration income has been devastating. Many are left without a market to sell their goods and with no clear path forward.

“There’s no market anymore,” says Olea, who once profited from the migration but now finds himself back in the fields growing crops. It’s a stark reminder that the once-promising boom brought by migration has disappeared as quickly as it arrived.

As the region adapts to this new reality, locals are left to rebuild and reimagine their future—hoping that new opportunities, whether in migration or elsewhere, will eventually bring prosperity back to this remote stretch of Panama.

Source: AP News – A jungle route once carried hundreds of thousands of migrants. Now the local economy has crashed

The post Once Prosperous, Panama’s Darien Gap Struggles After Trump’s Policy Changes appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

A dramatic shakeup at the IRS has unfolded just days after former President Donald Trump appointed Gary Shapley as acting commissioner. Backed by Republican allies and billionaire Elon Musk, Shapley’s appointment was short-lived. By week’s end, he was out — marking yet another leadership change at the embattled tax agency.

Trump signed off on Shapley’s appointment on Tuesday, catching some in the Treasury Department and the IRS off guard. His selection stirred immediate concern among career civil servants and drew quiet resistance from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s office, which had not signed off on the move. Bessent, who was abroad at the time, had reportedly objected to Shapley’s appointment from the outset.

By Friday, Shapley was out, and Michael Faulkender, the Treasury’s deputy secretary, was tapped to take over the role, sources confirmed to CNN.

Shapley is best known for his involvement in the high-profile Hunter Biden tax investigation. A key whistleblower in the case, he testified to Congress alleging political interference in the Justice Department’s handling of the matter — a claim that became a rallying cry for Republicans.

His sudden rise to acting IRS commissioner had been celebrated by some in the GOP. Outgoing acting commissioner Melanie Krause even announced the leadership change in an internal agency email midweek, stepping down herself in the process.

But within just a few days, the tide turned.

On Friday, Secretary Bessent took to X (formerly Twitter) to reaffirm his commitment to restoring trust in the IRS, calling Faulkender “the right man for the moment.” He also made it clear that Shapley remains a valued advisor at Treasury and is expected to play a senior role once an internal review into political interference allegations wraps up.

In a statement, a Treasury spokesperson emphasized that Faulkender will lead the IRS temporarily as the agency undergoes a “transition toward a more efficient, more effective” operation. They also urged Congress to move swiftly in confirming permanent leadership.

Faulkender is no stranger to Treasury. He served as assistant secretary for economic policy during Trump’s first term and was recently confirmed as deputy secretary in a 53-43 Senate vote along party lines.

In his confirmation documents, Faulkender stressed the need for even-handed enforcement of the tax code and expressed concern over aggressive audits impacting everyday taxpayers and small businesses. He also sought to ease Democratic fears that Trump might use the IRS for political purposes, pledging to uphold taxpayer privacy and follow all relevant laws.

“I will support the fair and impartial implementation of our nation’s tax laws,” Faulkender wrote in March. “I am absolutely committed to upholding taxpayer privacy rights.”

He further stated that any access to sensitive IRS data — including by Musk’s team under the Department of Government Efficiency — would remain tightly controlled and legally compliant, despite recent court-ordered changes.

With Shapley’s brief stint included, the IRS has now seen five different leaders this year alone. Trump’s pick for a permanent commissioner, former Missouri Rep. Billy Long, is still awaiting Senate confirmation.

As the IRS works to stabilize under Faulkender’s temporary leadership, questions remain about the future direction of the agency — and the political crosswinds shaping it.

Source: CNN – Trump’s pick for acting IRS commissioner is ousted days after his appointment

The post Trump’s IRS Pick Removed Just Days After Appointment appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

In a bold move that marks a significant expansion of military involvement at the U.S.-Mexico border, President Donald Trump issued a late-night directive authorizing the U.S. military to assume control over federal lands along the southern frontier.

The presidential memorandum, addressed to the heads of four key federal departments—Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins—calls for an expanded military role in border security operations.

The memo instructs these departments to give the Department of Defense both use and jurisdiction over specific federal lands, including the Roosevelt Reservation, a 60-foot-wide stretch of federally controlled land running along the border. This jurisdiction would support military activities such as:

• Building new sections of border wall
• Installing surveillance and detection technology
• Establishing monitoring infrastructure

It’s worth noting that Federal Indian Reservations are excluded from this order.

Trump’s directive builds on his earlier actions. On his first day in office, he mandated a surge in U.S. military presence at the border. Since then, thousands of active-duty troops have been deployed as part of an evolving national security initiative.

The memo is framed within the context of a national emergency, which Trump declared during his presidency. This allows the Interior Secretary, Doug Burgum, to authorize “withdrawals, reservations, and restrictions” on public lands in favor of the Defense Department.

Perhaps the most striking element of this plan is the creation of “military installations” out of existing federal land. Under this setup, migrants who cross into these areas could be held for trespassing on military property. They would remain in military custody until Homeland Security officials arrive to deport them.

Critics may raise legal concerns here. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the military from performing domestic law enforcement duties. However, by classifying these detention zones as “holding areas” on military property, the administration appears to be navigating around those legal boundaries.

Initially, this policy will roll out in a specific sector of federal land chosen by Defense Secretary Hegseth. However, the memo gives him the green light to expand this military control to other parts of the border at his discretion.

All military personnel involved will be operating under use-of-force rules established by the Secretary of Defense, according to the memo.

Trump’s directive represents a significant shift in how the federal government may use military power domestically, particularly in relation to immigration enforcement. It raises serious questions about the balance between national security, legal precedent, and humanitarian concerns.

As the situation unfolds, expect fierce debate from lawmakers, civil rights groups, and communities along the border.

Source: CNN – Trump authorizes military to take control of federal land along US southern border

The post Trump Orders Military to Take Over Land at U.S.-Mexico Border appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

BATON ROUGE, La. — A Louisiana immigration judge has ruled that Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and legal permanent U.S. resident, is subject to deportation — not for committing a crime, but for his political beliefs and activism.

The decision, handed down Friday, stems from a controversial memo submitted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The memo cites Khalil’s “beliefs, statements, or associations” as grounds for removal, claiming his presence could harm U.S. foreign policy interests — despite no allegations of illegal activity.

Khalil’s legal team says the ruling is a dangerous precedent that threatens constitutional rights.

“Despite the government’s failure to prove that Mahmoud broke any law, the court has decided that lawful permanent residents can have their status revoked for pro-Palestine advocacy,” attorneys said after the hearing. “This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.”

Arrest and Detention

Khalil, a prominent Palestinian activist, was arrested last month by federal agents outside his Columbia University apartment. His arrest followed a Trump-era deportation order, and he has since been transferred to a detention center in Louisiana, far from his pregnant wife and legal proceedings in New Jersey.

“Neither due process nor fairness were present today or in this whole process,” Khalil told the court. “This is exactly why the Trump administration has sent me to this court, 1,000 miles away from my family.”

A Memo Without Charges

The key piece of evidence? A memo from Rubio submitted just hours before the hearing. It contains no criminal charges but references Khalil’s role in protests deemed disruptive and “antisemitic” by federal officials. Khalil’s attorneys fiercely reject that characterization.

“The only evidence is the Rubio letter — and it doesn’t contain a single criminal allegation,” said Marc Van Der Hout, one of Khalil’s immigration attorneys. “There is zero else.”

He added, “Criticizing Israel for the slaughter in Gaza is being painted as antisemitism. That’s what this case is really about.”

Khalil’s case hinges on an obscure provision of immigration law that allows the Secretary of State to order deportation if an individual’s beliefs or associations are deemed harmful to U.S. foreign policy. Legal experts call this a rare and troubling move.

“This provision has only been used 15 times out of over 11 million cases — and never, as far as we know, against someone for protected political speech,” said NYU law professor Adam Cox, who co-authored an amicus brief in Khalil’s defense.

Legal scholars warn the ruling could have ripple effects on college campuses and civil liberties nationwide.

“It is chilling to all speech rights when the federal government’s memo sets out no criminal charges but claims one student protestor can affect U.S. foreign policy,” said Gloria J. Browne-Marshall, a constitutional law professor at John Jay College.

Khalil’s wife, Noor Abdalla, also spoke out.

“My husband is a political prisoner being deprived of his rights because he believes Palestinians deserve equal dignity and freedom,” she said. “There is nothing the government can say that can silence that truth.”

While Khalil may not be deported immediately — he still has a pending federal case in New Jersey — his lawyers plan to appeal the Louisiana ruling. They are also seeking bail and a court injunction that would allow his release as he awaits further legal proceedings.

In the broader immigration crackdown, Khalil is not alone. Over 400 students, faculty, and researchers have had their visas revoked this year. His case may set a powerful precedent for what comes next.

Source: CNN – A Louisiana immigration judge says Mahmoud Khalil can be deported

The post Columbia Grad Faces Deportation Over Pro-Palestine Views, Sparking Free Speech Debate appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.