Month: April 2026

Euro-Globalists only know how to convene endless summits.

A few weeks ago, all the ‘geopolitical experts’ in the MSM and all the Euro-Globalists were fuming at Donald J. Trump for predicting that the US’ ‘allies’ would not come to its aid if a war broke out.

Needless to say, that was exactly what happened, and now the US president is furious and ‘disgusted’ with his ‘partners’, giving serious thought to leaving the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), in a development sending shockwaves across Europe and the world.

Trump Considers U.S. Withdrawal from “Paper Tiger” NATO as Rift Deepens

U.S. President Donald Trump told The Telegraph he is strongly considering leaving “Paper Tiger” NATO after allies refused to back his Iran war, raising concerns over alliance unity and future U.S. commitments…

— Clash Report (@clashreport) April 1, 2026

The Telegraph reported:

“The US president labelled the alliance a ‘paper tiger’ and said removing America from the defense treaty was now ‘beyond reconsideration’.

[…] He replied: ‘Oh yes, I would say [it’s] beyond reconsideration. I was never swayed by Nato. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way’.”

NEW: Donald Trump says the UK “doesn’t even have” a Navy

“You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work… All Starmer wants is costly windmills that are driving your energy prices through the roof”

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) April 1, 2026

Trump said of the NATO lack of help: ‘I just think it should be automatic’.

“Singling out the UK, the US president rebuked Sir Keir Starmer for refusing to get involved in the American-Israeli war against Iran, suggesting that the Royal Navy was not up for the task.

‘You don’t even have a navy. You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work’, he said, referring to the state of Britain’s fleet of warships.”

Before anyone objects to Trump’s characterization, it’s important to remember that yesterday, British first sea lord General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, openly admitted to the press that the Royal Navy is ‘not ready for war’.

In the meantime, Starmer will convene a ‘virtual summit’ to plan the future of Hormuz strait after the military conflict stops.

Politico reported:

“Britain will host a virtual meeting of 35 nations Thursday in a bid to ease the Strait of Hormuz crisis.

Speaking in Downing Street British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Wednesday his Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper will bring together the nations behind last month’s joint statement urging safe passage through the waterway after Iranian forces de facto closed the vital shipping route.

[…] The U.K. will also convene military planners to examine how they can “marshal our capabilities and make the Strait accessible and safe after the fighting has stopped,” Starmer said.”

NOW – Starmer says, “It is now clear that the impact of this war will affect the future of our country,” and that military planners will meet to discuss how to make Hormuz Strait accessible and safe after the war, “I do have to level with people on this. This will not be easy.” pic.twitter.com/KkhOWTGQQf

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) April 1, 2026

Read more:

Give Peace a Chance: Viktor Orbán Meets with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago – “The Good News of the Day: He’s Going to Solve It!”

The post Trump Seriously Considering Leaving NATO, Says the UK ‘Doesn’t Even Have a Navy’ – Failing British PM Starmer Calls a ‘Summit’ To Discuss Future of Strait of Hormuz appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune announced plans on Wednesday to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, including ICE and CBP, for the next three years. 

The plan to fund the entire department will be on “two parallel tracks” using the appropriations and reconciliation processes, the Congressional leaders announced, noting that the package will “ensure border security and immigration enforcement will be funded for the balance of the Trump Administration and insulated from future attempts by the Democrats to defund those agencies.

This comes after President Trump released a statement, saying he’s “working in close conjunction with House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Leader John Thune” to fund ICE and Border Patrol “through a process that doesn’t need Radical Left Democrat votes, and bypasses the Senate Filibuster.”

“We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us. We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them,” Trump said, setting a June 1 deadline for Congress to pass the bill.

Still, he called on Senate Republicans to terminate the filibuster “IMMEDIATELY.”

(VIDEO) Tim Burchett Eviscerates Senate RINOs for Refusal to Fund Government and Pass SAVE Act, Calls for Thune to be Replaced as Leader

The process that was announced will pass the bipartisan Senate-backed bill that funded DHS but excluded funding for ICE and CBP, which the House previously blocked. And through reconciliation, the Senate can pass three years of ICE and CBP funding with a simple majority, rather than the 60-vote threshold required by the filibuster.

“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited. In return, Democrats will once again demonstrate to the American people their support for open borders and keeping criminal illegal immigrants in America,” the statement reads.

Full statement below:

“We appreciate and share the President’s determination to once and for all bring an end to the Democrat DHS shutdown.

“In the coming days, Republicans in the Senate and House will be following through on the President’s directive by fully funding the entire Department of Homeland Security on two parallel tracks: through the appropriations process and through the reconciliation process.

“We appreciate that Senator Graham and the Senate Budget Committee have already initiated the process of developing a budget resolution that will ensure border security and immigration enforcement will be funded for the balance of the Trump Administration and insulated from future attempts by the Democrats to defund those agencies.

“We operated under a belief that while our country is in the midst of an international armed conflict, Democrats might finally come to their senses and understand that defunding our homeland security agencies is beyond reckless and very dangerous. While we hoped they would accept the 60-day CR to fund the Department entirely so that bipartisan negotiations could continue, it is now abundantly clear that Democrats place allegiance to their radical left-wing base above all else — including their own power of the purse – which means open borders and protecting criminal illegal aliens. That is not acceptable to Republicans in Congress, nor is it to the American people. We cannot allow Democrats to any longer put the safety of the American public at risk through their open border policies, so we are taking that off the table.

“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited. In return, Democrats will once again demonstrate to the American people their support for open borders and keeping criminal illegal immigrants in America.”

NEW — THUNE/JOHNSON STATEMENT.

House will pass the Senate bill — remember, the bill that JOHNSON and House Republicans dumped all over for a week.

Then they want *3 years* of ICE/CBP funding in reconciliation. pic.twitter.com/WP1cF11APg

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) April 1, 2026

This is a developing story.

The post JUST IN: John Thune and Mike Johnson Announce Plan to Fund DHS and Separately Fund ICE and CBP Through Reconcilliation appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Disgusting scenes unfolded as Jamie Raskin pushed ahead with what critics call yet another cheap political stunt.

With Americans increasingly tuning out his baseless accusations — and even the White House reportedly branding him as having ‘zero credibility’ — Raskin took his outrage campaign across the Atlantic to the European Parliament.

At a meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) on Tuesday, March 24, 2026, Raskin launched into an 18-minute tirade targeting President Donald J. Trump, the MAGA movement, and the European Right.

Throwing his weight behind the bloc’s controversial censorship framework, the so-called Digital Services Act, Raskin claimed: “Their obsession with attacking your tech rules serves one purpose: to dismantle any laws worldwide that might limit far-right propaganda, disinformation, and hate speech.”

But he was swiftly put in his place.

German AfD MEP Petr Bystron tore into Raskin’s remarks, blasting what he described as a dishonest attempt to promote European censorship. In a scathing rebuke, Bystron argued that it should have been Jim Jordan — not Raskin — who was invited to address the committee.

Citing explosive findings presented by Jordan before the House Judiciary Committee, Bystron warned: “We have serious problems with freedom of expression here and with election manipulation in recent years.”

He went on to claim that the European Commission has played a dual role — censoring opposition voices of legitimate, democratically elected politicians on social media, while at the same time funding mainstream media outlets to spread its propaganda.

According to Bystron, eleven years of communication between the Commission and major US Big Tech companies have now been proven — and, based on these facts, he concluded that there are indeed serious problems.

Bystron also vented his anger over Raskin’s invitation to the committee, fuming: “After this is discussed in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, you invite this person to advise us here in the European Parliament — a multiple failed Trump hater — as he used ten minutes of his speaking time to spread hate tirades against Trump.”

He added that it was disastrous that Raskin had portrayed the United States as a dictatorship, likening it to regimes such as North Korea and Iran.

WATCH:

The post MP Slams Raskin in the EU: ‘Jim Jordan should be speaking here instead of you’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Donald Trump is shaking the global stage again, hinting that America could pull out of NATO. The media panics. But beneath the noise is a reality Washington has ignored for years. NATO is broken.

Walking away completely is not the answer. Forcing a renegotiation is. It’s time NATO needs to pay the U.S. for it’s involvement with NATO.  I call it “The Stinchfield Plan for NATO,” and I explain the details in this podcast.

For decades, the United States has carried this alliance on its back. We fund it. We defend it. We lead it. Meanwhile, too many member nations freeload, underinvest in their own defense, and still expect American protection. That era should be over. If NATO wants the United States, NATO needs to pay for the United States. Period.

And then there’s Spain.

If Spain is blocking U.S. access to bases and airspace during critical operations tied to Iran, that’s not just unhelpful. That’s betrayal. You don’t get to sit under the NATO umbrella while undermining the very country that makes that umbrella possible.

So here’s the line. Spain should be kicked out of NATO.

Not warned. Not negotiated with. Removed.

An alliance requires loyalty. If Spain won’t stand with America when it matters, they don’t belong. Let them see what defense looks like without the United States backing them.

This is the reset NATO needs. Pay up. Step up. Or step out.

Plus, a major case tied to birthright citizenship is now on the docket at the Supreme Court of the United States. It’s long overdue. The idea that anyone can come here, have a child, and automatically gain citizenship has been stretched far beyond its original intent. Ending or redefining birthright citizenship would restore integrity, reinforce sovereignty, and make citizenship mean something again.

The post Should the U.S. Leave NATO? NO, NATO Needs to PAY the U.S. to Stay! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A high-stakes oral argument saw an unlikely alliance between liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative stalwart Justice Samuel Alito.

Cecillia Wang, a high-ranking attorney for the far-left ACLU, appeared before the Supreme Court recently to argue that the 14th Amendment requires the U.S. to hand out citizenship to literally anyone born on our soil, including the children of temporary “sojourners” and, by extension, those here illegally.

Wang attempted to lean heavily on English common law and the landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, claiming the history is settled.

There’s just one problem: She’s ignoring what the case actually says.

Even liberal Justice Elena Kagan wasn’t buying Wang’s bright-line fantasy.

Kagan pressed Wang on the specific language used by the Wong Kim Ark court, noting that the Justices back then repeatedly mentioned “domicile,” meaning a permanent, legal residence, as a key factor.

Cecilia Wang:
Domicile was not relevant, and the children born to temporary visitors in the territory of the sovereign were always considered birthright citizens.

Justice Elena Kagan:
Well, Ms. Wang, I mean, everything you say strikes me as—yeah, that’s the way I read it too. But then what are those 20 domicile words doing there? Like, you can take some of them and say, I don’t know, they were just summarizing the facts of the case—but not all of them. And why did they keep on—like, why did they sprinkle that in the opinion?

Cecilia Wang:
Well, I think—but again, those were the stipulated facts in the case. And it’s clear we have textual evidence in the majority opinion that they were simply saying this is an a fortiori application of that controlling rule that comes from the English common law.

Justice Gray writes, again, after setting out the English common law rule and the exceptions—with a single additional exception for children of members of Indian tribes—that the Amendment, in clear words and manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.

And as was pointed out earlier, in the very next part of that same paragraph, he cites Webster discussing Thrasher’s Case, and he says people who are born in this country owe allegiance independently of residence—

I’m sorry—foreign nationals owe allegiance independently of residence, without intention to continue such residence, independently of any domiciliation, and independently of taking any oath of allegiance, which is totally contrary to both the government’s theory of dual allegiance or partial allegiance and to the theory of domiciliation.

Wang tried to dismiss the language as a “stipulated fact” that didn’t really matter, but Justice Samuel Alito wasn’t having any of it.

Alito hammered home the point that the 1898 Court didn’t just “sprinkle” the word in; they framed the entire legal question around parents who had a “permanent domicile and residence” in the U.S.

“Why put it in if it’s irrelevant?” Alito demanded, essentially calling out Wang for trying to gaslight the highest court in the land. He mocked the idea that the Justices of the past would just throw in random, meaningless details about a person’s address if it didn’t impact the legal standard for citizenship.

Justice Samuel Alito:
I mean, I might agree with you if domicile had simply been sprinkled in the opinion. But in Wong Kim Ark, it’s a long opinion—but it begins by saying, “Here’s the question,” and it ends by coming back to the question.

And it says—here’s the question stated at the beginning of the opinion—namely, whether a child born in the United States of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business.

And he states the diplomatic exception, and he says, “For the reasons above stated, this Court is of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

So why put domicile in? Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what is the holding of the case here. He tells us this is the holding of the case. Why put domicile in there? Is it just something irrelevant that he wanted to throw in?

It’s like saying whether a child born in the United States of parents of Chinese descent—who once resided at a particular address in San Francisco—who attempted to enter the country at the Port of San Francisco?

Justice Samuel Alito:
Why put it in if it’s irrelevant?

Cecilia Wang:
Well, Justice Alito, I’ll give you two responses. The first is that, again, it was a stipulated fact. The second is that regardless of what the judgment in the case was—which, again, was an a fortiori application of the rule of decision—the rule of decision in Wong Kim Ark has binding precedential effect.

Even if you think that Wong Kim Ark decided the case based on the stipulated facts, you still have to follow that controlling rule of decision. And if you follow that rule, you get to the same result for people without domicile.

Wong Kim Ark says six times in the first parts of the opinion—as well as on the page the government focuses on—that domicile is not relevant.

The ACLU and their allies in the mainstream media love to claim that “Birthright Citizenship” for everyone is an ancient American tradition.

But as Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out during the heated exchange, the legal community was a “mess” after Wong Kim Ark, with many “sound legal authorities” insisting the question of non-domiciled foreigners (like tourists or illegal aliens) remained wide open.

The 14th Amendment states that citizens are those born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Conservative scholars have long argued, and the data backs it up, that “jurisdiction” meant more than just standing on the geography; it meant a total political allegiance to the United States, excluding those who owe allegiance to a foreign power.

Justice Neil Gorsuch:
On that, what do we do with the fact that after Wong Kim Ark, at least some authorities took the view that the non-domiciliary question wasn’t decided, remained open, and even continued to press the view that domicile is required?

I know you’ve got a lot of good stuff on your side, too. But what do we do with the fact that many, many sound legal authorities thought it remained an open question—even if one of them wasn’t John Marshall Harlan?

Cecilia Wang:
I liked your example from Justice Harlan’s lecture here in D.C. So here’s what I would say: all of the government’s citations in their brief generally either were rejected by Wong Kim Ark expressly—if they predated it—

Justice Neil Gorsuch:
If we’re trying to understand how the legal community understood what happened in Wong Kim Ark, it seems to me it’s a mess. So maybe you can persuade me otherwise.

Cecilia Wang:
I think I can, Justice Gorsuch. First, as to the post-Wong Kim Ark authorities the government cites, each one of them is either inconsistent with Wong Kim Ark’s reasoning or doesn’t mention it at all. Most of them have very little reasoning.

And in contrast, what we have on our side post-Wong Kim Ark is numerous federal court decisions around the time of Wong Kim Ark—between ratification and Wong Kim Ark—that said that domicile is not relevant. They cited Lynch v. Clarke, which again was about the daughter of temporary sojourners.

WATCH:

The post Radical ACLU Attorney Receives Pushback by Justices Kagan and Alito After Claiming that “DOMICILE” Has Never Mattered for Birthright Citizenship appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Far-Left Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson left many Americans scratching their heads after offering a bizarre analogy involving… stealing a wallet in Japan.

During oral arguments in the landmark case tied to President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, Jackson attempted to redefine the concept of “allegiance” under the 14th Amendment, using a hypothetical crime committed abroad.

The exchange occurred during a discussion on the 14th Amendment and the definition of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States

In the warped world of the radical left, being subject to criminal prosecution is now the same thing as the “allegiance” required for birthright citizenship.

Jackson laid out a convoluted hypothetical involving a trip to Japan.

Her argument? If she steals a wallet in Tokyo and gets arrested, she is suddenly “owing allegiance” to the Japanese sovereign.

“If I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. It’s allegiance, meaning can they control you as a matter of law?” Jackson posited. “So there’s this relationship based on even though I’m a temporary traveler… I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense.”

If the mere ability of a state to prosecute a crime constitutes “allegiance,” then the word has lost all meaning. Allegiance is a bond of loyalty to a nation; it is the commitment to defend its laws and its borders. It is not, as Jackson suggests, a “relationship” formed when a pickpocket gets caught in a Tokyo subway or here in America.

Cecillia Wang, an attorney for the far-left ACLU, was quick to jump on the bandwagon, replying, “That’s absolutely right, Justice Jackson.”

WATCH:

The American people are tired of these Ivy League word games. Allegiance is earned through loyalty and legal process, not by committing petty theft in a foreign land.

Justice Jackson’s “wallet” theory isn’t just bizarre; it’s an insult to every legal citizen who actually knows what it means to owe allegiance to the United States of America.

The post YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS UP: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Claims Stealing a Wallet in Japan Makes You ‘Locally Owe Allegiance’ in Bizarre Birthright Citizenship Argument appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

John Sauer, the Justice Department’s Solicitor General, appeared before the Supreme Court on Wednesday to argue President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.

The President also attended the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on Wednesday morning.

The majority of the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship.

President Trump last year asked the US Supreme Court to end birthright citizenship.

“The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to review the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, pushing the issue back before the justices for the second time this year,” CNN reported.

“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” DOJ Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court in the appeal obtained by CNN. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”

Several federal judges have blocked President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.

According to President Trump’s order, the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted by the left to give citizenship to ‘anchor babies.’

“It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth,” Trump’s order stated.

Trump’s order argued the 14th Amendment has always excluded babies born to people in the US illegally.

“[The] Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text,” the order stated.

On Wednesday, Solicitor General John Sauer sparred with Justice Jackson over illegal aliens giving birth in the United States.

No other country allows this. This is suicidal for the United States.

“So, are we bringing pregnant women for depositions?” Justice Jackson asked John Sauer.

“No. As I stated earlier, the Executive Order turns on the lawfulness of status. So, if you give birth to a baby in the hospital right now, it gets the birth certificate in the system – there’s a computer system,” Sauer said.

“So there’s no opportunity, there’s apparently no opportunity then, for the person to prove or say that they actually intended to stay in the United States?” Jackson said.

“The opposite is true. There are opportunities to dispute if they think they are wrongfully denied, which only happens in a tiny minority of cases,” Sauer said.

“After the fact? After the fact? After the baby has been denied citizenship, we go through the process?” Jackson said.

“And I’m summarizing… The computer program automatically generates a Social Security number…provided the system automatically checks the immigration status of the parents, which there are robust databases for. It appears no different to the vast majority of birthing parents,” John Sauer.

AUDIO:

President Trump slammed the birthright citizenship after he left the Supreme Court.

“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright” Citizenship! President DONALD J. TRUMP,” Trump said on Truth Social.

The post John Sauer Spars with Justice Jackson Over Illegals Giving Birth in the US During Supreme Court’s Oral Arguments on Birthright Citizenship (AUDIO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Trump on Wednesday set a June 1 deadline for Congress to pass a bill fully funding the Department of Homeland Security, including ICE and CBP.

This comes after the House of Representatives blocked a bipartisan Senate-backed bill that funded DHS but excluded funding for ICE and CBP.

Trump responded to the bill, telling reporters, “It’s a shame,” and that Senate Republicans are “playing it too soft” by failing to take necessary action. “They should terminate the filibuster, and they should vote,” Trump said.

“Well, he’s only a couple of votes short, but that’s what being a leader is,” Trump said of Senate Majority Leader John Thune, saying there aren’t enough votes.

(VIDEO) Tim Burchett Eviscerates Senate RINOs for Refusal to Fund Government and Pass SAVE Act, Calls for Thune to be Replaced as Leader

Trump again called for Republicans to terminate the filibuster, stating, “we are going forward to fund our incredible ICE Agents and Border Patrol through a process that doesn’t need Radical Left Democrat votes, and bypasses the Senate Filibuster (which should be repealed, IMMEDIATELY!).”

He added that he’s “working in close conjunction with House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Leader John Thune.”

“We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us. We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them,” Trump continued.

“I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st. Our Law Enforcement Officers and the American People should not have to wait until the Democrats see reason or, learn the hard way through the Polls. Hopefully, everyone will be voting REPUBLICAN for the Midterms. Through simple unification, Republicans can do this without the Democrats!”

“The American People should use this opportunity to reflect on the tens of millions of Illegal Aliens, including many Violent Criminals such as Murderers, Rapists, Human Traffickers, Child Molesters, and more, that Joe Biden and his Far Left Liberal Democrat Cronies in Congress (led by Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer) invited and allowed into our Country for the four years before I took office,” Trump said.

These Radical, Weak, and Incompetent Democrats have made clear that if they resume power, they will never again provide funding to secure our Border, or enforce our Immigration Laws.”

Full statement below:

Republicans fully support our Great Men and Women of Law Enforcement, maybe the word should be, LOVE! America thanks each and every one of our wonderful Police, Border Patrol, ICE, and others, for their work to protect our Cities, Towns, Streets and, indeed, our Country itself.

Unlike Republicans, Democrats want to DEFUND the Police, Border Patrol, and all Immigration Enforcement. They want to allow Criminals, the Mentally Insane, and Lunatics from all over the World to come into our Country, totally unvetted and unchecked, putting Americans in serious danger.

That’s why we are going forward to fund our incredible ICE Agents and Border Patrol through a process that doesn’t need Radical Left Democrat votes, and bypasses the Senate Filibuster (which should be repealed, IMMEDIATELY!), working in close conjunction with House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Leader John Thune. We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us. We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them. I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st. Our Law Enforcement Officers and the American People should not have to wait until the Democrats see reason or, learn the hard way through the Polls. Hopefully, everyone will be voting REPUBLICAN for the Midterms. Through simple unification, Republicans can do this without the Democrats!

In the meantime, we will continue to use funding from THE GREAT BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL, which is giving Record Tax Rebates to Citizens all over the Country, to ensure that ICE and Border Patrol Agents are paid ON TIME, and IN FULL, as we have been doing for them throughout the Democrat Shutdown. Immigration Enforcement will continue, and our Border will remain secure, with no Murderers, Drug Dealers, or Criminals of any kind entering our Country.

The American People should use this opportunity to reflect on the tens of millions of Illegal Aliens, including many Violent Criminals such as Murderers, Rapists, Human Traffickers, Child Molesters, and more, that Joe Biden and his Far Left Liberal Democrat Cronies in Congress (led by Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer) invited and allowed into our Country for the four years before I took office. These Radical, Weak, and Incompetent Democrats have made clear that if they resume power, they will never again provide funding to secure our Border, or enforce our Immigration Laws. The Democrats are the Party of Open Borders for Criminals, Crime, Zero Immigration Enforcement, Defunding the Police, and Allowing the Worst of the Worst to have “Get Out of Jail Free” Cards. They want America to be OPEN AND AVAILABLE to Violent Criminals, Thugs, and Lowlifes, not our Great and Loving American Patriots. Don’t forget that in November. WIN THE MIDTERMS! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

The post NEW: Trump Demands Senate GOP Terminate Fillibuster and Pass Bill to Fund DHS by June 1 appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The post The Catholic Church Breaks Historical Record, Surpassing 1.422 Billion Baptized Members for the First Time appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Iran War entered its 33rd day on Wednesday as President Donald Trump claimed that Iran’s president had requested a ceasefire but said the U.S. would not consider it unless the Strait of Hormuz was reopened, declaring in a Truth Social post: “Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!!” 

On Tuesday afternoon, Bloomberg News had reported, citing IRNA news, that Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian had signaled a desire to end the war, running the headline “Iran President Says Ready to End War, Seeks Guarantees: IRNA.”

Subsequent statements from Iranian officials contradicted those reports, with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi telling Al Jazeera Tuesday evening that Tehran is prepared to sustain the war for “at least six months,” while insisting Iran is not engaged in negotiations with Washington and will accept only a full end to the war —not a temporary ceasefire—along with guarantees against renewed attacks.

Iran’s Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Ghalibaf suggested on Wednesday morning that Bloomberg’s and Trump’s claims were based on bad reporting, writing on X: “Out-of-context quotes + manufactured FOMO = War profiteering 101. Do Your Own Research.”

Iran’s IRGC said in a statement provided to Tasnim News Agency on Wednesday that the Strait of Hormuz is now “decisively and fully under the control” of Tehran and said it had carried out five large-scale missile and drone operations since dawn targeting U.S. and Israeli assets across the Gulf and Indian Ocean, including strikes it said hit U.S. positions in the UAE and Bahrain, “an oil tanker belonging to the “illegitimate Zionist regime,” and drones launched toward the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Shipping industry outlet Lloyd’s List confirmed on Wednesday morning that the UAE-owned tanker chartered to QatarEnergy, Aqua 1, was struck by two projectiles while anchored north of Qatar, with one detonating on impact and sparking a fire while a second failed to explode and remained lodged in the engine room.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the UAE is pushing for military action to forcibly reopen the Strait of Hormuz, including lobbying for a U.N. resolution and signaling it is prepared to join a U.S.-led coalition, according to Gulf officials.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Wednesday that Britain will host talks this week among 35 countries on a coalition to reopen the Strait of Hormuz after fighting stops. The move comes after Trump told allies that the U.S. will not use military force to re-open the strait, directing other foreign governments on Tuesday to “go get your own oil!”

At least two drones struck a fuel and engine oil warehouse near Erbil in Iraq’s Kurdistan region on Wednesday, setting off a massive fire and sending black smoke over the area, according to local reporting in Iraq. The targeted facility belongs to Castrol, a subsidiary of British Petroleum.

U.S.–Israeli strikes reportedly hit major Iranian steel sites overnight, with Iranian media reporting damage at Mobarakeh Steel in Isfahan and its Sefid Dasht Steel subsidiary in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province. The steel complex in Isfahan was previously attacked last Friday.

Multiple impact sites were reported across central Israel overnight following an Iranian missile barrage, including in Bnei Brak and Tel Aviv, where the U.S. embassy branch was nearly struck, according to Channel 12. Videos uploaded to X showed the rubble of a collapsed building in Tel Aviv caused by the Iranian attacks.

The post Iran War Enters 33rd Day: Trump Says No Ceasefire until Hormuz Reopened appeared first on The American Conservative.