Chicago Bulls guard Jaden Ivey was seen street preaching after the team waived him for remarks against an LGBT celebration.
Ivey said during a video stream on Instagram that the NBA’s decision to promote “pride month” was indeed a celebration of “unrighteousness,” according to a report from ESPN.
“The world proclaims LGBTQ, right?” Ivey asked his audience.
“They proclaim Pride Month and the NBA does, too. They show it to the world. They say, ‘Come join us for Pride Month to celebrate unrighteousness.’ They proclaim it on the billboards. They proclaim it on the streets. Unrighteousness,” he added.
After being barred from playing for the rest of the season, a video of Ivey street preaching went viral on social media.
The basketball player was heard on a microphone quoting from the Sermon on the Mount, citing Jesus’ reminder that “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”
A group of apparent fellow street preachers were in the background, holding a large sign that said “Jesus died for you; God loves you and wants to save you from your sins.”
The sign called on readers to “repent of sin; believe the gospel; obey Jesus.”
The video was originally posted on TikTok but was shared on other platforms.
The recently fired Chicago Bulls player Jaden Ivey street preaching this evening.
Ivey has been lauded by various Christian leaders for his faithfulness in standing against homosexuality and transgenderism.
Josh Howerton, an evangelical pastor in Dallas, Texas, commended Ivey for refusing to bow down to the LGBT movement — even though his decision has cost him — referencing accounts of Daniel and his friends in the Old Testament, who refused to participate in the false worship of Babylon.
“To understand what just happened to NBA star Jaden Ivey, all we have to do is go back to Daniel in the Bible. Obey God rather than men,” Howerton said.
Howerton added in a post on X that other Christians are likely to face temptation when they take stands for righteousness and against cultural evils.
To every Christian within the sound of my voice: This is 1000% what’s going to happen to you the moment you start living boldy by your convictions.
Now is the time to answer the question: Whose team do you care most about being a star on? pic.twitter.com/lBobbPT1fZ
“To every Christian within the sound of my voice: This is 1000% what’s going to happen to you the moment you start living boldly by your convictions,” the pastor wrote.
“Now is the time to answer the question: Whose team do you care most about being a star on?”
Troubled singer Britney Spears has checked into rehab for drugs and alcohol after she was arrested for DUI in Southern California, TMZ reported.
Last month, TMZ reported that the 44-year-old was taken to a hospital to have her blood drawn after she was pulled over and arrested for driving while intoxicated in Ventura, California.
Britney’s manager, Cade Hudson, told TMZ that Spears is going to take steps to comply with the law.
“This was an unfortunate incident that is completely inexcusable. Britney is going to take the right steps and comply with the law and hopefully this can be the first step in long overdue change that needs to occur in Britney’s life. Hopefully, she can get the help and support she needs during this difficult time,” Hudson told TMZ.
Page Six obtained dispatch audio that revealed Britney Spears was swerving ‘in and out’ of lanes before she was pulled over.
“Black BMW sedan in and out of lanes… speeding,” the dispatch audio revealed.
On Sunday, TMZ reported that Britney Spears has voluntarily checked herself into rehab.
Britney Spears is in rehab for substance abuse … TMZ has learned.
She checked in a few days ago somewhere in the United States. Sources with direct knowledge tell TMZ … people close to the singer had been urging her to check herself in and she finally agreed to do so voluntarily.
As one source put it … “She realizes she hit rock bottom.”
Britney has had issues with drugs — in particular Adderall — and alcohol for years. During her many trips to Mexico, she made it a point to replenish her Adderall supply.
Our sources say … part of the reason she’s gone to rehab now is because of her pending DUI case. As one source says, “She knows strategically this will look good in front of the judge — that she’s taking it seriously.”
We’re told her sons and other have been strongly supportive of the move.
In recent years, Britney Spears has worried fans by posting troubling videos to her social media.
Britney Spears posts NAKED video on Instagram, showing off her behind, as she writhes around in the ocean- days after her family expressed extreme concern for her well being.
The star caption the bizarre video “Hello to my a**.”
Meanwhile, the Manhattan District Attorney has launched an investigation into Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell over serious allegations of sexual assault.
The San Francisco Chronicle on Friday published a story about a woman who claimed that Democrat Eric Swalwell sexually assaulted her twice.
The woman, who worked as a staffer in Swalwell’s office for two years, told The San Francisco Chronicle that Swalwell began pursuing her just weeks after she was hired at the age of 21 in 2019.
After the San Francisco Chronicle dropped its bombshell report on Swalwell, three additional women spoke to CNN and provided evidence about alleged additional misconduct by the California Democrat.
The Swalwell staffer said she was sexually assaulted by Swalwell in 2019
The staffer also said Swalwell raped her years later in 2024 after she left his employment.
The unidentified former female staffer sat down with CNN and recounted some of the horrific details about the alleged rape that occurred in 2024.
“I went to the bathroom, and I don’t remember anything after that,” she said, adding that she “remembered the next day.”
“I can see flashes of that evening of him on top of me, me pushing him off, him grabbing me. It was a lot more aggressive. It was aggressive,” she said about the 2024 assault.
“He didn’t stop. He didn’t stop. I woke up the next morning naked, alone in his hotel. I, for a moment, didn’t even know that I was in his hotel room. That’s how intoxicated I was,” she said.
CNN said they corroborated the woman’s claims by speaking with friends and family that she confided in. CNN also reviewed photos and screenshots of contemporaneous text messages. The outlet reviewed a message from her medical provider the week after she received the pregnancy and STD test calling her a “survivor.”
More than 50 former Swalwell staffers on Sunday demanded the California Democrat resign from Congress.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani Delivers 100 Days Address. (NYC Mayor’s Office)
New York City Communist Mayor Zohran Mamdani is facing growing backlash after throwing an elaborate, self-congratulatory celebration marking his first 100 days in office, while many of his biggest campaign promises have already unraveled.
The event, held at a large venue in Queens, was framed as a celebration of “progress.” In reality, it raised serious questions about priorities inside City Hall.
Mamdani not only delivered a speech praising his own leadership but also leaned heavily on the same socialist rhetoric that defined his campaign, doubling down rather than addressing mounting concerns about performance.
“I was elected as a Democratic socialist, and I will govern as a Democratic socialist,” Mamdani declared, reiterating a message that continues to divide voters across the city.
The optics only grew more questionable from there. The event featured what attendees described as a “100 days museum,” complete with staged displays celebrating minor accomplishments—such as pothole repairs and symbolic policy announcements.
At one point, even a fast-food wrapper from a public appearance was reportedly included in the exhibit.
Supporters may see this as creative outreach. But most Americans see something else entirely: a mayor more focused on branding than governing.
Mamdani’s speech emphasized small-scale infrastructure fixes, including road repaving and drainage improvements. While those projects matter, they stand in sharp contrast to the sweeping promises that helped propel him into office—many of which remain unfulfilled or significantly scaled back.
Among the most notable reversals is his pledge to halt the clearing of homeless encampments.
That position quicklyshifted after severe winter conditions exposed the dangers of leaving individuals in unsafe environments. What was once framed as a moral stance became a logistical and humanitarian challenge that the administration could not sustain.
Similarly, Mamdani’s proposed “Department of Community Safety”—a costly initiative designed to replace certain police responses with social workers—has stalled almost entirely.
Originally pitched at a price tag of roughly $1.1 billion, the program has reportedly been reduced to a fraction of that funding, with minimal staffing and little visible impact.
Budget decisions have also drawn scrutiny. During the campaign, Mamdani promised to increase funding for public libraries. Instead, funding was cut—fueling criticism that his administration is prioritizing ideology over consistent policy execution.
Even as these issues mount, Mamdani continues to align himself with national socialist figures, including Bernie Sanders, who appeared alongside him during the 100-day celebrations.
The partnership reinforces Mamdani’s ideological direction, but it may also deepen concerns among moderate voters already questioning the city’s trajectory.
Public opinion appears to reflect that uncertainty. A recent poll from Marist College placed Mamdani’s approval rating at just48%—well below the early numbers posted by his predecessor, Eric Adams, who reached 61% during his first 100 days.
Early approval ratings often set the tone for an administration’s political stability, and Mamdani’s numbers suggest a growing disconnect between messaging and results.
The broader concern extends beyond a single event or speech. Mamdani’s first 100 days were expected to demonstrate how a self-described socialist could translate campaign energy into governance. Instead, the period has been marked by scaled-back proposals, policy reversals, and a heavy emphasis on optics.
Celebrations can be part of politics. But when they begin to replace measurable results, voters tend to notice.
For now, Mamdani is betting that messaging and movement politics can sustain momentum. The question facing New York City is whether that strategy will hold—or whether the gap between promises and performance will continue to widen.
In the wake of President Trump’s decisive second-term victory, the Democratic Party finds itself in full retreat mode. The old playbook, full of shoving Woke extremism, drag queen story hours, and open borders down America’s throat, backfired spectacularly.
So now they’re trying a new tactic: pretending to be one of us. No more rainbow flags and “defund the police” chants in public.
Instead, they’re courting centrists, independents, and – most brazenly – the very heart of the MAGA base: churchgoing white Christians, Baptists, Evangelicals, and everyday folks who still believe in the God of the Bible.
Nowhere is this deception more obvious than in the 2026 Texas U.S. Senate race. Texas hasn’t sent a Democrat to statewide office since 1994, yet the party is all-in on James Talarico, their freshly minted nominee for the Class II seat currently held by Sen. John Cornyn.
Talarico, a 36-year-old state representative and Presbyterian seminarian, is being sold as a “man of deep faith” – a Lord-begging, Scripture-quoting Texan who supposedly shares the values of Sunday-morning pew-sitters across the Lone Star State. Don’t buy it. This is classic wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing territory, straight out of Matthew 7:15.
Talarico doesn’t hide his church membership. He’s been at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian in Austin since he was a toddler, and he frames every policy through a distorted Christian lens.
“Love thy neighbor” becomes his justification for open borders and taxpayer-funded abortion. He preaches that Jesus was a “feminist” and twists the Annunciation story to claim Mary’s consent somehow endorses abortion rights.
He’s called God “non-binary,” insisted trans kids are “God’s children,” and defended access to abortion for transgender minors. His home church flies rainbow flags, pushes reproductive “justice,” and has a long track record of ordaining gay clergy and sheltering illegal immigrants.
This is not the Christianity that built Texas or America. Baptists and Evangelicals – the most populous faith groups in the country – overwhelmingly reject these positions.
They believe life begins at conception, marriage is between one man and one woman, and biological sex is not a social construct.
Talarico’s brand of faith is mainline Presbyterian progressivism: heavy on social justice rhetoric, light on actual biblical orthodoxy.
He rails against “Christian nationalism” while hijacking Jesus’ words to bless every item on the Democratic wish list – from gender ideology to wealth redistribution.
The broader Democratic strategy is clear. After years of alienating religious voters, party operatives have decided to “faith-wash” their agenda.
They’re flooding church-adjacent spaces with talk of compassion and neighborly love while quietly advancing policies that shred the family, redefine human dignity, and mock traditional morality.
In Texas, this isn’t subtle. Talarico’s viral clips quote Scripture to defend LGBTQ+ causes and abortion access – exactly the issues ordinary believers see as direct assaults on God’s design. It’s lip service wrapped in a seminarian’s collar.
Make no mistake: this is a trap. Democrats aren’t converting to traditional values – they’re co-opting the language of faith to peel off just enough church voters to flip a red state purple.
They know Texas remains a GOP stronghold. They know the Christian base decides elections here. So they’re donning the sheep’s clothing, hoping believers won’t notice the ravenous policy wolf underneath.
Texas Christians have seen this movie before. Progressive “faith leaders” have spent decades whitewashing tombs – beautiful on the outside, full of dead men’s bones inside (Matthew 23:27). T
alarico’s campaign is the latest chapter: a Trojan horse rolled straight into the sanctuary, promising “higher values” while delivering the same radical agenda that lost them the White House.
The 2026 Senate race is still months away, but the warning lights are flashing. Real faith doesn’t bend Scripture to fit the latest Woke fad. Real American Christian heritage – forged by Baptists, Evangelicals, and generations of believers – defends life, family, and liberty without apology. Don’t let the Democrats’ new church tour fool you. They aren’t coming to pray with you. They’re coming to convert you – to their side.
Texas voters, keep your eyes open. The wolves are in the flock, and they’re wearing clerical collars this time.
Mike Robertson is a U.S. domestic and foreign policy analyst and commentator, with more than 30 years of law enforcement experience in some of the toughest neighborhoods. You may follow him on X at @Mike_for_MAGAand Reddit.
Former Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) speaks out following release of explosive videos of her abusing her staff. Credit: Inside California Politics Screenshot
The race for the next California governor has been thrown into turmoil after Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign effectively collapsed under the weight of mounting sexual assault allegations and a complete loss of party support.
With every major Democrat endorsement now withdrawn, the race has rapidly shifted focus to the remaining candidates. At the top of that list for Democrats is former Representative Katie Porter—but her own record is now facing renewed scrutiny.
As previously reported by TGP, Swalwell’s political standing deteriorated almost overnight, leaving a sudden vacuum in a race he once led. That shift has elevated Porter into a leading position among Democrat contenders. However, unlike the narrative being pushed by much of the media, Porter’s background is not without controversy.
Porter has faced longstanding allegations stemming from a contentious divorce with her ex-husband, Matt Hoffman. According to court documents and reporting, both Porter and Hoffman filed domestic violence restraining orders against each other following a 2013 altercation.
Hoffman made serious accusations at the time, alleging that Porter engaged in physical and verbal abuse. His claims included allegations that Porter struck him, caused injury during domestic disputes, and engaged in degrading behavior.
Among the most widely cited claims were that Porter allegedly dumped a boiling pot of potatoes on him during an argument and shattered household items in a way that caused injury.
People make allegations against each other after messy divorces quite often, but if Hoffman, Porter’s ex-husband, was lying, it would not add up. Specific stories, like a boiling pot of potatoes, are much harder to fabricate and consistently maintain than general claims. At the same time, they would still be difficult to definitively prove.
Porter has consistently denied these allegations, and her campaign has pushed back aggressively, arguing that Hoffman later walked back aspects of his claims.
However, the situation remains disputed. Hoffman himself later stated to Fox News Digital that he did not recant the allegations, directly contradicting claims made by Porter’s campaign.
The legal battle between the two included competing restraining orders, police involvement, and a broader dispute over custody and conduct during their separation. Ultimately, the case unfolded in the context of a highly contentious divorce, with both parties accusing each other of abusive behavior.
In addition to the domestic dispute allegations, Porter has also faced significant criticism from former staffers who have accused her of fostering a toxic workplace environment.
Reports describing emotionally abusive management practices have surfaced over time, adding another layer of concern about her leadership style.
One resurfaced video further fueled that narrative, showing Porter angrily rebuking a staff member who moved into a video shot during a call with then-Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, telling the unidentified staffer to “get out of my f****** shot.”
Taken together, these issues raise significant questions about the current state of the Democrat primary field. With Swalwell effectively pushed out, the assumption that remaining candidates would present a clean alternative is now being challenged.
The broader political implications are difficult to ignore. Democrats in California are now navigating a race where the leading figures are increasingly defined by controversy rather than policy.
That dynamic could reshape both the primary and the general election, particularly in a state that often sets the tone for national political trends.
For now, Porter remains a central figure in the race. But as scrutiny intensifies, the question is no longer just who replaces Swalwell—it is whether any of the remaining candidates can withstand the level of examination that comes with leading a statewide campaign.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has referred the “Nannygate” scandal involving corrupt Rep. Eric Swalwell to the Department of Homeland Security for criminal investigation several years ago, but the case has come under renewed scrutiny following Joel Gilbert’s exposé at The Gateway Pundit.
Homeland Security posted the update on X:
USCIS has been collecting information on the allegations involving Congressman Eric Swalwell hiring of a Brazilian national as a nanny without lawful work authorization.
@USCIS has referred this matter to DHS law enforcement for investigation.
No one is above the law, including a member of Congress.
USCIS has been collecting information on the allegations involving Congressman Eric Swalwell hiring of a Brazilian national as a nanny without lawful work authorization.@USCIS has referred this matter to DHS law enforcement for investigation.
The entire Nannygate scandal exploded thanks to the tireless work of Gateway Pundit contributor and investigative filmmaker Joel Gilbert, who filed detailed federal complaints with DHS and the FEC back on February 16, 2026.
On February 16, 2026, I filed two well-documented federal complaints against Congressman Eric Swalwell, one with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS/ICE), and another with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Together, these filings raise serious questions about whether Swalwell engaged in illegal patterns of conduct that reflect his disregard for federal law and a potential abuse of campaign funds for personal benefit.
At issue are two distinct but closely related allegations: first, that Swalwell continued employing a foreign national nanny illegally for two years after her legal work authorization expired; and second, that he illegally used campaign funds to cover what appear to be ongoing personal childcare expenses totaling more than $300,000.
Taken together, these allegations suggest a sustained pattern in which legal requirements were well understood by Swalwell, and then ignored for personal gain. I published both complaints on SwalwellisDisqualified.com.
The DHS/ICE Complaint: Alleged Employment of an Unauthorized Worker
In 2022, Eric Swalwell and his wife employed a Brazilian national, Amanda Barbosa, as a live-in Au Pair under the J-1 visa program. Barbosa resided in the Swalwell household and provided full-time childcare for their three young children. In 2022, Barbosa was paid approximately $46,929.70 for her services by Swalwell’s campaign under “Childcare for Campaign Events”.
Rep. Eric Swalwell with his nanny.
Critically, Barbosa’s J-1 visa, and thus her legal authorization to work, expired at the end of December 2022. The Swalwells were fully aware of this deadline. In fact, earlier in 2022, they attempted to secure permanent work authorization for Barbosa by filing a federal labor certification (ETA-9089), which required a formal job posting in The Washington Post. Their advertisement outlined a demanding, full-time nanny position which included:
taking care of 3 kids & help satisfy kids’ physical, emotional, intellectual, & social needs
assist w/care of dog, organize kids’ play activities, drive kids to appts & activities
household cleaning &laundry, prep kids’ meals, Mon to Fri, 7A to 4P, Wknd work time
The Swalwell’s permanent work authorization application was denied by the Department of Labor.
As I document in my DHS complaint, rather than replacing Barbosa with a legally authorized worker when her J-1 Visa expired, the Swalwells appear to have continued employing her as a live-in nanny for two additional years in 2023 and 2024, despite the absence of any publicly available evidence of renewed work authorization. They curiously kept her “off the books” of the Swalwell campaign during this time.
In my DHS complaint, I present multiple categories of evidence that indicate Barbosa remained actively employed by the Swalwells in 2023 and 2024 after her J-1 visa expired, including:
Social media activity – showing Barbosa regularly engaged in childcare, travel, and family events with the Swalwell household throughout 2023 and 2024
Professional records – including Barbosa’s LinkedIn profile where she lists herself as a full-time childcare provider in the United States from 2021 to present
Financial records – including campaign-related childcare payments to Barbosa in 2022 and then again in 2025 in Swalwell’s FEC filings
In the complaint, I ask federal authorities to investigate whether this conduct violated immigration laws, visa regulations, tax obligations, and labor laws, and for them to determine if it involved an illegal conspiracy between Swalwell and his wife Brittany.
The FEC Complaint: Campaign Funds for Personal Childcare
The second complaint, filed with the Federal Election Commission, addresses a separate but equally serious issue: whether Eric Swalwell illegally used campaign funds from donors to pay for his regular personal childcare expenses.
Federal election law is clear under 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b): campaign funds may not be converted to personal use. Campaign funds may only be used for expenses that arise directly from campaign activity and would not exist otherwise. Personal expenses, those that would exist regardless of candidacy, are strictly prohibited.
In 2022, Swalwell sought formal guidance from the FEC on whether he could use campaign funds to pay for childcare. The Commission’s response to Swalwell was explicit: such expenses are permissible only if they are tied to specific campaign events and are properly documented. As allege in my complaint, Swalwell disregarded that guidance and instead subsidized his candidate’s personal household expenses.
In my FEC complaint, I detail a five-year pattern of Swalwell childcare-related expenditures from 2021 through 2025 that appears to reflect regular ongoing household childcare rather than campaign-specific needs, with total childcare-related disbursements exceeding $300,000 over five years. These payments were recurring weekly, consistent in amounts, and structured like a payroll. Several red flags include:
Lack of documentation by Swalwell to the FEC tying payments to specific campaign events
Year-round, continuous childcare coverage
Reimbursement structures suggesting personal expenses being funneled through the campaign
Payroll tax reimbursements consistent with a full-time employment relationship
Abuse of Office for Personal Gain by Eric Swalwell
Taken together, my DHS and FEC complaints outline a consistent pattern:
Swalwell at first sought to comply with the law (labor authorization application, request for FEC advisory opinion)
Then the law said “no”, imposing clear limitations (denial of work authorization, denial of regular childcare expenses)
But Swalwell’s conduct continued anyway, in violation of the legal decisions and in blatant disregard of the law
Employing a foreign national without valid work authorization, if proven, would reflect a willingness by Swalwell to ignore immigration and labor laws that public officials are sworn to uphold. Despite being a former deputy district attorney, Eric Swalwell appears to have a problem with immigration law. In his campaign for governor of California, he vows to expel ICE, while working to defund DHS in congress.
Campaign contributions meanwhile are donated for political purposes, not to finance a candidate’s private household expenses. If Swalwell used campaign funds to maintain a full-time nanny or subsidize routine childcare, it would represent a fundamental breach of trust.
These allegations come at a pivotal moment. Eric Swalwell is a candidate for governor of California, a role that demands not only policy leadership but also credibility, integrity, and respect for the law. In a statewide campaign, issues of honesty and transparency, respect for the law, misuse of donor funds, and personal accountability are central.
At its core, my complaints amount to a test of whether the rule of law applies equally to those who seek to govern. The allegations I detail, if substantiated, would demonstrate a sustained pattern of conduct by Swalwell in which his legal obligations were acknowledged, clarified, and then ignored. These are not technical violations.
They relate to judgment and integrity. It appears Eric Swalwell has neither. He should withdraw from the governor’s race while these investigations are ongoing.
Rep. Eric Swalwell – Screencap of Twitter/X video.
Rep. Eric Swalwell’s problems are just going from bad to worse.
The California Democrat, who was until recently leading the polls for California’s upcoming gubernatorial race, is now facing allegations that he violated both immigration and campaign finance laws.
According to a report from The New York Post, two complaints filed with federal authorities claim Swalwell and his wife kept Brazilian national Amanda Barbosa working for them after her legal work status expired.
One complaint filed with the Department of Labor alleges the couple misled federal authorities to extend her stay.
A separate complaint filed with the Department of Homeland Security claims Swalwell paid Barbosa under the table using campaign funds while she lacked valid work authorization.
Barbosa first arrived in the United States in 2021 on an au pair visa. She was hired later that year to care for the couple’s three children.
We were going to wait until just before the California Governor primary to NUKE Eric Swalwell out of the race with my recordings of him inebriated with lobbyists at dinner
But now that his DEMOCRAT friends are calling on him to DROP OUT, I guess I don’t have to wait!
Federal Election Commission records show Barbosa received $3,914 in campaign funds in 2021, followed by $46,930 in 2022.
Her visa expired in December 2022. Under student visa rules, which she later used, she was not permitted to work off campus.
Despite that, complaints allege she continued working as a live-in nanny for the family.
Social media posts reviewed in the filings appear to show Barbosa regularly caring for the children throughout 2023 and 2024, including at family events and public appearances.
Campaign records show payments to Barbosa stopped on paper after 2022.
However, more than $52,000 in childcare expenses were later reimbursed directly to Swalwell, a move the complaint alleges was used to conceal continued payments.
By 2025, Barbosa was again listed in campaign payments, receiving $38,905, according to FEC data.
As TGP’s Cassandra MacDonald reported on Saturday, Vice President JD Vance announced no deal had been reached with Iran after a 21-hour marathon negotiations.
Vance made the announcement during a press conference in Islamabad on Saturday night.
The Vice President traveled to Pakistan to engage in historic, direct negotiations with Iran after President Trump announced a double-sided ceasefire last week.
“We’ve been at it now for 21 hours, and we’ve had a number of substantive discussions with the Iranians. That’s the good news,” Vance said.
“The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement. And I think that’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America,” he added.
WATCH:
JD Vance: “The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement. And I think that’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the US. So, we go back to the US having not come to an agreement … they have chosen not to accept our terms” pic.twitter.com/uqFnwVT76g
At the time it was unclear which specific ‘red line’ points the US and Iran could not agree to during the negotiations.
“We’ve made very clear what our red lines are, what things we’re willing to accommodate them on, and what things we’re not willing to accommodate them on, and we’ve made that as clear as we possibly could,” Vance said. “Iran may have chosen not to accept our terms.”
“Well, I won’t go into all the details because I don’t want to negotiate in public after we negotiated for 21 hours in private,” Vance said.
“But the simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon. That is the core goal of the President of the United States, and that’s what we’ve tried to achieve through these negotiations,” he said.
Here is the US’s ‘red line’ list according to Semafor (It is unclear if any points were agreed upon):
– End all uranium enrichment
– Dismantle all major nuclear enrichment facilities
– Retrieve highly enriched uranium
– Accept a broader peace, security and de-escalation framework that includes regional allies
– End funding for terrorist proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis
– Fully open the Strait of Hormuz, charging no tolls for passage
Per a US official, the US and Iran did not reach agreement to all of the following points during talks this weekend (which are considered red lines for the US):
– End all uranium enrichment – Dismantle all major nuclear enrichment facilities – Retrieve highly enriched uranium…
On Sunday, following Vance’s announcement that Iran failed to agree to the US’s terms, President Trump and CENTCOM announced that there will be a Naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz.
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces will begin implementing a blockade of all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports on April 13 at 10 a.m. ET, in accordance with the President’s proclamation.
The blockade will be enforced impartially against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas, including all Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. CENTCOM forces will not impede freedom of navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports.
The Trump administration, including President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, has brought faith back to the U.S. government. Photo courtesy of the Presidential Prayer Team.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), a secular advocacy organization founded in 1947, has filed two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Labor, alleging both agencies illegally withheld public records related to monthly Christian prayer services organized by their respective department heads.
The suits, filed March 23, 2026, in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., are procedural in nature and do not directly challenge the constitutionality of the prayer services.
They are the fourth and fifth FOIA lawsuits AU has filed against the Trump administration, following earlier suits against the Departments of Health and Human Services, State, and Veterans Affairs over implementation of the president’s February 2025 executive order aimed at eradicating anti-Christian bias in the federal government.
The prayer services began in May 2025, when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth organized the first “Secretary’s Christian Prayer and Worship Service” during a workday at the Pentagon auditorium.
The event was broadcast live on the Department of War’s internal television network, and all department employees were invited to attend. Hegseth’s pastor, Brooks Potteiger of Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, a congregation of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, delivered the first address. The services have continued monthly since.
Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer launched a parallel initiative at the Department of Labor in December 2025, citing Hegseth’s services as her inspiration.
At the inaugural DOL service on December 10, Chavez-DeRemer spoke of her Catholic faith and said the country would “probably need a little more prayer” as it marked its 250th year. The services have also continued monthly at Labor.
When a federal agency organizes an official event, it generates a paper trail subject to FOIA, meaning any member of the public can formally request those records.
AU submitted requests to both agencies in December 2025 seeking communications with employees, contractors, and other agencies about the services; costs; the time employees spent coordinating them; invited speakers and transcripts; and any internal complaints. Under FOIA, agencies are legally required to respond within 20 business days.
When neither agency did, AU sued to compel disclosure. The records AU is demanding almost certainly exist. Invitations were drafted and distributed, making them government records subject to FOIA.
The Pentagon auditorium requires staffing, audio-visual support, and security, all of which generate cost records. Bringing in outside speakers requires correspondence or contracts.
The services were broadcast on DOD’s internal network, which requires technical coordination that produces documentation. Any employee who filed a formal objection would have generated a complaint record.
The gap between AU’s legal argument and its public statements is worth noting. The legal basis of the current suits is entirely procedural, as agencies did not respond to records requests on time.
But AU’s public statements go further, with President and CEO Rachel Laser accusing Hegseth and Chavez-DeRemer of abusing government positions and taxpayer resources to impose religion on federal workers, and claiming that even voluntary services carry implicit coercion because employees may feel pressure to attend to appease superiors.
That coercion argument is an assertion, not an established fact. AU has not produced evidence that any employee was disciplined or penalized for not attending. A court ruling on the FOIA suits will not address it.
The FOIA suits appear to be a first step toward a more substantive constitutional challenge. However, despite its widespread use in political debate, the phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers, and therefore has no legal standing. Consequently, claiming that a prayer service violates the separation of church and state would have no legal weight in court.
If the records reveal significant taxpayer expenditure on the services, evidence of employee pressure through official channels, or internal complaints that were ignored, that material could form the factual foundation for an Establishment Clause lawsuit. Without the records, such a case would be speculative.
The strategy of filing a FOIA request, suing when agencies do not comply, then using the documents to build a larger case, is a standard litigation approach for advocacy organizations.
Whether that larger case could succeed is another question. The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District substantially strengthened the right of government employees to engage in personal religious expression in their official capacity. In that case, a public-school football coach who prayed on the field after games was found to be protected under the First Amendment.
A Cabinet secretary holding voluntary prayer services in a government building is on comparable or stronger legal ground. Any Establishment Clause challenge would face that precedent directly and would likely fail before the current court.
The services have continued through the U.S. military operation in Iran. At a recent Pentagon service, Hegseth read a prayer delivered by a military chaplain to troops who had captured former Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro: “Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation.”
He told attendees that the monthly gathering was all the more fitting given what tens of thousands of Americans were doing at that moment.
The most probable outcome of the current litigation is that a court will order the agencies to produce the requested records, as courts routinely compel FOIA compliance regardless of the subject matter involved. AU will then assess whether those records support a constitutional challenge.
Any future challenge would have to rest on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion, a significantly narrower legal standard than the phrase implies, and one the current Supreme Court has interpreted with increasing deference to religious expression.
Given the Supreme Court’s direction on religious liberty, the prayers will almost certainly continue.
