House Passes Bill Blocking Future Presidents From Banning Oil Drilling Without Congress’ Approval

Legislation was passed 226 to 188 by the Republican-controlled House to prevent future administrations from prohibiting oil and gas drilling without the consent of Congress, giving President Donald Trump another significant win.

The “Protecting American Energy Production Act” forbids the president from “declaring a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing unless Congress authorizes the moratorium.”

Republican House members unanimously voted in favor of the legislation’s passage, while 118 Democrats voted against it.

Just weeks before he left office, former President Joe Biden banned future oil and gas drilling along 625 million acres of coastal and offshore waters, among other oil and gas-related regulations. The bill follows his actions.

The Republican who introduced the bill, Rep. August Pfluger of Texas, stated that the legislation was prompted by worries about possible fracking bans during the Biden administration.

“When President Biden took office, his administration took a ‘whole of government’ approach to wage war on American energy production, pandering to woke environmental extremists and crippling this thriving industry,” Pfluger said in a statement following the bill’s passage.

“My legislation that passed today is a necessary first step in reversing Biden’s war on energy by preventing the federal government from banning the use of hydraulic fracturing,” he said.

As part of his “drill, baby, drill” strategy, President Donald Trump has pledged to unleash energy produced in the United States since the campaign trail.

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum launched internal investigations into agency actions that “burden” energy development, stripping the energy sector of “coercive” climate policies and oil lease bans implemented during the Biden administration.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said Monday that Democrats bear the blame for the pain of a government shutdown, as President Trump and his budget chief moved forward with identifying federal programs to cut.

“Day 27 means it’s almost been a full month since the Democrats shut down the government. And as we near the end of this month, the pain being felt by so many hard-working people around this country is very real and it gets worse with each passing day. Last week, 1.4 million federal workers missed a full paycheck. Now, you know, many of them are furloughed and many more are deemed essential workers,” Johnson said.

“Those who are essential, for example, to keep the country safe — TSA agents we’ve discussed and air traffic controllers and Border Patrol and our troops. But so many of them now are going without pay. The families of military service members and air traffic controllers and so many of these others are now at very real risk of missing the paycheck at the end of this month,” Johnson added.

“The Trump Administration has done everything possible to bend over backwards to try to find sources of funding within the federal government to be able to cover the bases, but it is getting more and more challenging with each day,” Johnson argued.

The Speaker added, “Now, every Republican in Congress wants to stop this Madness desperately. And we have voted many times, over a dozen times, collectively 13 times to reopen the government, to keep it open and reopen it once the Democrats closed it. It’s a simple math problem. We need Democrats to help. You need 60 votes in the Senate. We only have 53 Republicans.”

“The Democrats are the ones voting repeatedly to shut down the government,” Johnson declared.

“These are just four sub points there under — under a fact number three. But there’s many more. But among the things they’re demanding — this is what the Democrats in the Senate are demanding to reopen the government. They want to give $200 billion in health benefits to illegal aliens and noncitizens paid for by U.S. taxpayers. That is in their proposal. They want billions in wasteful programs to be returned to foreign countries. So we stop these things,” he added.

The Speaker concluded, “They want to turn it all back on. They’re demanding that we do all that to get the government open for hardworking Americans again. They want to give a half a billion to left leaning news news organizations and — and they want to cut $50 billion from rural hospitals. We cannot, we will not do those things. And they know that very well.”

In a rare moment of unity on Capitol Hill, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass a resolution reaffirming Congress’s opposition to socialism — a symbolic but highly visible gesture that landed just hours before New York City’s mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, traveled to Washington for his introductory meeting with President Donald Trump.

The timing of the vote, intentional or not, created an unusual political backdrop for Mamdani’s arrival. Elected as one of the most progressive municipal leaders in modern New York history, he steps into Washington at the very moment when the House is openly distancing itself from the ideology most often associated with the nation’s political left.

A Long-Delayed Resolution Suddenly Moves

The measure in question was not new. Republicans introduced it nearly a month earlier but chose Friday to bring it forward for a floor vote. While resolutions of this type carry no legal force, they do serve as an official statement of Congress’s values — and, at times, as a strategic signal.

Arkansas Republican Rep. French Hill, who sponsored the legislation, framed the vote as a simple affirmation of American principles.

“A yes vote on this resolution should be a relatively straightforward, easy decision,” Hill said during the House debate. “It simply states that Congress denounces socialism in all its forms and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States.”

The resolution referenced historical examples of socialist governments around the world, describing them as systems that have brought economic hardship, political oppression, and the erosion of individual liberty. The text did not target any specific political figure or party in the United States, but the broader political climate made it clear why the resolution was being pushed at this particular moment.

The Final Vote: 285–98

When the votes were counted, the resolution passed with an unexpectedly large bipartisan margin:

285 members supported it
98 opposed it
Among those voting yes were 86 Democrats, including fourteen from New York and New Jersey — notable given that the House’s most outspoken left-wing members, as well as politically aligned grassroots groups, have been gaining influence in those same states.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who endorsed Mamdani late in the mayoral race, cast a “yes” vote along with other Democrats who have often tried to strike a middle-ground tone on economic and social policy. Jeffries previously warned that the party must work to stay connected with moderates and independents, especially after recent losses in suburban districts.

Several New York representatives — including Ritchie Torres, Greg Meeks, Laura Gillen, Tom Suozzi, and Grace Meng — also supported the measure, each signaling a willingness to publicly separate themselves from the more ideological wing of the party.

A Complicated Moment for the Mayor-Elect

The vote could not have come at a more delicate time for Zohran Mamdani, who entered the New York mayoral race as a candidate of unapologetically progressive politics. His background in housing advocacy, his public calls for rethinking budget priorities, and his high-profile endorsements from left-leaning organizations made him a unique figure in a city still balancing affordability challenges, immigration pressures, and economic recovery after years of public-sector strain.

Although Mamdani’s election represented a significant victory for progressive activists in New York, the resolution created an unexpected symbolic hurdle. Only hours after the House registered a bipartisan rejection of the very ideology some critics associate with him, Mamdani boarded a train to Washington for the traditional introductory meeting between the incoming mayor of America’s largest city and the President of the United States.

President Trump, who campaigned heavily on economic growth, public safety, and limiting federal spending in major urban centers, has not publicly commented on Mamdani’s ideology. Aides, however, have privately acknowledged that the meeting was expected to be “cordial but practical,” focused on the city’s federal funding needs, law enforcement coordination, and infrastructure priorities rather than political philosophy.

New York Democrats Distance Themselves from Ideological Labels

For many Democrats — especially those representing suburban or swing districts — voting for the resolution offered a chance to publicly establish distance from ideological branding that has sometimes complicated their reelection campaigns.

Tom Suozzi, now representing a Long Island district, expressed particular discomfort with rhetoric that veers too far left of mainstream suburban concerns. Throughout New York’s mayoral race, Suozzi made it clear that he does not share Mamdani’s approach to policy, and his vote reinforced that position.

While he did not make specific statements about the resolution during the vote, Suozzi has spoken repeatedly about the need for the Democratic Party to “reconnect with working families who want safety, stability, and economic predictability.”

Other New York Democrats echoed similar sentiments. Bronx Rep. Ritchie Torres, known for combining progressive values with pragmatic policymaking, has long championed balanced approaches on housing, public safety, and economic issues. His vote suggested that even within the party’s urban base, there is a divide between ideological aspiration and governance reality.

The GOP’s Message: Unity on a Clear Line

For Republicans, the vote represented a chance to present a unified front on a cultural and economic issue at a moment when the party has been navigating internal disputes on budget strategy, foreign aid, and immigration reform.

The message from the GOP caucus was clear: they view the United States as fundamentally incompatible with socialist governance models, and they intend to draw a bright-line distinction heading into the next election cycle.

Republicans also used the resolution as a reminder of their broader economic agenda — which centers on limiting federal expansion, encouraging private-sector growth, and reversing policies they believe increase dependence on government programs.

Progressive Reaction: Symbolic Vote, Real Implications

Progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups criticized the resolution as a political maneuver rather than a substantive policy statement. Some argued that the measure conflated authoritarian regimes abroad with modern domestic calls for expanded social programs.

They also highlighted that many policies labeled “socialist” — such as Medicare, Social Security, or certain federal subsidies — are not only popular but broadly supported across party lines.

Still, the resolution’s passage demonstrated that progressives remain the minority faction within the Democratic coalition, even as they continue gaining influence in certain urban centers.

What Happens Next

The meeting between Mamdani and President Trump is expected to proceed without disruption, despite the timing of the vote. Officials from both sides say the agenda will focus on federal partnerships, disaster response readiness, and preliminary planning for several infrastructure projects requiring federal approval.

Political analysts, meanwhile, are watching closely to see whether the bipartisan vote signals the start of a broader realignment — one in which Democrats seeking reelection may increasingly choose moderation over ideology.

For now, the resolution stands as a symbolic but significant moment: Congress speaking with a rare unified voice on an issue that divides much of the nation, on the same day the country’s most high-profile newly elected progressive leader stepped onto the national stage.

Most House Dems Vote Against Crackdown On Foreign Influence In US Schools

Once again, a majority of House Democrats have put other nations above the United States, as evidenced by their opposition to a measure aimed at limiting the influence of foreign countries in American schools. On Thursday, more than 160 House Democrats voted against two bills intended to limit foreign influence in U.S. educational institutions.

Both measures passed with bipartisan majorities, though the top Democratic leadership and most party members opposed each one, Fox News reported.

In explaining his opposition, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries gave a conflicting response when queried by Fox.

“We just want to educate our children, focus on reading, writing and arithmetic, developing a holistic child, giving the ability to them to think critically,” he said. “We’re not going to be lectured by a group of Republicans who are dismantling the Department of Education in real-time. Literally 90% of the Department of Education as it existed last year is now gone.”

It’s not clear how Jeffries reconciled his stated goals for American schools with the Trump administration’s efforts to diminish the Department of Education, which has been responsible for introducing all kinds of “woke” initiatives that have zero focus on the subjects he mentioned.

He also accused Republicans of “attacking public education just like they’re attacking public health and attacking public safety,” though he failed to actually mention why he did not support legislation limiting foreign influence in U.S. schools.

One of the measures, sponsored by House GOP Policy Committee Chairman Kevin Hern, R-Okla., would bar federal funding for elementary and secondary schools that conduct programs, cultural exchanges, or other classroom activities financed by the Chinese government, Fox reported.

The bill would also prohibit federal funds from going to schools that receive direct or indirect support from individuals or entities linked to the Chinese government. “That bill passed 247–166, with 33 Democrats in favor and 166 against,” the outlet reported.

The second bill, introduced by Rep. Aaron Bean, R-Fla., would require all public elementary and secondary schools to inform parents of their right to request information about any “foreign influence” within their child’s school.

The notifications would be issued through the school’s local education agency — such as a school board or district office — that oversees administrative operations for the school and others in the area.

The measure passed 247–164, with 33 Democrats joining Republicans in support and 164 Democrats voting against it.

Republicans said the measures were commonsense efforts to prevent harmful foreign influence in U.S. schools.

Democrats, however, criticized both bills during floor debate, claiming they had concerns about their scope and potential unintended consequences. Some tried to paint Republicans as racists and bigots, which is par for the Democrat course.

“The bill gives no guidance on what acting directly or indirectly on behalf of means, or how you are supposed to know and how a parent’s contribution to a school program should be evaluated,” Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., said, Fox reported. “And really, are you supposed to scrutinize all parents’ contributions or just those from parents of Chinese American students?”

Regarding China, the country’s communist-led government is increasingly attempting to influence the American education system through initiatives like the Confucius Institutes, which promote Chinese language and culture but are also seen as vehicles for spreading Chinese propaganda.

Launched in 2004, there are over 100 Confucius Institutes in the U.S. The Chinese government funds these institutes, providing resources and teachers.

The Chinese government approves all teachers and events, which can limit academic freedom and restrict discussions on sensitive topics.

Over $17 million has been given to 143 school districts across 34 states through the Confucius Classrooms initiative. Critics argue that this funding can undermine U.S. educational integrity and promote a pro-China narrative.

By comparison, China does not allow U.S. money and influence to flow into its schools.

George Soros’ ‘Right-Hand Man’ Arrested On Heinous Charges

A retired New York City financier once known as the “right-hand man” of billionaire George Soros has been indicted on charges of abusing women.

According to the New York Post, Howard Rubin, 70, allegedly used his Manhattan penthouse as a “secret sex dungeon” at the center of the case.

In a statement released Thursday, the Justice Department said Rubin and his assistant, Jennifer Powers, have been charged with trafficking and transporting women across state lines for sexual encounters with Rubin.

A bank fraud charge was lodged against Rubin “in connection with misrepresentations made to a bank in the course of financing Powers’s mortgage for the Texas home of Powers and her husband,” according to the release.

“It is in this secret sex dungeon that Rubin, now 66, is accused of having committed violent acts and sexual assault against a number of women, including actual Playboy playmates. A civil trial, with six of his seven alleged victims seeking at least $18 million, is scheduled for November,” The Post reported.

Among other alleged acts of deprivation, The Post reported that Rubin has been accused of “beat[ing a woman’s] breasts so badly that her right implant flipped” — an injury so severe that, according to court documents, her “plastic surgeon was not even willing to operate on her breasts.”

Prosecutors allege Rubin paid women up to $5,000 for BDSM encounters. However, several women contend they never consented to the level of violence and humiliation they say he carried out during those sessions.

Another plaintiff claims that, while Rubin allegedly had her bound in his ‘dungeon,’ he told her “I’m going to rape you like I rape my daughter” and then, according to the complaint, forced sex on her against her will.

“Rubin has three children with his estranged wife, including at least one daughter,” The Post added.

“I thought he was a nice guy. He was a nebbishy Jewish guy and totally normal. I was surprised to hear about him having that apartment [with a sex dungeon],” a trader who worked with Rubin at Soros Fund Management, created by billionaire investor George Soros, told The Post.

“As alleged, the defendants used Rubin’s wealth to mislead and recruit women to engage in commercial sex acts, where Rubin then tortured women beyond their consent, causing lasting physical and/or psychological pain, and in some cases physical injuries,” Joseph Nocella Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York said in the DOJ release.

“Today’s arrests show that no one who engages in sex trafficking, in this case in luxury hotels and a penthouse apartment that featured a so-called sex ‘dungeon,’ is above the law, and that they will be brought to justice. Human beings are not chattel to be exploited for sex and sadistically abused, and anyone who thinks otherwise can expect to find themselves in handcuffs and facing federal prosecution like these defendants,” he added.

“For many years, Howard Rubin and Jennifer Powers allegedly spent at least one million dollars to finance the commercial sexual torture of multiple women via a national trafficking network. The defendants allegedly exploited Rubin’s status to ensnare their prospective victims and forced them to endure unthinkable physical trauma before silencing any outcries with threats of legal recourse,” stated FBI Assistant Director in Charge Christopher G. Raia.

“The FBI will continue to apprehend any trafficker who sexually abuses others for twisted gratification,” he added.

“This was not a one-man show. While Rubin dehumanized these women with abhorrent sexual acts, Powers is alleged to have run the day-to-day operations of the enterprise and got paid generously for her efforts,” said Harry T. Chavis, Jr., IRS investigative special agent in charge.

of a long journey toward understanding and healing. While Emily was whisked away to the hospital, Rachel took a deep breath, trying to steady herself. She knew she had to be strong for the rest of her students, who were now buzzing with confusion and concern. As Rachel walked back into the classroom, she noticed their wide eyes following her, filled with curiosity and worry.

“Class, I know you have a lot of questions,” Rachel started, keeping her voice calm and reassuring. “Emily is getting the help she needs right now, and she’s in good hands. It’s important that we send her our positive thoughts and continue with our day the best we can.”

The children nodded, some whispering hopeful wishes for Emily’s recovery. Rachel led them through their morning routines, but her mind was elsewhere, piecing together the small details she had noticed about Emily over the past few weeks. Had there been other signs she’d missed? Emily’s reluctance to participate in gym class, the times she’d stayed behind during recess—were they clues?

After the final bell rang, Rachel sat quietly at her desk, replaying the morning’s events. She decided to make some calls to see if she could learn more about Emily’s situation. First, she reached out to the school counselor, Mr. Anderson, to discuss what had happened and to ensure Emily’s emotional well-being would be addressed once she returned to school.

“Rachel, it’s a good thing you noticed and acted quickly,” Mr. Anderson said, his voice firm yet comforting. “These situations are never easy, but you did exactly what you needed to do for Emily.”

Next, Rachel called Child Protective Services to offer her observations and any background she could provide about Emily’s behavior and academic performance. She knew that her input could be crucial in the investigation. They thanked her for her diligence, assuring her that they would take it from there.

That evening, Rachel sat at her kitchen table, a cup of tea growing cold in front of her. She thought about Emily and all the other children who might be suffering silently. Her heart ached with the weight of the responsibility she felt as a teacher, but she also felt a renewed sense of purpose.

Rachel decided to organize a meeting for educators at her school to discuss ways they could be more vigilant and supportive in identifying and responding to signs of distress in their students. She wanted to ensure that no child felt unseen or unheard.

As she prepared for bed, Rachel whispered a silent promise. “Emily, you’re not alone. We’ll fight for you, and we’ll find out what happened.”

In the following weeks, Rachel and her colleagues worked tirelessly to create a more attentive and nurturing environment at Lincoln Elementary. They held workshops, invited child psychologists to speak, and strengthened their community ties to ensure that every child felt safe and supported. Emily’s story became a catalyst for change, transforming concern into action.

Rachel never forgot the morning Emily shuffled into her classroom, each painful step a silent plea for help. It was a reminder of the profound impact a teacher could have. And though Rachel didn’t have all the answers, she had something just as powerful: the unwavering commitment to make a difference in the life of every child who walked through her door.

Newsom Facing Questions After Old Scandal Resurfaces

As more and more people wonder if California Governor Gavin Newsom would run for president in 2028, one of his most controversial prior scandals is coming back into the news.

Newsom admitted to having an affair with Ruby Rippey Gibney, the wife of his close friend and campaign manager Alex Tourk, while he was mayor of San Francisco in 2007. The news rocked the political establishment in the Bay Area, put a strain on personal and professional connections, and almost ruined his career at the time.

Newsom admitted and apologized on TV at the time.

He said, “I want to make it clear that everything you heard and read is true.” “I’m really sorry about that.” I injured Alex Tourk and his friends and family, who are very important to me. “I have to deal with that.”

His apologies went beyond hurting his own relationships and included those in San Francisco.

He remarked, “I’m also sorry that I’ve let the people of San Francisco down.” “They want a lot from their mayor…” I will work extremely hard in the next few months to make sure that the business of running the city is done in the right way so that they can trust and believe in me again.

Do you remember when Gavin Newsom had sex with his friend’s wife? pic.twitter.com/oiTEAQSf15

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 25, 2025

The fallout happened right away.

Tourk, one of Newsom’s closest friends, quit as the mayor’s chief of staff, and the incident raised bigger questions about trust, responsibility, and the line between personal judgment and public duty.

Newsom’s public apologies didn’t help much either. The scandal got a lot of media attention, was the subject of late-night comedians’ jokes, and offered his opponents more reasons to doubt his honesty. For a lot of voters, the affair was a quick way to show they didn’t trust him.

Even though it hurt his career, Newsom got through the storm and went on to become governor of California. Critics say that the affair will always be a stain on his record that could come back to haunt him if he runs for national office.

Some people have wondered if the connection, which involved a subordinate, may be seen as workplace misbehavior in light of the changes that the #MeToo movement has brought about in political discourse in recent years.

But Gibney has publicly spoken up for Newsom. She wrote on Facebook some years later, “To be clear, I fully support the Me Too movement.” “In this case, though, I’m not sure it applies,”

Gibney admitted that she was a subordinate, but she stressed that the connection was her own fault in order to deflect Newsom’s most serious accusations.

Even so, the topic has never really gone away. It comes back whenever Newsom’s political stature grows on the national stage. He is a smooth talker and a good fundraiser, and many people think he could run in 2028. But as rumors grow, so do memories of his past.

If he runs, the problem would be clear: Newsom will have to deal with a scandal that has been following him for almost twenty years while also talking about his record as governor.

Last week, Newsom seemed to agree with physical violence against Trump supporters, if not Republicans in general, in a crazy outburst on a podcast.

The governor’s comments come at a time when he is having trouble controlling his anger over Texas’s mid-decade redistricting effort, which aims to create five more Republican congressional seats. He has promised to fight this by redistricting seats in California, even though the state’s Democratic congressional delegation is already too big.

Newsom said, “This is radical rigging of a midterm election.” He said on “The Siren” podcast, “Destroying and vandalizing this democracy, the rule of law.”

The political fallout surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein scandal has fully engulfed the Democratic leadership, turning their once-aggressive push for transparency into a desperate battle to contain documented entanglements. The situation escalated dramatically after the revelation that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—often referred to by his allies as the “Brooklyn Barack”—was actively soliciting campaign funds and dinner attendance from the convicted sex offender years after his initial conviction.

This bombshell evidence, presented by Oversight Chairman James Comer, directly contradicts Jeffries’ public denials and exposes a deep hypocrisy. While Democrats initially demanded the release of Epstein files to damage President Trump, the resulting disclosures are primarily pointing toward extensive coordination among prominent Democratic figures.

I. The Backfired Bombshell: Democrats’ Own Entanglements

The current crisis stems from a massive strategic miscalculation by the Democratic party: assuming that the full release of Epstein’s files would only yield incriminating evidence against President Trump, whom they have repeatedly tried to link to the financier.

Trump’s Defense: President Trump has repeatedly and consistently stated that he threw Jeffrey Epstein out of his Mar-a-Lago club many years ago when he found out about his activities.

The Democratic Reality: The evidence surfacing points to multiple top Democrats having close ties to Epstein, including:

The political gambit to use the scandal against Trump has now entirely backfired, leading directly to the embarrassment of the Democratic leadership.

II. Hakeem Jeffries: The “Brooklyn Barack” and the Solicitation Email

The most damaging evidence surfaced from Jeffries’ own campaign operation, exposing him as having actively sought financial support from Epstein long after the convicted sex offender was a known quantity.

The Dinner Invitation: Chairman James Comer obtained an email that directly implicates Jeffries’ campaign. The email, sent to Epstein in 2013, stated:

“Dear Jeffrey, We are thrilled that we are working with Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, one of the rising stars of the New York delegation, sometimes referred to as Brooklyn’s Barack. Hakeem is committed to electing a Democrat majority in 2014 and is encouraging his friends to participate in a D.C. fundraising dinner with President Obama and Hakeem Jeffries.“

The email concluded with a number for Epstein to call to “get an opportunity to get to know Hakeem better.” This confirms the campaign was soliciting campaign cash from Epstein for a high-profile dinner featuring the sitting President of the United States.

The Lie and the Name-Calling: When confronted with this evidence, Jeffries resorted to aggressive deflection and name-calling:

He denied having any recollection of the email or meeting Epstein.

He publicly labeled Chairman Comer a “stone cold liar” and a “malignant clown,” reverting to juvenile attacks instead of addressing the documented solicitation.

Critics were quick to point out the hypocrisy: Democrats frequently play the victim when Trump uses harsh rhetoric, but they freely engage in aggressive name-calling when caught in a lie.

III. The Crisis of Hypocrisy and Accountability

The core of the Democrats’ crisis is their refusal to apply the same standard of accountability to themselves that they demand of their political rivals.

The Plaskett Cover-Up: Jeffries’ continued defense of Stacy Plaskett—claiming the communications with Epstein are a “private conversation that will remain private”—stands in stark contrast to the party’s relentless pursuit of Trump’s private communications. This is seen as a clear case of prioritizing party loyalty over the need for transparency demanded by the public and the victims’ survivors.

The Crockett Example: The case of Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, who falsely accused Republicans of taking Epstein’s money and later admitted she based her claim on a quick “Google” search, illustrates the level of carelessness in their attempts to deflect. This blunder only reinforces the perception that the party is willing to promote known falsehoods to gain political advantage.

The Obama Tie: The solicitation email directly linking Epstein to a fundraising dinner with President Obama extends the controversy beyond Jeffries and Plaskett, implicating the highest levels of the Democratic establishment. The document confirms that Epstein was being sought out by Democratic leaders for his financial influence years after his initial conviction.

IV. The Call for Full Transparency

The Republican position, championed by Chairman Comer, is clear: they support full transparency, not to smear individuals, but to uncover the extent of the unspeakable crimes and bring justice to the survivors.

Comer highlighted that his committee subpoenaed and released over 30,000 pages of documents from the Epstein estate—a move toward transparency that the Democrats themselves had only talked about.

The inescapable conclusion for the public is that the Democrats are now “terrified of the truth,” as their loud cries for transparency have backfired, leading directly to the surfacing of their own deep, documented entanglements. The focus is shifting from “What did Trump do?” to “Who else in the Democratic leadership was coordinating with Jeffrey Epstein?”

Former U.S. Attorney Found Dead At 43 Investigating CIA, Russian Fraud

Law enforcement officials revealed the cause of death for former U.S. Attorney Jessica Aber, months after she died in her sleep at home in March.

The medical examiner’s office in Alexandria, Virginia, says the former official died from a “sudden unexpected death in epilepsy,” according to the Virginian-Pilot. Earlier this year, police declared they had not found any evidence indicating her death was due to anything other than natural causes.

Aber, who was 43 years old, was the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from 2021 to 2025. He fired himself on January 20, the same day that President Trump took office again.

In her resignation letter, she called her role “an honor beyond measure.”

“I am deeply grateful to senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine and to President Biden for the opportunity to lead this office and to Attorney General Garland for his steadfast leadership,” she wrote at the time, referring to the two senators representing Virginia. “I am proud of the work we have done with our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners to enforce the law and build community trust.”

It has also been revealed what Aber had been investigating and prosecuting.

According to the New York Post, Aber “had been in charge of some of the biggest cases targeting leaks in the CIA and Russian nationals carrying out fraud in America.”

Authorities are investigating Aber’s cause of death, other reports noted. She was found unresponsive at her home by Alexandria police just before 9:20 a.m. on Saturday.

Before stepping down in January following President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the Biden-nominated attorney secured one of her most high-profile courtroom victories when former CIA analyst Asif Rahman, 34, pleaded guilty to leaking top-secret documents detailing Israel’s plan to strike Iran last year.

The high-profile case involved Rahman posting classified documents on Telegram that revealed details of Israel’s planned October strike, ultimately forcing the Israeli government to delay its retaliatory attack on Tehran.

Aber shredded Rahman’s actions as a “violation of his oath, his responsibility, and the law,” as she said the leak “placed lives at risk, undermined U.S. foreign relations, and compromised our ability to collect vital intelligence in the future.”

Aber also led the prosecution against Eleview International Inc., a Virginia-based company whose two top executives were accused of orchestrating “three separate schemes to illegally transship sensitive U.S. technology to Russia,” according to the Department of Justice.

In November, executives Oleg Nayandin, 54, and Vitaliy Borisenko, 39, were charged with illegally exporting over $6 million worth of goods—including telecommunications equipment—to Russia. Prosecutors say the shipments were routed through ports in Turkey, Finland, and Kazakhstan to circumvent U.S. sanctions imposed on Moscow following its invasion of Ukraine, The Post reported.

The case came just two months after Aber secured indictments against two Russian nationals on charges of fraud and money laundering, said the outlet.

Sergey Ivanov and Timur Shakhmametov, whom the government had placed a $10 million reward, were allegedly involved in one the most extensive money laundering operations online that “catered to major cybercrime marketplaces and ransomware groups, and to prolific hackers responsible for some of the largest data breaches targeting critical U.S. financial infrastructure,” according to the Secret Service.

In addition to handling high-profile fraud and leak cases, Aber played a key role in the Justice Department’s unprecedented indictment of four Russian soldiers accused of committing war crimes against an American citizen in Ukraine.

According to the DOJ, the unnamed victim was abducted from his home in the Kherson region, where he was brutally beaten, tortured, and subjected to a mock execution, The Post noted further.

The defendants include commanding officers Suren Seiranovich Mkrtchyan, 45, and Dmitry Budnik, along with two lower-ranking soldiers identified in the indictment only by their first names, Valerii and Nazar, the outlet reported.

“We are proud to be at the forefront of the Justice Department’s effort to hold perpetrators of war crimes violations accountable in Ukraine and will continue to pursue them,” Aber said at the time.

Supreme Court Considers Taking Up Same-Sex Marriage Case

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to hear a case brought by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who is seeking to overturn the court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, a landmark ruling that established the right to same-sex marriage across the nation.

Davis’ attorney, Matthew Staver, expressed optimism about the court taking the case, according to Newsweek.

But William Powell, the attorney who represented the couple that sued Davis, provided a statement to Newsweek that he is “confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis’s arguments do not merit further attention.”

The case, brought by Davis—a former Kentucky clerk who served six days in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on religious grounds—could pose a significant challenge to federal protections for same-sex marriage nearly a decade after the Supreme Court legalized such unions nationwide.

Some justices, including Clarence Thomas, have signaled a willingness to revisit the issue in recent years, particularly as the court has shifted to the right. That conservative realignment on cultural matters was underscored by the 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which had guaranteed abortion rights for decades.

If the court were to strike down the nationwide right to same-sex marriage, the matter would likely revert to the states—many of which have yet to pass laws recognizing such unions.

In a newly filed petition to the Supreme Court, Staver argued against same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

“Obergefell was ‘egregiously wrong,’ ‘deeply damaging,’ ‘far outside the bound of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed,’ and set out ‘on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided,’” he wrote.

Davis’ case “presents the ideal opportunity to revisit substantive due process that ‘lacks any basis in the Constitution,’” the petition says, per Newsweek.

“This flawed opinion has produced disastrous results leaving individuals like Davis ‘find[ing] it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws,’” it reads. “And, until the Court revisits its ‘creation of atextual constitutional rights,’ Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty.’”

The petition stated that if the court were to overturn Obergefell, the authority to determine marriage rights would revert to the states, while same-sex marriages performed since the ruling would remain legally recognized under a grandfather provision.

Staver told the outlet that he believes the court’s previous ruling on the issue is constitutionally unsound.

“It has no basis in the Constitution,” he said. “It’s what caused this issue with Kim Davis to be sent to prison for six days and now facing hundreds of thousands of dollars personally, is the Obergefell opinion originally, and I think that it’s time to reevaluate that and overturn it.”

Other legal experts are not confident that the high court would reverse its earlier decision.

“There’s a chance that a conservative majority could use the case to expand the rights of religious objectors to same-sex marriage,” Daniel Urman, law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek.

“But that’s not the same as overturning the right itself, and I don’t see a majority of the Court ready to do that. Culturally, same-sex marriage has become embedded in American life, and it is still popular in public opinion polls,” he added.

Paul Collins, a professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek that although Davis hopes to use the case as a means to overturn same-sex marriage, that is not necessarily the central issue before the court.

“Instead, it is about a jury verdict for inflicting emotional damages by violating a same-sex couple’s right to marry. This just isn’t the right vehicle for challenging a constitutional right to same-sex marriage,” he told Newsweek.

Judge Holds ICE Agent In Contempt For Detaining Illegal Migrant During Trial

A judge in Boston has found a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in contempt after he detained a suspect while the man was on trial. ICE agent Brian Sullivan apprehended Wilson Martell-Lebron last week as he was leaving the courthouse.

However, a Boston Municipal Court judge ruled that Sullivan had violated Martell-Lebron’s rights to due process and a fair trial by taking him into custody during the proceedings.

“It’s a case of violating a defendant’s right to present at trial and confront witnesses against him,” Judge Mark Summerville said from the bench. “It couldn’t be more serious.”

Summerville dismissed the charge against Martell-Lebron for making false statements on his driver’s license application—specifically, claiming he wasn’t Martell-Lebron, the report said. Following this action, the judge filed the contempt charge against Sullivan, which may prompt Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden to review the case and decide whether any charges should be pursued.

“It’s reprehensible,” Ryan Sullivan, one of Martell-Lebron’s lawyers said. “Law enforcement agents have a job to see justice is done. Prosecutors have a job to see justice is done. There is no greater injustice in my mind than the government arresting someone, without identifying themselves, and preventing them from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial.”

The incident is the latest as federal immigration agents target the Boston area in search of people in the country illegally.

Boston has declared itself a “sanctuary city” for illegal aliens, meaning city officials have barred local police from assisting federal immigration officers.

President Donald Trump’s border czar Tom Homan and Republicans in Congress have criticized the city for not cooperating in deporting individuals charged with violent crimes.

Mayor Michelle Wu, a Democrat running for reelection this year, stated that she wants Boston to remain a welcoming place for immigrants, emphasizing that city policies are designed to limit cooperation with immigration enforcement, the AP said.

Sullivan described a tense situation in which ICE agents quickly apprehended Martell-Lebron without identifying themselves, then placed him into a pickup truck and drove off. The trial had just started, with opening statements and the first witnesses.

Sullivan added that Martell-Lebron, a Dominican Republic native living with family in Massachusetts, is now being held at the Plymouth detention facility for allegedly being an undocumented immigrant, the AP noted.

“What we were challenging is that they arrested him in the middle of his trial and did not return him,” he told the outlet. “If he had been brought to court on Friday morning by ICE, we would not have moved to dismiss. We would not be asking for sanctions. We would have just finished the trial.”

Immigration officers became an increasingly visible presence at courthouses during Trump’s first term, leading to pushback from judges and local officials. In his second term, Trump took further action by repealing a policy that had been in place since 2011, which generally kept immigration enforcement away from schools, places of worship, and hospitals.

The current policy allows immigration officials to make arrests “in or near courthouses when they have credible information that leads them to believe the targeted alien(s) is or will be present,” provided they are not barred from doing so by state or local law.

During the two-day hearing, Sullivan testified that the lead prosecution witness confirmed that both the Massachusetts State Police and prosecutors were aware of ICE’s plans to arrest Martell-Lebron, the AP reported.

In a statement obtained by the newswire, state police said their actions were appropriate after learning of ICE’s plans: As in any situation where a member becomes aware of federal immigration enforcement, the Troopers responded appropriately by neither assisting nor obstructing the federal action.”