​​What is the real reason we are seeing chaos in the streets of Los Angeles?
One protester explained why exactly this is happening. If you want to know what drives the mindset of the rioters, then you really should take the time to listen to the people who are rioting, who are attempting to attack police officers and ICE agents.
This protester was, of course, masked and wearing sunglasses. He <a href="https://x.com/Andreafreedom76/status/1931946681026617718">bloviated</a>, “Everybody has the same enemy. From L.A. to Africa to Palestine to Vietnam. We all have the same enemy. There’s one enemy. And it is not me, and it is not you, and it is not them. We are not the enemies of each other.”
He pointed to the police, declaring, “They are the enemy. There’s only one enemy. And we all have to work together in unison to fight this one enemy.”
Another protester interjected, “That’s right. Capitalism, imperialism, and Zionism.”
“The faster we grow, the more we grow as a people, the quicker we can get to this revolution and overturn this motherf***er and have real people leading this country,” the first protester continued.
They hate all the “isms,” like the free market that brought them all of their prosperity so they can waste their time in the middle of a day in Los Angeles, yelling at the police and “imperialism,” which is presumably the reason they are standing on the soil of America because most American people were not originally native to America. He says “Zionism,” the belief that there ought to be a Jewish state in Israel. What the hell does that have to do with illegal immigration riots in Los Angeles?
The answer is that for him and his ilk, they are all the same enemy: the “system.” Blame the “system” for all your problems and rip down the system.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2214?elementPosition=1&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Another protester, apparently an illegal immigrant from Mexico, <a href="https://x.com/MediaWillieNel/status/1932140100147953936">stated</a>, “We do not agree with the term ‘illegal.’ We&#8217;re undocumented. We&#8217;ve been here for thousands of years before you guys showed up, screwed up everything. We think we should organize together with the U.S working class and fight together and create a better system. We&#8217;re anti-capitalist. We think socialism does work. Real socialism. Not Venezuela, not Cuba, not any of that crap that they are trying to sell us as socialism. And when we leave, it will be a more humane system that will take care of most of all people&#8217;s necessities.”
This protester was asked for an example of what that system would look like. He said the first 40 years of the Soviet Union, which also just so happened to be the most brutal time of the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin.
All of this is the Omnicause, the scavenger Omnicause, as I write about in my book, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Lions-Scavengers-Story-America-Critics/dp/1668097885/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3JFQDATERYUFS&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.kWrnVJa8bLjS-TYe_ZIR30AgkoDhfNVNvb347yALOi0.jsy8hx2qMpBM1LRx7pK99DD2xEbNzeRKh1T2HbSrgPM&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=lions+and+scavengers+ben+shapiro&amp;qid=1749580682&amp;sprefix=lions+and+scavengers%2Caps%2C82&amp;sr=8-1">Lions and Scavengers.</a>” It is about people who seek to tear down the institutions and systems that benefit them, the systems that have created whatever prosperity they enjoy as life&#8217;s losers.
I call them “life’s losers” because the people who are out there protesting right now, the ones rioting or waving Mexican flags as they drive a motorcycle around a burning Waymo, are not life&#8217;s winners. These are not people destined for a long life of success and happiness. These are deeply unhappy human beings. 
Some of them are professional agitators. And many of the groups that are sponsoring these protests — that are now turning into riots or burning cars or some violence against police and ICE agents — are unions, according to The Wall Street Journal, which <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/trump-immigration-labor-unions-cf6aa4ac?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=ASWzDAi4PPZGna4vypAPuUHb4OVuRqU4u0-dGEWqOSWFRpJovEJNY8KNdfW7dHpVCUE%3D&amp;gaa_ts=68486e23&amp;gaa_sig=vZ3SrmbPoBPxfWfQBoc5ltKPThF2Dx0o5vQ4crXfIJoqi-lOYW-7bgLb7YofCRYMNyigWwU-USw6r2eGjGla9w%3D%3D">wrote</a>: 
<blockquote>Unions, which have felt conflicted lately over how to deal with Trump, found an issue this past weekend over which to confront him: immigration. It came after the head of the state’s biggest union was arrested here for allegedly obstructing federal agents from conducting an immigration raid. The union says he was “peacefully observing.” David Huerta, president of Service Employees International Union California, appeared in court Monday afternoon. He was released on $50,000 bail. 
Just a half mile away, his union, which represents a swath of working-class California, including nurses, janitors and security guards, organized a sprawling protest in downtown’s Grand Park. Other unions declared solidarity with the SEIU and with immigrants caught up in federal raids. </blockquote>
Think about this on a logical level. Why would unions be in favor of illegal immigration? Illegal immigration undercuts the labor base. Illegal immigrants, because they are not legal, are very often paid less than market wages or certainly less than union-negotiated wages.
Why are unions standing up for illegal immigration? It doesn&#8217;t make any sense. They&#8217;re doing so at the expense of their own membership.
What is the driving factor behind all of this? The Journal continues:
<blockquote>Immigrants made up one-third of California’s labor force in 2023, according to census data, compared with 18% for the overall U.S. (The data doesn’t distinguish by legal status.) Some of unions’ biggest organizing wins recently have been in service workplaces where undocumented immigrants often make up an outsize share. “Whether you’re documented or not, you can be a member of a union, and those we represent, we vow to protect,” said Steve Smith, a spokesman for the AFL-CIO.</blockquote>
What&#8217;s actually happening is that illegal immigrants are joining unions. Private sector union membership has been on the decline for decades in the United States because wages have not, in fact, stagnated; wages have risen on a real-world purchasing power parity basis.
So what exactly are the unions going to do?
What the unions have been doing is going into workplaces where people are being paid below the union wage and organizing illegal immigrants. That is the reason why they are now seemingly in favor of widespread illegal immigration in the United States.
The National Education Association president, Rebecca Pringle, who gets paid $500,000 a year, was mobilizing the protesters, <a href="https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1932151905565962435">shouting</a>, “We, the people, we, the people, we the people, all of us, all of us have that right to life, liberty and the pursuit of justice.”
Why is the head of the National Education Association standing for illegal immigration? Are illegal immigrants allowed to teach our children in public schools? The last time I checked, the answer was no. Why is she out there screaming about this?
The answer again is that it’s to rig the system on behalf of people who could not succeed in a free marketplace or a free marketplace of ideas.
Shouting about democracy in favor of people who literally cannot vote in the democracy because they&#8217;re not here legally is crazy, but that is the coalition of forces that have aligned behind mass illegal immigration in the United States.
And the Left can&#8217;t let go of it, because the same coalition is driving the Left’s efforts forward.
For the Democrats, this is all about the conflict. When they say that it&#8217;s authoritarian for President Trump to activate the National Guard in order to quell violence in the streets, they&#8217;re actually saying it&#8217;s authoritarian for Trump to simply enforce the law.
But it is their belief that is truly authoritarian.
* * *
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-IMMIGRATION

The Real Agenda Behind The Chaos In Los Angeles

Ben Shapiro

California

Democrats

Hispanics

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Labor Unions

Los Angeles

Mexico

Opinion

LA Descends Into Chaos As Mexican Rioters Wage War On America

Gavin Newsom

illegal immigrants

Karen Bass

Maxine Waters

Protests

Riots

Mexico&#8217;s president is threatening to &#8220;mobilize&#8221; the country against a Republican proposal to tax remittances, which advocates say would choke off cash flow to Mexican drug cartels.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum raged against the proposal in a speech against the law, which imposes a tax on money sent out of the United States by foreign nationals. “If necessary, we’ll mobilize,&#8221; Sheinbaum said. &#8220;We don’t want taxes on remittances from our fellow countrymen. From the U.S. to Mexico.&#8221;
President Donald Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” includes a 3.5 percent tax on remittances, a policy that experts told The Daily Wire is key to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-new-tax-on-money-sent-abroad-could-dry-up-drug-cartel-cash-and-penalize-illegal-immigration">throttling the flow</a> of cash into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. Republican lawmakers are pushing for a tax on money flowing out of the United States to foreign countries just after the Mexican president said that she would “mobilize against it.”
The Mexican president’s statement drew the ire of Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO), who announced that he was introducing legislation to multiply the proposed 3.5 percent tax on remittances.
“The House’s Big Beautiful Bill addressed the urgent need for a remittance tax. But we can go further. I&#8217;m introducing legislation to quadruple the proposed remittance tax — from 3.5% to 15%,” Schmitt <a href="https://x.com/Eric_Schmitt/status/1931880241188024476">wrote on X</a>. “America is not the world&#8217;s piggy bank. And we don&#8217;t take kindly to threats.”
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) also <a href="https://x.com/chiproytx/status/1931864126323622017">addressed</a> Sheinbaum’s statement and came out in support of raising the tax on remittances.
The policy, immigration experts previously told The Daily Wire, would cut into cash that is funnelled from illegal aliens in America back to cartel members.
“Placing a fee on remittances is crucial because the more money that is smuggled back into Mexico, the stronger the cartels become,” said Ira Mehlman, the Media Director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
The remittance fee would also help America recuperate money that is effectively exported out of the American economy. “Many illegal aliens are working off-the-books, and therefore, no payroll taxes have been collected. Taxing the money as it leaves the country would be a way to recoup some of that revenue loss,” Mehlman noted. “Large-scale transfers of money to other countries have a negative impact on the American economy.”
Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK) introduced his own remittance tax legislation in 2022 and remains supportive of the policy.
“The cash flow from illegal immigrants in the States to their cartel partners in Mexico, Venezuela, and other countries is massive,” Hern told The Daily Wire. “It’s a two-fold win: remittance fees will help slow down the flow of those dollars to the cartels and will also create a new revenue source we can use to build the wall and secure our border.”

Claudia Sheinbaum

Mexican President Threatens To ‘Mobilize’ Against Law That Could Help Cut Off Cash To Cartels

Drug Cartels

Eric Schmitt

Illegal Immigration

Politics

The Supreme Court on Thursday tossed a lawsuit by the Mexican government against United States gun manufacturers.
The unanimous court decision found that Mexico did not prove a link between the gun manufacturers and cartel violence in Mexico. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the 9-0 opinion in the case known as Smith &amp; Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
“Mexico alleges that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The question presented is whether Mexico’s complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not,” Kagan <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1141_lkgn.pdf">wrote</a>.
Lawyers for the Mexican government argued that gun makers in the United States sold firearms to “rogue dealers” who in turn sold guns illegally to Mexican gun traffickers to eventually end up in the possession of cartels. The cartels have used those firearms to do damage to the Mexican government.
Mexico’s argument failed due to a lack of specificity and linkage between the gun manufacturers and the “rogue dealers.”
“To begin, the complaint sets for itself a high bar. It does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted. Instead, it levels a more general accusation: that all the manufacturers assist some number of unidentified rogue dealers in violation of various legal bars. The systemic nature of that charge cannot help but heighten Mexico’s burden. To survive, it must be backed by plausible allegations of pervasive, systemic, and culpable assistance,” Kagan wrote.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>
“Mexico’s lead claim — that the manufacturers elect to sell guns to, among others, known rogue dealers — fails to clear that bar,” she continued. “For one thing, it is far from clear that such behavior, without more, could ever count as aiding and abetting under the Court’s precedents. And in any event, Mexico has not said enough to make its allegations on this point plausible: It does not confront that the manufacturers do not directly supply any dealers, and its complaint does not name alleged bad-apple dealers or provide grounds for thinking that anyone up the supply chain often acquires that information.”
In recent months, President Donald Trump has ramped up pressure on Mexico to crack down on drug cartels across the country. The cartels have long served as human traffickers fomenting illegal immigration and drug traffic into the United States.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/02/world/americas/mexico-cartel-fentanyl-trump-tariffs.html">shown</a> some willingness to work with Trump on the cartel issue after the United States placed significant tariffs on Mexican goods, arguing that Mexico’s handling of drug cartels and immigration constituted a severe national security risk to the United States.

Smith & Wesson

SCOTUS Tosses Mexico Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers

Courts

Guns

Supreme Court

World

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt lit up The Washington Post during Tuesday&#8217;s briefing, shining a spotlight on what she called &#8220;one of the most ridiculous headlines ever&#8221; on the topic of drug seizures at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The article she highlighted was headlined, &#8220;The mysterious drop in fentanyl seizures on the U.S.-Mexico border,&#8221; and it purported to outline the &#8220;complex&#8221; reasons behind the fact that fentanyl seizures had plummeted in recent weeks. Leavitt argued that the reasons were neither complex nor mysterious, saying, as President Donald Trump has, that it could all be chalked up as the obvious result of the American people electing a different president.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PressSec</a> slams the Fake News Washington Post: &#8220;There is no mystery about why there is a decrease of fentanyl coming into the United States. This Administration&#8217;s strong border policies are the reason!&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/RJlWO7EyWp">pic.twitter.com/RJlWO7EyWp</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1929951219130221006?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 3, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;The Washington Post just ran one of the most ridiculous headlines ever — even by their standards,&#8221; Leavitt began. &#8220;And on my very first briefing, several months ago, I said I would hold anyone accountable in this room. The Washington Post actually had this headline: &#8216;The mysterious drop in fentanyl seizures on the U.S.-Mexico border.'&#8221;
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday&amp;_gl=1*1qdq03s*_gcl_au*MTYyNDg0MTE0OS4xNzQxODk4NTMz*_ga*MTEzOTk1NjkxNi4xNzI2MzI1MDQz*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NDgzNzg2NDgkbzEwMDMkZzEkdDE3NDgzODEwMTckajU4JGwwJGgw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
&#8220;How is this mysterious?&#8221; Leavitt asked. &#8220;There is no mystery about why there is a decrease in fentanyl coming into the United States. This administration&#8217;s strong border policies are the reason there has been a decrease in fentanyl trafficking. [Trump&#8217;s] strengthened relationship with Mexican President Sheinbaum and all of the measures he has been taking to deter illegal human and drug trafficking at our United States southern border is the reason for plummeting fentanyl seizures at the U.S. border. There is nothing mysterious about that, and we&#8217;d like to see The Washington Post update their headline accordingly.&#8221;
Leavitt went on to say that the White House had provided WaPo with a lengthy list of the Trump administration policies that had brought about the drop in fentanyl seizures at the border, but that the outlet had refused to include them.
&#8220;This [is] clearly trying to intentionally manipulate the minds of the – Americans — and I think the American people understand why there&#8217;s been a fentanyl drop,&#8221; Leavitt said. &#8220;That&#8217;s despicable.&#8221;

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt

‘There Is No Mystery’: Karoline Leavitt Lights Up WaPo Over ‘Ridiculous’ Fentanyl Headline

'There Is No Mystery': Karoline Leavitt Lights Up WaPo Over 'Ridiculous' Fentanyl Headline

border security

Donald Trump

Drugs

Fentanyl

Karoline Leavitt

Media

Washington Post

The Court of International Trade, which is a court that nobody has ever heard of, moved to block President Trump&#8217;s tariffs in a “sweeping ruling,” according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-court-blocks-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-2025-05-28/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reuters</a>, that “found the president overstepped his authority by imposing across the board duties on imports from U.S. trading partners.”
The court suggested that the law under which the President of the United States was declaring these tariffs was not, in fact, capable of carrying those tariffs because the president used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which gives the president the power to regulate imports during certain emergency situations.
But those emergency situations do not actually extend to issues such as a trade deficit. Big trade deficits do not amount to a national emergency.
That&#8217;s what the court found — and the court isn&#8217;t wrong. If the president actually wants to impose tariffs, there are other legal mechanisms he can pursue, but this should be in the purview of Congress. It always should have been in the purview of Congress.
You don&#8217;t want any president being able to unilaterally decide that there should be massive tariffs across the board on all of America&#8217;s trading partners. That is not the balance of powers that was envisioned by the Constitution, by the Founders, the Framers.
It&#8217;s not what they wanted. It&#8217;s not something that I want either. And whether you like the tariffs or you don&#8217;t like the tariffs is irrelevant to the question of whether the president ought to have the unilateral capacity to do as President Trump did on Liberation Day and simply declare a 46% tariff on Vietnam, or a 145% tariff on China. Congress should have to sign off at some point.
Does this mean that all the tariffs are going to go away permanently? No. In fact, an appeals court has already granted a <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/29/blocked-trump-tariffs-trade-court-appeal.html">temporary stay</a> allowing Trump’s tariffs to remain in place.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2209?elementPosition=6&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Still, the markets spiked on the news that the tariffs would be blocked. The Dow Jones Industrial Average futures market immediately jumped significantly and then came back down to earth a little bit as the markets realized, “Oh, wait a second; it may be that President Trump is still going to be able to do some of these tariffs.”
Based on the lower court’s initial block, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/tariff-ruling-is-a-setback-for-trump-but-doesnt-end-trade-war-b1e83c73">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported:
<blockquote>The administration has already said it will appeal the ruling, and trade experts and lawyers say it has a variety of other legal avenues to prosecute the trade war that are unaffected by Wednesday’s decision.
“This is just one more bump in the tariff road that we are going to be on for as long as Trump remains in office,” said Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Singapore-based Hinrich Foundation, which advocates for free and open trade. “He loves tariffs and he loves the idea of being able to impose them at will, and I don’t think he’s going to give that up easily.” &#8230;
The judgment undermines the legal basis for those “reciprocal” tariffs—which the administration paused for 90 days to allow time for negotiations—that are the centerpiece of Trump’s effort to rein in the U.S.’s yawning trade deficit. The court also shot down special levies of 20% imposed on Canada, Mexico and China for their alleged role in the U.S. fentanyl crisis.</blockquote>
Theoretically, you could make the case that we should put tariffs on Mexico and declare a national emergency on the basis of fentanyl.
You could at least make a colorable case for that. But you could never make a colorable case that that was the case with Canada. The United States last year, in terms of fentanyl, saw something like 50 pounds of fentanyl the entire year at the border. The idea that there was a national emergency that merited a 20% tariff on Canada originally far exceeded the scope of authority originally presented to the President of the United States by that act in 1977.
There are still a bunch of other tariffs that are going to be on the books if the temporary stay is lifted. The court&#8217;s decision does not impact 25% levies that are in place on steel, aluminum, and cars because those levies were imposed using alternative legal avenues, not the national emergency situation. Those are conventional avenues. Those are known as Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs. The president does have the capacity to actually do tariffs under that sort of power, but they&#8217;re usually used for specific sectors. They are not blanket across the board giant tariffs on entire countries.
The markets were pretty happy about the lower court’s initial decision to block the tariffs. If the stay is lifted, does this mean the end of President Trump&#8217;s trade war?
No. It does mean that the president does not have the unilateral ability, by declaring a national emergency, to impose gigantic tariff regimes across the board.
And that is a good thing. I believe that we should be drawing closer trade relations with our allies and that the shot across the bow, if it was meant to get them to the table, still exists.
But the fact is that there was economic damage from the uncertainty wrought by the tariff war on our allies.
We should be gradually ramping up tariffs on China, reshoring manufacturing away from China, making closer trade alliances with countries that are more aligned with us, ranging from Vietnam to India. All of that would be good.
I don&#8217;t like the tariff policy, but that is actually a peripheral issue; whether you are a fan of the president or not, the balance of power that was drawn in the Constitution should be something that we like and want.
And that’s for this reason: I promise you, the next time a Democrat takes office, that same exact national emergency power will be used for something that you don&#8217;t like.

TOPSHOT-US-TRADE-TARIFF-MARKETS-NYSE

Court Blocks Trump’s Tariffs. Here’s Why It’s Correct.

Court Blocks Trump's Tariffs. Here’s Why It's Correct.

Canada

Court

Judges

Tariffs

We&#8217;ve been trending in this direction for some time now, but after yesterday&#8217;s ruling by a three-judge panel on the United States Court of International Trade in Manhattan — which struck down all of the Trump administration&#8217;s tariffs — it&#8217;s now official: We don&#8217;t need any more rulings from federal judges about what the president of the United States isn&#8217;t allowed to do. Those are completely pointless. Instead, what we need, in our alleged first-world democracy, is a ruling from some federal court explaining, in as much detail as possible, what exactly the president of the United States does have the authority to do while in office. That would be the most efficient way forward, at this point.
In just the past five months, federal courts have held that the Trump administration has no authority to do the following:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Change federal government websites</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Fire any Executive Branch employees</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ban mentally disturbed individuals from joining the armed forces </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eliminate slush funds for corrupt NGOs</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stop funneling billions of dollars of taxpayer money to anti-white universities like Harvard</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eliminate wasteful &#8220;administrative spending&#8221; that&#8217;s tacked onto every single scientific grant</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Deport illegal alien gang members — even the wife-beaters and terrorists</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Cut federal funding to child castration services for children</li>
</ul>
And now, after all of these rulings and dozens more like them, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/worlds-stock-markets-react-to-court-ruling-against-trumps-tariffs?author=Hank+Berrien&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=11&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=World%E2%80%99s+Stock+Markets+React+To+Court+Ruling+Against+Trump%E2%80%99s+Tariffs">we heard last night</a> from the U.S. Court of International Trade that the president of the United States also does not have the power to impose emergency tariffs on foreign nations. Before we go into the details about this ruling and the problems I have with it, there&#8217;s a very important point that needs to be made here, which is this: Even if you think tariffs are a terrible idea — and really even if you believe that the Court of International Trade made the right ruling in this particular case — you simply cannot deny that the judicial system in this country, because of its own overzealousness, has never been less legitimate than it is right now.
The sheer number of injunctions that have been issued, blocking every single agenda item that the democratically elected president has attempted to execute, is unprecedented in the history of the United States. We&#8217;re in comical, “jump-the-shark” territory. And that&#8217;s a very, very big deal, because courts don&#8217;t have militaries. They can&#8217;t enforce their own rulings. When they lose legitimacy, they lose everything. And with this latest ruling, on top of all the other rulings, legitimacy is long gone.
So who does have legitimacy? Where does legitimacy come from? For judges, legitimacy comes from restraint and consistency, and adherence to the law. For presidents, it comes from democratic elections. It comes from campaigning, and openly telling voters what you plan to do, if and when you&#8217;re elected. And with that in mind, you will not find a single person — even the most deranged anchor on MSNBC — who will disagree with this statement: Donald Trump explicitly campaigned on imposing massive tariffs on foreign nations in order to return manufacturing to the United States. That was always a core plank of his domestic agenda. That doesn&#8217;t mean you have to agree with him. You can feel however you want about tariffs. But it does mean that Trump&#8217;s plan was put to a vote. And the American people decided that Donald Trump&#8217;s economic agenda was the best way forward. That&#8217;s legitimacy. If that&#8217;s not legitimacy, then legitimacy has no meaning. And neither does democracy.
Again, even on MSNBC, they concede this point. Last night, as he was celebrating this court decision, the perpetually unhinged Lawrence O&#8217;Donnell admitted that Trump&#8217;s entire campaign was about tariffs. He says he was talking about tariffs the whole time — and he blames the &#8220;campaign press&#8221; for not talking about tariffs enough. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 unconstitutional Tariffs" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O-_kzh1ORhE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The point of this little diatribe from Lawrence O&#8217;Donnell is to suggest that, if only the &#8220;campaign press&#8221; had covered Trump&#8217;s tariffs a little bit more, then the voters would have rejected his entire candidacy. This is a very familiar tactic on the Left. They did the same thing with Russiagate. They claimed that, if only people knew that the Russian government had spent $100,000 on Facebook memes back in 2016, then they would never have voted against Hillary Clinton. You poor, poor voters. You&#8217;re always being tricked by Donald Trump. You have no agency whatsoever. Thankfully, the courts will correct that little problem for you.
This is about as undemocratic as it gets. It is asinine, narcissistic and above all, totalitarian. Of course, it wasn&#8217;t just this one MSNBC blowhard who discovered that Trump was talking about tariffs all the time. The entire country heard Trump talk about tariffs. And then they overwhelmingly decided to elect him. And that should matter, more than anything else. Unless the president clearly and unambiguously exceeds his authority under the constitution, then the courts should respect the will of the voters.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1605-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
And in this case, if you read the ruling from the panel of judges on the United States Court of International Trade, you&#8217;ll discover that Donald Trump did not actually exceed his authority. In order to come to the opposite conclusion, a lot of mental gymnastics were required on the part of this three-judge panel. I want to start with the court&#8217;s handling of Trump&#8217;s fentanyl-related tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. At the moment this ruling was issued, the tariffs stood at 25% for Mexican and Canadian products, and 20% for Chinese products (with an exception for Canadian energy, which remained at 10%).
Normally, the president can&#8217;t issue tariffs that are quite this high. However, as you probably remember, the Trump administration determined — rightly — that fentanyl trafficking is a national emergency because tens of thousands of Americans are dying each year from fentanyl that&#8217;s imported from overseas. Therefore, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the White House asserted its authority to impose substantial tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China — tariffs that are much higher than they otherwise could be.
Under this emergency act, the president is allowed to, “&#8230; deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.&#8221;
Again, the president can, “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States &#8230; if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.&#8221;
That&#8217;s a direct quote from the text of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which became law in the 1970s. That&#8217;s the authority Congress delegated to the president. Under this Act, the president can impose substantial tariffs to &#8220;deal with&#8221; any &#8220;extraordinary threat,&#8221; as long as he declares a national emergency. So you might be asking: Isn&#8217;t that exactly what happened in this case? Didn&#8217;t Trump impose the fentanyl tariffs in order to pressure countries like Mexico and China to stop allowing fentanyl into this country? Under the terms of this law, isn&#8217;t the president implementing these tariffs to &#8220;deal with&#8221; the fentanyl crisis?
According to the trade court, the answer to that question is no. Here&#8217;s their reasoning. They focus extensively on the words &#8220;Deal with&#8221; in the law that I just read.
Here&#8217;s what <a href="https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf">they said</a>:
<blockquote>&#8216;Deal with&#8217; connotes a direct link between an act and the problem it purports to address. A tax deals with a budget deficit by raising revenue. A dam deals with flooding by holding back a river. But there is no such association between the act of imposing a tariff and the &#8216;unusual and extraordinary threats&#8217; that the [Fentanyl] Trafficking Orders purport to combat. &#8230; The [Fentanyl] Trafficking Orders do not &#8216;deal with&#8217; their stated objectives. Rather, as the Government acknowledges, the Orders aim to create leverage to &#8216;deal with&#8217; those objectives.</blockquote>
In other words, the court is acknowledging that the fentanyl tariffs are being used by the Trump administration as a form of leverage, which can force foreign countries to &#8220;deal with&#8221; the fentanyl problem. But they&#8217;re claiming that, under the law, that&#8217;s not allowed. That&#8217;s not how you&#8217;re supposed to &#8220;deal with&#8221; fentanyl, according to this three-judge panel. The judges are saying that the Trump administration is assuming too much power, and that &#8220;leverage&#8221; isn&#8217;t the appropriate way to &#8220;deal with&#8221; an emergency. Therefore, apparently, the Trump administration needed to impose a tariff specifically on fentanyl imports, or something like that — even though it would obviously accomplish nothing at all, because no one is declaring their fentanyl shipments at the border.
I want to emphasize this a little more, because this part of the ruling really deserves more attention than it&#8217;s getting. Congress passed a law that allows the president to &#8220;deal with&#8221; any emergency he declares. And now, decades later, this trade court is saying, in effect — &#8220;no, you can&#8217;t deal with it like that.&#8221; But there&#8217;s nothing in the law that justifies their ruling. The court just makes it up. The only reasoning that the court provides — which is contained in two paragraphs at the end of their opinion — is that the Trump administration&#8217;s approach would justify any kind of tariff they wanted to impose, no matter how ridiculous. They&#8217;re saying that, if Trump can use &#8220;leverage&#8221; as a justification, then he can impose whatever tariff he wants. But that&#8217;s not true. There has to be an underlying emergency, first of all. And the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans every year certainly qualifies.
Additionally, there&#8217;s evidence that, in this case, Trump&#8217;s &#8220;leverage&#8221; is indeed working. Within days of Trump&#8217;s sweeping tariffs on Canada, for example, Trudeau appointed a fentanyl czar and pledged to screen exports more carefully, in order to prevent fentanyl from entering into this country.
So we&#8217;re not talking about some arbitrary tariff that has no connection to reality. We&#8217;re talking about a tariff that has already produced tangible results that will stem the flow of fentanyl. But apparently, that&#8217;s not good enough.
I&#8217;m highlighting this part of the ruling because it underscores the extent of the judicial coup we&#8217;re witnessing. Congress delegated authority to the president to &#8220;deal with&#8221; an emergency. He attempted to do that. And then the court overrides him, based on ad hoc reasoning that invalidates the will of the voters, who elected the Trump administration (and the members of Congress who passed that emergency tariff law). Again, it&#8217;s fine if you think the tariffs are a bad idea, or good idea, or if you have mixed feelings about it. But the solution, in that case, is for Congress to rescind the tariff power — in whole or in part. The solution is not for random courts in Manhattan to override the president and the Congress, based on very strained interpretations of the law.
This ruling has already been appealed, and it&#8217;s clear that the Trump administration can still impose tariffs — albeit reduced ones — under the non-emergency tariff powers that have been passed by Congress. And late on Thursday, a federal appeals court put a temporary stay on the court&#8217;s ruling. So the ultimate outcome here is still uncertain. What&#8217;s not uncertain is that federal judges, once again, have undermined what&#8217;s left of their legitimacy with this ruling. If this had been the very first injunction against a Trump administration policy, it wouldn’t be as much of a crisis. People may even give the judges the benefit of the doubt throughout the appeals process. But we&#8217;ve seen more than 100 rulings like this by now. This is unsustainable — to the point that, if one of these federal judges somehow manages to issue a good ruling, no one will follow it. That&#8217;s not the ideal outcome for this country or the rule of law, obviously. But with this decision from a court that no one has ever heard of — which erases the president&#8217;s congressionally-approved authority to &#8220;deal with&#8221; national emergencies — it&#8217;s the outcome that now appears to be inevitable.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump Executive Order Aimed At WilmerHale Law Firm

These Federal Judges Are Trying To Stop Trump From Dealing With The Fentanyl Crisis

Federal Government

Matt Walsh

President Trump

Two crew members are dead and nearly two dozen others were injured after a Mexican navy tall ship lost power and crashed into the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday evening, said New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
Videos posted to social media showed the moment the masts of the sailing vessel, identified as a training ship on a goodwill mission called the Cuauhtémoc, snapped upon slamming into the bridge.
&#8220;Earlier tonight, the Mexican Navy tall ship Cuauhtémoc lost power and crashed into the Brooklyn Bridge,&#8221; Adams <a href="https://x.com/NYCMayor/status/1923956324737351832" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a post on X. &#8220;At this time, of the 277 on board, 19 sustained injuries, 2 of which remain in critical condition, and 2 more have sadly passed away from their injuries.&#8221;
He added: &#8220;We are praying for everyone on board and their families and are grateful to our first responders who quickly jumped into action, ensuring this accident wasn’t much worse. Following our preliminary inspection, we can confirm that the bridge sustained no damage and is now open to the public.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
We are praying for everyone on board and their families and are grateful to our first responders who quickly jumped into action, ensuring this accident wasn’t much worse.
Following our preliminary inspection, we can confirm that the bridge sustained no damage and is now open to…
— Mayor Eric Adams (@NYCMayor) <a href="https://twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/1923956328327676012?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 18, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<a href="https://www.nbcnewyork.com/new-york-city/mexican-navy-ship-hits-brooklyn-bridge-cuauhtemoc-investigation-underway/6268975/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">According</a> to NBC New York, the damaged ship was taken to a pier on the Lower East Side and New York Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said the National Transportation Safety Board would lead a review of the incident.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Tragedy on the East River after a Mexican naval training ship crashed into the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday night, killing at least two people.<a href="https://t.co/lUvM0U2f86">https://t.co/lUvM0U2f86</a> <a href="https://t.co/Azzu1N1wPv">pic.twitter.com/Azzu1N1wPv</a>
— CB Cotton (@CB_Cotton) <a href="https://twitter.com/CB_Cotton/status/1924106976989962751?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 18, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Bystanders <a href="https://apnews.com/article/brooklyn-bridge-collision-mexican-navy-ship-ca335dc85ebfbf981bc38516985461c8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shared</a> with the Associated Press harrowing details of what they witnessed, including Lily Katz, who was reportedly sitting and watching the sunset with another person when the Cuauhtémoc hit the bridge.
“We saw someone dangling, and I couldn’t tell if it was just blurry or my eyes, and we were able to zoom in on our phone and there was someone dangling from the harness from the top for like at least like 15 minutes before they were able to rescue them,” Katz said.
The New York Post reported a <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/05/17/us-news/ship-carrying-200-people-hits-the-brooklyn-bridge-as-search-and-rescue-operation-underway/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> from the Mexican navy.
&#8220;During the sailing maneuver of the Cuauhtémoc sailboat in New York, a mishap occurred with the Brooklyn Bridge, causing damage to the training ship, preventing the continuation of the training cruise for the time being,” the Mexican navy said. &#8220;The status of personnel and equipment is being reviewed by naval and local authorities, who are providing support. The Navy reaffirms its commitment to personnel safety, transparency in its operations, and excellent training for future officers of the Mexican Navy.&#8221;

Mexican Navy Ship Crashes Into Brooklyn Bridge

2 Dead After Mexican Navy Ship Crashes Into Brooklyn Bridge

Eric Adams

New York City

U.S.

To prove that Donald Trump is a very mean person while journalists are totally compassionate and loving, CNN has aired a sympathetic interview with a member of a Mexican drug cartel. 
Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “Oh, Klavan, you marvelous merchant of magical mirth, only you could invent a scenario in which a Left-wing news outlet sinks so deeply into the bubbling tarpit of its own twisted political hatred that the lunatic idea of legitimizing a death-mongering gangster could wend its way through every level of internal decision-making without one voice of even semi-decency speaking up to say, “Wait, wait, we can’t allow our childish demonization of our political opponents to twist our souls into gnarled burnt offerings fit only for the altars of hell so that we actually call evil good and good evil right there on cable TV in front of our six or seven viewers.”
But no, my friends, I am not making this up.
CNN girl reporter Shapely Nudnick actually traveled to a Mexican hideout where she spoke sympathetically with a masked member of the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, whose former boss El Chapo was said to be personally responsible for the deaths of over 34,000 people.
Ms. Nudnick, winner of this year’s Pulitzer prize for most attractive backside, fetchingly leaned forward and asked the masked gangster – and as God is my witness, I am not making this up, “According to the Trump Administration, you are a terrorist … What do you make of that?”
The masked member of the murderous cartel responded, “I don’t like to get overly emotional because my job depends on inspiring terror in anyone who tries to stand in my way, but I must be honest and tell you this slur from your President Trump hurt my feelings very deeply. I am just a man trying to make a living in this crazy world, and when I heard I had been labeled a terrorist, my hands were literally shaking so hard I could barely shove a screwdriver into the face of one of my rivals. I respect President Trump, and respect is very important because people who don’t return my respect are often found inside plastic bags in several different locations. But a man must eat and, to be fair, our customers are mostly in the United States and as any good businessman will tell you, you have to go where the customers are and then slowly poison them to death. I hope the American people will push back against this insult, and if they don’t, I know where they live.”
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Andrew Klavan Show</a> </h3>
CNN has proudly announced that this interview is only the first in a new series of self-degrading acts of pure evil that will appear over the course of the Trump Presidency, and they’ve been airing tantalizing previews of future episodes. In one clip, Shapely Nudnik bravely travels to an undisclosed elementary school to interview a pedophile teacher who says, “I think it’s very cruel for people to demonize someone they don’t even know with ugly words like pervert and evil scum-sucking hell-fiend. I just thank heavens I belong to a teachers’ union where they support the idea that minor attracted persons can work at an elementary school. After all, that’s where the children are, not to mention the porn.” 
In another clip, Miss Nudnick scores an interview with former Nazi torture doctor Joseph Mengele who says, “It’s true I used to perform grotesque and unspeakable medical experiments on children, but I’ve totally reformed, and now I’m supplying kids with gender affirming care, because I’ve had a lot of practice, and that’s what I’m good at.” 
In other Left-wing media news, the Pulitzer committee has awarded its prize for photography to a picture of a bullet flying at President Trump’s head. Committee Chairman Thaddeus Foul-heart said, “We know that other photo of a wounded Trump raising his fist with the American flag in the background is the single most iconic image of the first quarter of this century, but that photo inspired love and admiration for our president, whereas we were rooting for the bullet.”
* * *
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>.”
The views expressed in this satirical article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. Follow him on X: @andrewklavan
Klavan is the bestselling author of numerous books, including the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The fourth installment, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1613165536?ref_=dbs_m_mng_rwt_calw_thcv_3&amp;storeType=ebooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Woman Underground.</a>” His most recent nonfiction release is “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Cain-Finding-Literature-Darkness/dp/0310368340/?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_w=nMYjR&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_p=bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_r=133-8344803-2786917&amp;pd_rd_wg=7a8J3&amp;pd_rd_r=5791ea0f-6d96-4732-9d6a-3a4e6b348bb5&amp;ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Kingdom of Cain: Finding God in the Literature of Darkness.</a>” (May 2025, Zondervan/HarperCollins).

CNN Airs Heartfelt Sit-Down With Masked Cartel Hitman

Andrew Klavan

Humor

interview

Legacy Media

Satire

Sinaloa Cartel

Terrorism

Americans will soon feel the pinch of President Donald Trump&#8217;s tariffs if they&#8217;re looking to buy certain Ford vehicles, according to a notice sent to dealers and obtained by Reuters.
Citing Trump&#8217;s tariff on foreign vehicle imports, Ford is increasing the prices of its Mustang Mach-E electric SUV, Maverick pickup truck, and Bronco Sport by as much as $2,000, Reuters <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/07/ford-hikes-prices-on-mexico-produced-models-citing-tariffs.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. The price increase will only affect vehicles built after May 2, which are expected to arrive at U.S. dealerships in late June, according to a Ford spokesman.
The spokesman added that the price increase reflects “usual” mid-year actions &#8220;combined with some tariffs we are facing.&#8221;
&#8220;We have not passed on the full cost of tariffs to our customers,&#8221; the spokesman added.
The price increase will likely be seen after Ford ends its major <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/from-america-for-america-ford-offering-major-discounts-as-tariffs-kick-in" target="_blank" rel="noopener">discount offer</a> for American buyers. Ford is currently offering customers employee pricing until June 2, which it says is &#8220;worth thousands of dollars&#8221; in savings.
In an effort to push for more American car production, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on auto imports, affecting around eight million vehicles imported to the United States each year. Late last month, Trump<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-major-victory-trump-makes-deal-with-auto-industry-for-tariff-relief" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> made a deal</a> with the auto industry to relieve some of the tariff pressure, signing an order to prevent auto tariffs from “stacking” on top of each other in exchange for manufacturers&#8217; continued focus on domestic production. While auto manufacturers will continue to pay the 25% tariff on auto imports under the new deal, they won&#8217;t be hit with additional tariffs, such as the 25% tax on steel and aluminum.
Car companies, including Ford, suspended their annual earnings guidance for 2025 over the tariffs. Ford said earlier this week that it expects to see a $2.5 billion impact from Trump&#8217;s tariffs, CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/05/ford-motor-f-earnings-q1-2025.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. The Michigan-based auto company has yet to announce any plans to ramp up domestic manufacturing or move plants from Mexico to the United States. After Trump relieved some tariff pressure on car companies, Ford CEO Jim Farley <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/29/trump-auto-tariffs.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">vowed</a> to “continue to work closely with the administration in support of the president’s vision for a healthy and growing auto industry in America.&#8221;
&#8220;Ford sees policies that encourage exports and ensure affordable supply chains to promote more domestic growth as essential,&#8221; Farley added.
Some of Ford&#8217;s foreign competition, such as Hyundai, BMW, and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mercedes-says-it-will-make-another-car-in-the-u-s-after-trump-tariffs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Mercedes-Benz</a>, have announced plans to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tariffs-very-strongly-work-trump-announces-21-billion-hyundai-investment-in-u-s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">invest</a> in more U.S. manufacturing as they seek to navigate the tariffs.

Ford

Ford To Jack Up Prices On Vehicles Made In Mexico Over Tariffs

Auto Companies

Business

Cars

Economy

Ford Motor Co.

Mexico rejects President Donald Trump’s offer to fight drug cartels with the U.S. military, Trump wants to bring movie production back to Hollywood, and Virginia Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin signs a law limiting social media use for children.
It’s Tuesday, May 6, and this is the news you need to know to start your day.
Morning Wire is available on video! You can watch today’s episode here: 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Cartels are &quot;Destroying Our Country&quot; PLUS Saving Hollywood from the Libs" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VDNviNvOMG8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If you’d rather listen to your news, today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below:
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/fighting-mexicos-cartels-hollywood-dreaming-5-6-25/id1576594336?i=1000706494904" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
<h2>Mexico Rejects Offer For U.S. Troops To Fight Cartels</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-916267" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/1-2.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/1-2.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/1-2-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline: Mexico refuses President Trump’s offer to “send in the troops” to battle drug cartels.
Trump confirmed to journalists this week that he asked Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, if the United States military could be sent across the southern border to fight the cartels during a phone call with her on April 16th. Trump added that the cartels “are horrible people who’ve been killing people left and right” and addressed their role in both the fentanyl crisis and illegal immigration into the United States.
Sheinbaum rejected that offer, stating that the two countries can collaborate, but “with you in your territory and us in ours.”
This all comes as Mexico has struggled with ongoing turf wars between the cartels. One <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexico-shootout-gunmen-killed-guanajuato-state-cartels/">gunfight</a> between cartel members earlier this year resulted in three police officers being injured and the death of ten cartel gunmen.
There have been reports that the administration was considering military action for months now. In the first few weeks of his presidency, Trump’s State Department designated eight different cartels and gangs, including the Sinaloa and New Generation cartels, as foreign terror organizations. NBC <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-weighs-drone-strikes-mexican-cartels-rcna198930">reported</a> last month that administration officials were exploring the possibility of using drone strikes against the cartels to take out their leadership or knock out their logistics sites. That report said the administration had not ruled out taking unilateral action against the cartels without the support of the Mexican government.
The Trump administration has already begun flying <a href="https://apnews.com/article/mexico-us-trump-drones-cia-13af9277fbbbf6ff4dfd470efc9cb647">surveillance drones</a> over Mexico, at the request of Sheinbaum. The New York Times reported that the CIA was conducting the surveillance flights with the intention of locating fentanyl labs.
<h2>Trump Floats Tariffs To Protect Tinsel Town</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-916269" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/2-2.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/2-2.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/2-2-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline: Can Trump &#8216;Make Hollywood Work Again?&#8217; Or will his plan to “revive” the film industry end up on the cutting room floor?
President Trump made waves in Hollywood on Monday after announcing plans to impose a 100% tariff on all foreign-made films. The president says this move will revive a “dying” American movie industry.
Trump argued that countries like Australia, the U.K., and Canada are luring American productions away with generous tax incentives. He also said that these foreign films often contain propaganda, which he described as a “national security threat.”
Essentially, Trump said that foreign interests have destroyed Hollywood, and imposing tariffs would encourage domestic production. However, the details of how this would be implemented are murky at this point.
Context: 40% fewer films and TV shows are now shot in the U.S. compared to before the actors’ and writers’ strikes of 2023. Last year, Los Angeles saw its worst on-location filming rate in history, with the exception of 2020, when productions were shut down because of the COVID pandemic. Of all the TV shows and feature films that Americans watch, only 20% are now made in California.
The Motion Picture Association, which represents major studios, has declined to comment. But industry scuttlebutt is that studios don’t like the proposed tariff because it would make filming more expensive, while workers in crew positions and technical roles generally back the idea. There’s also concern about retaliation—China has already reduced U.S. film quotas in its market, and Europe, where U.S. films dominate, could impose tit-for-tat tariffs, crippling Hollywood’s $15.3 billion trade surplus.
<h2>Virginia Restricts Social Media Access For Kids</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-916271" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/3-2.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/3-2.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/3-2-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline: Virginia severely cuts social media use for kids, restricting children to one hour of social media per day.
Virginia passed a first-of-its-kind bill to limit social media time for minors. Under the “Consumer Data Protection Act,” Virginia residents under the age of 16 will have a one-hour default time limit on their social media scrolling. However, if a parent wants to override that default setting, they’ll be able to do so.
Virginia Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill into law on Friday. The bill garnered broad support from Republican and Democratic lawmakers in the state. Youngkin wanted the bill to go further: he pushed for it to extend to residents under 18 years old, and also wanted the legislation to limit addictive features like autoplay on videos and infinite scrolling.
“Our children are losing the chance to cultivate essential social skills,” Youngkin <a href="https://x.com/TeamYoungkin/status/1735411843789910372">said</a>. “They are encountering cyberbullying and they’re isolated. There’s substantial distractions in schools, escalating depression, and sleep disorders. Tech companies promised to give people the power to build communities and bring the world closer together, but children are more lonely than ever.”
Other states have enacted similar legislation:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">In California, Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill in 2024 that prohibits platforms from providing &#8220;addictive” social media feeds to minors without parental consent. It also restricts companies from sending notifications to minors during certain hours, like late-night hours on a school night.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill requiring social media companies to verify the age of users, and terminate accounts of kids under the age of 14. Fourteen and 15-year-olds can have accounts on social media if they have parental consent. If a company is found violating that law, it could face fines of up to $50,000 per violation.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Utah enforces a &#8220;social media curfew.” Minors there can’t access social media between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m., unless a parent overrides that default setting.</li>
</ul>

050625 MorningWire Thumbnail V2

Morning Brief: Mexico Shields Cartels And Trump Tariffs Hollywood

Hollywood

Morning Wire

Social Media

Virginia

President Donald Trump said Sunday that Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is so afraid of drug cartels that &#8220;she can&#8217;t even think straight,&#8221; and that&#8217;s why she rejected his proposal to send American troops into Mexico to fight them.
Trump made the comments after he was asked whether news that he had made the offer was true. On Saturday, Sheinbaum said that she had turned down Trump&#8217;s offer because it would impugn Mexican sovereignty.
&#8220;It&#8217;s true,&#8221; Trump told reporters. &#8220;[The cartels] are horrible people that have been killing people left and right. They&#8217;ve made a fortune on selling drugs and destroying our people. We lost 300,000 people last year to fentanyl and drugs. They are bad news.&#8221;
&#8220;If Mexico wanted help with the cartels we would be honored to go in and do it,&#8221; he added. &#8220;I told her that, &#8216;I&#8217;d be honored to go in and do it.&#8217; The cartels are trying to destroy our country. They are evil! And you know, we had 300,000 people die last year from fentanyl and all that. We had millions of people brought into this country that shouldn&#8217;t be here. The cartels brought them in.&#8221;
He said that he thought Sheinbaum was nice but that she refused American help because she was scared of the cartels.
&#8220;So if she said that I offered to do that, she&#8217;s 100 percent right,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;She&#8217;s so afraid of the cartels she can&#8217;t walk so you know, that&#8217;s the reason. And I think she&#8217;s a lovely woman. The president of Mexico is a lovely woman. But she is so afraid of the cartels that she can&#8217;t even think straight.&#8221;
On Friday, it was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-pressures-mexico-to-allow-u-s-military-to-lead-fight-against-drug-cartels?author=Zach+Jewell&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+Pressures+Mexico+To+Allow+U.S.+Military+To+Lead+Fight+Against+Drug+Cartels" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that Sheinbaum and Trump got into a heated phone call last month after he pushed for the U.S. military to lead in the fight against cartels.
&#8220;He said, &#8216;How can we help you fight drug trafficking? I propose that the United States military come in and help you.&#8217; And you know what I said to him? &#8216;No, President Trump,'&#8221; Sheinbaum <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-sheinbaum-mexico-drug-cartels-c2113e74cfc122f8f5a9e162644a470f" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> on Saturday, confirming the conversation.
&#8220;Sovereignty is not for sale. Sovereignty is loved and defended,&#8221; she added. &#8220;We can work together, but you in your territory and us in ours.&#8221;
Trump has designated cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-it-is-time-for-america-to-wage-war-on-the-cartels" target="_blank" rel="noopener">promised</a> in a speech before Congress to &#8220;wage war&#8221; on them.
White House National Security Council spokesman James Hewitt said Saturday that while the United States-Mexico border had largely been secured, Mexico still needed to do more to crack down on drug cartels.
&#8220;Dangerous Foreign Terrorist Organizations, however, continue to threaten our shared security and the drugs and crime they spread threaten American communities across the country,&#8221; Hewitt said. &#8220;The President has been crystal clear that Mexico must do more to combat these gangs and cartels and the United States stands ready to assist and expand the already close cooperation between our two countries.&#8221;

MixCollage-05-May-2025-07-30-AM-9035

Trump Says Mexico’s President ‘Afraid’ To Let American Troops Come Fight Cartels

Cartels

Executive

Military

Menu