The leak of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision, and the historic ruling that followed, weren’t just legal landmarks — they were cultural earthquakes.
For millions of Americans, those days are seared into memory, standing alongside the moon landing or the collapse of the Berlin Wall. But Dobbs wasn’t the end of the fight for life — it was the beginning.
For the first time in half a century, Americans could protect the lives of babies in the womb through their state and federal representatives. Red states were ready to run with the ball. Several had trigger laws — laws designed to take effect to protect babies at conception the moment Roe fell — that went into effect when the decision came down. Others, like South Carolina and Florida, moved quickly to pass legislation safeguarding life.
Those bold moves were met with electoral reward: Gov. Ron DeSantis won re-election in a Florida <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Ron_DeSantis" target="_blank" rel="noopener">landslide</a>, as did Governors<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Kim_Reynolds" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Kim Reynolds</a>,<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_gubernatorial_and_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election,_2022" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Mike DeWine</a>, and<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_gubernatorial_election,_2022" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Brian Kemp</a> in Iowa, Ohio, and Georgia, respectively. We very quickly reached the point where half of the states had <a href="https://sbaprolife.org/lifesavinglaws" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pro-life laws</a>.
Now, the pro-life movement has turned to its next major historic battle: defunding Planned Parenthood and dismantling the forced taxpayer funding of the abortion-industrial complex.
For decades, taxpayers have been forced to fund abortion businesses, with the lion’s share of funding coming from Medicaid. With Planned Parenthood responsible for more than <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-planned-parenthoods-2022-23-annual-report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">400,000</a> abortions annually, Americans have been forced to subsidize the leading cause of death for far too long.
But there’s a plan to end this. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which recently passed the House of Representatives, pulls the plug on Medicaid funding for abortion businesses.
It could have a seismic impact.
After President Donald Trump froze<a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/trump-administration-freeze-family-planning-funds-planned-parenthood-2025-04-01/#:~:text=Planned%20Parenthood%20Health%20Systems%2C%20Inc,halted%20by%20the%20Trump%20administration." target="_blank" rel="noopener"> $27.5 million</a> in Title X dollars to Planned Parenthood, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/22/clinics-begin-closing-as-trump-admin-continues-freeze-on-family-planning-funds-00302504" target="_blank" rel="noopener">POLITICO</a> reported that several Planned Parenthood affiliates were closing or struggling to stay afloat.
<a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/262849/planned-parenthood-shutters-only-facility-in-manhattan-after-decades-of-pro-life-prayers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Manhattan’s</a> only Planned Parenthood closed. Four<a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2025/04/03/planned-parenthood-shutting-down-4-michigan-clinics-after-trump-administration-cuts-funding/#:~:text=Planned%20Parenthood%20shutting%20down,said%20in%20a%20news%20release.%20%E2%80%9C" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Michigan</a> facilities are shutting down. Two<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/22/clinics-begin-closing-as-trump-admin-continues-freeze-on-family-planning-funds-00302504" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Utah</a> Planned Parenthoods closed at the end of last month. Four Planned Parenthood facilities in <a href="https://www.iowapublicradio.org/health/2025-05-24/planned-parenthood-to-close-four-clinics-in-iowa" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Iowa</a> and four more in<a href="https://www.startribune.com/why-planned-parenthood-is-closing-four-minnesota-clinics-and-laying-off-staff/601362453" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Minnesota</a> are closing.
If that’s the impact of $27.5 million, we don’t have to guess what taking away <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/870/866408.pdf#page=12" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$529 million</a> in Medicaid funding annually will do. Planned Parenthood says this would mean<a href="https://x.com/KristanHawkins/status/1925627793745821741" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> 200</a> of their facilities would close.
With Republicans on Capitol Hill energized to stop the forced taxpayer funding of abortion businesses and around <a href="https://www.kofc.org/en/news-room/archive.html?section=polls" target="_blank" rel="noopener">60%</a> of Americans against publicly funding abortion, Planned Parenthood is growing desperate. They took out a New York Times <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2025/05/21/planned-parenthood-celebrity-ad/83766968007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ad</a>, which likely cost tens of thousands of dollars, that featured Harry Styles, Megan Thee Stallion, Doug Emhoff’s daughter, Jussie Smollett’s sister, and other celebrities calling for the forced taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.
This is just one example of how Planned Parenthood funnels resources into political activism, money that could instead be used to improve basic health standards at their facilities.
Planned Parenthood’s spending priorities have horrific results: a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/us/planned-parenthood-clinics.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stillbirth</a> after an IUD was placed when a woman was pregnant,<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/us/planned-parenthood-clinics.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> biohazards</a> and raw sewage left to fester in a Nebraska facility for days, and botched <a href="https://flatwaterfreepress.org/dysfunction-turnover-at-omaha-planned-parenthood-clinic-further-limiting-abortion-access-in-nebraska/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HIV and syphilis tests</a>, to name a few. Most tragically, an 18-year-old girl in Colorado <a href="https://sbaprolife.org/latest-news/young-woman-dies-after-late-term-abortion-at-planned-parenthood" target="_blank" rel="noopener">died</a> after a late-term abortion at a Planned Parenthood facility earlier this year.
Women on Medicaid will be much better served by community health centers, which already outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/realchoices/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">15:1</a>. These centers provide much more comprehensive and higher quality care than entities that exist to sell abortions.
We are optimistic this will be the year we defund Planned Parenthood — which would help pro-life Republican candidates win elections in 2026 and 2028. But Democrats, the legacy media, Hollywood, liberal universities, and other woke institutions are doing everything within their power to prevent the greatest human rights victory of our time.
Ballot measures have wiped away pro-life laws in Ohio, Arizona, and Missouri, where Republican leaders failed to fully engage in the battle. Activist courts have stopped states from protecting babies in the womb. Shield laws — designed to give blue state abortionists immunity when they ship abortion drugs into pro-life states — and similar workarounds from the Biden administration allow blue state abortionists to bypass pro-life laws, kill unborn children, and harm women across state lines by mailing abortion drugs.
All of this means that the total number of abortions performed in the United States has increased since the Dobbs decision. While there is no definitive way to calculate the total number of abortions performed each year, a new Charlotte Lozier Institute<a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/new-report-confirms-abortions-continue-to-rise-after-dobbs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> study</a> reveals a startling reality.
The study compiles existing data from pro-abortion entities like the Guttmacher Institute and #WeCount, and shows the total number of abortions is at least 1.1 million annually.
This is not the time to retreat. This is the time to go on offense. Human rights battles are never won overnight. Slavery wasn’t abolished in just a few years, nor was segregation.
The fall of Roe was the start of the most significant human rights movement of our time. Bringing this movement to a successful conclusion will take persistence, unity, and courage.
Now is the time for the pro-life movement to reignite, take the historic step of defunding Planned Parenthood, and to elect leaders who don’t flinch when the stakes are high. We stand on the shoulders of decades of sacrifice and prayer, and, by the grace of God, we believe this could be the year we take the next big step.
Because the fight for life isn’t over.
It’s just getting started.
Marjorie Dannenfelser is president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. She has been called “the woman who brought down Roe.”
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Annual March For Life Held In Washington, D.C.

Three Years After Dobbs, The Pro-Life Movement Is Just Getting Started 

Abortion

Dobbs

Planned Parenthood

Pro-Abortion

Supreme Court

Support among Republicans for gay marriage has plummeted in the last three years, according to a new <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/691139/record-party-divide-years-sex-marriage-ruling.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gallup poll</a>.
Gallup’s poll released on Thursday found 41% of GOP voters support gay marriage, as opposed to 55% in 2021 and 2022. A whopping 88% of Democrats approved of gay marriage in the new poll; the 47-point gap between the two parties is the largest since Gallup first asked the question in 1996. Seventy-six percent of independents approve of gay marriage. In 1996, 16% of Republicans approved; 33% of Democrats and 32% of independents agreed.
86% of Democrats said gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable; 38% of Republicans agreed, a drop from 2022, when 56% of Republicans agreed. Among those who attend religious services at least once a week, 33% said same-sex marriage was morally acceptable and 24% said gay-lesbian relations were socially acceptable. Gallup polling between 2020-2023 <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/507692/church-attendance-lower-pre-pandemic.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a> that more Republicans attended weekly religious services than Democrats by 15 percentage points.
When writing a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22067323-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-clarence-thomas-concurrence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">concurring opinion</a> in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made the legal case for overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges, the last of which guaranteed the right to gay marriage.
Thomas explained that the three cases relied on substantive due process, which he called “an oxymoron that lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.”
Courts have used substantive due process to protect unenumerated rights not mentioned in the Constitution. The right to privacy and the right to gay marriage have been recognized under substantive due process.  
“On the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas has long argued (consistent with much academic commentary) that insofar as the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates enumerated rights against the states and protects unenumerated rights, this work is done by the Privileges [and] Immunities Clause, and not the Due Process Clause,” Reason <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/on-justice-thomas-dobbs-precedent-and-substantive-due-process/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a>.
<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>
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents, After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”
“Substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority,&#8221; he wrote, “Substantive due process distorts other areas of constitutional law. &#8230; Substantive due process is the core inspiration for many of the Court’s constitutionally unmoored policy judgments. &#8230; The harm caused by this Court’s forays into substantive due process remains immeasurable.”

Group of People Celebrating Gay Pride Parade- Pride Month and Parade-People marching with the rainbow LGBTQ+ flag

Support For Gay Marriage Plummets Among Republicans: Gallup Poll

Clarence Thomas

Gallup

Republicans

Same-Sex Marriage

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Trump administration can revoke protected status for more than 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela from deportations.
The unsigned decision was not a final ruling on the case, but it will allow the Trump administration to continue its mass deportation efforts as an appeal of the president&#8217;s order plays out in the courts, The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-supreme-court.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor signed onto a written dissent, arguing that the court&#8217;s decision would have “the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.&#8221;
The ruling centers on former President Joe Biden&#8217;s humanitarian parole program that allowed migrants from certain countries facing instability to enter the United States and quickly receive work authorization. On day one in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for the end of the migrant parole program, and the Department of Homeland Security responded by moving to terminate the program in March, Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-revokes-legal-status-530000-cubans-haitians-nicaraguans-venezuelans-2025-03-21/">reported</a>.
Biden opened up the United States to thousands of Venezuelans in 2022 and then to Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans in 2023. After Trump moved to revoke the protected status for these migrants, lawyers representing many of the migrants sued, arguing that Trump&#8217;s &#8220;actions are not only illegal, but shockingly callous.&#8221; Biden&#8217;s parole program also extended to around 240,000 Ukrainians, but the Trump administration has not yet sought to revoke protected status for the Ukrainians fleeing the war.
<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>
The Trump administration&#8217;s move to terminate the parole program was paused by a federal judge in Massachusetts in March, and that pause was upheld by an appeals court earlier this month. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in a May 8 emergency application to the Supreme Court that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has “broad discretion over categories of immigration determinations” and has the power to revoke the protected status recognized under Biden&#8217;s parole program, according to the Times.
Sauer <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A1079/358354/20250508121118618_Kristi_Noem_v_Svitlana_Doe_et_al_%20application_stay.pdf">wrote</a> that the district court upended &#8220;critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry, vitiating core Executive Branch prerogatives, and undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election.&#8221;
The Supreme Court&#8217;s Friday decision is its second ruling this month that allows Trump to seek the removal of migrants from the United States as an appeals process plays out. On May 19, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-allows-trump-to-end-temporary-protected-status-for-certain-migrants">ruled</a> 8-1 that the Trump administration can remove Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for around 350,000 Venezuelan migrants who were allowed to remain in the United States under the Biden administration.

Donald Trump

SCOTUS Rules Trump Can Revoke Protected Status For Half A Million Migrants From Multiple Countries

Biden Administration

Courts

Department of Homeland Security

Deportations

Joe Biden

Politics

SCOTUS

Trump Administration

The White House is banking on the highest court in the land to save President Donald Trump&#8217;s sweeping tariffs on foreign nations that were blocked by a trio of judges in an ongoing legal fight this week.
&#8220;These judges are threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage,&#8221; White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters in a briefing on Thursday, adding moments later, &#8220;Ultimately, the Supreme Court must put an end to this, for the sake of our Constitution and our country.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PressSec</a>: &#8220;Last night the Trump administration faced another example of judicial overreach&#8230;Three judges of the U.S. Court of international trade&#8230;brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump&#8230;the courts should have no role here.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/NchnASHzJP">pic.twitter.com/NchnASHzJP</a>
— CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1928144137611522120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 29, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the New York-based Court of International Trade <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-court-blocks-trumps-sweeping-liberation-day-tariffs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rejected</a> Trump&#8217;s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) and struck down his sweeping levies on imports from countries around the world.
The Trump administration is challenging the ruling and <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.23106/gov.uscourts.cafc.23106.7.0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a> it &#8220;plans to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court&#8221; on Friday &#8220;to avoid irreparable national-security and economic harms at stake&#8221; if a federal appeals court does not provide interim relief.
Leavitt said the U.S. Court of International Trade judges &#8220;abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump&#8221; and &#8220;failed to acknowledge that the President of the United States has core foreign affairs powers and authority given to him by Congress to protect the United States economy and national security.&#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>
After the Republican-led Senate <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senate-rejects-bid-to-stop-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-vance-stifles-attempt-to-resurrect-it" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rejected</a> last month a resolution spearheaded by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to stop the national emergency declaration that Trump used to impose his “Liberation Day” tariffs, the courts &#8220;should have no role here,&#8221; Leavitt insisted.
&#8220;America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges,&#8221; Leavitt said, alluding to negotiations the U.S. is having with other nations to strike trade deals.
There are more hurdles ahead for the Trump administration. Another federal judge issued a <a href="https://apnews.com/live/donald-trump-news-updates-5-29-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a> on Thursday, around when Leavitt spoke to reporters, that placed a stoppage on the president&#8217;s tariffs.
In a post on X, Sen. Paul <a href="https://x.com/RandPaul/status/1928111254704386119" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>, &#8220;I have said time and time again that the Founders wanted to prevent one person from having unilateral control and decision-making powers. That’s why the power of the purse and the ability to tax lie with Congress, not the president.&#8221;

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt

SCOTUS ‘Must Put An End’ To Tariff Blockage, White House Says

Executive

Judges

Karoline Leavitt

Rand Paul

Tariffs

Trade War

White House

On Monday, Dan Bongino, the Deputy Director of the FBI, announced that the agency would further its investigation into cocaine being found in the Biden White House and the leak of the draft of the Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court that overruled Roe v. Wade, and the <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/january-5-pipe-bomb-investigation-new-footage-of-suspect-placing-bomb-at-dnc/view" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pipe bombs</a> that were left near the DNC and RNC offices in Washington, D.C., in on January 2021.
On July 2, 2023, the Secret Service discovered powder cocaine in a vestibule cubby at the White House where visitors store mobile phones. President Biden and his family were at Camp David at the time. The Secret Service concluded its investigation ten days later.
“There was no surveillance video footage found that provided investigative leads or any other means for investigators to identify who may have deposited the found substance in this area,” the FBI <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/photos-show-cocaine-found-inside-white-house-complex/story?id=104874539" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stated</a> at the time. “Without physical evidence, the investigation will not be able to single out a person of interest from the hundreds of individuals who passed through the vestibule where the cocaine was discovered. At this time, the Secret Service&#8217;s investigation is closed due to a lack of physical evidence.”
In May 2022, someone leaked a draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Supreme Court denounced the leak as “a grave assault on the judicial process.” Gail Curley, the court official assigned with investigating the incident, <a href="//29439C2B-4E2B-4FE5-8C88-C31A6D9B9364/v" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stated</a>, “If a Court employee disclosed the draft opinion, that person brazenly violated a system that was built fundamentally on trust with limited safeguards to regulate and constrain access to very sensitive information.”
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
“Shortly after swearing in, the Director and I evaluated a number of cases of potential public corruption that, understandably, have garnered public interest,” Bongino wrote on X. “We made the decision to either re-open, or push additional resources and investigative attention, to these cases. These cases are the DC pipe bombing investigation, the cocaine discovery at the prior administration’s White House, and the leak of the Supreme Court Dobbs case.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Thanks for following this account and allowing us to update you about what we’re doing at your FBI. A few updates:
-The Director and I will have most of our incoming reform teams in place by next week. The hiring process can take a little bit of time, but we are approaching that…
&mdash; Dan Bongino (@FBIDDBongino) <a href="https://twitter.com/FBIDDBongino/status/1926961051129508247?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;

Dan Bongino

FBI Says It Has Eyes On Two Unresolved Biden-Era Mega-Scandals

Cocaine

General

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

U.S.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump to fire two members of federal labor review boards appointed by former President Joe Biden, whom he said were at odds with his agenda.
In a 6-3 decision, the court said that Trump could terminate Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board after lower courts blocked the firings. The court granted the request from the Trump administration as litigation plays out.
The court wrote that “because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President &#8230; [Trump] may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions.”
&#8220;The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power. But we do not ultimately decide in this posture whether the NLRB or MSPB falls within such a recognized exception; that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument,&#8221; the court wrote.  
&#8220;The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,&#8221; the conservative wing of the court wrote in their decision. 
The ruling added that the court did not believe that it would pave the way for Trump to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or members of the Federal Open Market Committee.
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all dissented from the majority decision.
&#8220;Not since the 1950s (or even before) has a President, without a legitimate reason, tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency—a multi-member, bipartisan commission exercising regulatory power whose governing statute contains a for-cause provision,&#8221; Kagan wrote in her dissent.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
In court filings, Solicitor General John Sauer said that presidents were not mandated to keep federal bureaucrats in power if they did not align with his agenda.
&#8220;The president should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the administration&#8217;s policy objectives for a single day — much less for the months that it would likely take for the courts to resolve this litigation,&#8221; Sauer wrote.
Since his inauguration in January, Trump has pushed to fire broad swaths of federal workers across all levels of the federal government.

President Trump Meets South African President Cyril Ramaphosa At White House

Supreme Court Sides With Trump, Allows Firings Of Agency Heads As Litigation Plays Out

Nearly two years after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action, an Illinois medical school admits black and Hispanic students with lower average MCAT scores and GPAs than the average scores of white and Asian students it rejects, according to data shared with The Daily Wire.
An analysis of the academic scores of students admitted into Southern Illinois School of Medicine from 2019-2024 reveals that blacks and Hispanics are admitted to the school with much lower scores than whites and Asians, figures obtained by Do No Harm show. These apparently different academic standards continue despite the Supreme Court&#8217;s June 2023 decision to strike down affirmative action, leading to concern that the university is watering down the importance of academics in admissions.
This revelation comes as school leadership <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/unearthed-footage-exposes-medical-school-administrators-pledging-resist-trump-executive-orders" target="_blank" rel="noopener">promises</a> to &#8220;resist&#8221; and &#8220;fight back&#8221; against executive actions from the Trump administration cracking down on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. A spokeswoman for the school told The Daily Wire that it was &#8220;committed to following the law and complying with the decisions of the Supreme Court.&#8221;
Comparing average GPAs and MCAT scores, Do No Harm found that whites and Asians generally need to score significantly higher than blacks and Hispanics to be admitted into the school. The MCAT is the standardized test that all prospective doctors must take to be admitted into medical school.
“In 2024, the average MCAT score of accepted Asians and whites (combined) was more than 4 points higher than that of accepted blacks and Hispanics (combined) — equivalent to a gap of about 14 percentile points. On GPA, accepted Asians and whites on average had 0.36 higher scores than accepted Blacks and Hispanics,” Do No Harm wrote in a summary of its analysis of the data. 
According to data from 2024, the average GPA score of students accepted into the Southern Illinois  School of Medicine, broken down by race, was: Hispanic (3.45), black (3.50), white (3.85), and Asian (3.89). For the MCAT (best score being 528), the average scores were as follows: Hispanic (503.5 &#8211; 58th percentile), black (505.7 &#8211; 65th percentile), white (509 &#8211; 75th percentile), and Asian (512.8 &#8211; 85th percentile).
&#8220;When comparing to the average scores of all accepted applicants, whites/Asians scored slightly above average while blacks/Hispanics scored significantly below average,&#8221; Do No Harm noted in its report.
The 2024 data also reveal that whites and Asians who were rejected had average higher MCAT scores and GPAs than blacks and Hispanics who were accepted. The average MCAT score for whites/Asians rejected was 505.7, compared to the 505.2 of blacks/Hispanics accepted. For GPA, the average for white/Asians rejected was 3.66 compared to the 3.50 of blacks/Hispanics accepted.
The data also show that 21 Asians with perfect GPAs were rejected in 2024.
&#8220;Of the 24 black or Hispanic applicants admitted in 2024, 17 had MCAT scores lower than the average white or Asian rejected applicant; 13 had GPAs lower than the average white or Asian rejected applicant,&#8221; Do No Harm noted. &#8220;In 2024, no Asian admitted student had an MCAT score below 503. Meanwhile, half of black admitted students (9 of 18) had an MCAT score below 503.&#8221;
These trends hold for every year from 2020 to 2024, with average rejection scores for whites/Asians being higher than average accepted scores for blacks/Hispanics, as Do No Harm noted that 2024 was &#8220;not an outlier.&#8221;
&#8220;Blacks and Hispanics were admitted with lower MCAT and GPA scores than whites and Asians in each of the past five years at the school,&#8221; Do No Harm reported. &#8220;A five-year average of SIUSOM’s accepted applicants shows that there was a difference of 0.34 GPA points between the two racial groups.&#8221;
The same could be found when comparing MCAT scores.
<div id="attachment_924279" style="width: 1175px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-924279" class="size-full wp-image-924279" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/Screenshot-2025-05-22-at-2.41.15%E2%80%AFPM.png" alt="" width="1165" height="621" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/Screenshot-2025-05-22-at-2.41.15%E2%80%AFPM.png 1165w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/Screenshot-2025-05-22-at-2.41.15%E2%80%AFPM-300x160.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/Screenshot-2025-05-22-at-2.41.15%E2%80%AFPM-1024x546.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/Screenshot-2025-05-22-at-2.41.15%E2%80%AFPM-768x409.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1165px) 100vw, 1165px" />Credit: Do No Harm.</div>
Paulette Dove, the senior counsel for Health Affairs for the Southern Illinois University system, said earlier this year that the affirmative action decision had a big impact on the school. 
“And then I just wanted to share one of the cases that had the biggest impact on SIU since I&#8217;ve been here, from a legal perspective, is the Students for Fair Admissions case that came out in 2023 and that was about looking at race and diversity and other issues in admissions and how that went about,&#8221; she said in a video shared with The Daily Wire, turning a faculty discussion on Trump&#8217;s executive actions.
&#8220;And I want you to know that those lawsuits were started in 2014 and we saw an outcome from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023,&#8221; she added. &#8220;So, there is time to work through all of these issues that are coming up now, even though they feel urgent, and we will do our best to stay on top of those urgent things, but my best suggestion to you is to really stay the course for the time being.”
Ian Kingsbury, the director of research for Do No Harm, told The Daily Wire that he is skeptical that the university has complied with the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, saying that the school would be &#8220;pretty hard pressed to convince&#8221; someone that the admission data doesn&#8217;t reveal racial discrimination. 
On its website, the school lists a number of factors it considers in admission. These <a href="https://www.siumed.edu/md-admissions#selection-factors" target="_blank" rel="noopener">include</a> extracurricular activities, employment and volunteer experience, and area of residence, &#8220;with preference given to central and southern Illinois residents and those from rural, inner-city, or disadvantaged backgrounds.&#8221;
Kingsbury said that the school would have had to significantly deemphasize academics to get to its current situation.
&#8220;I understand that academic qualifications alone aren’t the only thing that should determine your admission to medical school. But in any sane and reasonable world, they should be extremely important,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Essentially, they would have to establish that the non-academic criteria that they are using, that it just so happens that their black and Hispanic applicants are that much better than their white and Asian applicants along those criteria.” 
Southern Illinois School of Medicine has received millions of federal dollars, <a href="https://budzinski.house.gov/posts/budzinski-announces-3-2-million-for-siu-school-of-medicine?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">including</a> a $3.2 million grant in 2023, to improve its facilities. The school also currently has <a href="https://taggs.hhs.gov/searchaward" target="_blank" rel="noopener">multiple grants</a> from the National Institutes of Health, including hundreds of thousands of dollars to study drug addictions.
In January, President Donald Trump issued an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">executive order</a> that directed his administration to ensure that any educational facility receiving federal dollars was complying with the Students for Fair Admission decision. Earlier this month, the Department of Health and Human Services sent a letter to medical schools warning them of &#8220;unlawful&#8221; admission practices that look at race in admissions.
&#8220;It appears that many medical schools may have yet to come into compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA,&#8221; the department wrote. &#8220;Medical schools found to be out of compliance with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, be subject to investigation and measures to secure compliance which may, if unsuccessful, affect continued eligibility for federal funding.&#8221;
Kingsbury said that there was a cultural problem across much of taxpayer-funded academia where they thought they were above oversight.
“This is a cultural problem in higher ed broadly, where they don’t feel that they’re responsive or accountable to any democratic authority,” he said. “It really is a problem across the academy. They think they should be running themselves without any concern for what the president of the United States says or what the Supreme Court of the United States says.”

Cropped of black doctor using digital tablet at workplace

Med School Caught Rejecting White And Asian Applicants With Better Scores Than Minorities It Accepts

Affirmative Action

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Illinois

medical school

A new memo from the U.S. Army asserts that transgender soldiers’ birth records will now only show their sex at birth.
“Commanders will take immediate measures to update personnel records and administrative systems to reflect biological sex for all individuals,” the memo declares, adding that pronoun use “must reflect their biological sex,” Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-army-change-transgender-soldiers-records-birth-sex-2025-05-21/#:~:text=There%20are%204%2C240%20U.S.%20active,advocates%20have%20given%20higher%20estimates." target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. The memo avers that a person’s sex is “unchanging during a person’s life,” echoing a February 26 Defense Department <a href="https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Spotlight/2025/Guidance_For_Federal_Policies/Prioritizing_Military_Excellence_and_Readiness_P&amp;R_Guidance.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">memo</a> that stated, “The Department only recognizes two sexes: male and female. An individual’s sex is immutable, unchanging during a person’s life. All Service members will only serve in accordance with their sex.”
Access to “intimate spaces” will be determined by the biological sex of the soldier; “Commanders will ensure all such shared intimate spaces will be clearly designated for either male, female, or family use,” the document stated. Additionally, commanders must address troops as “sir” or “ma’am.”
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
On May 6, the Supreme Court stayed an order from U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Washington state, who issued an injunction barring the Trump administration from prohibiting transgender people in the military. President Biden had signed an executive order that permitted transgender soldiers to serve openly in the military, but the day President Trump was inaugurated in 2025, he revoked the order and issued another executive order days later, instructing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to ban “individuals with gender dysphoria” from the military. DOD issued the ban on February 26.
Navy Commander Emily Shilling, a man identifying as a woman, had challenged Trump’s executive order, filing a federal lawsuit. A district court in Washington state then barred Trump’s executive order. But the Supreme Court stayed the order. “The district court’s injunction cannot be squared with the substantial deference that the Department’s professional military judgments are owed,” Trump’s DOJ <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A1030/356382/20250424102154372_Emily_Shilling_et_al_application.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>. “In suggesting that experience under the policies of the last Administration shows that service by individuals with gender dysphoria does not present meaningful risks &#8230; the court improperly second-guessed the military’s own assessment of those risks.”

US-PERU-DIPLOMACY-DEFENCE

U.S. Army Will Alter Troops’ Birth Records To Only Show Their Sex At Birth

Pete Hegseth

Transgender

U.S. Army

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a Maine Republican state representative who was banned from voting over her comments on social media about a transgender-identifying male high school athlete competing against girls.
Representative Laurel Libby was blocked from voting and speaking from the House floor after Democrats voted to censure her after she posted public images of a transgender-identifying high school boy taking first place in girls’ pole vaulting at Maine’s Class B state championship. The court on Tuesday blocked the state from stripping Libby of her voting rights as the case is litigated.
“The U.S. Supreme Court just restored the voice of 9,000 Mainers! After 2+ months of being silenced for speaking up for Maine girls, I can once again vote on behalf of the people of House District 90,” Libby wrote on social media in response to the ruling. “This is a win for free speech — and for the Constitution.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 VICTORY!🚨
The U.S. Supreme Court just restored the voice of 9,000 Mainers!
After 2+ months of being silenced for speaking up for Maine girls, I can once again vote on behalf of the people of House District 90.
This is a win for free speech — and for the Constitution. 🇺🇸
— Rep. Laurel Libby (@laurel_libby) <a href="https://twitter.com/laurel_libby/status/1924903208603758744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“This is a victory not just for my constituents, but for the Constitution itself,” Libby added in a separate <a href="https://x.com/laurel_libby/status/1924906132813885618">post</a>. “The Supreme Court has affirmed what should never have been in question, that no state legislature has the power to silence an elected official simply for speaking truthfully about issues that matter.”
Liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor were the only two to side against Libby.
Democrats claimed that Libby&#8217;s social media post put the transgender-identifying boy at risk and voted to censure her, stripping her of the right to vote and speak on the House floor because she refused to apologize. Libby challenged her punishment, but lost at the district and appeals court levels before appealing to the Supreme Court in April.
“It would be a remarkable break from history to permit the continued disenfranchisement of thousands of Americans for their chosen representative’s protected speech,” Libby&#8217;s lawyers wrote.
The Trump administration has been at war with Maine after it has continued to allow males to compete in women&#8217;s sports in defiance of President Donald Trump&#8217;s executive orders. In response, the Trump administration froze federal funding for the state, and Attorney General Pam Bondi <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bondi-unleashes-on-maine-announces-new-lawsuit-against-state-for-violating-title-ix" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced a civil lawsuit</a> against the state.

Supreme Court Continues To Deliver Decisions This Week Ahead Its Summer Break

SCOTUS Sides With Maine Republican Punished Over Post On Trans-Identifying Athlete

Maine

Social Issues

Transgender Athletes

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Monday that the Trump administration can remove Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for around 350,000 Venezuelan migrants who were allowed to remain in the United States under the Biden administration.
In an unsigned order that included no opinions, the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration the green light to end TPS for Venezuelan migrants pending an appeal of the case, likely paving the way for the administration to ramp up deportations, The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/us/politics/supreme-court-protected-status-venezuelans.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, was the only justice to say she would have denied the Trump administration&#8217;s request.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem kicked off the controversy over protected status for Venezuelan migrants in February when she terminated an 18-month extension of TPS for the migrants granted by Biden just before he left office. The extension would allow the Venezuelan migrants to remain in the United States and seek work authorization until October 2026.
After a lawsuit was brought against the Trump administration, Judge Edward M. Chen of the Federal District Court in San Francisco blocked Noem&#8217;s move to end TPS, saying that plaintiffs would have likely succeeded in showing that the secretary&#8217;s decision was “unauthorized by law, arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by unconstitutional animus.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then rejected Trump&#8217;s request to pause the district court&#8217;s ruling before the case ended up in the Supreme Court.
In Solicitor General John Sauer&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-admin-asks-supreme-court-to-revoke-legal-protections-for-350k-venezuelans?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+Admin+Asks+Supreme+Court+To+Revoke+Legal+Protections+For+350K+Venezuelans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">appeal</a> to the Supreme Court, he wrote, “The Secretary’s decision whether to designate, extend, or terminate TPS implicates sensitive judgments as to foreign policy and, in this case, the ‘national interest’—a discretionary determination that Congress expressly committed to her judgment.”
Monday&#8217;s order from the high court is welcome news for Trump after justices ruled against the president 7-2 last Friday, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-trump-administration-venezuelans-alien-enemies-act-rcna202094" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ordering</a> the administration to pause deportations of suspected Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador. In that case, the majority ruled that the Trump administration must give detainees more time to raise legal objections. Only conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Trump blasted Friday&#8217;s decision, <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114519567610751944" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a>, &#8220;The Supreme Court won&#8217;t allow us to get criminals out of our country!&#8221;

ICE agent

SCOTUS Allows Trump To End Temporary Protected Status For Certain Migrants

Illegal Immigration

Migrants

Venezuela

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled 7-2 against the Trump administration&#8217;s attempt to swiftly deport Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, requiring officials to provide more than 24 hours for detainees to challenge their removal.
&#8220;Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,&#8221; the majority wrote.
The unsigned <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_g2bh.pdf">decision</a> clarified that the Court was only ruling on the notice requirement and not whether the Trump administration can use the Alien Enemies Act itself.
&#8220;To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18,&#8221; the Court stated in its ruling, NBC News <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-trump-administration-venezuelans-alien-enemies-act-rcna202094">reported</a>.
The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798, allows the president to apprehend and deport citizens of a hostile nation during wartime or invasion.
Administration officials argued that Venezuela&#8217;s government has used Tren de Aragua as a proxy force, effectively weaponizing the gang to destabilize the United States through criminal activity and drug trafficking.
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, with Alito writing there were no grounds for the Court to intervene &#8220;at such an early stage of the litigation.&#8221;
&#8220;The Court&#8217;s failure to defer to the Executive Branch in immigration matters in which national security is at stake represents an extraordinary departure from our precedents,&#8221; Alito wrote.
The Court did acknowledge it was &#8220;far removed from the circumstances on the ground&#8221; and was not best positioned to determine the exact deportation process that should be followed.
The case has been sent back to an appeals court to establish appropriate due process procedures for the detainees in yet another legal impediment to Trump’s immigration agenda.
President Trump on Friday accused the high court of &#8220;being played by the radical left,&#8221; who only succeed through &#8220;intimidation of the court.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
THE SUPREME COURT IS BEING PLAYED BY THE RADICAL LEFT LOSERS, WHO HAVE NO SUPPORT, THE PUBLIC HATES THEM, AND THEIR ONLY HOPE IS THE INTIMIDATION OF THE COURT, ITSELF. WE CAN’T LET THAT HAPPEN TO OUR COUNTRY!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1923432648103333919?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 16, 2025</a></blockquote>
“Today’s ruling effectively extends the temporary freeze that the justices put on Alien Enemies Act removals from the Northern District of Texas back on April 19,” <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/16/politics/supreme-court-alien-enemies-act">said</a> Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown Law.
“Because lower courts have blocked use of the act in every other district in which the president has sought to invoke it, that means it’s effectively pausing all removals under the act until the 5th Circuit – and, presumably, the Supreme Court itself – conclusively resolves whether they’re legal and how much process is due if so.”

Multiple Storms Dump Snow From Midwest To East Coast This Week

SCOTUS Blocks Trump’s Bid To Resume Swift Deportations Under Alien Enemies Act

Tren De Aragua

During his Middle East trip, President Donald Trump says he might be close to making a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons, the Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship, and football coaching legend Nick Saban has been tapped to bring order to big-money college sports.
It’s Friday, May 16, 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="Iran Nuclear Deal? &amp; Birthright Citizenship" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wT6V74pRIfw?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/iran-nuclear-deal-birthright-citizenship-5-16-25/id1576594336?i=1000708705032" 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>U.S.-Iran Nuclear Deal</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-921029" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_33_14.Still001-3.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_33_14.Still001-3.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_33_14.Still001-3-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline: President Trump says the United States is close to a nuclear deal with Iran.
After months of tense negotiations, President Trump says America is on the verge of signing a historic nuclear deal with Iran. Iran has been working for decades to build nuclear weapons. Iranian leaders refer to America as “the great Satan,” and its government spends billions of dollars annually sponsoring terror groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
Over the last four years, President Joe Biden attempted to revive the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran, waiving sanctions as a show of goodwill, but the Iranians refused to meet for formal negotiations, and no agreement was ever reached. But now, after four rounds of formal talks between the White House and Iran, President Trump says they’re ready to cut a deal.
The general idea is that Iran will agree to never produce nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions — and peace. A top adviser to the country’s Supreme Leader told <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/iran-enriched-uranium-nuclear-deal-trump-rcna206833">NBC</a> they would commit to never making nuclear weapons, hand over their existing stockpiles of enriched uranium, only enrich uranium to low levels consistent with civilian use, and allow third-party inspectors to supervise the entire process. In exchange, they want the United States to lift all economic sanctions, which have hobbled the country’s economy for years. President Trump has said he also wants to see them cut funding to the terror groups they support — it remains to be seen if that part will be included in the final deal.
Critics say there’s no way to ensure Iran will hand over its existing nuclear materials and allow inspectors to see the full scope of their operation. Fifty-two GOP Senators and 178 GOP House members signed a letter to President Trump saying the &#8220;scope and breadth of Iran&#8217;s nuclear buildout have made it impossible to verify any new deal that allows Iran to continue enriching uranium.&#8221; Many Republicans want a deal, but not one that allows Iran to enrich any uranium, even low levels for civilian use.
<h2>SCOTUS Hears Arguments On Birthright Citizenship, National Injunctions</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-921031" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_39_00.Still002.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_39_00.Still002.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_39_00.Still002-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline: The Supreme Court hears oral arguments challenging birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday in a case challenging President Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship. The pivotal case calls into question whether the lower courts have the power to block executive branch actions.
The case hinges on three lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions blocking Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. Trump’s EO interprets the 14th Amendment to deny automatic citizenship to children who are born in the U.S. if their mother was unlawfully in the country and if the father isn’t a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. That order is currently on hold while the Supreme Court considers it.
“ Since January 20th, district courts have now issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer <a href="https://x.com/GuntherEagleman/status/1923020348624187655">told</a> the court. “This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations. Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article 3, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party.”
The liberal justices appeared to disagree with the Trump administration’s arguments – they believe Trump’s order is at odds with many years of Supreme Court precedent.
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/05/15/nx-s1-5398025/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship">said</a> that the Trump administration seemed to turn the justice system into “a kind of catch me if you can regime … where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people&#8217;s rights … I don&#8217;t understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law.”</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Justice Sonia Sotomayor <a href="https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1923031636301709591">argued</a> that the Trump administration was violating precedent and the “plain meaning of the 14th Amendment.”</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Meanwhile, Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that <a href="https://x.com/Tyler2ONeil/status/1923038011966562374">many</a> lower courts are ruling against Trump’s executive order. &#8220;This is not a hypothetical. This is happening. Every court ruled against you.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
Most of the conservative justices also seemed skeptical of the Trump administration’s stance, but Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that the United States “survived until the 1960s” without nationwide injunctions.
<h2>Trump Drafts Nick Saban To Save College Sports</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-921035" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_33_26.Still003-2.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_33_26.Still003-2.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_33_26.Still003-2-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline: Trump drafts college football coaching legend Nick Saban to bring some order to big-dollar collegiate athletics.
President Trump plans to create a commission to study “ailing issues” in college athletics, with the possibility of signing an executive order. Collegiate sports have been experiencing a bit of turmoil the last few years, with the schools adjusting to a new climate now that student-athletes have name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights and are on the road to receiving direct compensation from their respective universities.
The president announced that he was creating a commission to “deeply examine the unwieldy landscape of college sports, including the frequency of player movement in the <a href="https://www.on3.com/transfer-portal/">transfer portal</a>, the unregulated booster compensation paid to athletes, the debate of college athlete employment, the application of Title IX with regards to revenue sharing and, even, conference membership makeup and conference television contracts.”
Trump has named Nick Saban, who won seven national titles as a college football coach, as co-chair of the commission, with the other co-chair being Cody Campbell – the chairman of Texas Tech’s Board of Regents and NIL collective founder. Many people believe Saban is the best person to lead this initiative, given the on-field success, but there have also been accusations of hypocrisy given how much money Saban himself made from college athletics.
Hanging over all of this is the pending settlement of House vs. NCAA, a class-action, antitrust lawsuit that would allow collegiate athletes to participate in revenue sharing from TV rights deals once a settlement is complete. That settlement is expected within the coming weeks, or even days. The plaintiffs&#8217; attorney, Steve Berman, blasted Saban and Trump’s discussions, accusing them of “meddling.”
“College athletes are spearheading historic changes and benefitting massively from NIL deals,” Berman said. “They don’t need this unmerited interference from a coach only seeking to protect the system that made him tens of millions.”

MorningWire-0428_V1

Morning Brief: SCOTUS Hears Birthright Citizenship Case & Trump Drafts Legendary Football Coach

Menu