Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Congress that Iran’s nuclear sites had been destroyed before the U.S. war began. Lawmakers questioned the timing of the attack and raised concerns about the war’s goals, costs, and effects on U.S. forces.
Key Facts
Pete Hegseth said Iran’s nuclear facilities were "obliterated" before the conflict started.
Democratic lawmakers questioned why an attack happened if the nuclear threat was already removed.
The hearing focused on the Pentagon’s proposed 2027 budget, which would reach $1.5 trillion.
The U.S. war with Iran began in February without congressional approval.
The conflict has cost around $25 billion so far.
Lawmakers want clear answers on the war’s purpose, results, and impact on soldiers and weapons.
Concerns include civilian casualties, depleted weapons, and Iranian drone attacks on U.S. forces.
A fragile ceasefire is in place, but the overall military and political plan is unclear.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) will review how the Justice Department released files related to Jeffrey Epstein. This is the second review after the department’s own inspector general began checking the matter last week.
Key Facts
The GAO is a government office that oversees how federal agencies follow laws.
Congress ordered the Justice Department to release certain files about Jeffrey Epstein.
The GAO will check if the Justice Department followed this order correctly.
The Justice Department’s inspector general started a separate review of the same files last week.
The GAO’s review confirms continued congressional interest in the case.
The focus is on the Justice Department’s handling and release of the Epstein-related documents.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was questioned by U.S. lawmakers for the first time since President Donald Trump began the war against Iran. Some Democrats argue the war is expensive and was started without the approval of Congress.
Key Facts
President Donald Trump launched a war against Iran.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced questions from U.S. lawmakers about the war.
This was Hegseth’s first congressional hearing related to the conflict.
Some Democrats disagree with the war, saying it is costly.
Democrats also say the war was started without Congress’s permission.
The hearing was covered by France 24 and is available for replay.
The conflict has been ongoing for nearly two months as of late April 2026.
The situation has caused concern related to U.S. government decisions and military actions.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case on whether President Donald Trump can end the temporary protected status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians living in the U.S. TPS is given when it is unsafe for people to return to their home countries. The court’s decision could affect over a million people from 17 countries.
Key Facts
TPS allows people from certain countries to stay in the U.S. temporarily if it is unsafe to return home.
The Trump administration ended TPS for Haitians and Syrians, arguing conditions in those countries have improved.
About 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians currently have TPS in the U.S.
Lawsuits accuse the Trump administration of ending TPS unfairly and possibly for racist reasons.
A U.S. judge ruled that ending TPS may have been motivated by racial bias against nonwhite immigrants.
The U.S. House passed a bill to extend TPS for Haitians until 2029, but the Senate has not voted on it.
The Trump administration has also tried to end TPS for people from other countries, with mixed court results.
The Supreme Court allowed the cancellation of TPS for Venezuelans to stand while legal battles continue.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a faith-based pregnancy center that challenged a New Jersey investigation into whether it gave misleading information to discourage abortions. The court said the investigation could violate the center’s free speech rights under the First Amendment.
Key Facts
The Supreme Court gave a unanimous ruling supporting First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a faith-based pregnancy center.
The center was being investigated by New Jersey for possibly misleading people to discourage abortions.
The court’s decision was about procedural rules related to the investigation and free speech rights.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, including religious expression.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which supports abortion rights, backed the center’s free speech claim.
The conservative-majority Supreme Court has recently made decisions favoring abortion opponents.
In 2022, the court overturned the nationwide right to abortion in a major case.
This ruling does not decide on abortion directly but on how investigations can affect speech rights.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
A federal appeals court in New York refused to reconsider President Donald Trump's challenge to a legal verdict against him. The court upheld a $5 million reward to writer E. Jean Carroll for claims that President Trump sexually assaulted and defamed her.
Key Facts
E. Jean Carroll accused President Trump of sexual assault in the 1990s and defamation in 2022.
Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages after a nine-day trial in 2023.
President Trump denied the allegations and tried to replace himself with the U.S. government as the defendant, citing presidential immunity.
The appeals court rejected Trump’s attempts, saying these arguments were made too late in the process.
Judge Denny Chin emphasized that such a substitution would not be allowed for any defendant after the trial and judgment.
Another jury later awarded Carroll $83 million in damages in a separate trial.
The court declined to review the case with the full panel of judges (en banc).
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
The Virginia Supreme Court decided to keep a temporary order that stops the state from officially approving the results of a redistricting vote. This decision affects Democrats who wanted to reverse the earlier court ruling.
Key Facts
The Virginia Supreme Court is allowing a lower court’s order to stay for now.
The order stops Virginia from certifying the results of a redistricting referendum.
The Attorney General of Virginia, Jay Jones, is a Democrat.
Jay Jones asked the court to appeal the temporary blocking order.
The Supreme Court denied that request on Tuesday.
The decision is a setback for Democrats who hoped to challenge the order in court.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
Jimmy Kimmel highlighted a joke made by President Donald Trump about his own age and marriage during King Charles III’s visit to Washington. Kimmel’s audience reacted with cheers, while the comedian and president’s exchanges about jokes and firing demands have continued, reflecting ongoing tensions.
Key Facts
President Trump joked that he and First Lady Melania Trump would not be married as long as his parents were, referencing his age.
Jimmy Kimmel pointed out this joke on his show, noting the president’s earlier demand that Kimmel be fired for a joke about Melania Trump.
Kimmel previously made a joke about Melania Trump that led to criticism from the president and first lady.
The joke came during a speech at an official reception for King Charles III’s visit to Washington.
Melania Trump is 56 and President Trump is 79; they have been married for 21 years.
The National Religious Broadcasters Association filed a complaint with the FCC about Kimmel’s joke.
Disney, ABC’s parent company, confirmed it received a call-in for station license renewals linked to the dispute.
The tension between Kimmel and President Trump is part of a longer-running feud involving jokes about public figures.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
Bryan Kohberger’s attorneys criticized a defense expert, Brent Turvey, for sharing confidential information about Kohberger’s case. Turvey, who was hired to give an opinion on the crime scene, claimed police mishandled evidence related to a knife sheath found at the crime scene.
Key Facts
Bryan Kohberger pleaded guilty to killing four University of Idaho students in 2023.
Kohberger’s defense team hired Brent Turvey solely for opinions about the crime scene.
Turvey signed a confidentiality agreement in October 2024, which he is accused of violating.
The defense lawyers say Turvey spoke about confidential topics beyond his area of expertise.
Turvey claimed police mishandled the chain of custody for a knife sheath linked to Kohberger.
He said evidence signatures were missing or falsified, which could have affected the prosecution.
Police and other experts disagreed, saying the evidence would still have been allowed at trial.
The case ended last summer after Kohberger pleaded guilty to avoid the death penalty.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that if the elections were held in May, the Republican Party would lose. He advised GOP lawmakers to unite in promoting themes of affordability and peace to improve their chances.
Key Facts
Newt Gingrich is a former House Speaker and a Republican from Georgia.
He stated on Tuesday that Republicans would lose if elections happened in May.
Gingrich made these comments to the New York Times.
He urged Republican lawmakers to work together as the party focused on affordability and peace.
Gingrich’s remarks suggest concern about the party’s current standing with voters.
The term "midterm elections" refers to elections held halfway through a president’s term.
The GOP is the abbreviation for the Republican Party.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
Maryland is the first U.S. state to ban surveillance pricing in grocery stores, a practice where stores use personal data to charge different prices to different customers. The new law prevents grocery chains and delivery services from setting higher prices based on personal information but allows some exceptions for loyalty programs and promotions.
Key Facts
Maryland governor Wes Moore signed the law banning surveillance pricing in grocery stores.
Surveillance pricing means changing prices based on personal data like location, search history, or demographics.
Critics say this practice charges each shopper the highest price they are willing to pay.
The law covers grocery stores but not reducing prices through personalized discounts.
The Federal Trade Commission has investigated this issue but is unlikely to enforce stricter rules currently.
Other states like Colorado and California are considering similar laws.
Consumer groups are concerned that the law has loopholes and weak enforcement rules.
Only Maryland’s attorney general, not private individuals, can enforce the law under this measure.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of an anti-abortion clinic in New Jersey, allowing the clinic to challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information. The Court said forcing the clinic to reveal donors could violate First Amendment rights, which protect free speech and association.
Key Facts
The Supreme Court overturned lower court decisions against First Choice Women’s Resource Centers.
The case involved a subpoena from the New Jersey Attorney General seeking donor records.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, highlighting risks to constitutional rights.
The ruling means nonprofits and similar groups may more easily challenge government demands for private donor information.
First Choice’s Executive Director said the state targeted the clinic for its pro-life work.
The New Jersey Attorney General’s office had not responded publicly at the time of the report.
The case focuses on privacy and free speech under the First Amendment, not the clinic’s practices.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
The Department of Homeland Security is introducing a new rule that requires asylum seekers in the U.S. to pay an annual fee while their cases are pending. If they do not pay, their asylum applications and work permit requests can be denied, which may lead to deportation.
Key Facts
The new rule starts next month and requires asylum applicants to pay a fee every year while waiting for a decision.
Failure to pay within 30 days of notice will lead to application rejection and denial of work permits.
More than 1.4 million asylum applications are currently pending in the U.S.
If an application is rejected due to nonpayment, no further action will be taken unless the applicant files again and pays fees.
Asylum seekers convicted of serious crimes are already ineligible for work permits under existing laws.
The rule is part of President Donald Trump’s broader effort to tighten immigration rules and increase fees for applicants.
The Department of Homeland Security will send individual notices about payment requirements to asylum applicants.
Experts warn this policy could prevent some people from getting asylum based on their ability to pay, not the merits of their case.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
Pam Bondi, former Attorney General, will give a deposition on May 29 as part of the House Oversight Committee’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. This follows a Democrat’s move to hold her in civil contempt for not responding to a subpoena earlier.
Key Facts
Pam Bondi was scheduled to testify behind closed doors on April 14 but did not appear.
The Justice Department said after Bondi left her role, she was no longer required to testify.
Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, filed a resolution to hold Bondi in civil contempt.
Civil contempt can lead to a federal court deciding if Bondi must obey the subpoena.
House Oversight Committee Republicans have other depositions planned through June for the Epstein investigation.
Previous contempt efforts include Republicans targeting Bill and Hillary Clinton, who later agreed to testify.
The committee is led by GOP Chairman James Comer.
The Epstein Transparency Act and handling of related documents have faced bipartisan criticism.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
The Department of Justice said that the man who tried to assassinate President Donald Trump took a mirror selfie about 30 minutes before the attack. This information was shared in a legal document supporting keeping the suspect, Cole Allen, in custody before his trial.
Key Facts
The suspect’s name is Cole Allen.
He is charged with trying to assassinate President Donald Trump.
The attempted attack happened last weekend.
Cole Allen took a mirror selfie roughly 30 minutes before the shooting.
The Department of Justice shared this detail in a court document.
The document supports holding Allen in jail until his trial starts.
The incident relates to the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) dinner event.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
The U.S. State Department has released a special, limited-edition passport featuring a portrait of President Donald Trump. This passport marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. A commemorative gold coin with President Trump’s image will also be made for the celebration.
Key Facts
No sitting U.S. president has ever appeared on a U.S. passport before.
The limited-edition Trump passport is to honor the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence.
The U.S. State Department is responsible for issuing the special passport.
A gold coin featuring President Trump’s image will be created for this occasion.
The announcement was made in late April 2026.
The commemorative passport and coin are part of official anniversary celebrations.
The news was covered by France 24, a news channel.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that creating voting districts based on race violates the Constitution. This decision changes how the Voting Rights Act can be used to protect minority voting power, limiting the federal government's ability to address racial discrimination in elections.
Key Facts
The Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district.
The Court ruled that using race to draw voting districts is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
This decision reverses a decades-old rule allowing remedies for racial vote dilution under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act had allowed courts to require states to create majority-minority districts to prevent discrimination.
The ruling removes a key way the Voting Rights Act could protect minority voters, weakening its enforcement.
Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the Shelby County v. Holder decision in 2013 limiting the Voting Rights Act, was behind this broader move against race-conscious voting measures.
The decision represents a major change in how courts view voting rights and racial equality under the Constitution.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
The US Supreme Court ruled that lawmakers cannot heavily rely on race when creating voting districts. The court said that to challenge these maps for hurting the voting power of racial minorities, people must now prove lawmakers did so on purpose.
Key Facts
The Supreme Court made a 6-3 decision limiting how race can be used in drawing electoral maps.
The case involved Louisiana districts drawn under the Voting Rights Act to protect Black voters.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote that past rules forced states into race-based decisions the Constitution forbids.
The court did not overturn the Voting Rights Act but made it harder to challenge maps on racial grounds.
Now, those challenging maps must prove legislators intended to reduce minority voters' power.
Justice Elena Kagan disagreed, saying the ruling hurts racial equality in voting.
The decision affects southern states like Florida, Tennessee, and Mississippi, where redistricting is underway.
Both political parties use redistricting to try to win more seats in Congress.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
Three Republican lawmakers aligned with President Trump are upset over the Justice Department’s refusal to release more files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Their frustration is threatening key GOP bills in the House, including the Farm Bill and funding for homeland security. This disagreement could block important legislation as the Republican majority in the House is very small and needs full support.
Key Facts
Representatives Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace, and Anna Paulina Luna expressed anger about the handling of Epstein files.
The Justice Department declined to release additional records related to Jeffrey Epstein.
These lawmakers may block a procedural vote needed to advance three major GOP priorities: the Farm Bill, homeland security funding, and spying powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Luna opposed parts of the Farm Bill because of protections for pesticide companies from lawsuits about health risks.
The House Rules Committee combined the three bills under one rule to require only one vote for all.
Boebert and Mace said their amendments to the Farm Bill were blocked by party leadership.
The Republican majority in the House is very slim, so a few members voting no can stop the bills.
There are disagreements within the GOP about surveillance powers and pesticide protections in the Farm Bill.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
Pam Bondi, former U.S. attorney general, will appear before the House oversight committee on May 29 to answer questions about the Justice Department’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s case and related files. The committee had filed a civil contempt resolution against Bondi after she missed an earlier deposition, arguing she refused to cooperate.
Key Facts
Pam Bondi was subpoenaed by the House oversight committee to discuss the Epstein investigation.
She did not appear for her scheduled deposition earlier in April.
Democrats on the committee filed a civil contempt resolution against Bondi for skipping the deposition.
The committee is concerned about how the Justice Department handled the Epstein investigation and the release of related files.
Critics say the Justice Department missed the deadline to release Epstein files and that some sensitive information was exposed.
Bondi left her attorney general position after President Trump removed her from her role.
The Justice Department argued that since Bondi no longer holds the attorney general job, the subpoena did not apply.
After the contempt filing, the committee set a new date for Bondi’s testimony: May 29.
Read the Original
Want the full story? Tap a source to open the original
article.
