President Donald Trump participates in a welcome ceremony with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Al Saud at the Royal Court Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tuesday, May 13, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
President Donald Trump will have his annual medical checkup at a hospital near Washington on May 26, the White House said Monday night.
The oldest person ever inaugurated as President, Trump, turns 80 in June. Trump traveled to China for a summit with that country’s leader, Xi Jinping this week.
Read the full statement from the White House:
President Donald J. Trump will visit Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on May 26 for his annual dental and medical evaluations, and to visit with the men and women of the military. This will include the President’s routine annual dental and medical assessments as part of his regular preventive health care. The President will also spend time with service members and staff at Walter Reed in recognition of their service, professionalism, and dedication to the nation. Additional details regarding the President’s schedule will be released at a later date.
In March, the White House doctor said the president was taking a prescription “preventative skin treatment” to treat irritation on his neck.
Last July, the White House said Trump had been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, a common condition tied to swelling in the legs, but that doctors had otherwise found the president to be in “excellent health.”
By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54346096651/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=160407812
Few political advisers in modern American politics have maintained influence as persistently as Stephen Miller. Long known as the architect behind many of President Donald Trump’s most hardline immigration policies, Miller is once again at the center of intense political scrutiny.
New reports published by The Daily Beast and widely circulated through media outlets including AOL News describe what insiders characterize as a carefully managed effort by Miller to preserve — and potentially expand — his political influence within the Trump movement.
According to those reports, Miller has reportedly reduced his public profile while continuing to exercise substantial behind-the-scenes control over immigration strategy and White House operations. Critics describe the effort as a “shadow influence campaign,” while allies argue he remains one of the administration’s most effective policy strategists.
The story has reignited broader questions about executive power, political loyalty networks, and the role of unelected advisers in shaping federal policy.
The Reports Behind “Stephen Miller’s Secret Plot to Cling on to Power”
The current controversy emerged after investigative reporting suggested Miller had intentionally stepped back from public visibility while maintaining substantial operational authority behind the scenes.
According to reporting cited by The Daily Beast’s PunchUp investigations unit, several senior administration officials claimed Miller’s apparent “retreat” from media appearances was strategic rather than accidental.
Claims Reported by Media Outlets
The reports allege that:
Miller continues participating in high-level immigration discussions
He maintains influence over Department of Homeland Security operations
Public-facing responsibilities have shifted toward other officials
Internal strategy meetings reportedly still center around Miller’s priorities
Political allies remain embedded across federal agencies
Importantly, many of these claims rely on anonymous sources familiar with internal discussions. No public evidence has emerged proving unlawful conduct or formal attempts to bypass constitutional processes.
The Department of Homeland Security publicly denied suggestions of internal conflict, stating officials work collaboratively to implement administration priorities.
The “Quiet Power” Strategy
One of the most discussed aspects of the latest reporting is the idea that Miller intentionally reduced his public visibility.
Political analysts say this approach reflects a broader strategy often used by influential White House advisers: remain operationally powerful while avoiding media backlash.
Reported Strategic Changes
Public Role
Behind-the-Scenes Activity
Fewer TV appearances
Continued policy meetings
Reduced public interviews
Coordination with immigration officials
Lower social media profile
Internal strategy influence
Delegated public messaging
Maintained advisory authority
Critics argue the strategy allows controversial policy initiatives to continue without attracting the same level of public scrutiny.
Supporters counter that Miller’s reduced visibility merely reflects an effort to focus on operational efficiency rather than cable news appearances.
The Role of Tom Homan and DHS Leadership
Several reports suggest Miller’s influence now overlaps significantly with other immigration hardliners, including Tom Homan.
Some insiders described Miller and Homan as operating “in lockstep” on immigration strategy.
The reports also referenced tensions surrounding leadership appointments within DHS and ICE.
Key Issues Reportedly Under Debate
ICE leadership succession
Deportation targets
Enforcement visibility
Recruitment and training standards
Public communications strategy
However, official government statements have rejected narratives of dysfunction or internal rivalry.
Facts vs. Analysis
To maintain clarity, it is important to separate verified reporting from interpretation.
Verified Facts
Stephen Miller remains an influential Trump adviser
He has played a major role in immigration policy since 2016
Multiple outlets reported he reduced public appearances
Administration officials confirmed continued coordination between Miller and DHS leadership
Claims of a “secret plot” are interpretive descriptions, not legal findings
Allegations about power consolidation rely heavily on anonymous sourcing
Assertions about long-term political ambitions remain speculative
No evidence has emerged suggesting unconstitutional activity
This distinction matters because politically charged headlines often blur the line between factual reporting and analytical framing.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding Miller’s role reflects broader tensions inside modern American politics — especially over immigration, executive authority, and the growing role of influential advisers operating outside the public spotlight.
Verified reporting confirms that Miller remains deeply involved in immigration policy discussions and maintains substantial influence within Trump-aligned political circles.
As the political landscape continues to evolve heading into the final stretch of another highly contested election cycle, Miller’s growing influence is likely to remain under intense scrutiny from supporters, critics, and media organizations alike.
For now, one thing remains clear: despite reducing his public profile, Stephen Miller remains one of the most consequential — and controversial — political strategists in Washington.
This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. Republished with permission.
President Donald Trump said Monday that he supports temporarily suspending the federal gas tax as Americans face soaring fuel prices ahead of the busy Memorial Day travel season.
“I think it’s a great idea,” Trump said during a phone interview with CBS News. “Yup, we’re going to take off the gas tax for a period of time, and when gas goes down, we’ll let it phase back in.”
Gas prices have surged more than 50% since the start of the Iran war on Feb. 28, with the national average climbing above $4.52 per gallon on Sunday, according to AAA. Analysts warn prices could remain elevated as tensions in the Middle East continue and Iran blocks access to the Strait of Hormuz, a key global oil shipping route.
The federal gas tax currently adds 18.4 cents per gallon to gasoline prices and 24.4 cents per gallon to diesel fuel. However, suspending the tax would require approval from Congress and could cost the federal government roughly $500 million per week in lost revenue.
Several Democrat lawmakers have already introduced legislation aimed at either lowering or temporarily suspending the federal gas tax to provide relief to consumers struggling with higher prices at the pump.
Revenue generated by the federal gas tax funds the Highway Trust Fund, which supports road construction and repairs, along with other transportation and transit projects across the country.
The push for relief comes as AAA projects a record-breaking Memorial Day travel weekend. According to the organization, roughly 45 million Americans are expected to travel at least 50 miles from home between May 21 and May 25, slightly surpassing last year’s total.
Of those travelers, an estimated 39.1 million are expected to drive to their destinations despite fuel prices reaching their highest levels since 2022. AAA also warned drivers to expect the heaviest traffic congestion on May 21 and 22 between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., as well as during the afternoon of May 25. Sunday is expected to be the lightest travel day of the holiday weekend.
Meanwhile, about 3.66 million Americans are expected to fly during the holiday period, accounting for roughly 8% of all travelers. AAA noted that round-trip domestic airfare is currently about 6% cheaper than it was last year.
However, Trump’s idea to pause the federal gas tax faces an uphill climb in Congress.
While rank-and-file GOP lawmakers are eager to get Trump’s backing on any plan to address cost-of-living concerns in a midterm election year, top Republicans are hesitant to endorse the gas tax idea, according to reporting from The Hill.
Trump’s proposal for a federal gas tax holiday got some initial enthusiasm Monday, with Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) quickly saying they would introduce legislation to suspend the 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal tax.
This week I will be introducing a bill in the House to suspend the federal gas tax in light of Trump’s recent remarks.
American families need this relief on gas prices. My office will be working directly with President Trump to ensure we deliver this win for the American… https://t.co/w540M6kSBB
However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) pointed out that it supports the Highway Trust Fund, which finances the Interstate Highway System and other surface transportation systems.
“The best way to get gas prices to normalize in my view is to get the strait open,” Thune said Monday, referring to the Strait of Hormuz. “We do have a Highway Trust Fund and it does perform an important service in making sure that we’ve got highways and roadways across our country that are serviceable.”
President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice announced Tuesday that PayPal agreed to a $30 million settlement over what the administration described as an “unlawful DEI” initiative that allegedly discriminated on the basis of race.
“Today, the Justice Department announced a settlement with PayPal Inc. to resolve a fair lending investigation into a discriminatory investment program created for black and minority-owned businesses,” Trump’s DOJ said in a press release.
According to the Department of Justice, the settlement requires PayPal to establish a new Small Business Initiative that does not use race, national origin, or other protected characteristics as eligibility criteria. Under the agreement, PayPal will waive processing fees for up to $1 billion in transactions — an estimated value of roughly $30 million — for qualifying American small businesses that are veteran-owned or operate in the farming, manufacturing, or technology sectors.
The agreement also requires PayPal to appoint a director to oversee the initiative, conduct assessments on the needs of small businesses, submit plans and proposals to the federal government, train employees on compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and provide annual reports on the program.
The DOJ investigation stemmed from a PayPal fund launched in 2020 that was designed to invest in “black and minority-owned businesses.” Federal officials said the initiative effectively gave preferential treatment to businesses based on race, color, and national origin, which they argued violated federal anti-discrimination laws.
In a statement announcing the settlement, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said the administration was following through on President Trump’s pledge to eliminate what it considers unlawful DEI practices across corporate America.
“American corporations are on notice,” he warned. “You will face our aggressive enforcement if you use race or national origin to discriminate against qualified Americans.”
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon similarly warned that companies engaging in race-based discrimination could face significant legal consequences.
“With this settlement, PayPal agrees that race and national origin should play no part in determining which small businesses deserve its investment and financial support,” she said. “The Department will use the full range of its enforcement authorities to eliminate discrimination and ensure that all Americans have an equal opportunity to grow their small businesses.”
The PayPal settlement comes as the Trump administration ramps up scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs throughout both the public and private sectors. The administration has argued that many DEI initiatives violate civil rights laws by favoring certain racial groups over others.
The Trump administration also recently filed a lawsuit against The New York Times over allegations that the newspaper engaged in discriminatory hiring and promotion practices tied to DEI policies. Federal officials alleged that a white male employee with extensive experience in real estate journalism was excluded from promotion opportunities because of his race.
The administration has increasingly framed such cases as part of a broader effort to restore what it calls merit-based hiring and lending standards, while critics argue the crackdown could undermine programs intended to expand opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups.
President Donald Trump teased the possibility of a future Republican “dream team” this week, but despite renewed speculation surrounding Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the president has made clear he has not yet chosen a favorite to carry the MAGA mantle into 2028.
Speaking to a group of law enforcement officials at the White House on Monday, Trump openly polled the crowd about who should succeed him once his second term ends.
“I don’t know. Who’s it going to be? Is it going to be JD? Is there going to be somebody else? I don’t know,” Trump said before asking attendees directly, “Who likes JD Vance? Who likes Marco Rubio? All right. Sounds like a good ticket.”
Applause in the room appeared louder for Vance, though Trump quickly clarified he was not offering an endorsement.
“By the way, I do believe that’s a dream team. But these are minor details. That does not mean you have my endorsement under any circumstance,” Trump said. “But you know … I think it sounds like presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate.”
The remarks immediately fueled speculation about the shape of the 2028 Republican primary field, which is increasingly viewed as likely to revolve around Vance and Rubio — two rising stars who have become central figures in Trump’s administration and broader MAGA movement.
Trump himself has repeatedly suggested Vance is currently the favorite to inherit the movement, while also leaving the door open to Rubio playing a major role.
Last August, Trump said Vance would “most likely” be the GOP nominee in 2028.
“Well, I think most likely, in all fairness,” Trump said at the time. “He’s the vice president. I think Marco is also somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form.”
Still, Trump stopped short of a formal endorsement then as well.
“I also think we have incredible people, some of the people on the stage right here, so it’s too early obviously to talk about it,” he added. “But certainly, [Vance] is doing a great job, and he would be probably favored at this point.”
Rubio, for his part, publicly signaled support for Vance last year, telling Vanity Fair: “If JD Vance runs for president, he’s going to be our nominee, and I’ll be one of the first people to support him.”
Yet speculation about Rubio’s own ambitions has only intensified as he has emerged as one of the administration’s most visible and influential officials, juggling a growing list of high-profile responsibilities within Trump’s orbit.
At the same time, some political observers believe the eventual 2028 field may not unfold the way many Republicans currently expect.
Political analyst Mark Halperin argued Friday that Vance and Rubio are unlikely to engage in a bruising primary battle against one another despite widespread media speculation.
“We get to what I think is driving a lot of this, besides people loving Marco Rubio — and a lot people in my sources do — is Vance,” Halperin said during his online show.
Halperin pointed to concerns among some Republicans about Vance’s public image and political style, arguing Rubio may have advantages in traditional campaign settings.
“I will say that in the next two years, as people in the party and the media are comparing Rubio and Vance side by side, I don’t think Vance can win the performance competition,” Halperin said. “I think Rubio has improved enough and the perceptions are such that Vance is going to have a hard time.”
Still, Halperin ultimately predicted that if Vance decides to run, Rubio would likely avoid challenging him directly.
“These two guys are genuine friends,” Halperin said. “You cannot beat an incumbent vice president running for president unless you rip their face off. That’s just the way our politics work.”
Halperin floated another possibility that has received relatively little attention so far: Vance and Rubio eventually joining forces on a single ticket.
“If Vance runs, I think they’ll run together,” he said. “I think they’ll be a ticket, and they may even announce as a ticket from the beginning of the campaign.”
He also suggested there remains a real possibility Vance could ultimately decline to run altogether, citing the intense scrutiny presidential campaigns place on candidates and their families.
“So if Vance chooses not to run, and I think that’s a possibility, probably because of his kids, I think Rubio will be in an extremely strong position,” Halperin said.
Watch:
For now, however, Trump appears content to encourage speculation without settling the question himself.
While Vance remains widely viewed as the early frontrunner thanks to his position as vice president and close alignment with Trump’s political movement, Rubio’s growing stature within the administration has made him impossible to ignore in conversations about the GOP’s post-Trump future.
And despite the president’s playful “dream team” comments this week, Trump has repeatedly emphasized one thing above all else: the race to succeed him is still far from decided.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is launching a renewed push to wipe President Donald Trump’s two impeachments from the House record — calling the proceedings a “maliciously false” partisan campaign that damaged Trump’s reputation and abused congressional power.
The California Republican introduced H.Res.1211, a resolution that would formally expunge both impeachments approved by the House in 2019 and 2021 “as if such Article had never passed the full House of Representatives.”
“The fact is that the Constitution doesn’t spell out what to do when you’ve wrongfully indicted somebody,” Issa told Fox News Digital. “An impeachment is basically an indictment, and it’s an indictment that you can’t really be acquitted from.”
“If you are impeached by the House, famously where do you go to get your reputation back?” he added. “That’s sort of a problem that we’re dealing with.”
The impeachments of @realDonaldTrump were false, dishonest, corrupt, and should be expunged.
— Rep. Darrell Issa (@repdarrellissa) May 11, 2026
The measure, which has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, reignites a fierce constitutional and political debate over whether Congress can retroactively erase an impeachment after it has already become part of the historical record.
Issa argued that newly declassified intelligence documents and revelations about the impeachment investigations justify revisiting the issue years later.
The resolution claims Trump’s first impeachment in 2019 — tied to his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — relied on politically biased and unreliable information supplied by an anonymous whistleblower who allegedly lacked firsthand knowledge.
Issa’s resolution also points to recently declassified material highlighted by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who earlier this year said documents revealed what she described as a “coordinated effort” within the intelligence community “to manufacture a conspiracy that was used as the basis to impeach President Trump in 2019.”
Trump became the third president in U.S. history to be impeached in December 2019 after House Democrats accused him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over allegations he pressured Ukraine to investigate then-candidate Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election. The Senate later acquitted Trump in February 2020, with only one Republican — Sen. Mitt Romney — voting to convict on one article.
The president was impeached a second time in January 2021, just days after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, on a charge of “incitement of insurrection.” That impeachment made Trump the only president ever impeached twice.
Issa blasted the second impeachment as rushed and fundamentally unfair.
“They impeached him for essentially an insurrection, a true high crime, and it’s false,” Issa said.
The resolution argues House Democrats rammed the second impeachment through Congress in just two days without a full evidentiary process, fact witnesses, or an extended investigation. While lawmakers held a brief hearing with constitutional scholars, Republicans argued Trump was denied basic due process protections.
Trump was acquitted by the Senate in February 2021 after falling short of the two-thirds threshold needed for conviction, though seven Republicans joined Democrats in voting guilty — the largest bipartisan vote to convict a president in impeachment history.
Issa also accused Democrats of violating House norms throughout both proceedings.
A source close to Issa’s office told Fox News Digital that some Democrats have privately acknowledged information that emerged after the impeachments “reflects so poorly on the House” and represents “an example of what’s gone wrong in the Capitol and in Washington.”
The effort already has backing from powerful Republicans, including House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan.
“Democrats weaponized impeachment against President Trump with politically motivated charges,” Jordan told Fox News Digital. “We applaud Chairman Issa for leading the fight to expunge this sham from the record.”
More than 20 House Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors, including Claudia Tenney, Tim Burchett, Harriet Hageman and Ronny Jackson.
The push follows several failed Republican attempts to erase Trump’s impeachments from congressional records. Similar resolutions introduced in 2022 and 2023 never received hearings, markups or floor votes before dying at the end of the previous Congress.
Issa insists this latest effort is different.
“The previous resolutions were not written as strongly as this one and didn’t have what we have,” he said, referring to what he called newly uncovered evidence of misconduct tied to the impeachment inquiries.
Still, constitutional scholars remain divided over whether Congress can truly “erase” an impeachment. Supporters argue the Constitution gives the House the “sole Power of Impeachment,” meaning lawmakers also control their own records and can vote to expunge prior actions.
Critics counter that Congress cannot undo the historical fact that the House impeached a president, even if lawmakers later condemn or annotate the process as flawed. In practice, many legal experts say the effort would be largely symbolic.
Issa, however, says symbolism matters.
“Our goal is to show that it’s false and it was maliciously false,” he said. “When you’ve been falsely accused, whether it’s days, weeks, months or years later, somebody should be just as interested in printing that retraction on the front page as they were in putting the original charge on the front page.”
President Donald Trump gestures to the crowd after delivering remarks at the House GOP Member Retreat, Tuesday, January 6, 2026, at the Donald J. Trump- John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
President Donald Trump sharply criticized two Supreme Court justices he appointed, lamenting what he called a “devastating” ruling against his tariff policy while suggesting the court could soon rule against his administration again on birthright citizenship.
In a lengthy Sunday night Truth Social post, Trump singled out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett by name after they joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s liberal wing in a recent ruling striking down his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs.
“I ‘Love’ Justice Neil Gorsuch! He’s a really smart and good man, but he voted against me, and our Country, on Tariffs, a devastating move,” Trump wrote. “How do I reconcile this? So bad, and hurtful to our Country.”
Trump added that he also “liked and respected” Barrett, but said both justices had “hurt our Country so badly” with the ruling.
The president argued the decision could cost the United States billions of dollars in refunded tariff payments.
“They were appointed by me, and yet have hurt our Country so badly!” Trump wrote. “I do not believe they meant to do so, but their decision on Tariffs cost the United States 159 Billion Dollars that we have to pay back to enemies, and people, companies, and Countries, that have been ripping us off for years. It’s hardly believable!”
Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Trump claimed the court could have avoided forcing the administration to repay tariff revenues by adding what he described as a “tiny” sentence to the ruling.
“They could have solved that situation with a ‘tiny’ sentence, ‘Any money paid by others to the United States does not have to be paid back,’” he wrote. “Why wouldn’t they have done so?”
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling against Trump’s tariff authority under IEEPA saw Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts side with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. (RELATED: Supreme Court Strikes Down Most Trump Tariffs, Reasserts Congress’ Role)
Trump went even further in the post, arguing that some Republican-appointed justices have become overly eager to distance themselves from conservatives.
“With certain Republican Nominated Justices that we have on the Supreme Court, the Democrats don’t really need to ‘PACK THE COURT’ any longer,” Trump wrote. “In fact, I should be the one wanting to PACK THE COURT!”
He also complained that Republican-appointed justices often seek to appear “independent,” while Democratic-appointed justices remain loyal to the presidents who nominated them. (RELATED:Supreme Court Rules On Trump Tariffs)
“What is the reason for this?” Trump wrote. “They have to do the right thing, but it’s really OK for them to be loyal to the person that appointed them to ‘almost’ the highest position in the land, that is, a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”
“Democrat Justices always remain true to the people that honored them for that very special Nomination,” he continued. “They don’t waver, no matter how good or bad a case may be, but Republican Justices often go out of their way to oppose me, because they want to show how ‘independent’ or, ‘above it all,’ they are.”
Trump also predicted the court could soon rule against his administration on birthright citizenship, another major issue currently pending before the Supreme Court.
The president tied that concern to his unprecedented appearance at a Supreme Court session earlier this year.
“I choose people to help our Country, not to hurt it,” Trump wrote, “and now, based on what I witnessed recently by being the first President in History to attend a Supreme Court session … they will be ruling against us on Birthright Citizenship, making us the only Country in the World that practices this unsustainable, unsafe, and incredibly costly DISASTER.”
While Trump insisted he was not demanding personal loyalty from the justices, he suggested their rulings should align more closely with what he believes is best for the country.
“I don’t want loyalty,” he wrote, “but I do want and expect it for our Country.”
Trump also warned that an unfavorable ruling on birthright citizenship, combined with the court’s tariff decision, could have severe economic consequences.
“Yes, I have another way of doing Tariffs, but it is far slower, and more laborious than what was just determined, in a close decision, to be ‘illegal’ or ‘unconstitutional,’” Trump wrote. “Sometimes decisions have to be allowed to use Good, Strong, Common Sense as a guide.”
“A negative ruling on Birthright Citizenship, on top of the recent Supreme Court Tariff catastrophe, is not economically sustainable for the United States of America!”
On Monday, the suspect accused of attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump during the White House Correspondents Association dinner pleaded not guilty to four federal charges.
Cole Allen, 31, entered the plea in federal court Monday morning.
Allen allegedly attempted to breach the event at the Washington Hilton, where Trump and senior officials were present. The suspect was apprehended, and a federal officer was injured but survived, officials said.
🚨 IT'S OFFICIAL: Attempted Trump assassin Cole Allen pleads NOT GUILTY in federal court, facing up to life in prison if convicted
He even wants to KICK OFF US Attorney Jeanine Pirro and AG Todd Blanche from the case.
According to investigators, Allen allegedly stormed a security checkpoint armed with a shotgun, a handgun, and multiple knives—triggering panic at the high-profile event packed with journalists and political elites.
Authorities say Allen left behind a disturbing manifesto outlining what appears to be a calculated plan to target members of the Trump administration.
In the writings, he described prioritizing officials “from highest-ranking to lowest,” suggesting a methodical approach to the attack.
He also made clear he was willing to harm others if necessary to reach his intended targets.
In one particularly unsettling detail, Allen referenced his choice of ammunition—claiming he selected buckshot “to minimize casualties,” even as he prepared for violence.
Allen faces charges of attempting to assassinate Trump and assaulting an officer or employee of the United States with a deadly weapon, in addition to two other firearms-related charges: transportation of a firearm and ammunition through interstate commerce with intent to commit a felony and using, carrying, brandishing and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence.
The alleged gunman has agreed to remain detained ahead of trial.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
The U.S. State Department has begun revoking the passports of thousands of Americans with large unpaid child support debts, according to federal officials.
The enforcement effort officially began Friday and will initially target parents who owe at least $100,000 in overdue child support. About 2,700 passport holders currently fall into that category, based on figures provided by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Under federal law, Americans with more than $2,500 in unpaid, court-ordered child support can already be denied a passport or have an existing passport revoked. In a statement released Thursday, the State Department said it is expanding coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services to identify and enforce penalties against delinquent parents who exceed that threshold.
Officials said the crackdown is intended to pressure parents into complying with court-ordered child support obligations.
Once revoked, a passport can no longer be used for international travel, even if the debt is later paid, according to State Department guidance.
The department urged Americans with significant child support debt to contact the appropriate state child support enforcement agency and make payment arrangements before enforcement action is taken.
“Eligibility for a new passport will only be restored after child support debt is paid to the relevant state child support enforcement agency and the individual is no longer delinquent according to HHS records,” officials said.
Individuals affected by the policy must work directly with the state agency overseeing their child support case. After the debt is resolved, the Department of Health and Human Services must update its records before the State Department can issue a new passport. Officials said that process can take at least two to three weeks.
It remains unclear how many Americans could ultimately be affected by the expanded enforcement effort. Officials said that the Department of Health and Human Services is still gathering data from state agencies, but the number of passport holders owing more than $2,500 in child support debt could total many thousands more.
President Donald Trump on Friday announced a three-day ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia to celebrate the Soviet Union’s victory in World War II.
“This ceasefire will include a suspension of all kinetic activity, and also a prisoner swap of 1,000 prisoners from each country,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “This request was made directly by me, and I very much appreciate its agreement by President Vladimir Putin and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.”
🚨 JUST IN: President Trump announces he’s negotiated a THREE DAY CEASEFIRE between Ukraine and Russia from May 9-11
“This Ceasefire will include a suspension of all kinetic activity, and also a prison swap of 1,000 prisoners from each Country.
