Half-brother of Barack Obama, Malik Obama, claimed on Monday evening that the former President of the United States is “definitely gay” in a now-deleted tweet.
Malik Obama’s claims addressed his half-brother‘s denunciation of efforts to ban sexually explicit books targeting young children, in which Barack argued:
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
“It’s no coincidence that these “banned books” are often written by or feature people of color, indigenous people, and members of the LGBTQ+ community… the impulse seems to be to silence rather than engage, rebut, learn from or seek to understand views that don’t fit our own.”
Malik, in response, tweeted: “This man is definitely gay.”
OH MY! Malik Obama Tweets Brother Barack Obama is ‘Definitely Gay’ – Then Deletes Tweet in a Panic!
Malik has made a number of other claims about the “cold and ruthless” former US president, including that Barack Obama was not born in America and abandoned his Kenyan family in their greatest hours of need.
Late actress Joan Rivers infamously remarked in 2014, when asked if America would ever have a gay president: “We already have it with Obama, so let’s just calm down… You know Michelle is a tranny… A transgender. We all know.”
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
More From The Pulse
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. State Department released its annual Human Rights Report, highlighting serious and growing restrictions on freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The State Department, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s government in the United Kingdom, and individuals targeted by the British government for their speech.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The report was released on August 12, 2025, with the relevant sections focusing on events in the United Kingdom.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Societies are strengthened by free expression of opinion, and government censorship is intolerable in a free society.” – State Department Press Secretary Tammy Bruce
🎯IMPACT: The report underscores growing concerns about free speech collapsing in Britain.
IN FULL
The Trump administration has raised concerns about the collapse of free speech protections in the United Kingdom, warning that government censorship is becoming more widespread. In its annual Human Rights Report, the U.S. State Department cited “credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression” in Britain, adding that the situation had “worsened” in 2024 following Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s election win last July, returning the leftist Labour Party to power for the first time in 14 years.
The report criticized the United Kingdom’s controversial Online Safety Act, which allegedly aims to tackle harmful online content, such as child pornography, but has drawn criticism for stifling political speech on issues such as immigration. It also examines the British government’s response to the mass murder of young children by the son of two asylum seekers in Southport, England, accusing officials of using the incident to suppress speech.
While not named in the report, Lucy Connolly, a former childminder and wife of a Conservative Party councillor, was reportedly of interest to the White House. Connolly was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison for a post on X after the Southport killings, in which she wrote: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.”
Critics claim her sentence is part of a “two-tier justice” system, with some voices facing harsher consequences than others for speech. For instance, Salman Iftikhar, a Pakistani businessman with the British equivalent of a green card, received only 15 months for physically accosting a white air stewardess and telling her she would be “dragged by [her] hair” from the specific hotel where cabin crew were staying and “gang raped and set on fire”. He added that “the white sheep-shagging bitch will be dead. The floor of [her] hotel will be blown up and it will disappear.”
The U.S. report also referenced Adam Smith-Connor, a 51-year-old veteran convicted in 2023 for silently praying outside an abortion clinic in memory of his aborted son. His case was cited by Vice President J.D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, where he warned that Britain was facing a “crisis of censorship.”
State Department Press Secretary Tammy Bruce said: “We consider freedom of expression to be a foundational component of a functioning democracy,” adding: “Societies are strengthened by free expression of opinion, and government censorship is intolerable in a free society.”
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: A federal appeals court ruled 2-1 in favor of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), allowing access to sensitive data from federal agencies.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: DOGE personnel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, labor unions, and individual plaintiffs.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The ruling was issued on August 12 by the Fourth Circuit.
💬KEY QUOTE: “The Privacy Act does not prohibit sharing information with those whose jobs give them good reason to access it.” – Judge Julius Richardson
🎯IMPACT: The decision strengthens executive authority over data access and sets a legal precedent limiting challenges to similar policies.
IN FULL
The Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been handed a legal victory by a divided federal appeals court, granting it the right to access sensitive personal data held by multiple federal agencies. In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a lower court’s preliminary injunction that had previously blocked DOGE from gaining administrator-level access to systems and records from the Treasury Department, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Department of Education.
The ruling centers on an executive order signed by President Donald J. Trump on January 20, which created DOGE to modernize federal technology and software. The order mandated that agency leaders establish internal DOGE teams and give them “full and prompt access” to unclassified data and systems. DOGE, which was initially fronted by tech mogul Elon Musk, has been the subject of ongoing legal disputes and criticism, particularly related to data privacy and staff downsizing.
In the majority opinion, Judge Julius Richardson, joined by Judge G. Steven Agee, concluded that the executive order did not violate the Privacy Act. “The Privacy Act does not prohibit sharing information with those whose jobs give them good reason to access it,” Judge Richardson said.
The pair argued that DOGE’s role was comparable to “a consultant needing to survey systems for improvements.” The opinion also questioned whether the plaintiffs had proper legal standing, noting that they failed to show “that their specific records had been accessed.”
However, the dissenting judge strongly disagreed. In his opinion, Judge Robert King—a Bill Clinton appointee—claimed that the executive order effectively granted “unfettered, unprecedented, and apparently unnecessary access” to sensitive information.
The case will now return to a lower district court for further proceedings.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: A former associate of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) pleaded guilty to charges related to a COVID-19 pandemic food fraud scheme.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Guhaad Hashi Said, a former campaign “enforcer” for Rep. Omar, and others involved in the fraud conspiracy.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Minnesota, with fraudulent activities occurring from 2020 through 2022.
💬KEY QUOTE: “The scale of the fraud in Minnesota is staggering, and every rock we turn over reveals more.” – Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson
🎯IMPACT: Over $2.9 million in Federal Child Nutrition Program funds were fraudulently obtained, with funds used for personal purchases like real estate and cars.
IN FULL
Guhaad Hashi Said, a former associate and campaign “enforcer” for Democrat Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, has pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges in connection with a pandemic-era food fraud scheme centered on the Somali community. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota announced that Said exploited a federally funded child nutrition program during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Said admitted to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson emphasized the broader implications of the case, stating, “The scale of the fraud in Minnesota is staggering, and every rock we turn over reveals more. We must be honest and clear-eyed about the scope of this problem, because ending it will take an unyielding, all-hands-on-deck effort from all of us.”
According to court documents, between December 2020 and January 2022, Said operated a Federal Child Nutrition Program site under the name Advance Youth Athletic Development. During that time, he submitted fraudulent claims for having served more than one million meals to children, though only a small portion were actually provided. To support the false claims, he used fabricated attendance rosters, meal counts, and invoices, which led to more than $2.9 million in federal reimbursements.
Said and his co-conspirators also engaged in a money laundering scheme to conceal the illicit proceeds. They created nonprofits and shell companies to move and disguise the money, which was used to acquire real estate, cars, and other personal items. Between August and December 2021 alone, Said transferred over $2.1 million to S & S Catering for meals that were never served.
Said, who had previously announced a run for the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2018, now faces up to 25 years in prison.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Trump administration announced opposition to a United Nations (UN) proposal to impose a tax on the shipping industry to reduce carbon emissions.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The proposal was approved by a UN committee in April and is set for a vote in October, with potential implementation in 2027.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Whatever its stated goals, the proposed framework is effectively a global carbon tax on Americans levied by an unaccountable UN organization.” – Trump administration statement
🎯IMPACT: The administration argues this proposal will increase costs for American consumers, energy providers, and shipping companies, and threatened retaliation against nations supporting the amendment.
IN FULL
The Trump administration has moved to oppose a United Nations (UN) proposal to impose a carbon emissions tax on the shipping industry, labeling it a “global carbon tax on Americans.” The proposal, known as the “Net-Zero Framework,” was approved by a committee of the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) in April and is set for a vote in October. If implemented, it would go into effect in 2027.
The framework seeks to set new carbon emission standards for ships and introduce a global pricing mechanism for emissions. Ships exceeding the thresholds would face punitive fees, while those within the standards would receive financial incentives. The Trump administration has argued that this plan would raise costs for American consumers and businesses. “These fees will drive up energy and transportation and leisure cruise costs,” the administration’s statement warns.
In a joint statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said the U.S. “unequivocally rejects this proposal” and will not accept any measures that increase costs for American citizens or businesses. The statement also warned that the U.S. would “not hesitate to retaliate or explore remedies” if the proposal is passed.
Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick criticized the framework in a separate statement, saying, “America is setting the terms on how our products are going to market. We have every right to refuse their ‘net-zero framework,’ which would be a tax on every shipment of American goods.” He added, “International bureaucrats can take their [woke] climate nonsense elsewhere.”
The Trump administration’s move to oppose the UN proposal aligns with its broader strategy to reduce foreign influence over American energy policy and deregulate the energy sector. Notably, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords on his first day in office.
Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to roll back Barack Obama-era climate regulations, which could save American businesses and families an estimated $1 trillion in hidden costs, according to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Arrests for organised immigrationcrime by the United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency (NCA) fell by 16 percent in the year to April, despite Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer pledging to “smash the gangs” behind people smuggling.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The NCA, Keir Starmer, Reform Party leader Nigel Farage.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Data covers the year leading to April 2025, with incidents focused on the English Channel and British borders.
💬KEY QUOTE: “It’s never been easier to be a people smuggler.” – Shadow Attorney General Robert Jenrick
🎯IMPACT: Over 50,000 migrants have arrived in the United Kingdom via small boats since Labour entered office.
IN FULL
The United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency (NCA) says arrests for organised immigration crime dropped by 16 percent in the year to April. This comes despite Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s pledge to “smash the gangs” driving people-smuggling.
Small boat migrant arrivals in the United Kingdom have surpassed 50,000 since Labour entered office, breaking records. Shadow Attorney General Robert Jenrick, of the formerly governing Conservative (Tory) Party, criticized the government’s handling of the issue, stating, “It’s never been easier to be a people smuggler.” However, small boat crossings began in earnest under the previous Conservative government, growing progressively worse over time.
“As I predicted 5 years ago, unless we deport illegal migrants the invasion will be huge,” Reform Party leader Nigel Farage wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday. “50,000 since our weak Prime Minister took office and there is no sign of it stopping.”
❓WHAT HAPPENED: A federal appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that had ordered the Trump administration to continue foreign aid payments.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, President Donald J. Trump, and his administration.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The decision was issued on Wednesday morning by the D.C. Circuit Court.
💬KEY QUOTE: “The lower court erred in its decision to mandate the restoration of foreign aid payments,” the court stated.
🎯IMPACT: The ruling allows the Trump administration to halt the foreign aid payments in question, reversing the lower court’s directive.
IN FULL
President Donald J. Trump scored a major legal victory on Wednesday when a federal appeals court overturned a lower court’s ruling that required his administration to continue foreign aid payments approved by Congress. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the District Court erred in issuing an injunction mandating the State Department restore the foreign assistance payments. Consequently, the lower court’s injunction against the Trump administration has been lifted.
“The district court erred in granting that relief because the grantees lack a cause of action to press their claim,” the three-judge panel’s decision states, continuing: “They may not bring a freestanding constitutional claim if the underlying alleged violation and claimed authority are statutory. Nor do the grantees have a cause of action under the APA because APA review is precluded by the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).”
“And the grantees may not reframe this fundamentally statutory dispute as an ultra vires claim either. Instead, the Comptroller General may bring suit as authorized by the ICA. Accordingly, we vacate the part of the district court’s preliminary injunction involving impoundment,” the ruling adds.
In a post on X (formerly Twitter), law professor and legal commentator Jonathan Turley praised the decision. “The D.C. Circuit just handed the Trump Administration another victory in tossing aside the injunction requiring the State Department to make foreign aid payments. It is only the latest district court to be overruled on these injunctions as invasive of Article II authority,” Turley explained.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Britain’s Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp, was pelted with bottles and confronted with a “curved machete” during a visit to a migrant camp near Calais, France.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Conservative (Tory) Party’s Chris Philp, Member of Parliament (MP) for Croydon South and Shadow Home Secretary, and migrants including an unnamed man wielding a machete.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Tuesday evening to Wednesday afternoon, in the “New Jungle” migrant camp outside Dunkirk, France.
💬KEY QUOTE: “People who pull knives, these people are on their way to the UK in dinghies and we were certainly seriously threatened just a few minutes ago.” – Chris Philp
🎯IMPACT: The incident highlights the escalating dangers at migrant camps and the threat to the British public posed by unvetted migrants crossing the English Channel in increasing numbers, with small boat crossings surpassing 50,000 since Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party entered office in mid-2024.
IN FULL
Chris Philp, the British Shadow Home Secretary and Member of Parliament (MP) for Croydon South, faced a violent confrontation during a visit to a migrant camp near Calais, France, where he was pelted with bottles and threatened with a “curved machete.”
The incident occurred at the “New Jungle” camp outside Dunkirk, where Philp traveled on Tuesday evening to assess the situation on the ground—with migrants having long camped along the French coast in large numbers while they wait to break into Britain by stowing away in trucks or, increasingly, via small boats. Successive British governments have paid the French hundreds of millions of pounds to police the area, but crossings have continued to increase.
Philp reported that a man brandished a machete at him, swinging it in the air to intimidate others in the camp. He described the experience as “pretty shocking” and noted the presence of up to around 2,000 migrants in the camp, many already carrying life jackets. The visit came as the number of such crossings since Labour took power last year exceeded 50,000.
We were attacked today at the migrant camp dubbed “The Jungle 2” just outside Dunkirk
We were threatened with a machete, pelted with bottles & our car hit as we sped off
Those responsible are likely to be in the UK soon in a taxpayer funded hotel
Notably, Philp was a Minister of State at the Home Office—broadly responsible for border security, immigration enforcement, policing, and national security in the British government—and the previous Conservative government, which allowed the Channel crisis to take hold and grow progressively worse in the first place.
Reform Party leader Nigel Farage regularly criticized Philp for the Conservatives’ mismanagement of illegal immigration during his time in office, noting in 2021, “Our hopeless immigration minister Chris Philp is in Calais today. Making sure our recent 54 million pound donation to the French is being used to stop migrants leaving French beaches. 1,300 have come in the last 3 days! Minister, you have been mugged.”
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: A Venezuelan civic group and several migrants filed a lawsuit against federal immigration agencies, alleging the Trump administration unlawfully ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, Democracy Forward, three Venezuelan migrants, and federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The lawsuit was filed this week in Boston federal court.
💬KEY QUOTE: “This lawsuit is a desperate attempt to keep half a million poorly vetted illegal aliens in this country and undermine President Trump’s constitutional authority to enforce America’s immigration laws.” – DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin
🎯IMPACT: The lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s decision to revoke TPS for Venezuelans and could slow down or stop its efforts to deport illegal aliens from the South American country.
IN FULL
A group of illegal immigrants represented by a Venezuelan civic organization is suing the Trump administration, claiming the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unlawfully ended the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans. The plaintiffs include the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, progressive group Democracy Forward, and three Venezuelan illegals.
The lawsuit, filed in Boston federal court, names the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as defendants. The plaintiffs claim that the Trump administration, along with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, abruptly and unlawfully terminated TPS for Venezuelans, describing the move as a “sudden policy shift.”
According to Democracy Forward, an alleged April email from DHS to TPS illegal immigrants stated, “It is time for you to leave the United States.” The plaintiffs argue that TPS revocation requires case-by-case determinations and that the decision disrupts lives, occupations, and legal rights to remain in the U.S. They further claim the policy violates public trust and legal protections for those who complied with DHS requirements.
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin responded to the lawsuit, calling it “a desperate attempt to keep half a million poorly vetted illegal aliens in this country and undermine President Trump’s constitutional authority to enforce America’s immigration laws.” She also criticized the former Biden government for creating a “catch-and-release scheme.”
Illegal Immigrants fleeing Venezuela were granted special protection under TPS by President Joe Biden in 2021, with an extension in 2023 that allowed more migrants to qualify. However, after Trump took office, Noem revoked the 2023 extension, leading to legal challenges. While an injunction was issued by Barack Obama appointee Judge Edward Milton Chen in April, the Supreme Court later overruled it, allowing Noem’s policy to proceed.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: An anti-Trump agitator is accused of shooting a wheelchair-bound man in the chest in Seattle, Washington, over an allegation of “stolen valor.” The gunman was previously arrested and charged in 2020 with criminal mischief, a second-degree misdemeanor, after he drove a vehicle into a Republican Party voter registration tent.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Suspect Gregory William Timm, the 68-year-old wheelchair bound victim, and Seattle prosecutors.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The shooting took place on July 31, with Timm appearing in court this month.
💬KEY QUOTE: “The only reason this administration was getting away with these atrocious crimes is because we were rolling over and taking it.” — anti-Trump gunman Gregory William Timm
🎯IMPACT: The 68-year-old man, who survived the gunshot, says he was reaching to retrieve his military ID when Timm fired on him. Local news reports indicate the victim does appear to be a veteran.
IN FULL
An anti-Trump agitator is accused of shooting a wheelchair-bound man in the chest in Seattle, Washington, over an allegation of “stolen valor.” Gregory William Timm, 32, claimed the victim was pretending to be a veteran and confronted the 68-year-old wheelchair bound man on the busy Alaskan Way boardwalk on July 31.
Prosecutors allege Timm proceeded to rip a military patch off the victim, resulting in the victim producing a knife and an airsoft gun to defend himself. Subsequently, stepping back several feet, Timm pulled out a handgun and fired a shot into the victim’s chest while demanding to see his ID. The 68-year-old man, who survived the gunshot, says he was reaching to retrieve his military ID when Timm fired on him. Local media reports indicate he is indeed a veteran.
WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT
**Graphic video warning**
Newly obtained videos show the shooting on Seattle’s waterfront on 7/31. The shooter, Gregory William Timm, is charged with assault. The victim in the wheelchair survived.
Investigators say Timm accused the man of ‘stolen valor’ and demanded his ID. pic.twitter.com/xaKsYhPfrb
The July 31 shooting is not Timm’s first run-in with the law. In 2020, he was arrested and charged with criminal mischief, a second-degree misdemeanor, after he drove a vehicle into a Republican Party voter registration tent at the Kernan Village Shopping Center in Jacksonville, Florida.
While he initially fled the scene, local police were able to apprehend him, with Timm defending his actions, stating that the attack was his “duty” and that he “did not like President Trump.”
“The only reason this administration was getting away with these atrocious crimes is because we were rolling over and taking it,” Timm later said during a court appearance regarding the vehicle attack. President Trump personally responded to the attack at the time, writing on X (formerly Twitter): “Be careful tough guys who you play with!”
While attorneys for Timm say his actions in Seattle last month were in self-defense, prosecutors have stated, “If you’re the one who’s the first aggressor who provokes an altercation, you lose the right to claim self-defense effectively under state law.” They cite Timm’s action of ripping off the victim’s military patch as having initiated the assault.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: A federal judge will review a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration against all 15 Maryland-based federal judges over a standing order related to deportation cases.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Trump administration, Chief Judge George Russell, U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Paul Clement, a legal counsel to the judges.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday at the Baltimore federal courthouse.
🎯IMPACT: The case could set a precedent regarding judicial authority over immigration-related executive actions.
IN FULL
A federal judge in Baltimore will review a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration against all 15 Maryland-based federal judges over a standing order related to deportation cases. This lawsuit marks a significant escalation in the administration’s disputes with the judiciary over immigration matters.
The standing order, issued by Chief Judge George Russell on May 21 and later updated, temporarily halts deportations when illegal immigrants file habeas corpus petitions in Maryland federal courts. This halt lasts roughly two days, allowing the court to review the claims. The Trump administration argues that this order exceeds Russell’s authority and infringes on the federal government’s sovereignty.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, contends that the order “harms the federal government’s sovereign interests on a repeated and ongoing basis.” According to the DOJ, the court lacks jurisdiction to enact such a measure.
In response, the judges have retained a legal team that includes Paul Clement, a former solicitor general under President George W. Bush. Clement’s team argues that the lawsuit undermines the separation of powers and that the standing order is an administrative tool to ensure the judiciary can fulfill its constitutional obligations.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, appointed by President Trump in 2020, will preside over the hearing.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Share Story
FacebookTwitterWhatsappTruthTelegramGettrCopy Link
Real News Fan? Show It!
Many people are shocked to learn that because of active censorship, we currently have to spend more time making sure you can even see The National Pulse, than on producing the news itself. Which sucks. Because we do this for the truth, and for you.
But the regime doesn’t want you being informed. That’s why they want us to go away. And that will happen if more people don’t sign up to support our work. It’s basic supply and demand. So demand you get to read The National Pulse, unrestricted. Sign up, today.
We don’t sell ads, and refuse corporate or political cash. It all comes down to you, the reader. I hope you can help.
