Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

The Supreme Court has already released major decisions for the 2024–2025 term, but some of its most consequential could still be in the making.

So far, the justices have ruled on religious liberty, gender-related issues, environmental policy, and a case with a large impact on the vaping industry. Yet, more opinions are coming—ones that, among other things, could help determine parents’ rights, funding for abortion organizations, and whether and how much lower court judges can block presidents’ agendas.

Here is a breakdown of what to expect as the term comes to an end:

Birthright Citizenship and Nationwide Injunctions

From President Donald Trump’s first term to his second, presidents have encountered a spike in judges’ orders that block presidents’ agendas on a nationwide basis. These nationwide injunctions have provoked concerns about the nation’s separation of powers and whether the judiciary is being gamed by political activists.

Three of these injunctions have targeted Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, which is a major portion of his immigration agenda. While the justices could weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump’s order, they will likely focus, at this point in litigation, on whether judges are exceeding their authority with such orders.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices in May that nationwide injunctions exceeded the power granted to judges under Article III of the Constitution. That article allows the federal judiciary to hear “cases” and “controversies,” a provision that some say means that judges’ orders should affect only the parties before them in court.

It’s unclear how the court will rule. The justices seemed divided during oral arguments on May 15. Regardless, the decision could alter the balance of power in the federal government for generations to come.

Sex and Gender in School Libraries

The court is expected to weigh in soon in Mahmoud v. Taylor. The case is about whether schools should be able to require children’s participation involving storybooks with controversial content about sexuality and gender.

A group of Christian and Muslim parents sued Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, alleging that requiring their kids to hear storybooks without an opt-out on these topics burdened their parents’ exercise of religion under the First Amendment.

Part of their argument cited a Supreme Court precedent known as Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), which said parents have a constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. Among the cited content in the current case is “Born Ready,” a book with a transgender character named Penelope who identifies as a boy.

The school district said that allowing children to opt out was not feasible and that its actions didn’t violate the First Amendment either because it wasn’t coercing children by exposing them to certain content.

During oral arguments in April, the Supreme Court seemed inclined to rule in the parents’ favor but could see some dissent.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for example, asked how the county was burdening parents when they didn’t have to send their kids to public school. “You can put them in another situation,” she said. “You can home-school them.”

Age Verification for Porn Websites

Amid an explosion of online pornography, states have attempted to intervene to prevent health-related harms to young people. One such law from Texas has offered the justices an opportunity to analyze how regulations on pornography may or may not conflict with the First Amendment.

The Texas law requires pornographic websites to verify the age of their users. A porn industry group, known as the Free Speech Coalition, alleged that the requirement was too broad and therefore violated the First Amendment.

The coalition initially won in district court, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed Texas’s age verification requirement to proceed. It said the requirement was rationally related to the state’s interest in protecting minors from pornography.

The Free Speech Coalition told the Supreme Court that the Fifth Circuit should have applied strict scrutiny. Under that standard, governments have to show that their laws are not overly broad and serve a compelling state interest.

Planned Parenthood and State Medicaid Funds

Planned Parenthood and abortion are back at the Supreme Court. But this time, the case focuses on how much money the abortion provider gets through Medicaid.

In 2018, South Carolina’s government decided that abortion clinics enrolled in the program were unqualified to provide family planning services and shouldn’t receive funding.

Planned Parenthood and a patient sued, arguing that the federal law establishing Medicaid allowed recipients to choose their providers. During oral argument on April 2, the Supreme Court weighed whether the law created an enforceable right for recipients to sue if they didn’t have access to the provider they chose.

Obamacare Panel on Preventive Measures

A separate, health-related case focuses on a panel set up under Obamacare, otherwise known as the Affordable Care Act, to recommend preventive care for insurance to cover. The legal issue the Supreme Court is reviewing is less about particular recommendations and more about the structure of the Preventive Services Task Force.

A company known as Braidwood Management sued, alleging that the task force’s members had to be appointed by the president. They cited a provision of the Constitution known as the Appointments Clause.

When the case, which was initiated during the first Trump administration, reached a federal appeals court, Braidwood won on that point. The Supreme Court reviewed the issue after the Biden administration asked it to intervene. The current Trump administration continued the legal defense of the task force.

How far does a dollar really go across America?

As inflation has raised everything from housing costs to the price of eggs to record levels, consumers are feeling the burden. While tariffs stand to raise prices even further—although no meaningful signs in official data show this yet—price pressures have few signs of abating.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorthy Neufeld, shows price parity by U.S. state based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

How Price Parity Compares Across America

To show the differences in prices across the country, the BEA compared each state to the national average, represented as 100 as of 2023.

Ranking as the nation’s most expensive state, prices in California are 13% higher than the national average.

In particular, California’s housing rents are 58% higher overall, second-only to Washington, D.C.. at 69% in 2023. Typically, housing is the primary driver of price disparities across the country.

At the same time, Californians pay more for groceries than any other state—at around 10% higher than the U.S. average.

Ranking in third is New Jersey, driven largely by its proximity to New York. In addition to high housing costs, a separate report shows that people in the Garden State pay 32% more for household bills like utilities and health insurance than the U.S. average.

At the other end of the spectrum, southern states like Arkansas and Mississippi offer some of the lowest costs of living. In August 2024, the median home sale price in Arkansas was just $203,067 compared to the U.S. median of about $385,000. Beyond housing costs, daily expenses like transportation and utilities are also comparatively lower.

Similarly, median home prices in Mississippi stand at just $183,507, however, median household incomes fall below the national average, at $55,060.

To learn more about this topic from an affordability perspective, check out this graphic on home affordability scores by U.S. state.

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that whether Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon is “irrelevant,” as he was pressed on the lack of evidence that Tehran has taken steps to weaponize its nuclear program.

Rubio made the comment in an interview with CBS News when asked about the fact that US intelligence has no evidence that Iran was seeking a bomb before Israel launched its war on the country.

“That’s irrelevant. I think that question being asked in the media – that’s an irrelevant question. They have everything they need to build a weapon,” Rubio said.

In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said that there was no evidence that Iran decided to build a nuclear weapon, and that was still the consensus of the US intelligence community, according to multiple media reports.

Rubio pointed to the fact that Iran was enriching uranium at 60%, which is still below the 90% needed for weapons-grade, as evidence that Iran has the capability to build a bomb, since it could quickly increase to the 90% level.

Iran had made clear when it was engaged in negotiations with the US that it was willing to bring its enrichment level back down to 3.67%, but the US decided to back an Israeli attack instead of pursuing such a deal and ultimately bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities.

Iran took the step to start enriching uranium at 60% in 2021 following an Israeli sabotage attack on its Natanz nuclear facility, which was meant to disrupt negotiations between the Biden administration and Iran that were ongoing at the time.

Rubio later adds in the segment, “Forget about intelligence…they are enriching uranium well beyond anything you need for a civil nuclear program.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says “it’s irrelevant” whether the U.S. had intelligence showing Iran’s supreme leader had specifically ordered nuclear weaponization, saying “it doesn’t matter whether the order was given. They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons.”… pic.twitter.com/6YldeIc38u

— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) June 22, 2025

The Islamic Republic has built its most sensitive nuclear sites deep underground given past sabotage attacks, and on fears of Israeli or US bombing raids against them, which is exactly what happened this weekend.

A week ago there were widespread reports and rumors that Israeli airstrikes and targeted assassinations in Iran had killed Esmail Qaani, who in 2020 had succeeded the top Iranian IRGC Quds Force general Qassem Soleimani, killed by a US strike in Baghdad.

But on Tuesday Qaani appeared before crowds in Tehran, as Iranians take to the streets to support the military and assert their defiance following Israeli and US bombs falling on the country during the current ceasefire.

“Several news outlets affiliated with Iran-allied groups, including the Houthis’ Al Masirah TV, have shared footage they say shows Esmail Qaani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s Quds Force, among the rallying crowds in Tehran,” Al Jazeera writes.

“If confirmed, the videos would dispel reports that Qaani was assassinated by Israel,” the report concludes.

Below is video which disproves (assuming it is not a deepfake or impersonator) that Qaani was not killed in an Israeli airstrike last week:

Iran’s Quds Force commander Qaani reportedly shows up in Tehran. Iranian state media says he is alive. pic.twitter.com/U1t5siDJcP

— Clash Report (@clashreport) June 24, 2025

This latest flare-up in fighting between Israel and Iran is actually not the first time Qaani has falsely been reported dead.

Israeli broadcasters are featuring the video of his appearance Tuesday in Iranian streets, after the initial claim spread quickly in Israeli media…

תיעוד: איסמאעיל קאאני, מפקד כוח קודס במשמרות המהפכה, השתתף ב”חגיגות הניצחון” בטהראן – ובכך הזים את הדיווחים על חיסולו @OmerShahar123 pic.twitter.com/ieFP9atcxi

— כאן חדשות (@kann_news) June 24, 2025

Like with Russia-Ukraine, the fog of war is thick in the Iranian theatre, and there is evidence that both sides have national censors which are cracking down on what information gets shared, after some 12-days of exchanging deadly airstrikes and missile fire.

Authored by Bill King via RealClearPolitics.com,

For decades, we’ve been told that the world’s biggest problem is too many people. From Malthus in the 18th century to “The Population Bomb” in the 1960s, the warnings were dire: More people would mean more famine, more poverty, more environmental destruction. But something unexpected has happened. The demographic math has changed. And the United Nations, the world’s most cited authority on population forecasts, has taken notice.

Until recently, their models predicted that the global population would continue to grow throughout the 21st century, reaching a peak of nearly 11 billion by the year 2100. But in its 2022 and 2024 revisions, the U.N. quietly lowered its global population projections. The most recent estimate puts the peak at just 10.3 billion, and it comes nearly two decades earlier, around 2084.

That might still sound like a big number. But it’s a sharp departure from the “endless growth” assumptions many policymakers, investors, and institutions still use to guide their decisions. The real story is not just that the U.N. is forecasting fewer people. It’s that many demographers believe that even those numbers are still too high.

Fertility Collapse

The shift in projections isn’t happening because people are dying faster. In fact, life expectancy continues to rise, albeit modestly, in most parts of the world. The big change is that people are having fewer children – much fewer.

Around 1970, the global fertility rate (the average number of children a woman has in her lifetime) was about five children per woman. Today, it’s down to 2.25 and falling. In nearly 70% of the world’s countries, fertility rates are already below the so-called “replacement rate” – the level needed to maintain a stable population. In developed countries, that’s typically pegged at around 2.1 children per woman. In higher-mortality countries, it is slightly higher.

This global fertility decline has happened faster than most experts expected. And that’s why the U.N. has revised its models twice in just the last five years. But not everyone thinks the U.N. has gone far enough.

Over the last decade, several independent teams of researchers have developed alternative population projections. Most of them show that fertility will drop faster than the U.N. is predicting. A team at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), for example, gained wide attention in 2020, when it projected that the global population would peak around 2064 at just over 9 billion and decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100.

Wolfgang Lutz, one of the world’s most respected demographers, has also published projections showing a lower and earlier population peak. Lutz’s group at the Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital bases its models on education and urbanization trends, which are closely tied to fertility behavior. In a 2024 analysis of surveys involving over a million women in Sub-Saharan Africa, Lutz and his co-authors concluded that fertility rates there are falling faster than expected, especially as female education improves.

In their 2019 book, “Empty Planet,” Canadian journalists Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson summarized the case for the likelihood of the lower projections. While not academic demographers, they conducted extensive interviews and focus groups in about a dozen countries, asking women about their thoughts on family and childbearing. They concluded that the fertility collapse is as much cultural as economic, and that the cultural factors will drive down fertility rates further and faster than in the past.

“Predictions are hard – especially about the future.”

So said that famous American philosopher, Yogi Beara. As a result, all models use probabilistic variations that incorporate a wide range of possible futures.

For example, while the U.N.’s median projection sees a peak at 10.3 billion in 2084, their model also includes a low-fertility scenario, in which the population peaks around 2060 at 9.5 billion and declines from there.

That lower path aligns more closely with the academic projections.

It’s All About Africa

The fertility rate has already fallen to or below the replacement rate in countries where nearly three-quarters of the world’s population lives. In another 15%, the rate is only just above the replacement rate and is falling fast.

However, there are about two dozen countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Southwest Asia where the rate is still very high. Although these countries only account for about 11% of the world’s population, they will contribute nearly all of whatever population growth there is between now and whenever the population peaks. The common denominators in the countries that have kept birth rates high are a blend of religious fundamentalism (particularly fundamentalist Islam), limited international engagement, and weak state capacity.

Nonetheless, the birth rate is falling in these countries, albeit to varying extents. Most of the debate over the trajectory of future global population boils down to how fast and to what extent these countries will follow the same fertility decline seen in the rest of the world over the last 50 years.

Why This Matters

The population projections we rely on shape everything from how we plan cities to how we fund pensions. They inform immigration policy, school construction, military recruitment, and long-term economic growth assumptions. If those projections are off by a billion people or by two decades, that is not just a rounding error. It’s a seismic shift in the underlying math of the future.

However, most institutions continue to operate on autopilot, assuming that a growing population – encompassing more workers, consumers, and taxpayers – is the natural order that will persist indefinitely. However, the data clearly indicate that the era is rapidly coming to a close and the age of population growth is ending. Indeed, in some places, it already has. For the past three years, China has reported a decline in its population. What follows, and how we react to it, is one of the most critical and least understood stories of our time.

Iranian state media is reporting another arrest of alleged spy who was coordinating with Israeli intelligence. Agents working on behalf of Mossad are believed to have played key roles in Israel’s military attacks which kicked off nearly two weeks ago (on Friday, June 13).

But the new arrest announced on Tuesday has been identified as a European national – without much more information being provided from Fars News agency, which issued a statement.

The arrested individual was accused of “spying on sensitive and military areas” – according to the report. This comes amid a broader crackdown and search for people who may have been relaying sensitive and secret material, for example concerning the locations of Iran’s ballistic missiles and anti-air systems, to the Israeli government.

“Since the outbreak of conflict with Israel, Iran has arrested dozens of people and executed several accused of spying for Israel,” Al Jazeera reports.

“Earlier today, Iranian state media reported that six more people were arrested in the western Hamadan province for allegedly spying for Israel’s Mossad,” Al Jazeera says of Tuesday developments.

The trials appear to be taking place in rapid format, in military and judicial tribunals, sometimes convened in small rooms, at a moment Israeli warplanes have been striking sites in Tehran and across Western Iran.

It has become clear that Israel was engaged in a massive spying and espionage campaign to pave the way for its ‘Operation Rising Lion’ – which is intent on destroying Iran’s nuclear energy program, and possibly even accomplishing regime change.

The Washington Post reports on what’s been revealed as one of the most brazen recruitment operations aimed at top generals:

In the hours after Israel launched its first wave of strikes against Iran on June 13, killing top military leaders and nuclear scientists, Israeli intelligence operatives launched a covert campaign to intimidate senior officials with the apparent aim of dividing and destabilizing Tehran’s theocratic regime, according to three people familiar with the operation.

People working for Israel’s security services who speak Persian, Iran’s primary language, called senior Iranian officials on their cellphones and warned them that they, too, would die unless they ceased supporting the regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, according to the three people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss clandestine operations. One of them estimated that more than 20 Iranians in positions of power were contacted.

But what’s clear from all the reporting on this is that these generals were more loyal than expected – and this wasn’t met with success for Israeli intelligence. WaPo and others have republished an audio recording of one such call that took place June 13 – the day Israeli warplanes initiated their attacks:

Mossad is phoning Iranian regime generals and warning them to flee the country in 12 hours or be killed. @WashPost has the receipts:pic.twitter.com/JHyHwaZWLK

— Eylon Levy (@EylonALevy) June 23, 2025

According to one translated part of the transcript: 

“I can advise you now, you have 12 hours to escape with your wife and child. Otherwise, you’re on our list right now,” an Israeli intelligence operative told a senior Iranian general close to the country’s rulers, according to the audio recording.

The operative then suggested that Israel could train weapons on the general and his family at any moment. “We’re closer to you than your own neck vein. Put this in your head. May God protect you,” he said.

This is without doubt fueling IRGC efforts to root out Israeli spy networks, amid the general (and understandable) paranoia over potential compromise and Israeli penetration. It’s widely believed that Israel uses Iranian dissident groups, like the cultic revolutionary MEK (People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran) group, which currently has its political leadership based in Europe.

A top far-left city official in southeast Los Angeles County is now under federal investigation after allegedly posting a video on social media calling on Mexican gangs to mobilize against ICE agents. If this isn’t textbook insurrectionist behavior, it’s hard to imagine what is.

Fox News reporter Bill Melugin broke the story on X late Tuesday afternoon. He stated that Cudahy Vice Mayor Cynthia Gonzalez is under investigation for urging 18th Street and Florencia 13 gang members to defend their territory against ICE, reportedly telling gang leaders to “get your f***ing members in order.”

Here’s the report from Melugin: 

EXCLUSIVE: Per federal sources, the vice mayor of Cudahy, a city in southeast L.A. County, is under FBI investigation after she allegedly posted a video to social media in which she appears to call for 18th Street & Florencia 13 gang members in L.A. to defend their territory from ICE, even urging gang leadership to “get your fucking members in order.”

I’m told Cynthia Gonzalez posted the video late last week, then deleted it, and that the FBI later visited her home & she is under active federal investigation.

Gonzalez posted on her social media that the FBI came to her house, and she needs a lawyer.

FBI LA tells FOX they cannot confirm or deny an investigation, but that they condemn any call for gang violence.

We’ve reached out to Gonzalez via phone and email & are awaiting a response. No response yet from the city of Cudahy either. Will update as we get more.

EXCLUSIVE: Per federal sources, the vice mayor of Cudahy, a city in southeast LA County, is under FBI investigation after she allegedly posted a video to social media in which she appears to call for 18th Street & Florencia 13 gang members in LA to defend their territory from… pic.twitter.com/afJfxeSCBb

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) June 24, 2025

Meanwhile, the city of Cudahy has posted links on social media, including X, for illegal aliens to call the “CHIRLA Rapid Response Hotline” amid ongoing local ICE raids. 

There have been no operations in Cudahy at this time.

For immediate support, call the CHIRLA Rapid Response Hotline:
(888) 624-4752

####
No se han reportado operaciones en Cudahy.

Para apoyo inmediato, llame a la Línea Directa de Respuesta Rápida de CHIRLA:
(888) 624-4752 pic.twitter.com/ebTsKJQfS0

— City of Cudahy, CA (@CityOfCudahyCA) June 21, 2025

Last week, Peter Schweizer and Seamus Bruner released a nonprofit report on the rogue leftist NGOs likely responsible for anti-ICE riots across the L.A. area, highlighting CHIRLA as a key organization involved: 

During the L.A. riots, a prominent participant was a group called the “Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights” (CHIRLA), which received money from Arabella but also millions in taxpayer money from both the federal government (under former President Joe Biden) and the city of Los Angeles, for “citizenship education.” The group claimed its activities were under a separate “action” group that received no government funds.

Ongoing investigations indicate federal authorities—specifically the FBI—are actively tracing financial flows linked to far-left NGOs attempting to spark nationwide color revolutions against President Trump. Parallel to this, now a Democratic local official is allegedly calling for the mobilization of Mexican gang members against federal agents. This rhetoric suggests a possible escalation in domestic threats.

Authored by Matthew Blakely via the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE),

Whenever the Federal Reserve releases its meeting minutes, a crowd of analysts rush to dissect every comma and qualifier. But in a country that prides itself on free markets and capitalist dynamism, why do we hang on the every word of an exclusive club of central planners?

Markets shouldn’t have to interpret the tone of Jerome Powell’s press conferences or scrutinize the footnotes of bureaucratic transcripts.

But they do—because we’ve built an economy where interest rates, the price of credit, and the flow of capital are controlled not by supply and demand, but by a small committee of bankers and economists.

The problem isn’t just Powell.

The problem is that we’ve come to accept central planning at the heart of a supposedly free-market system.

What is an interest rate, if not a price? It’s simply the price of borrowing money. Every time the U.S. Treasury sells a bond, it must pay a price—an interest rate—to attract lenders. The same is true for corporations issuing debt, businesses taking out loans, or individuals financing homes and cars. Like any other price in a market economy, interest rates should respond to supply and demand.

When demand for borrowing rises, interest rates should increase to ration limited funds. When the supply of savings grows, rates should fall to reflect greater availability of capital. These aren’t exotic economic theories—they’re the same price signals that govern what we pay for groceries, smartphones, or pencils.

And yet, interest rates occupy a unique place in our economy—treated as too vital to be governed by market forces. Instead of allowing borrowers and lenders to determine rates naturally, we give this task to the Federal Reserve: a small group of economists with disproportionate influence over market movements through manipulating the supply and demand for U.S. Treasurys.

The Federal Reserve has wielded this rate-setting ability to dramatic effect over the decades—raising interest rates aggressively in response to the unchecked inflation of the 1970s, then slashing them to near zero for years following the 2008 financial crisis, and again during the COVID-19 pandemic. The central logic behind these actions is that cheap borrowing energizes economic activity because lower rates incentivize consumer spending and business investment. Indeed, many economists justify this authority as a necessity, but few highlight the significant drawbacks and long-term tradeoffs.

Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek argued that prices are signals. Interest rates are arguably the most important prices in the economy. They guide entrepreneurs and investors in allocating capital by indicating scarcity, demand, and risk. When the Federal Reserve distorts interest rates, it clouds these signals. Businesses struggle to assess the true cost of capital, while savers earn little or nothing on their savings. Worse, artificially cheap credit can inflate bubbles in real estate, equities, or crypto assets, driven by both the low cost of borrowing and the belief that such assets will outperform traditional, interest-linked investments like Treasury bonds.

The underlying problem isn’t just that the Fed sets interest rates—it’s that it does so based on internal models and incentives, divorced from the knowledge of the millions of people who participate in the very markets the Fed affects. By setting interest rates, the Fed obscures and overrides the natural market forces that would normally inform investments and business decisions. This central planning of interest rates, no matter how sophisticated the formulas and calculations employed by the Fed, invariably leads to misallocations of capital in the economy, distorts the incentives of both businesses and consumers alike, and obscures the true sentiment of marketplace participants.

In a true free market, interest rates would be a natural occurrence emerging from the interaction of savers and borrowers—just as other prices in the economy are. If we trust markets to determine the prices of oil, steel, and semiconductors, why not money? The more we rely on a small group of exclusive Federal Reserve governors to fine-tune the economy from the top down, the more we endanger the dynamism and resilience that made the US economy the envy of the world.

Maybe the problem isn’t just who chairs the Fed. Maybe the problem is the Fed itself. Hayek taught us that prices are not mere numbers—they are carriers of knowledge and critical to functioning markets. Thomas Sowell echoes this in his critiques of central banking, arguing that when we replace the knowledge and discipline of the market with the guesswork of central planners, the results are rarely benign. We must stop mistaking power for wisdom—and start trusting the market again.

Oregon State lawmakers lobbed a Molotov cocktail of an ethics complaint at SEIU Local 503. The target? A blatant attempt to rig the legislative game by flooding lawmakers with 1,000 pre-printed “constituent postcards” hyping House Bill 3838 – a union power grab masquerading as a “workforce standards board” for long-term care. 

The catch? At least two individuals, named in the complaint, are screaming foul after union leadership – well aware of their public opposition – added their names to the cards, urging lawmakers to pass the bill.

Filed Friday with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, the complaint—backed by Reps. Ed Diehl (R-Stayton), Lucetta Elmer (R-McMinnville), and Republican Minority Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby)—alleges the union knowingly misrepresented worker support for House Bill 3838. 

The bill, which hands unelected bureaucrats sweeping control over care providers’ working conditions, sparked “considerable opposition” from the union’s own members.

🚨BREAKING 🚨Oregon Lawmakers File Ethics Complaint Against SEIU Local 503

Documenting that SEIU Local 503 and its representatives knowingly misrepresented workers’ support for legislation

SALEM, Ore. – In a formal complaint filed Friday with the Oregon Government Ethics…

— Rep. Real Diehl (@Real_EdDiehl) June 21, 2025

According to the complaint, Shannon Carskadon, an adult foster home owner and SEIU member, publicly opposed HB 3838 in written testimony submitted to the House Committee on Rules. 

Carskadon, represented by the union’s collective bargaining agreement with the state,  also vocalized her opposition directly to Melissa Unger (SEIU Local 503’s executive director), while in-person at the Oregon State Capitol—long before SEIU Local 503 delivered the postcards to legislators.

“I was present at the capital, at the very first hearing where I met Melissa Unger with [another care provider],” Carskadon wrote. “Melissa was very surprised to see [the other care provider] there and in a face-to-face conversation with her, I expressed my concerns and opposition to the bill again, directly to her personally.”

In an email sent to Representative Ed Diehl, Carskadon said she was shocked, disgusted, and disappointed to find the union had forged her name in support of a bill she had so publicly and adamantly opposed. 

Despite the considerable opposition from the union’s members, lawmakers received this:

“You have my COMPLETE support and I urge you to do the right thing! Thanks!” the postcards read. 

This wasn’t just a clerical error, according to the ethics complaint—but a calculated play. 

Orchestrated through ambiguous Facebook surveys, the complaint alleges the union manufactured political momentum, in violation of ORS 171.764, which bans false or misleading statements made by lobbyists.

According to Rep. Ed Diehl, lawmakers believe that union leadership may have forged support well beyond those represented by the complaint filed. 

“Based on the evidence we have, I believe SEIU Local 503 knowingly and intentionally misrepresented facts,” Diehl told ZeroHedge. “It’s quite possible that none of the individuals named on the postcards ever actually authorized the statements attributed to them.”

The postcards may have been the final push needed, Diehl told ZeroHedge during a phone interview Sunday.

“These postcards clearly left an impression on many legislators and likely influenced the bill’s passage out of the Rules Committee to Ways and Means,” Diehl said. “The Commission must investigate this matter to determine the full scope of the misrepresentation and how many individuals were falsely represented.”

However, in a state run by progressive democrats willing to toss out their own to forge ahead with unpopular votes, don’t count on accountability.

🚨 BREAKING: Senate President Rob Wagner is kicking Sen. Mark Meek (D) off the Transportation Committee MID-MEETING so Democrats can ram through their $15.5 BILLION tax hike (HB 2025).

Meek recently expressed doubts about the bill—so they replaced him. Corruption at its finest! pic.twitter.com/ijWs9MN74p

— Oregon Senate Republicans (@ORSenateGOP) June 20, 2025

Oregon’s Ethics Board, similar to the majority party, has torched its credibility. With Oregon’s one-party dominance, unions have controlled the governor’s office and legislature for years. 

Without campaign contribution limits until 2027, and the SEIU’S (CAPE) PAC being the single largest donor to Gov. Kotek’s election campaign, it’s anyone’s guess if loyalty will come before accountability. 

Our bet: the short-term memory loss of Oregon’s voters will keep the union-Democrat machine rolling and blue, no matter who. 

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi says the Department of Justice (DOJ) is on “high alert” following U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear program over the weekend.

Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), during a House Appropriations Committee meeting on Monday, asked Bondi about the number of Iranian nationals who may have entered the United States illegally.

“Over 1,000 have entered our country, and I can tell you we are on high alert and everyone is looking at that very closely,” Bondi said.

The attorney general suggested the FBI is on guard against possible Iranian sleeper cells located inside the United States, connecting those cells with Iranian nationals who entered the United States across the U.S.–Mexico border during the Biden administration.

“When the DOJ submitted their budget, the United States was a nation at peace, and now we’re a nation at war,” Gonzales said.

“I want us to, as much as we can, get ahead of it to give you the resources, the instruments that you need to go out and make sure that we’re preventing things from happening, not waiting until after the fact.”

Gonzales also suggested that proposals to cut funding to the DOJ, which encompasses the FBI, could undermine national security initiatives, noting a possible threat posed by Iran to the United States following U.S. airstrikes that targeted the country’s nuclear program.

“Those are the programs that we need more resources [for], more manpower,” the lawmaker said at one point.

Iran launched a barrage of missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Later that day, President Donald Trump called for a cease-fire between Iran and Israel after the countries had launched airstrikes on one another for more than a week.

Bondi also said that the DOJ is committed to “doing more with less” amid budget cuts across the DOJ and the federal government, before suggesting that Congress pass the Trump administration-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act that is currently being considered by the Senate.

“The One Big Beautiful Bill gives us a lot of additional funding at the Department of Justice to carry out our mission,” Bondi said. “That’s where it will truly help [the] Department of Justice combat all of these issues that you brought up.”

On Monday morning, Trump told reporters at the White House before departing for a NATO summit that, in his view, both sides had violated the cease-fire agreement. He had particularly strong words for Israel, a close ally, while suggesting Iran may have fired on the country by mistake.

Later, Trump wrote that the cease-fire deal was intact.

“ISRAEL is not going to attack Iran. All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly “Plane Wave” to Iran. Nobody will be hurt, the Ceasefire is in effect!” Trump said in a Truth Social post.

The DOJ indicted three individuals in 2024 in connection with an assassination plot that officials say originated in Iran, involving the killing of Trump and a journalist before last year’s presidential election.

“The charges announced today expose Iran’s continued brazen attempts to target U.S. citizens, including President-elect Donald Trump, other government leaders and dissidents who criticize the regime in Tehran,” former FBI Director Christopher Wray said at the time of the indictment of the three individuals.