Via Middle East Eye

Clashes between heavily armed militias erupted across the Libyan capital late on Monday night, killing at least six people and plunging Tripoli into renewed violence and fear. The fighting, which continued into the early hours of Tuesday, was triggered by the killing of Abdelghani al-Kikli, a powerful militia commander known as “Gheniwa,” who led the Stability Support Authority (SSA), one of Tripoli’s most influential armed factions.

Heavy gunfire and explosions were reported in several neighbourhoods, particularly Abu Salim, a densely populated southern district. Residents told Reuters they heard intense gun battles. “Six bodies have been retrieved from the sites of clashes around Abu Salim,” Libya’s Emergency Medicine and Support Center confirmed.

The health ministry also said that emergency crews helped evacuate families trapped by the violence and called on hospitals and medical centers “to raise their level of preparedness and ensure maximum readiness to deal with any emergency”.

In the wake of the clashes, the interior ministry of the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU) issued an emergency alert urging residents to stay indoors.

Schools and universities suspended classes, exams and all administrative activities. The education ministry cited the “deteriorating security situation,” while the University of Tripoli announced a full closure “until further notice”.

Death of a warlord

Al-Kikli was allegedly ambushed on Monday evening in a facility run by the 444 Brigade, a rival militia led by Mahmoud Hamza, an influential commander allied with GNU Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah.

While the exact circumstances of his killing remain murky, a nephew of al-Kikli said in a Facebook post that he had been lured under the pretence of negotiations, an invitation that turned out to be a calculated hit. “For many years, Abdelghani ‘Ghnewa’ al-Kikli was arguably one of the most resilient, most successful armed group leaders in Tripoli when it came to extending militia influence beyond hard security,” Jalel Harchaoui, an analyst focusing on Libyan security and political economy, said in a post on X.

“His primary strength lay not in military might – though his territorial holdings did expand – but in his ability to outmaneuver Prime Minister Dbeibah. Today, however, that winning streak looks [like] it has come to an end.”

Al-Kikli had long been a controversial figure in Libya’s volatile security landscape. Amnesty International previously accused him of war crimes and human rights violations, including torture, arbitrary detention and extrajudicial killings.

The SSA had become one of the most powerful militias in western Libya, with deep entrenchment in state institutions. As Harchaoui noted, al-Kikli had successfully “installed loyalists in key positions across the banking, telecom and administrative oversight sectors, and even within top diplomatic functions”.

A fractured state, again on edge

By early Tuesday morning, authorities said the situation was under control. The GNU said its forces carried out a “military operation” to restore security and reassert state authority in Abu Salim.

“What was accomplished today shows that official institutions are capable of protecting the homeland and preserving the dignity of its citizens,” Dbeibah wrote on X, praising the operation as “a decisive step” against “irregular” armed factions.

The United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) expressed grave concern over the fighting, calling for an immediate ceasefire and the protection of civilians. “UNSMIL is alarmed by the unfolding security situation in Tripoli, with intense fighting with heavy weaponry in densely populated civilian areas,” it said on X. “Attacks on civilians and civilian objects may amount to war crimes.”

The UNSMIL warned that unless armed groups were held accountable, violence would remain a constant threat to Libyans caught in the crossfire.

The North African country has been divided between rival governments in the west and east since the 2011 Nato-backed uprising that overthrew and killed longtime ruler Muammar Gaddafi. The internationally recognized GNU governs from Tripoli in the west, while a rival administration under Prime Minister Osama Hammad operates from Benghazi in the east with backing from General Khalifa Haftar’s forces.

Despite a 2020 ceasefire and several diplomatic efforts to unify the country, Libya remains fractured, with heavily armed factions vying for power, influence and control of lucrative oil and gas resources.

The latest clashes are the deadliest since August 2023, when rival factions in Tripoli battled for control, leaving 55 people dead.

LIBYA | 🇱🇾 Remember in 2011 how the US, their Allies and NATO planned to “bring democracy” in Libya but had to assassinate Gaddafi first? Well, this was Libya last night. Terrorists are fighting with the Army. It’s horrific. Military vehicles were burnt; people broke into grocery… pic.twitter.com/y9YiiwTH17

— Evaluator. (@_AfricanSoil) May 13, 2025

Anas El Gomati, founder and director of the Tripoli-based Sadeq Institute, said on X that al-Kikli’s “elimination leaves Dbeibah as the dominant power broker in western Libya, having systematically neutralised or co-opted potential rivals.

“The timing is particularly significant, coming as US-led negotiations explore the possibility of a unified military council between rival eastern and western factions,” Gomati added. Harchaoui warned that “what is about to follow won’t be smooth sailing.“

“Tripoli faces a territorial reshuffle as Dbeibah’s camp moves to seize SSA-held areas,” he said, adding that clashes may flare, but the real impact is institutional, with both the Central Bank and Libyan Foreign Bank set to be affected by the collapse of al-Kikli’s network.

Authored by Jack Philips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Supreme Court’s chief justice on Monday told an event that criticism of the court should be relegated to its decisions and not the nine justices themselves.

While speaking at Washington’s Georgetown University, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the Supreme Court “has obviously made mistakes throughout its history, and those should be criticized, so long as it is in terms of the decision.”

Roberts said that criticism of the highest court should not be based on “ad hominem” arguments or attacks “against the justices” themselves, referring to the logical fallacy where an argument is dismissed based on the character or background of the individual making that claim.

“I just think that doesn’t do any good. The harshest critics are usually colleagues, if it’s the sort of thing where there are dissents. So it’s something we’re used to,” he continued. “And again, it’s a good thing. We’re not immune from any criticism. And there are many, many instances in our history where it’s been effective over time in leading to a better result.”

The comment from Roberts marks the third time in nearly as many months in response to criticism about the Supreme Court.

In a rare written statement in March, Roberts appeared to respond to President Donald Trump’s public suggestion to impeach a federal judge who had blocked his administration’s deportations of accused Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times at the time. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Following U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s initial ruling against the administration’s use of the 1798 law to deport accused gang members, Trump wrote that the judge wasn’t elected as president.

A senior adviser to Trump, tech billionaire Elon Musk, also commented on the judge’s stymying the administration’s agenda. In a post on Feb. 25, Musk wrote that the only way to allow the agenda to move forward is to “impeach judges,” responding to an article that said El Salvador’s president did the same starting in 2021.

Trump hasn’t been critical of the Supreme Court and has indicated that he will follow orders from any court. Since the start of his administration, numerous lawsuits have been filed against his administration, particularly in relation to his immigration enforcement, spending cuts, and efforts to downsize and reshape the federal government.

And last week, Roberts said during an event in Buffalo, New York, that the judiciary needs to maintain its independence in order to check executive or congressional power.

The judicial branch’s independence is “the only real political-science innovation in our Constitution,” Roberts said. Elaborating, he said that “in our Constitution … the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down … acts of Congress or acts of the president.”

“And that innovation doesn’t work if … the judiciary is not independent. Its job is to … check the excesses of Congress or of the executive, and that does require a degree of independence,” he said.

In his recent remarks and written statement, Roberts did not mention Trump, nor did he mention any other elected official.

China is ramping up efforts to build a circular economy around its booming clean energy sector, as retired batteries and solar panels pile up and global trade tensions make critical minerals harder to source, according to the South China Morning Post.

“There is huge potential in the business of new-energy waste, because new energy is where China and the world are going,” said Ma Long, sales manager at a Henan Hairui Intelligent Technology subsidiary. His company already generates 70% of its business from battery and solar panel recycling equipment.

China’s rapid adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and solar power is driving this trend. After a decade of EV growth, the country is now facing a “large-scale retirement of car batteries,” with retired batteries expected to exceed 4 million tonnes annually by 2028 and generate over 280 billion yuan (US$38.5 billion) in industry output, according to state estimates. Retired photovoltaic modules are also set to surge in the next five years.

“The recycling of minerals is largely for the sake of resource security,” said Du Huanzheng, a circular economy expert at Tongji University. He noted that China’s recycling push, once focused on pollution control, is now also about boosting economic growth and cutting reliance on imported minerals amid rising tensions with the U.S. and its allies.

A Beijing-based professor of environmental economics warned that China is “facing more difficulty in buying from allies of the US, such as Australia and Canada,” while other suppliers like Congo and Chile could be pressured by U.S. trade policy. “Business with other [mineral] suppliers may also be affected,” he added.

In response, China has created the state-owned China Resources Recycling Group to build a nationwide recycling network for products from electronics to retired wind and solar equipment.

The SCMP article says that big players like CATL and BYD are leading the way in battery recycling, but smaller companies are rushing in. Yu Zhongkai, senior manager at Tianli Technology, said a quarter of his company’s business now comes from battery-recycling equipment. “But we’re still experimenting, because there are no industry-wide standards yet, and the market is still unclear,” he admitted.

China’s recycling industry remains in its infancy, though its complete industrial chain and massive market give it an edge over global competitors. Du cautioned that despite investor enthusiasm, “large-scale recycling has yet to come, and a mature recycling system has yet to be formed.”

The government is tightening regulations, with 156 companies on a white list to standardize battery recycling and prevent safety and environmental risks. In February, the State Council passed an action plan to improve car battery recycling, following a December directive mandating stronger quality assurance and product traceability.

Guangdong Brunp Recycling Technology, a CATL subsidiary, claims it can recover over 99% of key metals from retired batteries. “It ensures that the batteries go where they came from, and it improves the resilience of the new-energy industry’s supply chain,” said CEO Li Changdong.

However, challenges remain. Many retired batteries end up in illegal workshops, and rural households are starting to discard old solar panels directly into trash bins, warned environmental activist Chen Liwen.

For now, legal recyclers face overcapacity as waste collection lags behind, but Ma expects the situation to improve as regulations tighten and battery retirements surge.

“So, overall, this is a big track to follow in the next few decades,” he said.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Trump administration is taking aim at automatic engine start-stop systems—technology installed in millions of U.S. vehicles to reduce fuel use and emissions—with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin signaling plans to roll back incentives for the feature that he says drivers despise.

“Start/stop technology: where your car dies at every red light so companies get a climate participation trophy,” Zeldin wrote in a May 12 post on social media. “EPA approved it, and everyone hates it, so we’re fixing it.”

Zeldin’s announcement comes amid a broader shift under President Donald Trump, whose administration has moved aggressively to dismantle a range of environmental rules it says put pointless burdens on energy producers, manufacturers, and consumers.

While the EPA doesn’t require start-stop systems, it has granted automakers fuel economy credits for adopting the technology. Zeldin’s post suggests the agency may eliminate or revise those incentives, though officials have yet to announce formal policy changes.

The EPA declined to provide details of any plans to revise or eliminate existing incentives in response to an inquiry from The Epoch Times.

Start-stop systems are designed to automatically shut off a vehicle’s engine when it stops—at a red light, for example—and restart it when the driver releases the brake. Proponents say the technology helps reduce emissions and saves drivers money at the pump by improving fuel economy. Critics say that it’s annoying, unnecessary, and sometimes difficult to disable. In most vehicles, drivers must press a button to turn the feature off each time they start the car.

The feature became increasingly common under fuel efficiency rules implemented during the Obama administration, expanding from fewer than 1 percent of new vehicles in 2012 to about 45 percent in model year 2021, according to EPA data. The agency notes on its website that start-stop systems can improve fuel economy by up to 5 percent, with the biggest benefits under stop-and-go city driving.

An Obama-era regulatory impact analysis from 2012 estimated that start-stop systems can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.8 percent to 2.4 percent, depending on vehicle type and size, compared with baseline models. The systems have helped cut nearly 10 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year, according to The Battery Council International.

Zeldin’s remarks come as the Trump administration pursues a sweeping deregulatory agenda across multiple agencies.

On May 9, Trump directed agencies to rescind federal water efficiency standards for household appliances such as showerheads, toilets, dishwashers, and washing machines—calling them relics of a “radical green agenda” that reduced performance and increased costs.

“The federal government should not impose or enforce regulations that make taxpayers’ lives worse,” Trump wrote in a memo, saying the rules made appliances less useful, more prone to failure, and costlier to fix.

The Department of Energy has also begun rolling back efficiency rules for outdoor heaters, decorative hearth products, and other miscellaneous appliances. In each case, the administration says it is eliminating unnecessary regulations and restoring consumer choice, while environmental advocates say the changes could undermine years of progress on conservation and fighting climate change.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of Energy is returning to common sense–and that means giving the American people the ability to choose which heaters they use in their own backyards,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a May 2 statement. “To date, rescinding or delaying unnecessary consumer regulations such as this have saved the taxpayers nearly $24 billion–and we’re just getting started.”

The EPA’s expected rollback of incentives for start-stop systems would mark another high-profile pivot away from the climate policies of previous administrations.

Authored by Paul D. Thacker via the DisInformation Chronicle,

A brief flurry of media reports last month criticized letters sent to medical journals by Edward R. Martin Jr., the former interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who questioned whether journals have become “partisans in various scientific debates.” One liberal academic called the letters “fascist tactics” designed “to intimidate academic journals” triggering similar allegations across the media.

“Experts worry this will have a chilling effect on publications,” reported the New York Times, noting that an obscure journal called CHEST had been targeted.

“DOJ questions science journal about bias, triggering free-speech concerns,” reported the Washington Post, adding that three major publishers of medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and Health Affairs, said they had not received letters, while publisher Springer Nature chose not to comment. NPR reported last week that the New England Journal of Medicine had in fact received a letter as had the American Medical Association’s journal JAMA.

The DisInformation Chronicle has learned that the actual target of Martin’s letters is the Nature Springer journal Nature Medicine, publisher of a highly controversial paper “Proximal Origin” which has faced charges of corruption and calls for retraction. A source inside the Department of Health and Human Services said Trump officials suspect the paper is a quid pro quo, written by the authors to dismiss the possibility of a lab accident and who then received a large grant months later from Tony Fauci.

The existence of the Nature Medicine letter has not been previously reported and is being made public for the first time. After Martin lost support among Republicans to be confirmed as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, President Trump picked him to head a new Weaponization Working Group inside the Justice Department.

Follow the science

Published in the third month of the COVID pandemic and arguing “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” the “Proximal Origin” paper became a handy tool for NIH officials and virologists attempting to dismiss as a “conspiracy theory” claims that the pandemic could have started in a Wuhan lab funded by Fauci. Nature Medicine’s editor-in-chief, Joao Monteiro, tweeted that the paper “put conspiracy theories” about the pandemic’s possible lab origin to rest.

NIH Director Francis Collins promoted the “Proximal Origin” paper weeks after Nature Medicine published it on his March 2020 NIH Director’s Blog, and Fauci then seized upon the paper during a televised White House briefing a month afterwards.

“There was a study recently that we can make available to you,” Fauci said during the White House briefing, “where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists look at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve and the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of species from an animal to a human.”

The paper would go on to become one of the most heavily cited scientific papers in 2020. The Nation reported in 2023 that “Proximal Origin” had been accessed online more than 5.7 million times and more than 2,000 media outlets had cited it. ABC News, for instance, ran an article titled “Sorry, Conspiracy Theorists. Study Concludes Covid-19 ‘Is Not a Laboratory Construct.’”

But by then, cracks had already appeared.

Follow the money, follow the documents

Emails made public through freedom of information act requests and by congressional investigators in 2022 showed that the papers’ authors had run it past funders—Francis Collins and Tony Fauci at the NIH, as well as with Jeremy Farrar, who was then at the Wellcome Trust. In one example, lead author Kristian Andersen with the Scripps Research Institute emailed the three funders thanking them for their “advice and leadership” and offering them a right to comment and give suggestions.

Further emails and internal slack discussions calling into question the credibility of “Proximal Origin” became public in the summer of 2023 following a congressional hearing. During the hearing, Republicans charged that Tony Fauci had helped orchestrate the paper’s publication. However, Democrats countered by releasing a report that found Wellcome Trust’s Jeremy Farrar helped “organize and facilitate” and “led the drafting process of the paper.”

“Jeremy, Dr. Farrar has been an amazing leader,” wrote “Proximal Origin” co-author Robert Garry of Tulane University in an email released by House Democrats. “Should be author.”

When questioned about his email during a House deposition, Garry agreed that Farrar should have been listed as an author.

According to Nature’s editorial policy, “A specific role for the funder in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript, should be disclosed.” However, the paper failed to note the involvement of either Fauci or Farrar, and Nature Medicine has refused to follow its own ethics guidelines.

News sites the Racket and Public co-published a slack message Andersen sent to his “Proximal Origin” co-authors on April 16, 2020, a month after Nature Medicine published the paper in March 2020.

“I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was involved,” Andersen wrote his co-authors, a month after publishing the paper that concluded the virus was not a laboratory construct. “We also can’t fully rule out engineering (for basic research).”

Days after the congressional hearing, the group BioSafety Now wrote a letter to Nature Medicine, signed by over 50 scientists, demanding retraction of “Proximal Origin.” The letter cited an investigation published by The Nation reporting on internal emails by the “Proximal Origin” authors that showed they didn’t even believe what they wrote in the paper.

“The main issue is that accidental release is in fact highly likely,” the Nation reported that Andersen wrote in a message to co-authors some weeks before Nature Medicine published the paper. An online campaign by BioSafety Now has since garnered over 5,700 signatures petitioning Nature Medicine to retract the paper.

In his letter to Nature Medicine, Martin wrote that he has been told that some journals “have a position for which they are advocating due to advertisement (under postal code) or sponsorship (under relevant fraud regulations).”

The letter also asks, “How do you clearly articulate to the public when you have certain viewpoints that are influenced by your ongoing relations with supporters, funders, advertisers, and others?”

A source close to the investigation said this question pertains to a grant Fauci awarded Andersen and Garry several months after they published “Proximal Origin” dismissing the possibility of a lab accident. Allegations that this grant was a bribe from Fauci have dogged Andersen for several years, accusations which he dismissed under oath during the July 2023 congressional hearing.

“There is no connection between the grant and the conclusions we reached about the origin of the pandemic,” Andersen wrote in sworn testimony to Congress. “We applied for this grant in June 2019, and it was scored and reviewed by independent experts in November 2019.”

The Intercept later reported that Andersen “knew that was false.” NIH records show the grant to Andersen wasn’t finalized until May 21, 2020, two months after Andersen published “Proximal Origin” in Nature Medicine.

In a guest essay earlier this month for The DisInformation Chronicle, an NIH infectious disease researcher wrote that the “Proximal Origin” authors left a gaping hole in their analysis by failing to account for a common method to manipulate viruses called “serial passaging.”

“And because they didn’t discuss this very common laboratory practice, they did not ‘disprove’ a laboratory origin for the virus,” the NIH research official wrote. “I have no idea how ignoring something so obvious could make it pass peer review and get published in a prestigious journal like Nature Medicine.”

Subscribe to The DisInformation Chronicle here…

Harvard University is facing another crushing financial blow – this time losing an additional $450 million in federal grants – as the Trump administration ramps up pressure on elite schools it accuses of fostering anti-Semitism and political bias, which for some reason seems like the only topic to which the 1st Amendment does not apply.

The decision, announced Monday by the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, brings the total value of frozen and canceled grants and contracts to a staggering $2.65 billion. The task force, established in February under a Trump executive order, blasted Harvard for repeatedly failing “to confront the pervasive race discrimination and anti-Semitic harassment plaguing its campus.”

“Jewish students were subjected to pervasive insults, physical assault, and intimidation, with no meaningful response from Harvard’s leadership,” the task force said in a statement released via the Department of Education.

One particularly explosive allegation involves a protester charged with assaulting a Jewish student who was later awarded a $65,000 fellowship by the Harvard Law Review – a decision reportedly approved by faculty. The task force cited the incident as evidence of the “radical” direction of the Ivy League institution.

“Harvard’s campus, once a symbol of academic prestige, has become a breeding ground for virtue signaling and discrimination,” the statement said. “By prioritizing appeasement over accountability, institutional leaders have forfeited the school’s claim to taxpayer support.”

The move follows a fiery exchange of letters between Harvard President Alan M. Garber and Secretary of Education Linda E. McMahon.

In a May 5 letter, McMahon accused Harvard of violating federal law through systemic bias, a politicized admissions process, and “ugly racism” within its academic bodies, including the Harvard Law Review. She slammed the university’s leadership, accusing board chair and former Obama commerce secretary Penny Pritzker of “running the institution in a totally chaotic way.”

McMahon made clear that the government was done cutting checks.

“Harvard should no longer seek GRANTS from the federal government, since none will be provided,” she wrote.

The bombshell comes on the heels of an earlier freeze of $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts in April. The May 13 announcement adds another $450 million in terminations, as multiple federal agencies pull support.

‘Harvard Will Not Surrender’

Garber fired back in a May 12 response, calling the actions political retaliation and accusing the administration of trying to strong-arm a private institution.

“Harvard will not surrender its core, legally-protected principles out of fear of unfounded retaliation by the federal government,” he wrote, denying charges of bias and defending the university’s admissions and hiring as merit-based.

Garber also rejected suggestions that Harvard students — including its international population — pose a greater risk of violence or misconduct.

The university, he said, has “commenced initiatives” to increase intellectual diversity and fight all forms of bigotry, including anti-Semitism.

But the Education Department isn’t buying it. In its letter, it cited multiple disturbing allegations — including claims that Harvard Law Review editors discriminated based on race and prioritized submissions based on contributors’ skin color.

Federal authorities opened a formal investigation into the student-run journal on April 28.

Harvard’s financial headaches appear to be mounting. In a bid to shore up its resources amid the federal crackdown, the university sold $450 million in bonds in March and another $750 million in April.

The Department of Education and affiliated agencies show no signs of backing off.

“At its best, a university should fulfill the highest ideals of our Nation,” McMahon wrote. “But Harvard has betrayed this ideal.”

The New York Post has reached out to Harvard for comment.

Authored by T.J.Muscaro via The Epoch Times,

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury on May 13, after being arrested and accused of helping an illegal immigrant evade Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) last month.

Her indictment comes after she was arrested by the FBI on April 25 and subsequently suspended from her duties as a judge by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The grand jury reviewed the charges brought forth in a complaint, as a check on the prosecutor’s power, and determined that enough probable cause existed to continue the case.

Dugan faces one count of “obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency,” and another of “concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest.”

Her next court appearance was previously scheduled for May 15, and she could face more disciplinary actions against her license to practice law.

According to her defense attorneys, she maintains her innocence and expects to be vindicated in court.

She was assigned to preside over a hearing for Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national who was charged with domestic violence, on April 18. Flores-Ruiz had previously been deported in 2013, and there was no evidence that he reentered the country legally.

The FBI agents and deportation officers planned to arrest Flores-Ruiz after the hearing.

However, according to the affidavit, witnesses said Dugan appeared “visibly upset and had a confrontational, angry demeanor,” upon learning of the arrest party’s arrival.

They alleged that Dugan “escorted” Flores Ruiz and his lawyer “out of the courtroom through the ‘jury door,’ which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse,” after she “ordered” the team of FBI and deportation officials to go to the chief judge’s office. 

The jury door is normally used by defendants only if they are in the custody of deputies.

Another officer, according to the affidavit, noticed Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer on an elevator and alerted the arrest team.

Flores-Ruiz was apprehended after a foot chase outside the courthouse.

FBI director Kash Patel said investigators believe Dugan “intentionally misdirected federal agents” away from Flores-Ruiz, as officers were preparing to arrest him in the courthouse where the judge works.

In just a few weeks, House Republicans aim to finalize the details of President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” which seeks to fulfill his campaign pledges—such as eliminating taxes on tips and overtime pay—alongside new tax breaks, as well as sweeping changes to immigration and energy policy.

Beyond the president’s populist priorities, the draft version of the tax bill released Monday by House Republicans has sparked controversy within the Second Amendment community.

At the center of the debate is Section 112030, which proposes eliminating the $200 transfer tax on suppressors, or “silencers,” enacted initially under the National Firearms Act of 1934. While the measure would scrap the tax, it would leave the rest of the NFA intact, meaning Form 4 paperwork and a background check would still be required for each purchase.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) slammed House Republicans on X: 

Congress can gut the National Firearms Act using budget reconciliation because the NFA is a $200 tax. By merely proposing to reduce the transfer tax on suppressors (even to $0), @WaysandMeansGOP are leaving the federal gun registry in place for … EVERYTHING! This is UNACCEPTABLE!

Congress can gut the National Firearms Act using budget reconciliation because the NFA is a $200 tax.

By merely proposing to reduce the transfer tax on suppressors (even to $0), @WaysandMeansGOP are leaving the federal gun registry in place for EVERYTHING!

This is UNACCEPTABLE! https://t.co/B5pTy0cCBu pic.twitter.com/GwexwolilZ

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) May 12, 2025

In other words, House Republicans aim to eliminate the $200 tax on suppressors rather than fully deregulate purchases.

“This isn’t a compromise, it’s a betrayal. The House Ways and Means Committee chose to leave unconstitutional registration and taxes in place even though they had a clear path to repeal them. GOA made it crystal clear that full deregulation of suppressors and protection for brace owners was achievable under reconciliation. Lawmakers knew it, and they chose political convenience over principle. Gun owners won’t forget this,” GOA Founder Erich Pratt wrote in a statement. 

GOA’s Aidan Johnston noted: “Congress has a clear path to dismantle the National Firearms Act through budget reconciliation because it is a $200 tax—plain and simple.”

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge in Pennsylvania has said that President Donald Trump validly invoked the Alien Enemies Act in March as part of an effort to deport Venezuelan gang members.

More specifically, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines held that the gang – Tren de Aragua (TdA) – was engaging in the type of “predatory incursion” that the Alien Enemies Act mentions.

In an opinion on May 13, Haines noted that TdA has been designated a foreign terrorist organization. 

That designation, she said, “heavily supports the conclusions … that TdA is a cohesive group united by a common goal of causing significant disruption to the public safety of the United States.”

Haines, a Trump appointee, emphasized her “unflagging obligation is to apply the law as written.” 

“Having done its job, the Court now leaves it to the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals, to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will,” Haines wrote in her 43-page ruling.

Three other district court judges have ruled against the Trump administration, stating that Trump misapplied the law with a proclamation he issued in March. 

Each of those judges disagreed with Trump’s description of TdA as engaging in an invasion or predatory incursion.

The government can now proceed, so long as they provide 21-days’ notice to migrants in both English and Spanish.

“The Court recognizes that it may need to conduct further analysis and consider additional issues related to the specifics of notice in the future,” Haines wrote.

“However, at this preliminary stage of this case, the Court finds that the foregoing is appropriate and complies with the law.”