By Charles Kennedy of Oilprice.com

Arctic LNG 2, the processing and export facility that was billed as Russia’s flagship LNG project, has gradually resumed gas processing after months of hiatus, Reuters reported on Tuesday, citing industry sources and satellite images.

Arctic LNG 2 has been under U.S. and EU sanctions since last year, and the project hasn’t been able to sell any cargo because of the sanctions.

The first production train at the plant was shut in early October over the project developers’ inability to secure buyers amid the Western sanctions on Arctic LNG 2, according to one of Reuters’ sources.

The plant continues has now slowly resumed gas processing and keeps it at low rates as Russia expects what the Trump Administration would do with the sanctions.

Russian LNG developer and exporter Novatek, the majority owner of Arctic LNG 2, is looking to rebuild relations with the U.S. with the help of lobbyists, sources with knowledge of the matter told Reuters in December.

Hit heavily by sanctions, Arctic LNG 2 was put on ice last year and Novatek has struggled to sell any cargo to a buyer.

Located in the Gydan Peninsula, Arctic LNG 2 was considered key to Russia’s efforts to boost its global LNG market share from 8% to 20% by 2030-2035.

But the project has come under intensifying sanctions from the United States, which have put off any buyers that were previously considering buying cargoes from Arctic LNG 2.

The project has seen months of delays after the initial U.S. sanctions in November 2023 upended the company’s plans for production start-up and export timelines.

In August 2024, the U.S. State Department intensified efforts to derail Arctic LNG 2 exports by targeting companies involved in the development of the project and vessels found to have loaded LNG from the facility.

The U.S. designated multiple companies related to Arctic LNG 2 to further disrupt the project’s ability to produce and export LNG, as well as the project’s ability to procure critical LNG carriers.

(Update 2210ET): According to multiple outlets, Democrat-endorsed Susan Crawford has won the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, beating Republican-endorsed Brad Schimel in the most expensive judicial election in US history.

The campaigns and their supporters spent more than $81 million, and drew the involvement of Elon Musk, Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders, and other political figures.

Crawford’s win means that liberals will retain a 4-3 majority in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

*  *  *

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Today, the voters of Wisconsin go to the polls in what may be the single most expensive and important judicial race in modern history. 

Both parties are spending millions with the balance of the state Supreme Court in the balance. 

If liberal Susan Crawford wins, the expectation is that she will vote with the Democratic majority to approve a gerrymandering of congressional districts to guarantee the loss of two Republicans and possibly flip control of the House of Representatives to the Democrats.

The raw political pitch in the election is disturbing. It assumes that both candidates will blindly support the objectives of their respective parties. The real reason to cast a vote today should be on judicial ideology. Ironically, the United States Supreme Court made that plain in an important Wisconsin case argued just the day before the state election.

The case is Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.

In the decision below, the Democratic-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not benefit from a religious exemption to the state’s unemployment tax because its charitable work was not sufficiently religious.

Catholic Charities is one of the world’s oldest and most respected charities. However, the church believes that it has a duty to help people of every faith who are in need. Thus, the church does not proselytize in offering such aid and services.

A state labor commission ruled that the charity’s lack of such religious expression and prayer makes it secular, even if it has religious motivations.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the charity is not operated primarily for religious purposes because it does not “attempt to imbue” beneficiaries “with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees.” In other words, the fact that Catholic Charities helps everyone and does not proselytize worked against it. The Wisconsin Supreme Court essentially argued that it needs to pray more to offer such charity as a church.

It is a disturbing ruling that would allow the state to choose between religions in weighing their relative manifestations of faith.

Even liberal justices cried foul over the standard.

Justice Elena Kagan suggested it was “pretty fundamental that we don’t treat some religions better than others. And we certainly don’t do it based on the content of the religious doctrine that those religions preach.”

Kagan noted, “Some religions proselytize. Other religions don’t. Why are we treating some religions better than others based on that element of religious doctrine?” 

She noted that the standard “basically puts the state on the side of some religions with some doctrine versus other religions with a different doctrine.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the Wisconsin Supreme Court was asking the wrong questions about what it means to be an organization “operated primarily for religious purposes.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch virtually mocked the standard of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, asking if Catholic Charities have to require the people receiving their services to “repent.” He then asked: “is mandatory church attendance versus optional church attendance, that’s the line?”

Gorsuch then delivered the haymaker:   

“Isn’t it a fundamental premise of our First Amendment that the state shouldn’t be picking and choosing between religions, between certain evangelical sects, and Judaism and Catholicism on the other, for example?”

The case shows that there are far more important issues dividing these candidates on judicial philosophy that should drive this election. I am not a fan of state elected judges and justices precisely because of the raw political element to these contests. 

The Catholic Charities case shows that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is divided along more than just a party line.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Leaders of a trucking advocacy group are sounding the alarm, claiming that the American Trucking Association (ATA) advised the federal government during the Biden-Harris administration to issue hundreds of thousands of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) to non-citizens—many of whom reportedly cannot read or write English. Many of these unvetted migrants were funneled into the long-haul trucking sector, which poses national security and public safety risks.

Harvey Beech, a co-founder of American Truckers United (ATU), addressed lawmakers in Arkansas earlier on Monday, warning about migrant truck drivers on the state’s highways—and nationwide. 

ATU commented on Beech’s address to Arkansas lawmakers, stating:

Arkansas Trucking Association’s full-on backing of the Biden-Harris Trucking Action Plan is the REAL reason we’re seeing a flood of non-citizen truck drivers on Arkansas highways! He’s not holding back—this move has unleashed chaos, and HB1745? It’s doing NOTHING to pump the brakes! Are we just handing over our roadways to Non-Citizens? Sound off below and spread this like wildfire—America needs to know

🚨BREAKING – A founder of American Truckers United (ATU) just unleashed a jaw-dropping truth: The Arkansas Trucking Association’s full-on backing of the Biden-Harris Trucking Action Plan is the REAL reason we’re seeing a flood of non-citizen truck drivers on Arkansas highways!… pic.twitter.com/eOQe2mikFk

— American Truckers (@atutruckers) April 1, 2025

The National Transportation Research Board recently ranked Arkansas fourth for fatalities involving large trucks. Earlier this month in Texas, a migrant truck driver killed five people and injured 12 others.

Advocacy Group Calls For US Probe On Non-English Speaking Migrant Truck Drivers After Deadly Austin Crash https://t.co/453papF7Pg

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 19, 2025

This is shocking! 

Non-Citizen Trucker Kills Colorado’s Scott Miller. Widow Deann Demands Immigration & Trucking Overhaul! pic.twitter.com/QtVZy6ApDZ

— American Truckers (@atutruckers) April 1, 2025

ATU co-founder Beech and another co-founder, Shannon Everett, provided more color about their fight at the Arkansas State Capitol Building to get non-domiciled CDLs off America’s highways.

Update on Arkansas Trucking Battle pic.twitter.com/7qCgzQpzYx

— American Truckers (@atutruckers) March 31, 2025

ATU Everett also warned Arkansas lawmakers how non-English speaking migrants pose a significant danger to all Americans. 

An ATU representative exposed how the Arkansas Trucking Association’s bill claims to crack down on foreign and non-domicile CDLs—but its really a smokescreen to protect the loopholes letting them flood our roads. This is a betrayal of American Truckers! Watch and decide for… pic.twitter.com/2Y1YVJ0RUy

— American Truckers (@atutruckers) April 1, 2025

Flooding the nation with non-English-speaking migrants holding non-domiciled CDLs and operating 80,000-pound semi-trucks poses a serious national security and public safety risk.v

Submitted by Gun Owners of America,

When you go to a gun store to buy a new gun, you can expect a few things to happen.  First, some paperwork.  Second, you can expect to have to pass a background check before leaving with your gun.  And third, you can expect that the gun store will keep a record of your purchase for as long as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) requires.  After all, that is how the government traces crime guns back to their original purchasers.

But what you might not expect is an FBI agent receiving a ping that you – yes, you – just successfully bought a gun.  And you might be surprised to learn that this agent has been receiving notifications of your purchases for months – or years.

Of course, such a surveillance scheme would be flatly unconstitutional – not to mention a violation of several safeguards already codified in federal law.  Yet slowly but surely, the government has been building a record of the private collections of thousands of American citizens, even though federal law expressly prohibits that “any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions” be established.

Of course, even though they are being monitored, these victims remain law-abiding, meaning the government has no probable cause to justify seeking a warrant authorizing such a search in the first place.

Now, Gun Owners of America has discovered that the FBI has been using its Second Amendment surveillance program not only to enforce federal law, but also to help California target owners of newly banned “assault weapons.”

FBI’s NICS Monitoring Scheme

When news first broke of the FBI and ATF’s joint “NICS Monitoring” surveillance scheme, the public was shocked.  As journalist John Crump reported in April of 2021, “monitoring of NICS isn’t for prohibited people,” but rather those who are eligible to purchase firearms but who law enforcement agents nevertheless suspect might commit a crime.

GOA learned that targets of NICS Monitoring – which exploits records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) before they are deleted within 24 hours – never receive notice that their firearm transactions are being monitored.  Thus, there is no way to challenge the FBI’s surveillance.

In fact, in order to enroll a target for NICS Monitoring, an agent only needs to complete an internal request form. At no point does an agent seeking NICS Monitoring have to convince a judge (or anyone other than himself, really) that this surveillance comports with the Fourth Amendment.  Entirely usurpingly, then, the FBI’s abuse of NICS Monitoring is rampant.

Rampant Abuse of NICS Monitoring

After the NICS Monitoring scandal went public, GOA filed Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests with the FBI and ATF seeking further records.  Naturally these agencies, the program’s biggest abusers, were less than forthcoming with evidence of their clandestine activities, and GOA ultimately had to file suit to compel production of documents.

The subsequent document productions were illuminating.  They revealed a pattern of surveillance abuse so pervasive that federal agents could obtain NICS Monitoring based on anonymous tips.

As GOA reviewed more documents and public scrutiny increased, more and more abuses came to light.  For example, in one case an ATF agent requested NICS Monitoring of a man who had purchased a shotgun during the George Floyd riots, on the theory that he “may use a gun for rioting.” 

In another case, an ATF agent requested NICS Monitoring of a man whose “reported wage earnings” did not “appear to supply the financial means to afford” firearms.  And in another case, ATF had a man monitored who merely “had a ‘habit’ of purchasing new guns, tinkering with them, losing interest, and subsequently selling them.”

Thus, it would seem that self-defense, having a savings account, and a tinkering hobby – although perfectly lawful activities – are justification to have one’s gun purchases surveilled indefinitely.

NICS Monitoring Is Unconstitutional and Unlawful

The FBI’s surveillance scheme violates the Second and Fourth Amendment rights of gun owners. 

The Founders never sanctioned governmental monitoring of Americans’ gun purchases.  Moreover, the Founders specifically required that all searches be reasonable, almost always meaning that they are based on warrants issued upon a finding of probable cause.  The FBI’s NICS Monitoring program respects neither right.

NICS Monitoring also violates a number of provisions of federal law.  In anticipation that the NICS system would be abused to track gun owners, Congress has mandated that the FBI destroy all NICS records of “approved” firearm transactions within 24 hours. 

The FBI’s copying and pasting of certain records out of the NICS system before they can be deleted clearly contravenes the 24-hour destruction requirement.

NICS Monitoring also violates the federal prohibition on the creation of registries of gun owners – a prohibition so important that Congress codified it twice: once generally, and once specifically with respect to NICS.

FBI Now Aiding State Gun Control Efforts

If the NICS Monitoring program’s history thus far was not troubling enough, GOA has made a shocking new discovery – that, since at least 2023, the FBI has been surveilling gun owners on behalf of anti-gun states.  And to make matters worse, the FBI’s surveillance involves firearm sales that are perfectly legal under federal law.

In one FBI NICS Monitoring submission, an FBI Special Agent from the agency’s Chicago field office cited the following suspected violations of California law to justify a sixth-month monitoring period:

“MFG/SELL/TRANS/ETC ASSAULT WPN (30600(A) PC), STATE OFFENSE CODE 52509, FELONY 2; ILL POSS ANY ASSAULT WEAPON (30605(A) PC), STATE OFFENSE CODE 52510. FELONY.”

Just how a federal background check approval would constitute evidence of unlawful state possession of an “assault weapon” within California, the agent did not say.  Nor did the agent seem to recognize that it is entirely possible to possess a firearm (or even have a residence) in a neighboring state and lawfully purchase and possess an “assault weapon” there without committing a California crime.

And regardless of California law, it is entirely unclear how it furthers the FBI’s mission to prosecute violent crime by monitoring gun purchases that are completely legal under federal law.

Tellingly, the FBI refused to release further details of its investigation into the California gun owner, asserting a so-called “privacy Glomar” as to those details.  In other words, the FBI ridiculously refuses to acknowledge the existence of redacted information that it has already produced.

Thus, we are left with more questions than answers:

• What is the FBI doing worrying about violations of California’s ban of pejoratively labeled “assault weapons”? 
• Is the enforcement of state gun control laws really an FBI priority, such that Second and Fourth Amendment rights are thrown by the wayside?

We hope FBI Director Kash Patel can answer these questions and dismantle this unlawful and unconstitutional program once and for all.

Authored by Terri Wu & Olivia Li via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Tensions have been simmering between the United States and communist China as the two countries escalate tariffs on each other’s imports. Meanwhile, Beijing’s rhetoric has become increasingly confrontational.

In early March, the Chinese Embassy in Washington shared a social media post from its Foreign Ministry, repeating its message: “If war is what the U.S. wants, be it a tariff war, a trade war or any other type of war, we’re ready to fight till the end.”

President Donald Trump has warned that, while the United States does not seek war with China, it is “very well-equipped to handle it.”

Trump has imposed an additional 20 percent tariff on all goods made in China, citing a national emergency on the continued trafficking of fentanyl—a deadly opioid that is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine—into the United States.

To this day, China remains the primary source of fentanyl precursors, which are shipped to Mexico, where they’re manufactured into the illicit drug. It is then smuggled into the United States mainly via the southern border.

In response to Trump’s added tariff, Beijing imposed an additional 15 percent tariff on U.S. coal and natural gas and an extra 10 percent on agricultural equipment and pickup trucks.

The communist regime has also called the fentanyl epidemic the United States’ “own problem“ and has cast the U.S. tariffs as ”blackmail.”

Yuan Hongbing, a former law professor at Peking University in China who now lives in Australia, said the American opioid epidemic is far from the self-inflicted wound the CCP has suggested it is.

The Chinese regime has played a significant role in America’s fentanyl crisis, and blaming the United States for it has long been Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping’s strategy, Yuan told NTD, Epoch Times’ sister media outlet, in a recent episode of the Chinese-language program “Pinnacle View.”

Yuan, who has insider access to senior CCP leaders, said Xi has consistently given internal directives during both Trump’s first and second terms that Beijing must maintain the narrative that the drug crises in both Europe and the United States are not linked to China.

Yuan said the regime has also been directed by Xi to assert that China makes the chemical precursors legally, and that if they are converted into deadly drugs and smuggled into the United States or Europe, it is not China’s responsibility.

The China expert further stated that fentanyl is at the core of Xi’s bid to “take revenge” on the West. He said Xi blames the West for subjecting China to a century of humiliation as a result of the Opium Wars in the mid-19th century. During that time, China had to sign a series of unequal treaties that ceded Chinese territory and opened Chinese ports to foreign control.

“It is precisely due to Xi’s directives that we are now seeing a dramatic increase in both the production of fentanyl precursors in China and the export of these chemicals, fueling the ongoing fentanyl crisis in the United States,” Yuan said.

Fentanyl overdose deaths have become a national crisis, taking more than 200 American lives per day, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. In 2023 alone, about 75,000 Americans died from fentanyl overdose, a staggering 23-fold increase from 10 years ago.

Today, accidental drug overdoses are the leading cause of death among Americans aged 18 to 45. On a more positive note, the number of opioid-related overdose deaths decreased by more than 20 percent in 2024, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The fentanyl crisis has become a key concern among American voters and has become one of the driving forces behind the dynamics of U.S.–China relations, said China expert Alexander Liao.

He said relations between Beijing and Washington have fundamentally changed. During the Biden administration, the two countries went through a diplomatic “ice age,” when senior-level official communication froze for approximately 10 months in 2022 and 2023. However, Liao believes the confrontation has now escalated to a new level.

“Whether it’s trade or other aspects, the United States and China have basically turned against each other,” Liao told The Epoch Times.

“Little noise but fierce action” is how he categorizes the current state between Beijing and Washington, in contrast to the “big arguments and little action” going on between the United States and Europe.

“The politics play differently between enemies and friends,” he said.

US Makes Perfect Enemy for Chinese Regime

Over the past decade, China saw significant economic growth. Its nominal GDP is now over three-quarters of that of the United States, according to data from the World Bank. When measured by purchasing power, China’s economy surpassed that of the United States in 2016.

Xi rose in the CCP ranks a few years before that and in 2013 took over its leadership.

According to Yuan, Xi’s communist nature drove him to immediately cash in on China’s economic strength to establish a foreign policy program, the Belt and Road Initiative, aimed at expanding communist totalitarianism around the world.

Under the guise of infrastructure development, the $1 trillion geopolitical platform snatches up other countries’ natural resources, including critical minerals for computer chip production, and expands its use of their ports for its own civil and military purposes.

Read the rest here…

Indian oil refiners have started looking for alternative supplies of crude after President Trump threatened secondary sanctions on Russian energy exports if Moscow refuses to sign a ceasefire deal for the Ukraine.

Bloomberg reported that companies such as Bharat Petroleum Corp. and Hindustan Petroleum Corp. were looking for oil cargoes from the Middle East, the North Sea, and the Mediterranean for May delivery in anticipation of tariff action.

India has emerged as one of the biggest buyers of Russian crude since the start of the war in Ukraine, with grades including Urals accounting for almost 40% of the nation’s imports last year. Refiners have enjoyed elevated profits due to the cheaper supplies, although that advantage has waned in recent months. China has also purchased bigger volumes since the invasion.

President Trump threatened a 25% tariff on all Russian oil, saying “If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault — which it might not be — but if I think it was Russia’s fault, I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia,” in an interview for NBC.

“That would be that if you buy oil from Russia, you can’t do business in the United States. There will be a 25% tariff on all oil, a 25- to 50-point tariff on all oil,” Trump elaborated.

The mechanism would be the same as the one Trump applied to Venezuela, slapping a 25% tariff on all imports from countries that continue buying crude from the South American nation.

Since the US is India’s top trading partner, under a scenario of “secondary tariffs” for buyers of Russian oil, it’s likely that the South Asian nation would look for alternative supplies, said Warren Patterson, the head of commodities strategy for ING Groep NV in Singapore.

“Traditional sanctions have created enough uncertainty,” he said. “The idea of secondary tariffs only intensifies this uncertainty, given that it is a new tool. Buyers need to decide whether the advantages of picking up discounted crude outweigh the potential hit on its economy from additional tariffs.”

“The big question is, will these repeated shocks end up structurally reducing Indian appetite for Russian crude? I have my doubts, as long as the economics works,” said Vandana Hari, founder of Vanda Insights in Singapore. “It’s a bluff, a bargaining ploy on the part of Trump. But refiners need to prepare, they can’t rely on hunches, no matter how bizarre and unlikely a supply threat.”

Such a tariff would be a considerable problem for India, whose dependence on imported crude hit an all-time high in the latest fiscal year. India imported 88.2% of the crude it consumed in the April 2024-February 2025 period, according to oil ministry data released at the end of last month. This is up from 87.7% for the previous fiscal year.

Due to this dependence, India is particularly price-sensitive, which is why it stepped up its purchases of Russian oil following the barrage of Western sanctions directed at Russia’s energy industry. Russia is currently India’s biggest single oil supplier.

Authored by Rudy Blalock via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed federal charges against a suspect in connection with a firebombing attack on a Tesla dealership in Loveland, Colorado.

Cooper Frederick, 24, faces federal charges related to the March 7 attack, according to Attorney General Pamela Bondi, who announced the charges on Monday.

“I made it clear, if you take part in the wave of domestic terrorism, I’ve made it clear if you take part in the wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla properties, we will find you, arrest you, and put you behind bars,” Bondi stated. “Today, I’m proud to announce that the Department of Justice has unsealed federal charges against another Tesla attacker.”

Frederick, a Fort Collins resident, was initially arrested by Loveland Police on March 13 on multiple state charges, according to a City of Loveland news release. The charges included possession of explosives, second-degree arson, criminal mischief, and criminal attempt to commit a felony.

A fire erupted after an incendiary device was thrown at the Tesla building and landed between two vehicles. Several people inside the building were cleaning at the time and could have been injured, according to the news release, which stated a responding officer quickly extinguished the fire.

Larimer County Jail records show Frederick bonded out of jail on March 14.

Bondi stated in the same announcement that, following the latest charges, Frederick was re-arrested in Plano, Texas, following an investigation by the FBI.

Frederick’s arrest comes amid a wave of violent attacks against Tesla properties since CEO Elon Musk became head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the Trump administration.

Incidents have occurred in at least nine states since January, with targets including Tesla showrooms, vehicles, and charging stations.

According to a report by The Epoch Times, on March 18, two Cybertrucks were set ablaze at a Las Vegas repair center, and “Resist” was spray-painted on the building.

Over that incident, police arrested 36-year-old Paul Hyon Kim on March 27, charging him with 15 offenses, including arson and firearms violations. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Assistant Sheriff Dori Koren said Kim had self-proclaimed affiliations with far-left organizations, including Communist Party USA-affiliated groups and other movements.

In February, a suspect allegedly threw eight Molotov cocktails at a Tesla showroom in Salem, Oregon, while armed with a suppressed AR-15 rifle.

Additional attacks have also occurred in Charleston, South Carolina, and Austin, Texas.

“All of these cases are a serious threat to public safety. Therefore, there will be no negotiating. We are seeking 20 years in prison,” Bondi said.

In Canada, approximately 80 Tesla vehicles were also vandalized in Hamilton, Ontario, on March 19.

President Donald Trump has condemned the attacks on Tesla properties, suggesting perpetrators would face long sentences for their crimes.

“I look forward to watching the sick terrorist thugs get 20-year jail sentences for what they are doing to Elon Musk and Tesla,” he said in a March 21 post on Truth Social.

During a town hall event in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on Sunday, Musk condemned the attacks.

“They’re burning Teslas and shooting up dealerships and calling for the death of the president and me … That’s somebody else’s car. Leave it alone,” Musk said during the livestreamed event.

A group called Tesla Takedown has organized protests at dealerships nationwide. On its website, the group states that “Elon Musk is destroying our democracy, and he’s using the fortune he built at Tesla to do it.” The group called for a Global Day of Action on March 29, which saw protests targeting Tesla around the United States and smaller-scale rallies in several European locations.

From NTD News

On Tuesday the Houthis, officially known as Ansar Allah, claimed that they shot down another American MQ-9 Reaper drone while it was flying over Yemen.

“Our air defenses successfully shot down an American MQ-9 Reaper drone while it was carrying out hostile missions in the airspace of Maarib Governorate, using a suitable, locally made missile,” a Houthi military statement said.

The US military has not yet confirmed that it lost a drone, but if accurate this would mark the 16th US MQ-9 drone that’s been downed in the region, as the Houthis announced.

While the Pentagon has acknowledged the loss of several drones since conducting anti-Houthi operations over the course of the last year, it has not specified or confirmed each and every downing, only leaving its sporadic statements vague.

If the Houthis have really downed 16 Reaper drones at this point, this would amount to nearly $500 million in lost military hardware, considering each MQ-9 is commonly estimated to cost the US about $30 million. Houthis statements throughout the war going back to Oct.7, 2023 tend to be accurate.

Each MQ-9 Reaper drone costs the US about $30 million, so if the Houthis’ number is accurate, that means the US has lost $480 million worth of drones.

The Houthi statement further confirmed ongoing US military action targeting Yemen, describing that the US had in the last hours “launched a number of raids on various areas, resulting in martyrs, injuries, and damage to citizens’ properties.”

Meanwhile President Trump in his latest statements on the Yemen campaign asserted the Houthis have “been decimated” by the new waves of strikes which began on March 15.

Widely circulating Houthi video purporting to show the latest alleged drone downing…

❌The #Houthis have shot down another American #MQ9 #reaper drone worth over $30 million

This was reported on air by the representative of the Ansar Allah movement, Yahya Saria, on AI Masirah. pic.twitter.com/KZPX2G9XKk

— News.Az (@news_az) April 1, 2025

“Many of their Fighters and Leaders are no longer with us,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We hit them every day and night — Harder and harder. Their capabilities that threaten Shipping and the Region are rapidly being destroyed. Our attacks will continue until they are no longer a threat to Freedom of Navigation.”

Trump added: “The choice for the Houthis is clear: Stop shooting at U.S. ships, and we will stop shooting at you. Otherwise, we have only just begun, and the real pain is yet to come, for both the Houthis and their sponsors in Iran.”

The Iran-supported Yemeni militants have vowed to continue fighting so long as Israeli’s military is active in the Gaza Strip. So far there’s been no hint they’ll back down, even in the face of overwhelming US airstrikes.

Just before 4am local time, while much of the city was sleeping, Beirut was pounded by another large-scale Israeli airstrike, reportedly targeting a Hezbollah official who was among four killed in the attack. A woman was slain in the attack too, according to Lebanese health authorities.

Top floors of a multi-story building were decimated in the strikes on a southern suburb of Beirut. It reportedly killed the following, identified in AFP:

A source close to Hezbollah, requesting anonymity as they were not authorized to brief the media, told AFP the strike killed Hassan Bdair, Hezbollah’s “deputy head for the Palestinian file” who was “at home with his family.”

While Al Mayadeen has described Bdair as a rank and file Hezbollah member, other regional sources have indicated he was a member of Hezbollah’s Unit 3900 as well as the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The Israeli army subsequently said Tuesday that fighter jets “attacked a Hezbollah terrorist in the Dahiye area of ​​Beirut who had recently been directing Hamas operatives and had assisted them in attempting to carry out a serious attack against Israeli civilians in the immediate future.”

“We couldn’t see each other because of all the dust,” one eyewitness who lives across the street from the destroyed building told AFP, describing “a very big explosion,” followed by another.

“Not just one person is targeted — everyone in the country, from young to old has become the target,” another nearby Lebanese resident said.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has warned that war is returning to Lebanon and called on Israel to stop these attacks, which he said suggests Israel is seeking escalation.

“The Israeli raid on the southern suburb is a serious warning about the intentions lurking against Lebanon. Israel’s persistence in its aggression requires us to exert more effort to address Lebanon’s friends and rally them in support of our right to full sovereignty over our land … to prevent violations from abroad or infiltrators from within, who provide additional pretext for aggression,” Aoun said. 

Lebanese as well as regional journalists and the populace are outraged given the large airstrikes happened without warning, in the middle of the night and in a highly populated residential area…

As always, Israel claims it was targeting a Hezbollah member—its go-to excuse for war crimes. But once again, it acts in defiance of international law and above all accountability.

The truth: the building hit was a residential home in Hay Madi, a civilian neighborhood in… pic.twitter.com/pC4WMew9mc

— Hala Jaber (@HalaJaber) April 1, 2025

What’s more is that it happened on the Eid al-Fitr Muslim holiday marking the end of the Ramadan fasting period. Days ago rockets were launched on northern Israel from south Lebanon, which resulted in Israeli reprisal strikes. Hezbollah denied it was behind the launches, and the Lebanese government announced arrests of the culprits, in an apparent effort to stave off war.

Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClearPolitics,

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has had plenty to say since launching his podcast earlier this month with a splash, breaking from Democratic Party orthodoxy and agreeing with MAGA organizer Charlie Kirk that allowing biological males to compete in girls’ and women’s sports is “deeply unfair.”

In the last week alone, Newsom remarks have generated numerous headlines. On Thursday he signed an order aimed at helping Los Angeles expedite the rebuilding of utility and telecom infrastructure following the deadly and destructive January wildfires.

The same day, he attended a glitzy event with Vogue editor Anna Wintour and announced plans to substantially increase film and television tax credits to win back some of this business, though the proposal still needs legislative approval.

Despite overseeing the growth of California’s government to a record size during his tenure, Newsom claimed during a podcast episode with liberal commentator Ezra Klein to be “the original DOGE” because he opened an office of digital innovation in 2019. He blamed California’s housing affordability crisis on NIMBYism and anti-housing density people “comfortable with their backyards.”

While weighing in on these myriad issues, Newsom, a presumed contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, has notably remained silent on whether his remarks about transgender athletes playing in girls’ and women’s sports would prompt him to alter the state’s laws allowing the practice.

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon made it more difficult for Newsom to remain on the fence Thursday. She sent the governor a letter warning him that he must comply with President Trump’s executive order banning biological males from competing in women’s sports or risk losing federal funding for schools across the state.

At least $8 billion in federal education money to California hangs in the balance, while California is running what legislative analysts cited as a $46.8 billion budget deficit last year.

“Your recent comments about male athletes playing in women’s sports – that it is ‘deeply unfair’ – came to the attention of my office this week,” McMahon wrote. “I’m writing on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education to request a clarification on your stance as governor of California, and to inquire as to your intention to encourage California public schools to comply with federal law on this issue.“

McMahon pointed to polls showing that an “overwhelming majority” of Americans believe men should not compete in women’s sports, and many citizens, she argued, are “confused” by “your office’s silence on the harms of substituting ‘gender identity’ for sex in other areas of school environment.”

“Allowing participation in sex-separated activities based on ‘gender identity’ places schools at risk of Title IX violations and loss of federal funding,” she asserted. “As governor, you have a duty to inform California school districts of this risk.”

McMahon ended her letter by asking Newsom to inform the department ‘whether you will remind schools in California to comply with federal law by protecting sex-separated spaces and activities” and to “assure parents that California teachers will not facilitate the fantasy of ‘gender transitions’ for their children.”

Charlie Kirk posted on X a copy of McMahon’s letter. Newsom spokeswoman Elana Ross did not respond to an inquiry about McMahon’s threat.

🚨🚨BREAKING: Education Secretary Linda McMahon has just formally WARNED California Governor Gavin Newsom to comply with federal law on prohibiting males in women’s sports and in other sex-separated spaces or else risk losing federal funding:

“Your recent comments about male… pic.twitter.com/jlP5aKXloX

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 27, 2025

The matter is all the more pressing because the California Assembly will be holding hearings Tuesday on two GOP-sponsored bills aimed at banning biological boys and men from girls’ and women’s sports, though neither is expected to gain traction in the Democratic super-majority-controlled body. Proponents of the measure are rallying girl athletes who back the measures to show up at the hearings with their parents and press the legislature for action.

“California parents are tired of sending their kids to a government school system that fails them in every basic academic metric but would rather use our kids for public experiments in radical ideology,” Lance Christensen, president of the conservative California Policy Partners, told RealClearPolitics. “One would think that the legislature would have better understood the message of this last election when parents-rights candidates won across the state.”

Christensen, a Republican who ran an unsuccessful campaign for superintendent of public instruction in 2022, was also referring to a separate clash Thursday between McMahon and Newsom.

McMahon announced that the department’s Student Privacy Office launched an investigation into California over its law barring public school teachers and administrators from informing parents when their children as young as six are gender-transitioning at school.

McMahon said the probe would review whether the California Department of Education was violating the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act, which gives parents the right to access their children’s educational data.

“Teachers and school counselors should not be in the business of advising minors entrusted to their care on consequential decisions about their sexual identity and mental health,” McMahon said. “That responsibility and privilege lies with a parent or trusted loved one.”

“It is not only immoral but also potentially in contradiction with federal law for California schools to hide crucial information about a student’s wellbeing from parents and guardians,” she added. “The agency launched today’s investigation to vigorously protect parents’ rights and ensure that students do not fall victim to a radical transgender ideology that often leads to family alienation and irreversible medical interventions.” 

On this score, Newsom’s spokeswoman took a shot at the Trump administration’s attempt to dismantle the Department of Education and countered that California schools are not in violation of federal law because their policy allows parents access to all students’ education records, including those dealing with name or gender changes.

“Parents continue to have full, guaranteed access to their student’s education records, as required by federal law,” Ross said in a statement. “If the U.S Department of Education still had staff, this would be a quick investigation – all they would need to do is read the law the governor signed.”

Last year, Newsom signed a bill that prevents schools districts from adopting policies requiring teachers and administrators to notify parents when their children start using different pronouns or identify as a different gender from what’s on their school record.  

Prior to the law, several California school boards reacted to state Department of Education guidance barring the disclosure to parents of their children’s gender transitions by either considering or voting for policies that would require schools to disclose these types of changes in identity regardless of the student’s consent.

As the fight has played out across the state, California Attorney General Rob Bonta has sued school districts in Chino and Placer County over their parental notification requirements. Chino Valley School District has pushed back, counter-suing state officials over the new law barring teachers and school administrators from informing parents when their children begin gender-transitioning in school.

“School officials do not have the right to keep secrets from parents, but parents do have the constitutional right to know what their minor children are doing at school,” Emily Rae, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, said after filing the countersuit on behalf of Chino Valley.

Proponents of gender transition notification laws say parental rights protections derive from the Constitution’s 14th Amendment prohibition of a state’s laws depriving “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the diminished capacity of minor children and upheld limitations on important matters that significantly alter their lives, including their need for medical care or treatment. The high court has designated parents as the authorities that must make those decisions.

But in recent years, this longstanding doctrine has faced legal challenges. State and local officials have overruled parents when it comes to gender-transitioning medicines when one divorced parent disagrees with the other. In Montgomery County, Maryland, parents can no longer opt their children out of gender and sexuality curriculum in schools. Parents sued Maryland over the new policy. In January, the Supreme Court decided to take up the case.

At least one state, New Hampshire, reacted to the Trump administration threat by banning transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports. Yet another, Maine, is standing its ground.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills and President Trump sparred over the issue last month during a meeting of governors at the White House. Trump, at the time, threatened to pull federal funding from Maine if the state fails to comply with his executive order barring transgender athletes from sports.

“We’ll see you in court,” Mills retorted. 

The U.S. Education Department has since concluded that Maine violated the Title IX antidiscrimination law and could face Justice Department prosecution. The U.S. Health and Human Services department gave Maine’s Department of Education and its Principals’ Association, which oversees high school sports in the state, 10 days to comply by banning the athletes.  

School officials in Maine said Thursday they would not do so, citing state law, including the Maine Human Rights Act.

Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics’ national political correspondent.