'We're throwing them in jails': Bondi's fiery clash with Reed on Mexican cartel arms flow
Bondi pushed back hard against Democratic criticism, declaring, 'We're not sending people back to Mexico with guns, we're throwing them in jail.' She cited recent ATF data showing nearly 9,700 firearms intercepted since Trump's return to office on January 20th, underscoring the administration's aggressive strategy to stop deadly weapons from reaching Mexican gangs.
Show more
Show less
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Qatar issues safety advisory after Iran's missile attack, urges residents to report any suspicious debris
This screen grab from AFPTV footage shows the remnants of an Iranian missile intercepted over Qatar on Monday, targeting the Al Udeid US Air Base. In the aftermath of a now-concluded military confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and Israel, the State of Qatar has issued a public safety alert, urging residents and citizens to report any suspicious debris possibly linked to a recent missile interception. The alert follows Iran's missile launch targeting the Al Udeid US Air Base in Qatar on Monday. In a joint statement, Qatar's Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior called on the public to exercise caution if they encounter unusual fragments or objects. The ministries stressed that any such material must not be touched or moved, citing the potential danger of hazardous substances. 'Handling such materials must be done exclusively by the competent authorities, due to the possibility that they may contain hazardous substances that could pose a threat to public safety,' the statement emphasized. The advisory comes in the wake of a missile attack by Iran, launched in retaliation for US strikes on several of Iran's nuclear sites during the recent 12-day conflict involving Israel and Iran. Former US President Donald Trump confirmed that 14 Iranian missiles were fired at the Al Udeid Air Base during the attack. According to Trump, 13 of those missiles were intercepted, and one was intentionally allowed to fall harmlessly to avoid unnecessary escalation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo 'It was a very weak response,' Trump said, downplaying the impact of Iran's actions. In response to the missile launch, Qatar swiftly summoned the Iranian ambassador to lodge a formal protest. The Qatari government condemned the attack and reiterated its commitment to national sovereignty and the safety of its residents. The joint government statement also instructed the public to immediately report any unusual objects or fragments to authorities 'so that they may be dealt with in accordance with approved procedures.' Qatari authorities clarified that this is strictly a public safety matter and urged citizens not to panic but to remain vigilant. The potential risk stems from missile debris possibly falling in or around civilian areas due to the mid-air interceptions. In a gesture acknowledging the disruption caused by the attack, Qatar also announced the waiver of all traffic violations recorded on the day of the missile strike. This move is intended to alleviate additional stress for motorists affected during the event.
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
US birthright citizenship: Supreme Court decision limits nationwide injunctions on Trump's birthright citizenship order
In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court (SC) made a partial ruling on President Trump's executive order (EO) regarding birthright citizenship. Deciding on the procedural issue, the SC held that judges of federal district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block a government policy (The birthright citizenship-EO, in this case). Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It is important to note that the SC did not decide whether the EO itself is constitutional or not – this issue is still being examined by the federal district courts. WIDE RAMIFICATIONS BEYOND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: The order, which has upended decades of precedent and curtailed federal courts' power to issue injunctions, is seen as having wide-reaching, onerous ramifications, which would not be restricted to just the issue of birthright-citizenship. Jath Shao, immigration attorney, explained, 'This would potentially mean that every affected party would have to file a lawsuit on their own, and not benefit from being similarly situated. This may also mean that activists have to fight in multiple jurisdictions, and can't just win nationwide relief in one federal courtroom anymore.' Todd Schulte, President at said, 'Moreover, we are deeply concerned this will create new incentives for an administration to press ahead on unlawful, harmful actions by placing a new, substantial burden on any harmed individuals, for whom seeking relief and justice will now be more challenging.' Abhinav Tripathi, immigration attorney and founder of Protego Law Group, said, 'This decision to limit nationwide injunctions is a major shift in how unlawful federal policies can be challenged. While class actions remain available, they are no substitute, especially in urgent immigration matters where delay can mean detention, deportation, or family separation. Class certification takes time, often excludes many affected, and lacks the immediacy that nationwide injunctions once provided. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now This ruling in short, fragments relief, weakens judicial oversight, and concentrates power in the executive, undermining due process and equal protection at a structural level.' Greg Siskind, co-founder of Siskind Susser, an immigration law firm, viewed that federal courts could be brought to a screeching halt as thousands of separate lawsuits are filed. And now ordinary people will need to file suits to protect their constitutional rights, no matter how many courts say a policy is unconstitutional. Jeff Joseph, President, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), said, 'In a 6-3 decision, the SC has limited the ability for district judges to grant universal relief in cases where the government is facially violating the Constitution in ways that have implications for the entire country. Now, plaintiffs will have to go through the burdensome process of establishing a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals and then seek a nationwide injunction. Or cases will have to be filed on an individual and piecemeal basis, resulting in chaos in the courts. By requiring piecemeal suits and protection in this manner, the Court is setting American families up for failure. For example, if a young scientist, here on an H-1B visa, who is working and contributing to our economy, gives birth, she would need to join a class action suit or sue individually to try to fight for her child's constitutionally guaranteed right. This is impractical and will result in clogging up the courts on an issue that facially violates the Constitution and should not even be under question. The Constitution is clear—birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Once again, the rule of law is the loser today with this decision.' THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EO: According to the EO, US citizenship is denied to children born in the United States if they are not born to at least one biological parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Thus, if the mother is in the US lawfully but temporarily (eg: as a visitor or on a non-immigrant visa – be it a dependent visa like H-4 or even a work visa) and the father is not a green card holder or US citizen, the child even if born in the US will not get automatic American citizenship. TOI had analysed the EO. Read also: Previously, three different lower courts (federal district courts) had issued orders that stopped this EO from being put into effect across the entire country. These were the district courts of Maryland, the Western District of Washington and Massachusetts. The Supreme Court's new ruling means these original court orders will now only protect the specific individuals, organisations, and states that filed the lawsuits against the executive order. The 22 protected states are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus Washington D.C. and San Francisco. For everyone else not involved in those lawsuits, the government will be allowed to start implementing the executive order in 30 days. According to Cyrus D. Mehta, founder of a NY-based immigration law firm, 'The order means that the practice of extending citizenship to the US-born children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors would end in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure. The only way out is to file a class action. Or each person would have to make an individual constitutional challenge.' Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney at said, 'The injunctions blocking the policy remain in effect for 30 days, giving time for new legal strategies. The reality check: This creates a complex patchwork. The policy remains blocked in the 22 states that sued, but could theoretically be implemented elsewhere, though the practical challenges of selective enforcement are enormous.' Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney, was aghast. He posted on a social media platform, 'Anyone who wants to challenge Trump's illegal executive order on birthright citizenship (it's illegal because there is a federal law on this), has to sue INDIVIDUALLY to secure their child's citizenship. A truly moronic decision. (The court did NOT rule on the legality of Trump's order, just the process to challenge it).' "Nearly 3,50,000 lawsuits a year to verify citizenship, that is what the Supreme Court ordered. Nice work for lawyers. Terrible for America!", he quipped. THE SPECIFIC FALL OUT: David Leopold, an Ohio based immigration attorney, on a social media platform, pointed out the dissenting voice of Justice Sotomayor, who said, 'Newborns subject to the Citizenship order will face the gravest harms imaginable. If the order does in fact go into effect without further intervention by the district courts, children will lose, at least for the time being, 'a most precious right,' and 'cherished status' that 'carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our society. The order will cause chaos for families of all affected children, too, as expecting parents scramble to understand whether the order will apply to them and what ramifications that will have.' Indeed, the ramifications could be gut-wrenching as newborns could face deportation even as their parents remain lawfully in the country (eg: those on temporary work visas). Bhumireddy Sai Srinivas Reddy, a high court advocate in India and an Indiana based legal consultant raised some important issues. 'While the SC has allowed the executive order to take effect after 30 days, it hasn't provided a clear framework for how it should be enforced or challenged. This opens the door to a troubling scenario — what happens if different federal courts issue conflicting rulings? For instance, if the Southern District of Indiana blocks the order but the Northern District allows it, does that mean a child born in one district qualifies as a US citizen, while another child, born just a few miles away, does not?' 'This could lead to a situation where families might be forced to seek jurisdictions with favorable court rulings to secure citizenship for their children. It also raises the question of whether citizenship will now depend on the location of the hospital where the child is born or the legal residence of the parents,' he added. SUMMING UP: 'The SC's ruling today undermines equal justice under the law. The Court's decision means that constitutional protections now depend on which state you live in or whether you can afford to file a lawsuit,' was a statement given by Senator Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee. 'Today's decision emboldens President Trump's unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship, designed to stoke fear and persecute immigrant communities. It also fails every American who looks to the court to serve as a check to ensure that the executive branch follows the law. The SC is supposed to serve as a safeguard against presidential overreach, not incentivize it. We must heed Justice Jackson's warning that today's decision will permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued,' added the statement. Ben , AILA's executive Director, summed up: 'Rather than try to defend an obviously unconstitutional executive order directly, the Trump administration manipulated the legal process to avoid swift judicial review, delaying justice for those affected and setting the stage for confusion and chaos. And today, the SC played along.' ' Instead of stepping in to declare this EO unconstitutional, the SC has greenlit a prolonged and punishing legal battle across the country. We are now facing the prospect of hundreds of individual lawsuits and likely multiple class actions to protect a right that is plainly guaranteed by the Constitution. It's a shameful dereliction of duty. By refusing to allow federal judges to block an executive action that clearly violates the Constitution, the SC is forcing millions of individuals affected by this Executive Order to bear the full burden of seeking justice on their own. This not only imposes an enormous cost—financially and emotionally—on those families, but it also squanders government resources litigating the same issue over and over again. Birthright citizenship is not ambiguous, nor is it a vague legal question; it is a cornerstone of American democracy enshrined in the Constitution. This decision fails us all, fails the courts, and fails our Constitution,' said Johnson.
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Trust Under Fire: The World Watches Iran's Next Move
On June 25th, US President Donald Trump boldly declared that American and Israeli strikes may have wiped out Iran's nuclear program. 'We destroyed the nuclear,' he said, suggesting there's nothing more to demand from Iran—except a promise never to build nuclear weapons again. But not everyone is convinced. While Iran's nuclear infrastructure has clearly suffered serious damage, experts warn that it's too early to say the program is fully dismantled. Reports indicate that some facilities may still be intact. This uncertainty, if not addressed quickly, could grow into a far bigger problem. Despite the damage, Iran still seems to control a stockpile of highly enriched uranium. If enriched further, this material could be used to build several nuclear bombs. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance has acknowledged the risk and promised that Washington will act in the coming weeks—starting with talks that may soon resume with Tehran. President Trump insists that no new nuclear deal is needed. But the reality is more complicated. Real peace and long-term stability require smart diplomacy. Only through open discussions and strong verification can the world be sure about what nuclear capabilities Iran may still have. Iran's earlier strategy was to stay close to nuclear weapon capability without crossing the line—hoping it would prevent attacks. That strategy now lies in ruins. The recent strikes didn't just hit nuclear facilities; they also targeted military and political sites. This could push Iran to actually pursue nuclear weapons in secret. If that happens, Iran may avoid using big, well-known sites like Natanz or Fordow. Instead, it might choose small, hidden locations—harder to detect, even with advanced spy tools. Iran already has the ingredients: enriched uranium, high-tech centrifuges, and trained experts. Rebuilding its program could take months, not years. Even if Iran chooses not to restart its weapons program, the world must stay alert. Years of careful monitoring, funding, and cooperation will be needed to make sure nuclear ambitions don't quietly return. Iran's past record of hiding its activities adds to the challenge. Winning back global trust won't be easy. Making things harder is Iran's worsening relationship with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the world body that oversees peaceful use of nuclear technology. In the past, the IAEA played a crucial role in enforcing the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). That deal gave inspectors access to key Iranian sites—some of which have now been destroyed. Tensions with the IAEA didn't begin with the recent war. In 2018, when the Trump administration pulled out of the JCPOA, Iran was still in compliance. But after that, Tehran began rolling back its own commitments. By 2021, it had stopped following the 'Additional Protocol,' which allowed IAEA inspectors deeper access. Most special monitoring measures under the JCPOA were also shut down. Despite limited access, the IAEA continued some inspections and found that Iran's nuclear program was growing more advanced. But Iran's refusal to cooperate pushed the IAEA's Board of Governors to declare, on June 12, that Tehran had violated its global commitments. The next day, Israel launched its military campaign. U.S. officials cited the IAEA report to justify their strikes. Even during the conflict, the IAEA urged Iran to remain in contact with its emergency team. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi reminded the U.N. Security Council: 'Nuclear sites and materials must not be hidden or put at risk during war.' Now that the guns have fallen silent, the big question is: what role can the IAEA still play? Iran is still a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires it to report all nuclear sites and allow inspections under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. But the future of cooperation looks uncertain. Iran is angry. Its leaders feel the world didn't do enough to protect its nuclear sites. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has openly criticised the international community. Senior advisor Ali Larijani even warned the IAEA chief: 'Once the war ends, we will deal with Grossi.' Iran has already announced that it will stop sharing certain information with the IAEA. Its parliament has passed a bill calling for a complete halt to cooperation. In the days ahead, global leaders must tread carefully. It's important to understand Iran's genuine concerns and political pressures—without letting them become excuses for restarting a secret weapons program. The line between frustration and manipulation is thin and dangerous. Talks between the U.S. and Iran are expected soon. One of the top priorities should be restoring verification measures. The world needs to know what equipment, material, and expertise Iran still has—and whether these could be used to rebuild the nuclear program. A similar crisis happened after the first Gulf War, when Iraq gave up its nuclear plans but kept blocking inspectors. The world was never fully sure if Iraq had truly stopped, leading to years of doubt and foreign intervention. That approach didn't bring peace—and we must not repeat that mistake with Iran. If we want lasting peace, not just a pause between crises, countries must work together through international agreements and transparent systems. Recent events have shown the power of U.S. and Israeli intelligence—but also the risk of relying only on secret reports, which can be misread or misused. Rebuilding trust with Iran will be hard. But without cooperation and clear rules, the next crisis will be harder to prevent—and nearly impossible to stop once it begins.
