作者： root

Jeffries’ socialism dilemma: New York victories expose Democratic Party divide

2026-06-29T10:38:31-04:00 / Fox News

Surging socialism deepens Democrat divisions as Hakeem Jeffries pushes back

Fox News contributor Byron York discusses socialism rise on deepening Democrat divisions as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries struggles to counter far-left candidates. York analyzes the impact of extreme candidates, like those backed by New York’s mayor Zohran Mamdani, winning primaries. York also weighs in on concerns about antisemitism within the Democratic Party’s far-left ranks.

The man looks tired.

Veteran observers of Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries know at a glance when the fellow isn’t catching his Zs.

Some politicians bark gruffly when they are under pressure. Others become wildly frenetic. Some pick fights. Others go quiet, and retreat. Jeffries gets puffy.

“Chevalier is our David Duke. She is poisoning the possibility of a Democratic majority.”

>

— Democratic Party stalwart

It has been one of those tells that longtime Empire State and Washington, D.C. hands have noticed for years. When the Brooklyn Democrat appears on morning television looking a little baggy, a tad swollen around the eyes; when he speaks in his trademark measured cadence but stumbles over the elucidation; when he presents the unmistakable glaze of someone who has squeezed three hours of sleep into what should have been a seven-hour night, it usually means he spent the evening on the phone.

HAKEEM JEFFRIES CONFRONTED ON ‘YOU’RE NEXT’ CHANTS FOLLOWING NY DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST VICTORIES

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries faces growing pressure as democratic socialist-backed candidates gain influence in New York, raising new questions about the party’s ideological direction.(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Counting votes.

Putting out fires.

Trying to solve a problem.

Since Tuesday, the problem has been coming from inside his own party.

Not Donald Trump.

Not Republicans.

Not the economy.

Not the spending bill.

The Democratic Party.

More specifically, the Democratic Socialists of America inside the Democratic Party.

For much of the last week, Jeffries has found himself staring transfixed at perhaps the most difficult political challenge of his career — immobilized not because he does not know what he thinks, but because he knows exactly what he thinks.

He believes Democrats need to look mainstream to win swing districts. He believes affordability is a stronger message than ideology. He believes most Americans don’t want a political revolution. And he surely believes that Republicans — from President Donald Trump on down — cannot wait to compel every rival candidate to answer for the most controversial voices inside the Democratic Party.

That has always been the danger of ideological movements. They rarely stay quaintly confined to the neighborhoods where they first emerge. They spread. They redefine brands. They force everyone wearing the same jersey to bear responsibility for the teammates they did not recruit.

This week, such a menace landed squarely on Jeffries’ desk.

The source of the headache was New York City, where Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s stunning Democratic victory last November now has staged a second, hugely consequential act, as three candidates backed by Mamdani — Brad Landler, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier — won congressional primaries. Valdez and Chevalier are both members of the Democratic Socialists of America.

The victories are significant for reasons that resonate far beyond New York.

For years, the Democratic establishment has comforted itself with the belief that support for democratic socialism was limited to a handful of safe districts represented by colorful personalities who generated cable-news segments but exercised limited influence over the broader direction of the party.

Tuesday suggested something different. Democratic socialists did not merely sustain their corner of the party with fringe support, they expanded it — and expanded it in Jeffries’ own backyard.

It is difficult to overstate the implications of such a predicament for the Democratic leader.

Jeffries is not Bernie Sanders, nor is he Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rather, Jeffries has spent years carefully cultivating an image as a disciplined institutionalist — a modern Democratic leader capable of appealing to progressives without frightening suburban moderates. His personal politics always have been considerably closer to the political center than to those of the raucous activists in his coalition. He is, by temperament and instinct, a coalition builder.

Coalition builders do not enjoy civil wars. It is a major hurdle for Jeffries to explain and finesse the ballooning faction without detonating a timebomb inside his party.

Almost immediately after Tuesday’s results, reporters and anchors began asking Jeffries his opinion of the new nominees — not whether he supported them, but whether he supported what they unequivocally endorsed. It was an impossible line of questioning precisely because everyone already knew the answer. Jeffries does not believe America should abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, prisons or the police force. He has never argued for dismantling capitalism, nor has he embraced many of the wider ideological positions associated with the Democratic Socialists of America.

So, he did what experienced political leaders often do when trapped between principle and practicality. He tried to change the subject.

In interview after interview, Jeffries gently, nebulously, acknowledged that he did not share every position or previous statement made by the nominees. He steered the conversation toward affordability, alternate Democratic victories and the overarching national map. It was classic Hakeem Jeffries: polite, measured, disciplined and careful.

But politics rarely allows careful people to remain above the fray forever, and, before long, one of the nominees, Chevalier, became a national story.

Opposition researchers — and increasingly, reporters — began to dredge up years of Chevalier’s social-media posts and public statements, staunchly expressed and clearly defined. She did indeed call for abolishing police and prisons, and argued for eliminating borders and ICE. She harshly, profanely, criticized Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, and decried America as “a f—— disgrace.” Her many posts involving race, white women, and interracial relationships spread rapidly, first across conservative media and then on MSNOW and CNN.

For many, it does not matter that she has deleted and repudiated some of the posts.

One Democratic Party stalwart told me ruefully, “Chevalier is our David Duke. She is poisoning the possibility of a Democratic majority.”

AOC ISSUES WARNING TO HER FELLOW DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENTS IN THE WAKE OF SOCIALISTS WINNING BIG IN NYC

Hakeem Jeffries is balancing party unity with mounting concerns that Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidates could complicate Democrats’ efforts to win swing districts.(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

But another Democrat familiar with the House caucus, who has been aligned with the progressive wing, offered me an opposing view. “The reality is that the energy of the party in primaries is anti-genocide, anti-billionaire and for Medicare-for-all. Many centrists and House Democratic members are having a hard time coming to terms with this. But that’s where voters primary are. They are unfortunately jamming Jeffries unnecessarily instead of letting him embrace the progressive wing.”

Whether Chevalier’s comments are viewed as youthful activism, sincere ideological conviction or political malpractice, they guarantee one thing: the questions will not stop.

Republicans understood immediately that they had been handed a gift, and Democrats knew every candidate in a competitive district could now expect variations of the same questions: Do you agree with this? Is this your party? Does Chevalier represent today’s Democrats?

Jeffries undoubtedly knew exactly where this was heading. Yet on Saturday afternoon, he nevertheless offered an official welcome to Chevalier, Landler and Valdez with a celebratory post on X.

“Congratulations to our newest members of the NYC congressional delegation,” he wrote. “From public servants to union organizers to community activists, the path is different but the work is the same. We must decisively address the affordability crisis and crush far-right extremism!”

With this statement, Jeffries conceded that his paramount job is to elect a majority, despite the risks to his own reputation, digital and otherwise.

“Jeffries is doing what he needs to do to keep his Democratic caucus as whole as he can,” a veteran Democratic political operative in New York told me. “That means making sure the tent is seen as broadly as it needs to be while moving it into a (hopefully) governing coalition come January. There is no win by holding out and claiming these folks are socialists and therefore not our people. They are going to vote for Jeffries [for Speaker] and we will need their votes for that and much more going forward. And the folks who didn’t get that in last year’s election for Mayor also paid a real price for not recognizing it.”

Even so, moderate Democrats have been urging Jeffries, publicly and privately, to draw sharper distinctions between the party’s mainstream constituency and its socialist wing. Those calls escalated dramatically after Tuesday.

When I asked a spokeswoman for Jeffries about the content and timing of the X post, and how he might respond to those calling for his repudiation of Chevalier and other controversial candidates, she only would say that Jeffries has put out similar congratulatory messages in virtually every race this cycle, on behalf of nominees from every state, background, and ideology.

But that hardly is sufficient for many of the most prominent voices in the party.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a leading moderate/centrist Democrat from New Jersey, told Jewish Insider that the socialists’ anti-Israel point of view is a “growing cancer, and we can’t let it spread, and we cannot ignore it.” He warned that the incoming DSA-aligned lawmakers will be coming to Washington to “wreak havoc in Congress” and will try to “hold the party hostage” to their socialist views. “It will lead to more gridlock and dysfunction, and hard-working families will pay the price for this,” he said. “The socialists have put their own personal hatred above our national security and our promises to our allies. And I think we’ve got to call out hate when we see it.”

“This is a bridge too far,” agrees veteran Democratic strategist James Carville, who cautions that embracing candidates whose politics fall well outside the party’s historical mainstream risks alienating precisely the voters Democrats need to regain strong, enduring governing majorities. He dismisses the political views of Chevalier as entirely anathema to the Democratic Party, insisting that “they should not seat her in the caucus. Her views are totally against anything that any Democrat has. We believe in pluralism, she doesn’t believe in interracial dating…Lady, I ain’t in the same party as you…She has attacked interracial relationships and the American flag.” Carville considers this a line in the sand. “I actually do think it’s time for Democrats to talk the S word,” he says. “Schism. I really do. Everybody’s always said, ‘No, no, we’re a coalition. We’re a big tent.’ And there’s some – there’s just some s— that I can’t be in the same tent with.”

Trump himself sees a similarly dire scenario. “The Democrat Party is in big trouble,” he said Friday at the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s policy conference. “Because this isn’t stopping with New York. This is the most serious threat to our country in its existence, in my opinion.”

Jeffries, meanwhile, understands that fear now runs in both directions inside the Democratic Party. Moderate Democrats worry about losing swing voters. Party leaders worry about losing their own base. The activists who dominate many Democratic primaries are intensely engaged, highly organized and deeply angry. They have shown they are willing to target incumbents they regard as insufficiently progressive. Jeffries must have felt a nervous little chill last week at the New York election night victory party. When his image appeared, the DSA celebrants put him on notice with the ominous chant, “You’re next!”

To be sure, this is not the first time Democratic leaders have confronted an insurgency from the party left.

During Donald Trump’s first presidency, Nancy Pelosi was faced with a similar complication with the rise of “the Squad.” New congressional members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, independently and as a team, became media stars almost overnight, with their youth, charisma, modern brio, irreverence, and controversial views. Republicans tried relentlessly to define the entire Democratic Party through their most radical statements.

Pelosi’s response was remarkably effective. She did not attempt to defeat them ideologically, but instead, managed them institutionally. She reminded everyone who counted votes, controlled committee assignments, raised money, determined legislative priorities, and possessed the experience and power to turn slogans into laws. When necessary, Pelosi criticized “the Squad, but more often, she simply outmaneuvered them.

Nancy Pelosi understood something that many ideological movements forget. In Congress, power is measured not by followers on social media but by the ability to assemble 218 votes.

Jeffries inherited Pelosi’s position, but he has not inherited Pelosi’s authority. He has never held the Speaker’s gavel, nor spent years disciplining a majority. He has not had to decide which members receive prized committee chairs while balancing dozens of competing factions. Most importantly, he has never governed with a razor-thin Democratic majority.

If Democrats capture the House this November by only a handful of seats, the arithmetic becomes brutal.

Every member and every vote will matter, as will every defection. A bloc of uncompromising ideological members can exercise influence wildly disproportionate to its size. Republicans know this because they lived through it, Kevin McCarthy learned this tough lesson, and Mike Johnson is enduring it now. Jeffries may soon discover it himself.

Which explains why this week’s story matters beyond a handful of New York primaries. The broader struggle inside the Democratic Party has been building for years.

Bernie Sanders demonstrated—twice–that democratic socialism has enormous appeal inside Democratic presidential politics. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez transformed progressive activism into celebrity politics and brand name recognition. Mamdani, magnetic and unapologetic, has shown that the movement can capture America’s largest city.

What makes this movement especially potent is that it has found an organizing principle steeped in emotion that extends well beyond traditional left-right politics. For many younger activists, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially conditions in Gaza, has become not merely a foreign policy issue but a moral litmus test. The language of “genocide,” “apartheid” and “settler colonialism” has moved from campus protests into Democratic primaries, online pressure campaigns, and frequent heckling at live events, creating an intensity that traditional establishment politicians often struggle to comprehend. Whether those characterizations are accepted or fiercely disputed, whether they veer into glib virtue signaling, the political reality is undeniable: arguments over Gaza have become a powerful engine of grassroots activism and candidate recruitment in ways that few Democratic leaders anticipated.

Each DSA victory expands the movement’s confidence and makes compromise less attractive, while increasing pressure on Democratic leaders who must somehow persuade suburban voters that none of this defines the party while simultaneously assuring activists that it absolutely does.

That balancing act has grown more difficult every election cycle, and is teetering on the unsustainable.

And this is not simply Hakeem Jeffries’ problem. Chuck Schumer faces his own version of the same challenge. As the Democratic leader in the Senate, he must deal with his socialist-aligned (and acutely flawed) nominee in Maine, Graham Platner, and with the frontrunner in the August Senate primary in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed, another Sanders disciple with controversial views.

In many respects, Jeffries and Schumer are tackling what Joe Biden and Kamala Harris sidestepped during their administration. As progressive cultural politics and increasingly strident anti-Israel sentiment spread through elite institutions, universities, activist organizations and social media, the Biden White House generally sought accommodation rather than confrontation. The result was that ideas once largely confined to activist circles migrated steadily, unchecked, into Democratic primaries—not only in New York, but in blue cities, college towns and even pockets of some of America’s reddest states. Leaders who decline to police the boundaries of a coalition eventually discover that someone else has redrawn them.

Perhaps Jeffries hopes the controversy fades.

Washington is certainly capable of changing the subject. Trump is still able to absorb all the oxygen in any room, in any crisis. Inevitably there will be other international emergencies, budget showdowns, political and cultural shiny objects. Jeffries has a few potential lifelines, such as the natural evolution of his peers. AOC, for example, has in recent years become less of a bomb-thrower and more of a legislator. She still sits firmly on the left flank of the party, but she has learned the value of coalition-building, party discipline and picking her spots. Jeffries can reasonably hope that today’s firebrands eventually follow a similar trajectory. The gamble, of course, is that this new generation may conclude that AOC moderated and matured too much. There are already indications of that sentiment.

So, while politics has an extraordinary capacity to move on, this DSA controversy probably won’t. The views of some of these new candidates are simply too extreme, too genuinely insulting to a majority of Americans, too unsavory for citizens who want calm, not drama; common sense, not gauzy, faddish ideology.

There will be more archived posts. More old videos. More awkward interviews. More Republican ads. More questions shouted down Capitol hallways. More uncomfortable television appearances. More brash and polarizing statements. And, if Democrats win the House, more difficult internal negotiations between party leadership and members who see compromise not as governing but as surrender.

JEFFRIES WELCOMES DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS INTO THE FOLD AS CRITICS WARN PARTY IS REVEALING ‘EXACTLY WHO IT IS’

Democratic socialist victories in New York have intensified debate over the Democratic Party’s future and presented Jeffries with a difficult political test.(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The larger lesson extends beyond Jeffries. Political parties can survive disagreements and factions, even bitter internal fights. But what presents a deeper threat is the pretense that people who march beneath the same wide banner all are ultimately headed toward the same destination.

The Democratic Party today contains centrists who want to make capitalism work better, progressives who want to regulate it much more aggressively, and democratic socialists who openly question whether capitalism itself should remain the organizing principle of American life. Those are not merely policy disagreements. They are competing visions of the country.

Jeffries knows this.

He also knows that House elections are not won in Park Slope, but in places where swing voters often pay little attention to Congress until a thirty-second television advertisement flashes across the screen showing the most controversial quote imaginable beside the words “Democrat for Congress.” And he knows, that for others, the Democratic establishment and its officeholders are now more unpopular than socialism.

Sometimes leadership is less about choosing between good options than about choosing between bad ones. This week, Hakeem Jeffries, faced with nothing but bad options, chose rhetorical party unity.

It is too soon to say if Jeffries’ choice was clever statesmanship — or simply the first compromise in what assuredly will be a very long negotiation over the future of his party.

_Political analyst and best-selling author Mark Halperin is Editor-in-Chief of the new interactive live video platform_2WAY_.

https://www..com/video/6399373070112

Former NFL star Chris Johnson says he has been diagnosed with ALS

June 29, 2026 / 9:52 AM EDT / CBS News

Former NFL star Chris Johnson announced that he’s been diagnosed with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

Johnson, now 40, said he received the diagnosis last year. He shared the news in a “Good Morning America” interview with Michael Strahan, a retired NFL player himself and co-anchor of the talk show. The interview aired Monday.

“If sharing my story helps even one person get diagnosed sooner, inspires more research, or gives another family hope, it’s worth it,” said Johnson.

He told Strahan that doctors believe he has “sporadic” ALS, because there’s no history of ALS in his family. The vast majority of cases — about 90% — are considered sporadic, meaning there isn’t an inherited or genetic link, according to the National Institutes of Health.

ALS, or Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that impacts nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, severing the connection between the brain and muscles. People with the illness eventually lose their ability to walk, speak, eat and breathe, according to the ALS Association. Doctors are developing new treatments that help ease symptoms or slow down their progression, but they have not found a way to stop or cure it.

Chris Johnson visits the field during the second half of an NFL football game against the New York Jets, Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024, in Nashville, Tennessee. George Walker IV / AP

For Johnson, the disease progressed quickly. On “Good Morning America,” he used a device to speak for him, which he maneuvered with just eye movements that the machine picked up through sensors.

“Just over a year ago, I was picking up my 7-year-old daughter so she could make a wish for her birthday cake,” said Johnson, who said the disease “can be so shocking,” for a number of different reasons.

He appeared on “Good Morning America” beside his wife, Brittany Johnson, with whom he shares four children.

“All I could think about was our kids and how young they are,” she said, recalling her response when her husband was first diagnosed. “The life that we previously had is now a thing of the past, but we’re still hopeful.”

Johnson said he initially began to notice weakness in his right hand. Symptoms started with “little things,” he told Strahan, “like my grip didn’t feel right and I wasn’t as strong as I’ve always been.”

Over a 10-year NFL career, Johnson rushed for 9,651 yards, scoring 55 touchdowns on the ground for the Tennessee Titans, New York Jets and Arizona Cardinals. He is one of only nine running backs to rush for over 2,000 yards in a season, setting that mark for the Titans in 2009, when he was named Offensive Player of the Year. A first-round draft pick out of East Carolina, Johnson was a Pro Bowl selection in each of his first three years in the NFL.

He said he hopes his “Good Morning America” interview helps debunk some assumptions people may have about ALS and those who live with it.

“First, I want people to know that I’m still me. ALS has changed what my body can do, but it hasn’t changed who I am,” said Johnson, adding: “Your mind stays sharp. People sometimes look at the physical disability and assume you’re not still the same person inside. I still think the same, I still dream, I still love my family. My body just doesn’t cooperate.”

Johnson is among a handful of celebrities who became advocates for ALS research following their diagnoses, including the late actor Eric Dane. Gehrig, the New York Yankees player for whom the disease was informally named, brought global awareness to ALS after his diagnosis in the 1930s.

Sara Moniuszko and Stephen Smith contributed to this report.

Survivors of Venezuela earthquakes pulled from rubble as rescue teams continue desperate search

2026-06-29 10:30 AM EDT / CBS News

By Camilo Montoya-Galvez
Camilo Montoya-Galvez is the Immigration Correspondent at CBS News, where his reporting is featured across multiple programs and platforms, including national broadcast shows, CBS News 24/7, CBSNews.com and the organization’s social media accounts.

Read Full Bio

Rescue teams continue the desperate search for survivors, some even digging with their hands, as tens of thousands of people are still presumed to be missing in Venezuela five days after twin earthquakes struck. More than 1,400 people have died in the quakes.

Outside of a hospital in Caracas, families scour lists of patients looking for any missing relatives.

Genesis Fonseca was at a hospital to bring soup to her 6-year-old nephew who survived the earthquakes, but his mother did not.

Volunteers search for possible victims amid the rubble following a twin earthquake in Caraballeda, La Guaira state, about 40 km northeast of Caracas, on June 25, 2026. Federico PARRA /AFP via Getty Images

Fonseca said she will miss “everything” about her sister, including the love they had for each other.

In hard hit La Guaira, a coastal city and the epicenter of a dire humanitarian crisis, there’s remnants of people’s lives in the rubble of collapsed homes and apartment buildings – from stuffed animals to a passport and a kindergarten graduation diploma.

Remnants of people’s lives are found in the rubble of collapsed homes and apartment buildings after two powerful earthquakes rocked Venezuela last week. CBS News

“We need more support”

But amid the tragedy, there are moments of hope.

A U.S. search team helped to rescue a mother and her 9-month-old baby from the debris of a collapsed building.

“Against impossible odds, hope endures,” the U.S. State Department wrote in a post it shared on social media, adding that “every life saved is a victory.”

On Saturday, Keyla Zerpa’s nephew, Kenger, was rescued. She told CBS News her two nephews and sister lived in a building that came crashing down and that 11-year-old Kenger was the only survivor.

“We need more support, more help,” Zerpa said, directing her message to the U.S.

U.S. diplomat John Barrett said there are more than 300 American rescuers on the ground in Venezuela.

“We were with Venezuela before the earthquake and we’re even closer to Venezuela after, after the earthquake,” he said.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week that he spoke to Venezuela’s Acting President Delcy Rodríguez and offered the full assistance of the U.S.

Kelsie Hoffman contributed to this report.

德国北部发生枪击致五死 一男嫌犯被捕

2026-06-29 / 联合早报

据媒体报道，枪击事件发生在施塔德市中心一所青年中心。 （示意图 / Pexels）

德国北部城镇施塔德发生枪击案，造成五人死亡，一名男嫌犯已被警方拘留。

路透社报道，德国警方星期一（6月29日）说，案件动机目前仍不清楚。

施塔德（Stade）位于汉堡以西，人口不到5万。

当地媒体报道，枪击事件发生在施塔德市中心一所青年中心。部分报道提到可能涉及多名嫌犯，但警方尚未证实这一说法。

Supreme Court rules on mail-in ballots received after Election Day

2026-06-29 10:13am EDT / Fox News

The court was split 5-4 on the ruling, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing the majority opinion

By Robert Schmad , Anders Hagstrom Fox News

Published June 29, 2026 10:13am EDT

Jonathan Turley discusses Supreme Court’s potential birthright citizenship, transgender athlete rulings

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley discusses potential Supreme Court rulings on birthright citizenship and transgender athletes.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/0bb18c71-ae8c-45c1-a56f-a457d1038b68

Listen to this article

1 min

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted in elections even if they are received after Election Day.

The court was split 5-4 on the ruling, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing the majority opinion. She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Barrett’s opinion held that Election Day, in the context of federal law, set a deadline for when voters must make a choice regarding their preferred candidate. Relevant laws, however, impose no standard for when ballots must be received to be considered valid.

SCOTUS TO REVIEW TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

A U.S. Supreme Court police officer stands watch outside of the Supreme Court building on June 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C. The Trump administration asked the court to intervene and stay a lower court ruling blocking it from deploying National Guard troops to the city of Chicago. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

“The electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received,” she wrote. “Election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose.”

Justice Samuel Alito, writing his dissent, took a different view of what it means for the electorate to have made a choice.

“If ballots received after election day are added to the set of ballots that dictate the election’s outcome, the electorate’s choice does not occur on election day,” he wrote. “The acceptance of these late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made.”

SUPREME COURT HANDS TRUMP TWO MAJOR IMMIGRATION VICTORIES

Poll workers process ballots at an elections warehouse outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on Nov. 8, 2022.(Ed JonesAFP via Getty Images))

If the Supreme Court had ruled that ballots received after election day were invalid, 14 states, three U.S. territories and Washington, D.C. would have been forced to change their voting laws ahead of the midterm elections.

Military ballots, which often arrive after election day, took center stage as the case played out. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the federal law governing military and overseas absentee voting, makes repeated reference to ballot-receipt deadlines under different state laws, something the majority argued would not be the case if Congress had already established a national standard for when ballots need to be received.

[image_4]

“I disagree with counting ballots after election day, but Barrett’s argument is persuasive that federal statutes recognize state leeway in counting ballots after election day and the plaintiffs themselves struggled to agree on the parameters,” conservative broadcaster Erick Erickson said of the decision.

Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., meanwhile, called Barrett’s opinion “shockingly wrong” and “terrible for election integrity.”

During oral arguments for the case, Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who ultimately joined the dissent, voiced concerns that counting large quantities of ballots after Election Day could shake the public’s trust in election results.

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN ‘VAMPIRE RULE’ IN MASSIVE SECOND AMENDMENT WIN

[image_5]

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Brett Kavanaugh watches as Taoiseach Micheal Martin speaks at a breakfast meeting hosted by US Vice President JD Vance at his official residence in Washington DC, , as part of his week long visit to the US. Picture date: Wednesday March 12, 2025(Niall Carson/PA Images via Getty Images)

“If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode,” Kavanaugh noted.

Referring to this possibility, Alito argued that “confidence in election outcomes can be seriously undermined” when large numbers of later-arriving ballots impact the results of elections.

The majority, however, did not address these arguments, stating that they were outside the scope of what the court had authority to rule on.

[image_6]

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“Finally, plaintiffs assert that requiring ballots to be received by election day protects election integrity and increases voter confidence in election results,” Barrett wrote. “As we have said time and again, however, policy arguments are properly directed to legislatures, not courts.”

“The question today is not whether requiring ballots to be received by election day is a good or bad idea; the question is whether the idea has made its way into the United States Code,” she added.

This is a developing story. Check back soon for updates.

灰熊逼近一米 加拿大女子靠“狮吼”惊险脱身

2026年6月29日 20:32 / 联合早报

加拿大一女子清晨遛狗时遇上灰熊，灰熊一度用后腿站立，还反复朝她和狗靠近，最近只有约一米。女子只能一边低声喝止，一边慢慢后退，最后惊险脱身。 （取自Wilderness Escape Adventures）

加拿大一名女子早晨遛狗时，遭一只灰熊多次逼近，并一度靠近至约一米。她一边以低沉声音喝止，一边缓慢后退，惊险过程全被手机录下。

《纽约时报》报道，这起事件发生于6月24日。这名未透露姓名的女子当时从艾伯塔省卡纳纳斯基斯的住处外出遛狗，在距离营地约90米的一条碎石车道上发现灰熊，随即按下手机录影键。

视频显示，灰熊一度以后腿站立，并多次朝女子和她牵着的狗逼近。女子不断以低沉声音喝止：“停下！够了！”她一边发声，一边缓慢后退。

当地徒步向导德布卢瓦说，这只灰熊可能还比较年轻，是因为对狗感到好奇才不断靠近。过程中，女子至少大喊或发出声音40次，试图把熊吓退，但灰熊也在多次朝她逼近。

约一分钟后，灰熊闪到一道门后方，女子退到停放车辆处后跑开。她随后躲进附近一顶帐篷，并在那里停留约15分钟，直到灰熊转而追赶一头驼鹿。

明尼苏达州北美熊中心助理主任彼得（Spencer Peter）说，面对灰熊时，一般经验法则是趴下装死，因为棕熊通常是在感到受威胁时攻击。不过，在有狗在场的情况下，视频中女子的应对方式是合适的。

彼得说，狗和熊天生不和，许多熊袭击事件都与狗有关；视频中的灰熊似乎更关注狗，而不是人。他说，除非宠物狗训练得非常好，否则人与狗不可能一起完美装死，若当时直接躺下，情况可能反而更糟。

当局提醒公众，进入熊类活跃区域时应结伴出行、制造声响、给宠物系上牵绳，并随身携带防熊喷雾。

Who is Lisa Cook? The central bank governor at the heart of the Supreme Court’s Trump-Fed showdown

June 29, 2026 10:40am EDT / Fox News

Cook sued after Trump alleged she misrepresented information about mortgages she obtained before joining the central bank

By Amanda Macias Fox News

Fed Board Governor Lisa Cook suing to remain in her position

Former assistant FBI director Chris Swecker weighs in on the mortgage fraud allegations Lisa Cook is facing on ‘Sunday Night in America.’

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/f156f378-ca12-4085-9dae-fbb0174165f9

Listen to this article

2 min

Lisa Cook’s ascension to the Federal Reserve was historic from the start.

Appointed by former President Joe Biden in 2022, she became the first black woman to serve as a governor on the Fed board — a seven-member panel that sets national interest rates and oversees the banking system.

Now, she stands at the center of another historic moment, as the Supreme Court ruled Monday against President Donald Trump’s effort to fire her, preserving long-standing protections around the central bank’s independence.

TRUMP VS THE FEDERAL RESERVE: HOW THE CLASH REACHED UNCHARTED TERRITORY

President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook are shown side by side in this image.(Andrew Harnik/Al Drago/Getty Images)

Cook’s legal fight traces back to late August, when Trump said he was firing her from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the seven-member body that helps set monetary policy and oversee the U.S. banking system.

He alleged she misrepresented information tied to a trio of mortgages she obtained before joining the central bank. Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime.

She sued Trump in federal court in Washington, D.C., to block her removal from the nation’s most powerful central bank. On Sept. 9, a district court judge barred Trump from firing her while the case proceeds, a decision later upheld by a federal appeals court.

A RARE FILING IN THE LISA COOK–TRUMP CASE COULD SWAY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

Lisa Cook joined as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in May 2022.(U.S. Federal Reserve)

Before joining the Fed board, the Oxford alumna and UC Berkeley-trained economist built a career in academia, including faculty roles at Harvard University and Michigan State University.

A graduate of Spelman College, Cook has been described by American economist Barry Eichengreen as “part economist and historian,” with command of several languages, including French, Russian, Spanish and Wolof — a widely spoken language in Senegal.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

As a Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook is one of seven Fed governors and among 12 officials who vote on monetary policy decisions that influence interest rates and the U.S. economy.(Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Cook has also held senior roles in government, serving as a senior economist on then-President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2011 to 2012.

Before that, she served as a senior adviser on finance and development in the Treasury Department’s Office of International Affairs.

She joined the Fed board in May 2022 and was reappointed in September 2023 for a term that runs through January 2038.

Amanda Macias covers the intersection of business, economics and politics, with a focus on how policy decisions shape markets, businesses and American workers.

德国北部发生枪击致五死 一男嫌犯被捕

2026-06-29 12:22 / 联合早报

据媒体报道，枪击事件发生在施塔德市中心一所青年中心。 （示意图 / Pexels）

德国北部城镇施塔德发生枪击案，造成五人死亡，一名男嫌犯已被警方拘留。

路透社报道，德国警方星期一（6月29日）说，案件动机目前仍不清楚。

施塔德（Stade）位于汉堡以西，人口不到5万。

当地媒体报道，枪击事件发生在施塔德市中心一所青年中心。部分报道提到可能涉及多名嫌犯，但警方尚未证实这一说法。

Supreme Court lets stand $5 million civil verdict against Trump in Carroll case

June 29, 2026 at 9:53 a.m. EDT / The Washington Post

A 2023 trial found President Donald Trump liable for allegedly sexually assaulting journalist E. Jean Carroll. The decision Monday leaves in place a ruling affirming the judgment.

E. Jean Carroll at her home in Warwick, New York, in June 2019. (Eva Deitch/For The Washington Post)

By Justin Jouvenal

The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a $5 million civil judgment against President Donald Trump in a high-profile trial in 2023 during which a jury found him liable for allegedly sexually assaulting and defaming journalist E. Jean Carroll.

Supreme Court takes up dispute over Arizona voting restrictions

June 29, 2026 / 11:20 AM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether federal law bars Arizona from imposing tightened voting rules, including a measure that requires documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote on a state form.

The case sets up a high-stakes dispute over the state’s efforts to tighten its voting requirements. It is a crime for non-U.S. citizens to vote in federal and state elections, but some states have sought to implement new restrictions aimed at ensuring noncitizens are not on their voter rolls amid claims of election fraud by President Trump.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in its next term, which begins in October.

The dispute before the Supreme Court involves two Arizona laws that were adopted by the state legislature in 2022. The first requires prospective voters who are registering to vote on a state form to provide proof of citizenship, and the second involves procedures for state election officials to review voter rolls and cancel the voter registrations of noncitizens.

Prospective voters can also register using a federal form, which does not require proof of citizenship. In Arizona, applicants completing the federal form that do not provide citizenship proof may be registered as voting in only federal elections, but are not eligible to vote for president or by mail. There were more than 19,000 Arizonans who had not supplied proof of citizenship and were registered as “federal-only” voters as of July 2023, according to court records.

After the measures were approved by the Arizona legislature, the Democratic National Committee, the Arizona Democratic Party and nonprofit organizations filed lawsuits seeking to block their enforcement. The plaintiffs argued that the provisions violated or were preempted by the National Voting Registration Act, as well as a 2018 consent decree between Arizona’s secretary of state and the Maricopa County recorder.

A federal district court said election officials could not reject state voter registration forms that lacked proof of citizenship, citing the consent decree, and ruled that under the NVRA, Arizona could not systematically cancel voter registrations within 90 days of a federal election.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit considered the district court’s earlier injunction and last year, it went on to uphold that order barring enforcement of Arizona’s voter-registration laws. A divided panel of judges on the 9th Circuit agreed that the proof-of-citizenship requirement for prospective voters registering for federal elections on the state form violates the NVRA, and said the requirement for county recorders to reject state-form applicants without citizenship proof violates the 2018 consent decree.

The court also held that the law bars county recorders from systematically cancelling the registrations of voters who they have “reason to believe” are not citizens within 90 days of a federal election.

The Supreme Court considered Arizona’s voter-registration laws ahead of the 2024 election, when Arizona Republicans and the Republican National Committee turned to the high court for emergency relief. The high court allowed the state to enforce the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the state form but declined to allow enforcement of its rules requiring proof of citizenship to vote for president or by mail.

Arizona has continued to enforce the citizenship rule for registering to vote on the state form while litigation has continued.

In a separate case involving Virginia’s voter-removal program, the Supreme Court in October 2024 allowed the state to move forward with its removal of roughly 1,600 alleged noncitizens from its voter rolls. Virginia had launched its program designed to clean up its statewide voter registration lists exactly 90 days before the 2024 federal elections.

Republicans in Arizona returned to the Supreme Court earlier this year when they appealed decisions in three different cases involving the state’s voting requirements. The Trump administration urged the high court to take up just one of the appeals, from the Republican National Committee, which involves the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the state form and the program to purge its voter rolls.