Connect with us

The Center Square

Trump order strips funding from sanctuary cities engaged in ‘insurrection’ | National

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Bethany Blankley – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-28 19:11:00

(The Center Square) – President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Monday to enhance national security and enforce federal immigration and criminal law in so-called sanctuary jurisdictions and take a range of actions against those obstructing enforcement, including eliminating their federal funding.

Trump’s “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens” executive order directs the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to publish a list of state and local jurisdictions that obstruct federal immigration enforcement and take action against them.

“Federal supremacy with respect to immigration, national security, and foreign policy is axiomatic,” the order states, citing Article II and Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution, vesting the federal government with the power to protect national security and “protect each of [the States] against Invasion.”

The invasion argument was first made by 55 Texas counties that declared an invasion citing Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, The Center Square exclusively reported.

“The prior administration allowed unchecked millions of aliens to illegally enter the United States,” the order states, creating a public safety and national security crisis, exacerbated by transnational criminal organizations, terrorists and others intent on harming Americans.

Trump’s latest executive order, as many of his previous ones, is likely to be challenged in court.

Citing an invasion at the southern border, which Trump officially declared on his first day in office, his administration is now responding to some state and local officials who “violate, obstruct, and defy” federal immigration enforcement, the order states.

Local jurisdictions who obstruct federal deportation efforts are engaging in “a lawless insurrection against the supremacy of Federal law and the Federal Government’s obligation to defend the territorial sovereignty of the United States,” it states.

In addition to creating “intolerable national security risks,” the order states sanctuary jurisdictions’ “nullification efforts often violate Federal criminal laws, including those prohibiting obstruction of justice, … unlawfully harboring or hiring illegal aliens …, conspiracy against the United States …, and conspiracy to impede Federal law enforcement.”

The order also notes that “assisting aliens in violating Federal immigration law could also violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,” an argument made by America First Legal, The Center Square reported. In January, AFL launched a resource to help Americans fight sanctuary policies and sent letters to more than 250 elected officials demanding that they comply with federal law or expect to be sued.

“Concealing, harboring, or shielding aliens could also trigger liability under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statute,” AFL said. “Civil RICO remedies are available to ‘[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation’ and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.’”

Trump’s order also states that those who assist illegal foreign nationals might be violating federal laws that prohibit discrimination against Americans and might be violating Americans’ civil rights.

In order for the federal government “to restore the enforcement of United States law,” Trump directed the attorney general and Secretary of Homeland Security to publish a list of states and local jurisdictions that obstruct the federal immigration enforcement. Each jurisdiction is to be notified of its alleged violation of federal immigration and criminal law.

Those that remain in defiance will lose all federal funding, the order says. The AG and DHS secretary are directed to work with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to identify, suspend and terminate all federal funds allocated to sanctuary jurisdictions, including grants and contracts. They are also directed to “pursue all necessary legal remedies and enforcement measures to end these violations and bring such jurisdictions into compliance” with U.S. laws.

The order also prevents all federal benefits from being spent on illegal foreign nationals living in sanctuary jurisdictions, including through private entities. It requires federal agencies to create a mechanism “to ensure appropriate eligibility verification is conducted for individuals receiving federal public benefits” under Title 8 of federal immigration law.

It also creates provisions for the AG, DHS secretary and agency heads to “identify and take appropriate action to stop the enforcement of state and local laws, regulations, policies, and practices favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens that are unlawful, preempted by federal law, or otherwise unenforceable.”

This includes state laws that provide in-state higher education tuition “to aliens but not to out-of-State American citizens that may violate” federal law or “that favor aliens in criminal charges or sentencing.”

The order was issued after the Trump administration already warned sanctuary jurisdictions like Massachusetts, whose officials remained steadfast in their policies to protect illegal foreign nationals. They continued to do so after federal authorities arrested alleged terrorists tied to the murder of U.S. troops and hundreds of criminal illegal foreign nationals were charged or convicted of committing violent crimes against Massachusetts residents, The Center Square reported.

The post Trump order strips funding from sanctuary cities engaged in ‘insurrection’ | National appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Right-Leaning

This article presents a clear right-leaning perspective, primarily supporting President Trump’s executive order to enhance national security by taking action against sanctuary jurisdictions. The tone is assertive and critical of those jurisdictions that obstruct federal immigration enforcement, framing them as violating federal law and creating national security risks. The language used, such as “lawless insurrection” and “criminal aliens,” suggests a strong stance against sanctuary policies, which aligns with conservative viewpoints emphasizing strict immigration control and federal supremacy. The sources quoted, including America First Legal, are aligned with right-wing groups advocating for tougher immigration enforcement. There is little counterargument presented, with opposing viewpoints largely dismissed or framed negatively. The focus on federal supremacy and the invocation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) further solidifies the article’s right-wing bias, emphasizing the perceived threat posed by sanctuary policies to national security and legal order. The historical context, referencing Trump’s first-day declaration of an “invasion,” ties the argument to his broader immigration and national security agenda. The content is designed to resonate with audiences who support stricter immigration policies and federal authority.

News from the South - Louisiana News Feed

Op-Ed: First do no harm begins with our diet | Opinion

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By Louisiana Surgeon General Ralph Abraham – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 17:37:00

The Make America Healthy Again movement has gained significant attention throughout the nation and many of the top initiatives highlighted have found their way into state legislatures this session.

Louisiana is no exception and Senator Patrick McMath, R-Covington, has, via Senate Bill 14, proposed a significant cleanup of our food supply, especially focused on kids. Backed by the popular support of the MAHA Moms, this bill has three major parts that are worth examining separately for their merits.

First is a ban of several “ultra processed” foods in school meals. In this case the term ultra processed is defined as products that contain any one of 13 specifically referenced compounds. Of these the first 7 are artificial dyes, like red dye No. 40, derived from petroleum byproducts that serve a singular role to make food more visually appealing.

We should all be asking ourselves why we ever allowed this stuff to find its way into our food in the first place. Several of these synthetic dyes have been shown to be associated with various harms ranging from ADHD to allergies and tumors.

Most of the other compounds on the list sound like they should have a skull and cross bones on the label. Take the bread additive azodicarbonamide as an example. If you thought that sounded like something you should not eat, you would be right.

It breaks down into urethane (yes, like the paint), a known carcinogen, and is banned is just about every country but the U.S.

In the case of school lunches, the child has no choice in the matter. They eat what they are provided and we have an obligation to protect them from toxic substances in the cafeteria.

Second is a labeling requirement for foods containing the substances in the school lunch ban portion, plus a few more, known to have a questionable safety profile that are banned in other countries.

It directs manufacturers to place a label on any food or drink containing these chemicals that clearly alerts the consumer of the fact that it contains something that is banned in other countries.

Last, but certainly not least, is a provision to reform of the Supplemental Nutritional Aid Program, once known as food stamps. This program is federally sponsored, and provides food assistance to families with an income below 130% of the federal poverty line. This would be about $31,200 net yearly income for a family of four.

In our inflationary economic environment, every penny counts and when it comes to food and obtaining the maximum calories for minimum dollars is a necessity. Historically, the cheapest foods happen to also be the least healthy in many cases, condemning those dependent on the program to poor health.

Soft drinks containing very high sugar or sugar substitutes are a major contributor to the chronic diseases that plague our health system like obesity and diabetes, especially in children. This bill directs DCFS to seek a waiver from the federal government allowing Louisiana to prohibit use of SNAP to purchase soft drinks.

Ultimately, the federal government should go a step further and incentivize healthier alternatives for SNAP beneficiaries, but this bill represents a major step in the right direction that can be accomplished at the state level.

The old saying goes: “You are what you eat.” We should keep this literal and obvious truth in mind when we think about how to turn the tide on chronic disease in our nation.

Let us begin by protecting the children who are too young to choose for themselves and providing better information for adults who can. SB 14 will accomplish both goals and move Louisiana to the forefront of the movement to Make America Healthy Again.

Dr. Ralph L. Abraham, M.D. is the  Louisiana Surgeon General

The post Op-Ed: First do no harm begins with our diet | Opinion appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

The article presents a clear ideological stance that aligns with health-conscious, regulatory-focused policy perspectives often associated with center-left viewpoints. It advocates for government intervention to regulate food safety, particularly in school meals and assistance programs like SNAP, emphasizing protection of public health and vulnerable populations such as children and low-income families. The tone is supportive of regulations to restrict harmful substances and promote healthier choices, which suggests a bias favoring increased oversight and reform in food policies rather than a neutral, detached report.

Continue Reading

The Center Square

Newsom parole board approves release of another toddler murderer | California

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Kenneth Schrupp – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 17:30:00

(The Center Square) – California Board of Parole Hearings ordered the release of convicted child murderer Herbert David Brown III, making this the second announced early release of a convicted child murderer in recent weeks.

San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow, whose office convicted Brown for beating his 22-month-old daughter Lily to death, has requested that California Gov. Gavin Newsom use his authority to overturn the parole board’s decision. All current board members are Newsom appointees.

“Brown has done self-help programming but didn’t express responsibility for Lily’s death until Inmate Brown was told that failure to do so was a bar to being paroled,” wrote Dow. “Even then, Inmate Brown’s account lacked credibility.”

“Brown has significant mental health issues that appear to require ongoing monitoring and treatment,” continued Dow. “Inmate Brown’s relapse prevention plans are inadequate and superficial.”

Brown entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison for the murder. Lily was found dead with multiple injuries, including a fractured skull.

Brown was under the influence of methamphetamine when he killed his daughter. He now identifies as a woman and has served 12 years of his sentence.  

According to the most recent Comprehensive Risk Assessment on Brown from 2023, he was found to be a “higher moderate” risk for violence. 

Brown was first granted parole in October 2024, after which California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has appointed all current members of the California Board of Parole Hearings, referred the parole decision back to the parole board for review. The board has since reaffirmed its earlier decision, and Dow is seeking residents to write to the governor to use his constitutional authority to override the parole board.

“Precious Lily deserves better. The time is now Governor Newsom, please help ensure that we have Justice for Lily Brown,” said Dow.

“The Governor has authority under California Constitution, Article V, Section 8(b) to reverse a decision to release a convicted murderer on parole, but must do so within 30 calendar days,” continued Dow. “The decision was issued on April 22, 2025.”

There is currently no release date set for Brown.

Two weeks ago, the Board of Parole Hearings’ decision to approve the early release of convicted child murderer Josue Herrera, who was found to have beaten his girlfriend’s 2-year-old son to death, sparked national outrage against the state’s apparent leniency toward murders of young children. 

Dow said Brown’s early release is possible due to Proposition 57, passed in 2016. 

Prop. 57 was written to only allow early release of “prisoners convicted of non-violent felonies.” 

However, because the state automatically classifies any crimes not specifically classified as violent to be non-violent, such as drive-by shootings and assault with a deadly weapon, many violent crimes are not technically considered “violent” per se.

Dow also noted Prop. 57 allows the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior or educational achievements, even to those who committed crimes classified as violent.

“This means that even those inmates sentenced for violent offenses, like murder of a child, are eligible to be released much earlier than under the law that was in effect prior to the passage of Proposition 57,” said Dow.

The post Newsom parole board approves release of another toddler murderer | California appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Right-Leaning

This article presents a narrative that is critical of the California Board of Parole Hearings and Governor Gavin Newsom’s appointments, focusing on the early release of convicted child murderers. The tone and framing emphasize public safety concerns and criticize the perceived leniency of the parole system under progressive policies like Proposition 57. The language used highlights the gravity of the crimes and frames the parole decisions as contentious and problematic, which aligns with a right-leaning viewpoint commonly skeptical of criminal justice reforms associated with more liberal or progressive politics. While the article reports facts, the selection and emphasis on these facts, and the inclusion of the District Attorney’s plea for the governor to intervene, reveal a conservative-leaning perspective.

Continue Reading

The Center Square

Trump softens tariffs for U.S. automakers through complex rules | National

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Brett Rowland – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 15:45:00

(The Center Square) – President Donald Trump took measures to lessen the impact of tariffs on U.S. automakers, but vehicle prices are expected to increase. 

“We just wanted to help them during this little transition, short term,” Trump said. “We didn’t want to penalize them.”

The 25% tariff on imported cars remains, and a new 25% tariff on auto parts will go into effect May 3. But Trump’s latest executive order allows reimbursements for U.S. producers importing car parts, which will be subject to 25% tariffs starting May 3. The maximum reimbursement will be 3.75% of the value of domestically produced cars. The cap falls to 2.5% for the second year and is phased out entirely after that.

Trump’s executive order also means that automakers that pay tariffs on imported cars won’t be required to pay other import duties, such as those on steel and aluminum.

“They all want to come back to Michigan and build cars again. You know why? Because of our tax and tariff policy,” Trump said Tuesday during his rally in Michigan. “We’re giving them a little time before we slaughter them if they don’t do this.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the goal was to get automakers to create more U.S. jobs.

“President Trump has had meetings with both domestic and foreign auto producers, and he’s committed to bringing back auto production to the U.S.,” Bessent said. “So we want to give the automakers a path to do that, quickly, efficiently and create as many jobs as possible.”

Still, vehicle prices are expected to increase as tariffs reshape the market.

Cox Automotive Chief Economist Jonathan Smoke said “uncertainty remains acute, especially regarding what will happen with the tariffs.” 

“Supply has since tightened and prices have moved higher,” he said. “With higher prices, urgency has diminished.”

Smoke said the next two months could set the stage for the rest of the year. 

“Instead of putting China first, I’m putting Michigan first and I’m putting America first,” Trump said at the Macomb County Rally.

Even before Trump’s auto tariffs, cars were too expensive for many Americans. The average price of a new vehicle in the U.S. is above $48,000, according to Cox Automotive. Real median household income was $80,610 in 2023, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. However, more than 40% of new-vehicle sales by volume in 2024 were priced below $40,000.

The post Trump softens tariffs for U.S. automakers through complex rules | National appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

The article predominantly reports on actions taken by President Donald Trump regarding tariffs on U.S. automakers with largely neutral language, including direct quotes from Trump and officials, as well as commentary from a chief economist. However, the framing subtly aligns with a center-right perspective by emphasizing Trump’s economic policies favoring U.S. industry and job creation, and by using language that reflects his own nationalist and protectionist rhetoric (“putting Michigan first and I’m putting America first”). The article presents these policies without overt criticism, thus reflecting a viewpoint sympathetic to the administration’s economic nationalism rather than a strictly neutral or critical stance. This suggests a center-right bias, leaning towards support for Trump’s economic agenda.

Continue Reading

Trending