Raw Story

Two MAGA lawmakers are asking FBI Director Kash Patel to launch a formal investigation into an alleged "coverup" they say was orchestrated by former President Joe Biden's administration, whom conservatives have long faulted for failing to take action in a case stemming from five aborted fetuses found in Washington, D.C.

Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Andy Biggs (R-AZ) called on Patel to confirm a probe would be forthcoming by April 29, and also asked that FBI officials provide a “staff level briefing” related to the agency's review and potential investigation into the case – which they refer to as the “D.C. Five.”

“As Chairs of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government and the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, we remain concerned about the Biden-Harris Administration’s refusal to investigate the circumstances of the case of five aborted children, also known as the D.C. Five, whose remains were allegedly discovered at the Washington Surgi-Clinic in March 2022 by a pro-life advocacy group,” the MAGA lawmakers told Patel on Tuesday in a joint letter.

ALSO READ: 'All hands on deck': Democrats unleash new strategy to derail Trump

In addition to the Biden administration, Roy and Biggs also targeted the Metropolitan Police Department, both of which they say “chose to ignore any potential evidence of a crime for two years.” They also went after former FBI Director Christopher Wray, whom they blamed for "leadership failures."

“As we continue to conduct our investigation into the District of Columbia’s enforcement of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, serious questions remain surrounding the deaths of these children,” they added. “We write to request that the FBI review the decision not to move forward with an investigation and the Biden Harris’s apparent decision not to enforce the Partial-Birth Abortion Act and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act."

The Justice Department clashed with U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis in a Tuesday hearing over what the U.S. government acknowledged was an accidental deportation of a Maryland father.

Kilmar Ábrego García was shipped to a prison in El Salvador despite a judge ruling that García could not be deported there. The U.S. government has claimed that García is an MS-13 gang member, but one legal analyst wrote Tuesday there's reason to question this.

According to Politico's Kyle Cheney, Xinis said that every day Ábrego García is in the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, is "a day of further irreparable harm."

"If not this court, then who, to engage in process. It’s process that is in the roots of our constitution, so we have to give process to both sides...There will be no tolerance for gamesmanship or grandstanding," the judge said.

ALSO READ: 'Alarming': Small colleges bullied into silence as Trump poses 'existential threat'

She also questioned the administration's definition of the word "facilitate," which comes from a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the high court ordered the administration to "facilitate" García's return.

The administration's definition flies in the face of the plain meaning of the word, the judge said, according to Cheney. "When a wrongfully removed individual [is outside US borders], it's not so cut-and-dried that all you have to do is remove obstacles domestically."

CNN reported that the judge appeared willing to consider an expansion of the definition of "facilitate." The Justice Department asked for an appeal to stay that decision.

The judge said, "The Supreme Court has spoken. My order is clear. It's direct. There is, in my view, nothing to appeal."

See the clip below or at the link here.

- YouTube youtu.be

A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked several portions of President Donald Trump's executive order punishing Susman Godfrey, the law firm that represented the elections equipment company Dominion Voting Systems in their defamation lawsuit against Fox News.

Judge Loren AliKhan slammed the Trump administration's actions from the bench, per MSNBC legal commentator Adam Klasfeld, saying, "Frankly, I think the Framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power."

She noted that a number of other law firms had struck "deals" with the Trump administration to avoid being targeted by similar executive orders, which, she said, was "coercion, plain and simple."

ALSO READ: 'Alarming': Small colleges bullied into silence as Trump poses 'existential threat'

AliKhan blocked all three provisions of the executive order that Susman Godfrey challenged: Section 1, which attacked the firm's diversity, equity, and inclusion policies; Section 3, which ordered the termination of all federal government contracts with the firm; and Section 5, which barred Susman Godfrey personnel from accessing federal buildings.

Trump has issued a number of other executive orders with identical provisions targeting various law firms that have represented clients or cases against himself or his allies or previously employed people who have done so.

The "deals" struck with several law firms to prevent this punishment included agreeing to terminate DEI policies, commit to accepting pro-Trump clients in the future, and earmark hundreds of millions of dollars for pro bono work in specific areas the Trump administration approves of, such as fighting antisemitism and assisting veterans. It's part of a series of attacks Trump has levied at institutions to force compliance with his administration, including threats to terminate funding to progressive research universities and pushing for settlements of frivolous lawsuits against large broadcasting companies.

The law firm deals were largely brokered by Boris Epshteyn, a controversial lawyer and former right-wing analyst for Sinclair Broadcast Group who is notorious for following Trump around with positive news printouts to make him feel better.

Former NAACP director Cornell William Brooks laid into President Donald Trump's move to freeze billions in federal funding from Harvard University, after the prestigious institution rejected his demands to crack down on the political ideology of its faculty and student body — a similar ultimatum Trump used against Columbia University that that school ultimately complied with.

"We have a wonderful Constitution that contains a First Amendment, which this government, this administration is violating," Brooks told CNN's John Berman. "This is to say, the government does not get to dictate political ideology. It does not get to determine whether faculty or staff or too liberal to conservative to this, to that. The First Amendment has a little something to say about that."

But there's another federal law standing in the way, he continued.

"Title XI is that law which says you can't use government funds to discriminate. This is a law that was brought into being as a consequence of the blood sacrifice of civil rights workers and African Americans, and this administration has taken that law, turned it upside down, and used it to try to micromanage Harvard and essentially make it a satellite campus of the now-defunct Trump University. This is outrageous."

ALSO READ: 'Alarming': Small colleges bullied into silence as Trump poses 'existential threat'

"But even if you buy your arguments, and even if you admit that the administration is trying to micromanage Harvard University, it is their money," said Berman. "How much will the absence of that money impact Harvard?"

"Well, first of all, let's — John, I want to be very clear about this," said Brooks. "It's not their money. It's the money of the American taxpayer ... and Harvard uses taxpayer money to do research on Alzheimer's, to do research on all manner of illnesses, to advance human knowledge, to send teachers into communities to teach. The point being here is the government, as in the Trump administration, doesn't get to use taxpayer dollars to violate the First Amendment."

"When you read the president of Harvard's letter ... it makes it very clear," he added. "Harvard is not refusing to comply with the government demands, simply out of a matter of personal prerogative, institutional prerogative. It is not doing so because the demands themselves are unlawful. They're unconstitutional. This is not the way government is supposed to behave. And if this were done to any major corporation, everyone would understand. You don't really get to micromanage business. I was a lawyer in the United States Justice Department. I served as president and CEO of the NAACP. I've overseen federal investigations with serious settlements and demand letters. This is not that. This is — this is literally political ransom."

Watch the video below or at the link here.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

An April poll shows President Donald Trump is losing his biggest polling advantage over Democrats.

“Bad news for the White House per @EchelonInsights,” wrote Snapchat host Peter Hamby. “Dems are now tied with Republicans on the question of who would do a better job on inflation and the cost of living.”

Digital monitoring company Echelon Insights' April 2025 Voter Omnibus package revealed that "on the issue of inflation and cost of living," Trump and Democrats now share 43% approval. It also showed Trump’s overall approval going negative with 51% disapproving and 47% approving, only four months into his term, which is commonly considered still within the White House “honeymoon phase” for many presidents.

Additionally, 48% of respondents say Donald Trump “does not have a thorough plan and end-goal for tariffs, compared with 42% who say he does.”

ALSO READ: 'Alarming': Small colleges bullied into silence as Trump poses 'existential threat'

This marks a change from February, when the Pew Research Center reported that about three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (73%) expected the economy to be better a year into President Donald Trump’s second term. Last year, Gallup reported the economy to be the “most important” issue in the 2024 election vote, which promises problems for Republicans leading the US House in the midterms if the economy remains voters' highest priority.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris lost the November election mere weeks after the same poll reported that “voters view Donald Trump as better able than Kamala Harris to handle the economy, 54% versus 45%."

House Majority PAC Communication Director CJ Warnke posted on X that Echelon Insights information mirrors other polling over the last two weeks “consistently show[ing] Trump's Econ approval sinking lower and lower. Echelon: -8% CBS/YouGov: -12% Fabrizio Ward: -8% Navigator Research: -13% Morning Consult: -3% Economist/YouGov: -10%.”

President Donald Trump's attorney general appeared to rebuff an opportunity to endorse her boss's recent idea to send Americans convicted of violent crimes to prisons in El Salvador.

Trump reiterated the idea on Monday during an Oval Office meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, in which Trump told reporters, "homegrowns are next," referring to U.S. citizens.

"Homegrown criminals are next," Trump told Bukele. "I said homegrowns are next, homegrowns are next. You've got to build about five more places. It's not big enough."

ALSO READ: 'Alarming': Small colleges bullied into silence as Trump poses 'existential threat'

Trump clarified he was focusing on "violent offenders" and signaled that his administration is looking into the legality to determine if such deportations are possible.

The eye-popping suggestion became the topic of discussion on Fox News' "Jesse Watters Primetime." Watters asked Bondi about Trump's idea to incarcerate U.S. citizens overseas. But she didn't seem to endorse the plan.

"The president was musing about sending some of the most horrible people in this country down to that mega prison," said Watters, later asking, "Is that legal to do? Is that something you're allowed to do?"

"Well Jesse, these are Americans that he's saying committed the most heinous crimes in our country. Crime is going to decrease dramatically because he has given us a directive to make America safe again. These people need to be locked up as long as they can, as long as the law allows. We're not going to let them go anywhere. If we have to build more prisons in our country, we will do it."

"Right," Watters replied with a chuckle. "That's what I thought."

Watch the clip below or at this link.