(Reuters) — Alexandre Ramagem, a former head of Brazil’s intelligence agency under Jair Bolsonaro, has been taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Florida after fleeing his home country following a criminal conviction tied to a coup plot.
The U.S. agency confirmed Monday that Ramagem was being held but did not provide additional details about the circumstances of the detention. Authorities in Brazil indicated that a man sought by their justice system had been arrested in Orlando in coordination with American officials, though they did not initially name him.
Ramagem, a former federal police official, was sentenced in Brazil to more than 16 years in prison for his role in an effort to overturn the 2022 election victory of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. The case stemmed from a broader investigation into actions by allies of Bolsonaro following his defeat.
Brazil’s Federal Police said the arrest resulted from cooperation between the two countries’ law enforcement agencies. The statement noted that the individual detained had been convicted by Brazil’s highest court for involvement in a plot to disrupt the democratic transfer of power.
Ramagem has consistently denied wrongdoing, and his legal team did not immediately respond to inquiries.
A political ally of Bolsonaro, Paulo Figueiredo, indicated on social media that the arrest may have followed a minor traffic stop before immigration authorities became involved. That account has not been independently confirmed.
It remains unclear whether the detention is directly linked to a formal extradition request from Brazil. U.S. officials have not clarified whether proceedings to return Ramagem to Brazil are underway.
The case is part of a wider crackdown by Brazilian authorities that led to convictions of dozens of individuals, including Bolsonaro himself, who received a lengthy prison sentence. The investigation focused on allegations that members of the former administration attempted to undermine the country’s electoral system.
During his tenure leading Brazil’s intelligence service beginning in 2019, Ramagem was accused of using state resources to monitor critics of the government and support efforts to challenge election results. He later served briefly as a lawmaker before losing his seat following the court ruling.
The detention highlights increasing cross-border cooperation in high-profile political and criminal cases, particularly those involving alleged threats to democratic institutions. It also underscores how individuals facing serious charges abroad may encounter legal exposure even after leaving their home countries.
Analysts note that the outcome of Ramagem’s case could influence future cooperation between Washington and Brasilia on extradition matters, as well as set a precedent for how former officials accused of political crimes are handled internationally.
A judge has dismissed Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch over reporting on his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, ruling that the U.S. president failed to demonstrate that the article was published with intent to be malicious while leaving the door open for an amended complaint.
District Judge Darrin P. Gayles in Florida wrote in the order that Trump had not made the argument that the article was published with the intent required to prove defamation under the “actual malice” standard that applies to public figures, according to Sky News. The judge gave the president a chance to file an amended complaint addressing the legal deficiencies in his original filing.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump characterized the lawsuit, filed in July last year, as “historic legal action” which he claimed was filed on behalf of himself and all Americans who will “no longer tolerate the abusive wrongdoings of the Fake News Media.” The language framed personal legal action as public interest litigation despite the case being filed to protect Trump’s reputation rather than broader press freedom concerns.
“I hope Rupert and his ‘friends’ are looking forward to the many hours of depositions and testimonies they will have to provide in this case,” he wrote after launching the defamation lawsuit—threatening language suggesting litigation was intended to harass defendants through discovery burdens rather than merely seek damages for reputational harm.
The Wall Street Journal’s report focused on a letter the publication disclosed Trump wrote as part of a collection Jeffrey Epstein’s former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell planned to give him as a 50th birthday present in 2003. Trump claimed that the letter he allegedly wrote to convicted pedophile Epstein was “fake” and declared he would sue the “ass off” Murdoch after the Wall Street Journal published the story last July.
The Wall Street Journal indicated the letter featured several lines of typewritten text, concluding with: “May every day be another wonderful secret.” The text was framed by what appeared to be a hand-drawn outline of a naked woman, the publication claimed. The letter is also said to have featured the signature “Donald.”
Trump immediately denied writing the letter, which was subsequently released publicly by Congress via subpoenaed records from Epstein’s estate when the report was published. “The Wall Street Journal printed a FAKE letter, supposedly to Epstein,” he wrote on Truth Social at the time.
“These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don’t draw pictures. I told Rupert Murdoch it was a Scam, that he shouldn’t print this Fake Story. But he did, and now I’m going to sue his ass off, and that of his third rate newspaper,” Trump continued, employing characteristically crude language to attack one of the world’s most influential business publications.
The Independent confirmed that a federal judge dismissed Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch, and the journalists and publishers who documented an alleged birthday letter to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which the president claims does not exist.
The letter—allegedly signed by Trump and featuring a sexually suggestive drawing and a birthday wish stating “may every day be another wonderful secret”—was first published by the newspaper and then shared with members of Congress by the Epstein estate last year, making it part of the public record that anyone could examine.
Trump has repeatedly denied writing the letter and denied that a signature on the document is his. He filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit last summer, claiming that “no authentic letter or drawing exists” and blasting the story as a “false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS ‘article’ in the useless ‘rag’ that is” the Wall Street Journal.
In his order Monday, Florida District Judge Gayles argued that Trump failed to show that the article was published with “actual malice”—the legal standard for proving defamation against public figures established by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan—and opened the door for the president to file an amended complaint addressing the legal deficiencies.
Trump came “nowhere close to this standard,” Judge Gayles wrote. “Quite the opposite,” he emphasized, employing unusually blunt language for a judicial order dismissing a sitting president’s lawsuit.
The president’s lawsuit alleges that he told the defendants that the letter “was a fake before they ran the article,” the judge noted in his ruling. “President Trump argues that this allegation shows that Defendants acted with serious doubts about the truth of their reporting and, therefore, with actual malice. The Court disagrees,” he wrote.
Trump’s “conclusory allegation” that the newspaper had “contradictory evidence and failed to investigate” his claims “is rebutted by the article itself and is insufficient to establish actual malice,” the judge explained, indicating that the Wall Street Journal’s reporting demonstrated appropriate journalistic investigation rather than reckless disregard for truth.
In a footnote, the judge also noted that the “very existence” of the birthday letter “bears on whether the article is true and, even if it is false, whether defendants acted with actual malice”—suggesting that the letter’s subsequent release by Congress through Epstein estate documents undermined Trump’s claims about fabrication.
“President Trump will follow Judge Gayles’s ruling and guidance to refile this powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other Defendants,” a spokesperson for the president’s legal team told The Independent, employing triumphalist language despite the dismissal. “The president will continue to hold accountable those who traffic in Fake News to mislead the American People.”
The newspaper published a 50th birthday greeting to Epstein from 2003 which included a message stating “We have certain things in common, Jeffrey” and “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret,” all written inside the outline of a woman’s body—sexually suggestive imagery that Trump claims he would never create.
The publication of the letter joined a wave of reporting into the government’s handling of investigations into Epstein as Trump’s Department of Justice sought to draw federal probes to a close, drawing more scrutiny into the president’s relationship with the wealthy sex offender and his alleged connections to a wider network of powerful figures.
The president’s lawsuit “does not include a single plausible allegation” that The Wall Street Journal knowingly published false statements about him, lawyers for the defendants wrote in response last year. The article is “true,” they asserted, and the evidence is publicly available for anyone to examine since Congress released it.
“This case calls out for dismissal,” they wrote, characterizing Trump’s lawsuit as “an affront to the First Amendment” and an attempt to “silence a newspaper for publishing speech that was subsequently proven true by documents released by Congress to the American public.”
“By its very nature, this meritless lawsuit threatens to chill the speech of those who dare to publish content that the president does not like,” they added, arguing that allowing the suit to proceed would embolden Trump and future presidents to use defamation litigation as weapon against critical journalism.
The Independent has requested comment from Trump’s legal team and spokespeople for The Wall Street Journal. The White House referred The Independent’s inquiry to the president’s counsel, maintaining separation between official governmental functions and Trump’s personal legal battles.
The president’s name appears thousands of times within the millions of documents released by the Justice Department as part of legislation that Trump had signed into law requiring disclosure of Epstein-related materials. Trump socialized with Epstein throughout the 1990s and 2000s, and Epstein once described himself as the president’s “closest friend” in interviews with journalists.
Trump has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and one’s appearance in the Epstein files does not suggest otherwise absent specific allegations. The president has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and insists he severed ties with Epstein years before the wealthy pedophile—who died by suicide in a New York City jail cell while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges—came under investigation.
The president, meanwhile, continues threatening media outlets, publishers, and journalists with legal action over critical coverage, and he routinely suggests he can revoke broadcast licenses for networks over their antagonistic reporting of his administration. He is embroiled in another defamation lawsuit against the BBC, which he has accused of editing his speech to a crowd on January 6, 2021.
Last year, a federal judge lambasted the president’s legal team in a scathing order dismissing the president’s $15 billion lawsuit against The New York Times, which the judge called “decidedly improper and impermissible”—language suggesting judicial frustration with Trump’s pattern of filing legally deficient suits against media organizations.
The dismissal of the Wall Street Journal lawsuit represents another setback in Trump’s campaign to use defamation litigation as tool for punishing critical journalism. While the judge left open possibility for amended complaint, the requirement that Trump demonstrate actual malice—meaning the publication knew statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for truth—creates high bar that plaintiffs rarely clear in defamation cases against media defendants.
For press freedom advocates, the dismissal reinforces protections established by New York Times v. Sullivan that prevent public figures from easily silencing critical reporting through defamation suits. However, the ability of a sitting president to file $10 billion lawsuits against media organizations—regardless of legal merit—creates financial and reputational pressures that could discourage aggressive investigative journalism.
As Trump weighs whether to file amended complaint addressing the legal deficiencies Judge Gayles identified, the case illustrates the ongoing tension between presidential power, press freedom, and the First Amendment protections that theoretically prevent governmental retaliation against critical media coverage but cannot eliminate the harassment value of expensive, time-consuming litigation.
For now, the Wall Street Journal can continue reporting on Trump’s Epstein connections without fear of immediate legal consequences from the dismissed lawsuit, though the threat of amended filing and Trump’s pattern of litigation against critics creates ongoing uncertainty about the costs of aggressive journalism documenting presidential conduct and associations.
Donald Trump removed an artificial intelligence-generated image of himself looking like Christ Jesus from his social media platform after it triggered sharp criticism, including from some of his own supporters.
The image, posted late Sunday on Truth Social, depicted Trump in religious-style robes appearing to heal a man lying in a hospital bed. The scene included figures resembling a nurse, a soldier, and others in poses of reverence, with symbolic imagery such as eagles and a glowing backdrop.
The post, which appeared without explanation, drew immediate backlash across political and religious circles. Critics described the portrayal as inappropriate and offensive, with several conservative commentators openly rebuking the imagery.
Outlets including The Daily Beast, New York Post and Newsweek highlighted the wave of criticism, noting that some supporters viewed the depiction as crossing a line by invoking religious symbolism in a political context. The image was later removed without public comment from the president or the White House.
The controversy emerged alongside an intensifying dispute between Trump and Pope Leo XIV, who has recently spoken out against ongoing conflicts abroad. Trump had earlier criticized the pope’s stance on foreign policy and security issues in posts on the same platform.
Public reaction to the image spread rapidly online, with several conservative voices expressing concern about the tone and implications of the post. Some questioned whether the image was intended as satire or carried a more serious message, while others urged restraint and respect for religious imagery.
The White House did not respond to requests for comment from multiple media organizations following the deletion.
From a broader perspective, the incident underscores the growing role of artificial intelligence in political messaging and the risks associated with its use. As digital tools make it easier to create highly stylized or symbolic content, public figures face increasing scrutiny over how such imagery is perceived, particularly when it intersects with religion or deeply held beliefs.
The episode also reflects ongoing tensions within political coalitions, where messaging that energizes one segment of supporters can alienate another. In this case, criticism from within Trump’s own base highlights the sensitivity surrounding religious symbolism in public discourse.
As AI-generated content becomes more common in political communication, similar controversies are likely to emerge, raising questions about boundaries, intent, and accountability in the digital age.
(TMZ/AP) — Britney Spears has voluntarily entered a substance abuse treatment program weeks after her arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence, marking a new chapter as she faces ongoing legal proceedings.
A representative for Spears confirmed to The Associated Press on Sunday that the 44-year-old singer recently checked into a treatment facility in the United States.
The development follows a March 5 incident in Ventura County, where California Highway Patrol officers responded to reports of a vehicle being driven erratically along U.S. 101. Authorities said Spears was subjected to field sobriety testing before being arrested on suspicion of impairment involving alcohol and drugs. She was later released from custody the same day.
The case has since been referred to the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office, which is expected to determine whether to file charges ahead of a scheduled court appearance in early May.
Sources cited by TMZ indicated that Spears entered treatment voluntarily following encouragement from those close to her. Individuals familiar with the situation suggested the decision may also reflect an effort to address the legal case and demonstrate accountability as it progresses through the courts.
Spears has faced past struggles related to substance use and has previously entered treatment programs. Her latest move comes as she has largely stepped back from her music career, having not toured in several years or released a new album in nearly a decade.
In 2021, Spears regained control over her personal and financial decisions after a long-running conservatorship was terminated. She later published a memoir, The Woman in Me, which became a commercial success and offered insight into her personal life and career.
Spears’ decision to seek treatment at this stage carries both personal and legal implications. In high-profile cases involving alleged impaired driving, voluntary enrollment in a treatment program can influence how courts view accountability and rehabilitation efforts. While it does not determine the outcome, it may be considered during legal proceedings.
From a broader perspective, the situation highlights the ongoing pressures faced by public figures navigating personal challenges under intense scrutiny. Spears’ history, including her widely publicized conservatorship, has made her a focal point in discussions about autonomy, mental health and recovery.
Her return to treatment may also signal a shift toward prioritizing stability over public appearances or career revival. For fans and observers, it underscores the complexity of recovery, particularly for individuals whose struggles have played out in the public eye.
As the legal process unfolds, attention will likely remain on both the court’s decision and Spears’ progress in treatment, with potential implications for her future public and professional life.
(Reuters/Skynews) — Pope Leo XIV said Monday he will continue to speak out against war and advocate for peace, brushing aside criticism from Donald Trump following the president’s public remarks targeting the pontiff.
Speaking to reporters during a flight to Algeria at the start of a multi-country visit to Africa, Leo said he would not engage in a direct dispute with Trump but reaffirmed his commitment to promoting dialogue and peaceful solutions to global conflicts.
“I will continue to speak out strongly against war,” the pope said, emphasizing the need for cooperation among nations to resolve disputes. He added that the core teachings of Christianity should not be distorted for political purposes.
The comments came after Trump criticized the pope in a social media post, calling him ineffective on matters of crime and foreign policy. The remarks appeared to follow Leo’s recent statements condemning ongoing conflicts and urging leaders to pursue diplomacy.
Leo, the first American-born pope, has increasingly positioned himself as a vocal advocate for peace amid rising global tensions. He has warned about the human cost of war, noting that civilians continue to bear the brunt of violence in conflict zones.
“Too many innocent people are being killed,” he said, adding that leaders must work toward alternatives that prioritize human life and stability.
The pope also stressed that his role is not political, but rooted in moral guidance. He pointed to the message of peace as central to his mission, underscoring the importance of reconciliation and cooperation among nations.
His remarks align with previous appeals in which he has criticized escalating violence and called for renewed international efforts to end conflicts through negotiation rather than force.
The exchange between Pope Leo and President Trump highlights a growing divide between moral leadership and political strategy in addressing global conflicts. While the pope frames his message around humanitarian concerns and ethical responsibility, political leaders often weigh national security interests and geopolitical leverage.
Leo’s refusal to directly confront Trump may reflect a broader Vatican strategy of maintaining moral authority without becoming entangled in partisan disputes. By focusing on universal themes such as peace and human suffering, the pope seeks to appeal to a global audience rather than engage in political back-and-forth.
At the same time, Trump’s criticism underscores tensions between religious figures and political leaders when their messaging diverges, particularly on issues like war and international policy. Such exchanges can influence public perception, especially among audiences that view religious institutions as moral arbiters.
As conflicts continue to shape global politics, voices like Leo’s may play a role in shaping public discourse, even if they lack direct policy influence. The effectiveness of such advocacy often depends on whether political leaders and international institutions are willing to translate moral appeals into concrete action.
(Politico/NYPOST) — Rep. Eric Swalwell on Sunday halted his campaign for California governor after a series of sexual misconduct allegations triggered a rapid collapse of political support and intensified scrutiny from both state and federal officials.
In a statement posted on social media, Swalwell acknowledged past “mistakes in judgment” while maintaining that the allegations against him are untrue. He said he would contest the claims personally but would not allow the controversy to continue overshadowing the campaign.
The decision followed a week of escalating fallout after accusations surfaced from a former staff member and additional claims emerged in subsequent media accounts, including reporting by the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN. The allegations prompted a swift withdrawal of backing from key allies, including prominent lawmakers and campaign officials.
Senior Democratic figures, among them Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, urged Swalwell to step aside, while former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi emphasized that the claims warranted a full and transparent review outside the context of an active campaign.
Swalwell also faces legal scrutiny beyond California. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is examining allegations tied to an incident in New York City in 2024, further complicating his political standing.
The sudden exit reshapes an already unpredictable race in the nation’s most populous state. Swalwell had recently gained traction among Democratic voters, with growing financial support and endorsements positioning him as a leading contender. His withdrawal leaves a fragmented field that includes figures such as Katie Porter and Tom Steyer, neither of whom has established a dominant lead.
Republican candidate Steve Hilton criticized Swalwell’s initial entry into the race, while San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said the move to suspend the campaign came too late.
The controversy also drew a response from California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks, who described the allegations as deeply troubling and indicated that candidates must evaluate their viability in light of the unfolding situation.
Swalwell’s name is expected to remain on the primary ballot despite his withdrawal, leaving uncertainty about how voters will respond in the upcoming election.
Swalwell’s abrupt exit highlights how quickly political fortunes can shift when allegations emerge during a campaign, particularly in an era where media exposure and public reaction move at a rapid pace. His trajectory—from a rising contender to political isolation within days—illustrates the fragility of coalition-based support in competitive statewide races.
The development may also alter the strategic dynamics of the California governor’s contest. With a crowded Democratic field, the removal of a high-profile candidate could reduce vote fragmentation, potentially benefiting remaining contenders seeking to consolidate support. At the same time, it introduces new uncertainty about voter alignment and turnout.
The situation underscores the increasing role of accountability and transparency in modern campaigns. Allegations of misconduct, whether proven or contested, can have immediate and far-reaching consequences, influencing not only individual candidacies but also broader party strategies.
Legal proceedings and ongoing investigations will likely shape the next phase of this story. The outcome could carry implications beyond the governor’s race, including potential impacts on Swalwell’s position in Congress and on public trust in elected officials.
Donald Trump posted an AI rendered version of himself as Jesus Christ,
President Trump branded Pope Leo XIV as “WEAK” on crime and “terrible” on foreign policy in a late-night Truth Social blitz that also saw him uploading an AI-generated image of himself dressed as Jesus, drawing immediate rebuke from Catholic leaders who characterized the attacks as unprecedented in modern history.
Last week, Pope Leo declared Trump’s warning that an “entire civilisation will die tonight”—in reference to Iran—was “unacceptable.” The pope has also suggested that a “delusion of omnipotence” is fueling the war between the United States and Iran, directly criticizing Trump’s apocalyptic rhetoric and maximalist approach to the conflict.
In his lengthy Truth Social post, the president claimed that the Catholic Church’s leadership had been “arresting priests, ministers, and everybody else” in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and suggested that he preferred the pope’s brother. “I like his brother Louis much better than I like him, because Louis is all MAGA,” the president declared. “He gets it, and Leo doesn’t! I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon.”
The president went on to suggest that his own election played a role in the Catholic Church’s choice of pope in May 2025—an extraordinary claim that the Vatican’s internal deliberations were influenced by American political considerations. “Leo should be thankful because, as everyone knows, he was a shocking surprise,” the president wrote. “He wasn’t on any list to be Pope, and was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump.”
“If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican,” Trump continued, suggesting the 1.4-billion-member Catholic Church selected its spiritual leader specifically to manage relations with the American president rather than for religious qualifications.
Trump added: “Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician”—language treating the spiritual leader of the world’s largest Christian denomination as subordinate requiring presidential instruction.
Around 40 minutes after unloading on the pope, Trump uploaded an AI-generated image of himself dressed as Jesus. In the picture, the president is bathed in golden light as he places a shining hand on a sleeping man’s forehead—imagery directly appropriating Christian religious iconography to portray Trump as divine healer.
A nurse and a praying woman are both kneeling around the patient in the image, while a man in camouflage uniform looks on. A fourth individual, dressed in a green uniform, is also by the patient’s bedside. In the background, a huge U.S. flag, a pair of bald eagles, and a trio of military planes can be seen flying through the air—combining religious and nationalist symbolism.
Former Trump loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene shredded the president’s post, declaring she was “praying against it.” “On Orthodox Easter, President Trump attacked the Pope because the Pope is rightly against Trump’s war in Iran and then he posted this picture of himself as if he is replacing Jesus,” Greene wrote on X. “This comes after last week’s post of his evil tirade on Easter and then threatening to kill an entire civilization.”
“I completely denounce this and I’m praying against it!!!” Greene continued, employing language suggesting Trump’s actions constituted spiritual transgression requiring divine intervention to counteract.
Donald Trump posted an AI rendered version of himself as Jesus Christ,
Archbishop Paul S. Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, also issued a statement in response to Trump’s post. “I am disheartened that the President chose to write such disparaging words about the Holy Father,” he wrote. “Pope Leo is not his rival; nor is the Pope a politician. He is the Vicar of Christ who speaks from the truth of the Gospel and for the care of souls.”
Italian historian Massimo Faggioli told Reuters that he believes there is “no ambiguity about the situation now.” “Not even Hitler or Mussolini attacked the pope so directly and publicly,” he stated, drawing comparison to 20th-century dictators whose relationships with the Vatican were strained but who avoided such direct public attacks on papal authority.
Reuters confirmed that U.S. President Trump forcefully criticized Pope Leo late Sunday in an unusual, direct attack on the leader of the 1.4-billion-member Catholic Church that drew immediate rebuke from believers worldwide. The president, in apparent response to the pope’s growing criticisms of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran and the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration policies, characterized Leo as “terrible.”
“Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, employing language typically reserved for political opponents rather than spiritual leaders commanding global respect.
Catholics on social media quickly lambasted Trump for attacking the leader of their Church, whom they believe is the successor of St. Peter, one of Jesus’ 12 apostles. “There is no ambiguity about the situation now,” Faggioli, an expert on the papacy, told Reuters.
He compared the comments to efforts by the leaders of Germany and Italy during World War Two to draw the late Pope Pius XII to support their causes. “Not even Hitler or Mussolini attacked the pope so directly and publicly,” Faggioli repeated, emphasizing the unprecedented nature of Trump’s assault on papal authority.
Archbishop Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, disclosed he was disheartened by Trump’s comments. “Pope Leo is not his rival; nor is the Pope a politician. He is the Vicar of Christ who speaks from the truth of the Gospel and for the care of souls,” he emphasized in a statement defending the pope’s spiritual role.
Leo, originally from Chicago, is the first U.S. pope. Known for choosing his words carefully, he has emerged as an outspoken critic of the Iran war in recent weeks and decried the “madness of war” in a peace appeal on Saturday. Last year, he questioned whether the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration policies were in line with the Church’s pro-life teachings.
“Someone who says, ‘I am against abortion but I am in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States’, I don’t know if that’s pro-life,” the pontiff declared in September, challenging the consistency of those who claim pro-life credentials while supporting policies separating families and deporting longtime residents.
Trump wrote in his post Sunday that “Leo should get his act together as Pope,” later telling journalists he was “not a big fan” of the pontiff—language treating the spiritual leader of over one billion Catholics as celebrity requiring Trump’s approval.
Trump’s broadside against Leo also accused him of being “weak on nuclear weapons,” several days after the pope characterized the U.S. president’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization as “truly unacceptable.” In a speech on Palm Sunday last month in St. Peter’s Square in the Vatican, the pope declared God rejects the prayers of leaders who start wars and have their “hands full of blood,” calling the conflict in Iran “atrocious.”
Leo has also called on Trump to find an “off-ramp” to end the conflict and “decrease the amount of violence”—diplomatic language urging de-escalation that apparently infuriated Trump who views such appeals as weakness rather than moral leadership.
In his post, Trump suggested that Leo was only elected to lead the Catholic Church last year “because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump”—an assertion with no basis in how papal conclaves function and insulting to the cardinals who selected him.
The Vatican did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The pope is scheduled to leave Monday for an ambitious 10-day tour of four countries in Africa—diplomatic travel that will prevent immediate response to Trump’s attacks.
Leo has called for “deep reflection” about the way migrants are being treated in the United States. The pope’s call for a more compassionate approach to immigration—a sentiment expressed by several of Leo’s predecessors—stands in contrast to the stance of Trump, who has argued that the United States must curtail immigration from developing countries to reduce crime.
“He’s a very liberal person and he’s a man who doesn’t believe in stopping crime,” Trump told journalists Sunday night, characterizing the pope’s humanitarian concerns as soft-on-crime liberalism rather than Christian compassion.
Trump also had a rocky relationship with Leo’s predecessor Pope Francis, who criticized Trump’s immigration policy proposals when he first ran for president and suggested Trump was “not a Christian” based on his policy positions. Trump had called Francis “disgraceful” in early 2016, establishing a pattern of conflicts with papal authority.
The attacks on Pope Leo and the posting of an image depicting Trump as Jesus raised profound questions about the president’s relationship with Christianity and his understanding of religious authority. For Catholics who view the pope as Christ’s representative on Earth, Trump’s attacks constitute not merely political disagreement but assault on their faith’s foundational structures.
The AI-generated image of Trump as Jesus proved particularly offensive to many Christians who view such depictions as blasphemous appropriation of religious imagery for political purposes. The image’s combination of religious iconography with nationalist symbols—American flags, bald eagles, and military aircraft—suggested fusion of Christianity with American imperialism that many theologians reject.
For evangelicals like Marjorie Taylor Greene who have been among Trump’s most loyal supporters, the Jesus image apparently crossed a line that his policies and rhetoric had not. Her public denunciation suggested even Trump’s most devoted followers have limits regarding acceptable religious appropriation.
As Trump’s conflict with the Catholic Church intensifies alongside his war with Iran, the president appears increasingly isolated from traditional sources of moral authority who might counsel restraint. Whether such isolation will produce policy moderation or further radicalization as Trump lashes out at critics remains uncertain.
For now, the unprecedented spectacle of an American president attacking the pope while posting images of himself as Jesus illustrates how thoroughly Trump has shattered norms governing presidential conduct and relationships with religious institutions that previous administrations—regardless of party—treated with respect even amid policy disagreements.
One person was killed and six others were wounded in a shooting at a Chick-fil-A in New Jersey late Saturday, as investigators worked to identify and locate the attackers behind the violence that erupted inside the fast-food restaurant.
Authorities in Union County, New Jersey, indicated the injuries sustained by the six survivors were not considered life-threatening. The fatal shooting unfolded shortly before 9 p.m. at the Route 22 location, which remained an active crime scene into Sunday as law enforcement officers continued gathering evidence.
The Union County Prosecutor’s Office signaled early in the investigation that the attack did not appear to be random, though officials have not publicly identified a motive or announced any arrests. Investigators are actively pursuing leads to determine who was responsible.
Witness accounts describe a chaotic and targeted assault. A man whose partner works at the restaurant told CBS that several masked individuals forced their way into the business, moved behind the counter and opened fire. Another witness characterized the aftermath as resembling a “war zone,” with customers scrambling to escape the gunfire.
Video circulating from the scene captured a masked individual fleeing through the parking lot, while nearby motorists and patrons rushed away in panic. A rideshare driver passing through the area recounted hearing multiple gunshots moments before encountering a heavy police presence.
Nearby businesses also reported witnessing the disturbance. An employee at a shop across the street described reviewing surveillance footage that showed people running in multiple directions as the incident unfolded.
Investigators in protective gear were seen removing items from the restaurant on Sunday, carrying containers marked for hazardous materials as part of the evidence collection process. Officials have urged anyone with information to come forward as the search for suspects continues.
The shooting adds to a growing tally of mass casualty incidents nationwide. Data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive indicates this marks the 100th such event in the United States this year, defined as incidents where four or more people are shot or killed.
New Jersey’s attorney general expressed concern over the violence, emphasizing that state and local authorities are coordinating closely on the investigation while extending support to victims and their families.
While investigators in New Jersey have not confirmed a motive, early indications that the attack was not random suggest a possible targeted dispute or premeditated act, which could influence how authorities pursue suspects and potential accomplices. The use of masks and coordinated entry into the restaurant points to planning rather than a spontaneous act, raising questions about whether the attackers had prior knowledge of the location or individuals inside.
The incident also underscores a shifting pattern in mass violence, where commercial spaces such as restaurants are increasingly becoming sites of targeted or opportunistic attacks. Unlike public gatherings or schools, these environments present fewer security barriers, making them vulnerable to rapid escalation events.
From a policy standpoint, the shooting may intensify ongoing debates over public safety measures, surveillance, and response readiness in everyday settings. It also highlights the role of community reporting and surveillance footage in modern investigations, as authorities rely heavily on digital evidence to reconstruct events and identify suspects.
The psychological impact on workers and patrons in such routine spaces can be profound, potentially affecting local business activity and public confidence. As the investigation unfolds, attention is likely to turn toward both accountability and preventive strategies to reduce similar incidents.
Hungarian voters on Sunday ousted long-serving Prime Minister Viktor Orbán after 16 years in power, rejecting the authoritarian policies and global far-right movement that he embodied in favor of a pro-European challenger in a bombshell election result with global repercussions for nationalist populism worldwide.
It was a stunning blow for Orbán—a close ally of both U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin—who quickly conceded defeat after what he characterized as a “painful” election result. U.S. Vice President JD Vance had visited Hungary just days earlier in an effort meant to push Orbán over the finish line, making the defeat even more embarrassing for the Trump administration.
Election victor Peter Magyar, a former Orbán loyalist who campaigned against corruption and on everyday issues like health care and public transport, has pledged to rebuild Hungary’s relationships with the European Union and NATO—ties that frayed badly under Orbán’s leadership. European leaders quickly congratulated Magyar on his historic victory.
His triumph was expected to transform political dynamics within the EU, where Orbán had upended the bloc by frequently vetoing key decisions, prompting concerns he sought to break it apart from the inside. The removal of Orbán’s obstruction could unlock billions in aid to Ukraine and restore more cohesive European policymaking.
The result will also reverberate among far-right movements around the world, which have viewed Orbán as a beacon for how nationalist populism can be used to wage culture wars and leverage state power to undermine opponents. His defeat demonstrates that even entrenched authoritarian-leaning leaders can be removed through democratic processes when opposition coalesces effectively.
It remains unclear whether Magyar’s Tisza party will secure the two-thirds majority in parliament that would grant it the numbers needed for major constitutional changes. With 93 percent of votes counted, it had captured more than 53 percent support to 37 percent for Orbán’s governing Fidesz party and looked set to win 94 of Hungary’s 106 voting districts.
“I congratulated the victorious party,” Orbán told followers gathered at his campaign headquarters. “We are going to serve the Hungarian nation and our homeland from opposition”—a remarkable statement from a leader who had dominated Hungarian politics for nearly two decades and transformed the country’s institutions to cement his control.
In a speech to tens of thousands of jubilant supporters at a victory party along the Danube River, Magyar declared his voters had rewritten Hungarian history. “Tonight, truth prevailed over lies. Today, we won because Hungarians didn’t ask what their homeland could do for them — they asked what they could do for their homeland. You found the answer. And you followed through,” he proclaimed.
On the streets of Budapest, drivers blared car horns and cranked up anti-government songs while people marching in the streets chanted and screamed in celebration. Many revelers chanted “Ruszkik haza!” or “Russians go home!”—a phrase used widely during Hungary’s 1956 anti-Soviet revolution, and which had gained increasing currency amid Orbán’s drift toward Moscow.
Turnout in the election reached nearly 80 percent, according to the National Election Office—a record number in any vote in Hungary’s post-Communist history and indication of how consequential voters understood the election to be for their country’s future direction.
Orbán, the EU’s longest-serving leader and one of its biggest antagonists, traveled a long road from his early days as a liberal, anti-Soviet firebrand to the Russia-friendly nationalist admired today by the global far-right. The transformation illustrates how power can corrupt ideological commitments as leaders prioritize maintaining authority over principles.
The EU will be waiting to see how Magyar changes Hungary’s approach to Ukraine. Orbán repeatedly frustrated EU efforts to support the neighboring country in its war against Russia’s full-scale invasion, while cultivating close ties to Putin and refusing to end Hungary’s dependence on Russian energy imports despite the invasion.
Recent revelations showed a top member of Orbán’s government frequently shared the contents of EU discussions with Moscow, raising accusations that Hungary was acting on Russia’s behalf within the bloc—allegations that damaged Orbán’s standing even among conservative European leaders who had previously tolerated his behavior.
Members of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement are among those who see Orbán’s government and his Fidesz political party as shining examples of conservative, anti-globalist politics in action, while he is reviled by advocates of liberal democracy and the rule of law who view his governance as authoritarian assault on democratic norms.
In Budapest, Marcell Mehringer, 21, disclosed he was voting “primarily so that Hungary will finally be a so-called European country, and so that young people, and really everyone, will do their fundamental civic duty to unite this nation a bit and to break down these boundaries borne of hatred.” His comments reflected generational divide between older voters who remembered Communist oppression and younger ones who took democratic freedoms for granted.
During his 16 years as prime minister, Orbán launched harsh crackdowns on minority rights and media freedoms, subverted many of Hungary’s institutions, and been accused of siphoning large sums of money into the coffers of his allied business elite—an allegation he denies but which investigative journalists have documented extensively.
He also heavily strained Hungary’s relationship with the EU. Although Hungary is one of the smaller EU countries with a population of 9.5 million, Orbán repeatedly used his veto to block decisions that require unanimity—giving disproportionate power to Budapest relative to its size and population.
Most recently, he blocked a 90-billion euro ($104 billion) EU loan to Ukraine, prompting his partners to accuse him of hijacking the critical aid package for leverage in unrelated disputes. The obstruction infuriated European leaders who viewed Hungarian policy as prioritizing Russian interests over European solidarity.
Magyar, 45, rapidly rose to become Orbán’s most serious challenger despite being a former insider within Orbán’s Fidesz party. Magyar broke with Fidesz in 2024 and quickly formed Tisza. Since then, he has toured Hungary relentlessly, holding rallies in settlements big and small in a campaign blitz that recently had him visiting up to six towns daily.
In an interview with The Associated Press earlier this month, Magyar characterized the election as a “referendum” on whether Hungary continues on its drift toward Russia under Orbán or can retake its place among the democratic societies of Europe. Tisza is a member of the European People’s Party—the mainstream, center-right political family with leaders governing 12 of the EU’s 27 nations.
Magyar faced a tough fight given Orbán’s control of Hungary’s public media, which he transformed into a mouthpiece for his party, and vast swaths of the private media market that gave him enormous advantage in spreading his message. The unilateral transformation of Hungary’s electoral system and gerrymandering of its 106 voting districts by Fidesz also required Tisza to gain an estimated 5 percent more votes than Orbán’s party to achieve a simple majority.
Additionally, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Hungarians in neighboring countries had the right to vote in Hungarian elections and traditionally voted overwhelmingly for Orbán’s party—creating built-in advantage for the incumbent.
Russian secret services plotted to interfere and tip the election in Orbán’s favor, according to numerous media accounts including by The Washington Post. The prime minister, however, accused neighboring Ukraine as well as Hungary’s allies in the EU of seeking to interfere in the vote to install a “pro-Ukraine” government—projection that deflected from documented Russian interference.
According to The Sun, Viktor Orbán conceded defeat in Hungary’s election—putting an end to the Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin ally’s 16-year grip on power. The Hungarian prime minister declared the results were “painful for us, but clear” before congratulating Peter Magyar on his apparent landslide.
Magyar, a former member of Orbán’s Fidesz party, disclosed on Facebook the PM had personally “congratulated us on our victory” just minutes before the public announcement. The historic result marks an astonishing victory for Magyar’s center-right Tisza party which was founded just two years ago.
Budapest is now set to see a major reshaping in relations with the EU, Moscow, and Washington following the sensational election win. Voting continued until 6 p.m. Sunday (5 p.m. GMT) with results still being finalized.
Early counts indicated the Tisza party could be on course for an unprecedented supermajority. Just over half of the counted votes projected the Tisza party winning 136 seats in Hungary’s 199-member parliament—far more than Fidesz’s 56 seats.
The electoral commission confirmed a turnout exceeding 66 percent—a record high and a 10 percent increase over four years ago. The result is also a huge blow to Russian President Putin, who has enjoyed Orbán’s consistent anti-Ukraine rhetoric within the EU over the last four years.
The now-former Hungarian leader had been a longtime thorn in the union’s side and a prominent voice for Moscow’s ambitions. His defeat could pave the way for an £80 billion loan to Ukraine which had previously been blocked by Orbán.
With his tough talk on immigration and focus on the “Christian family,” Orbán secured Trump’s backing in recent weeks but had been trailing in polls. Admitting defeat late Sunday, he stated: “The result of the election is clear and painful. We don’t have the weight of governing the country, so we have to rebuild our communities.”
He added: “We never give up, this is one thing people know about us, we never give up. The days ahead of us are for us to heal our wounds”—language suggesting Fidesz would remain active in opposition rather than accepting permanent defeat.
European leaders took to social media to congratulate Magyar—with French President Emmanuel Macron, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz hailing the victory as triumph for European democratic values. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also weighed in, declaring: “This is an historic moment, not only for Hungary, but for European democracy. I look forward to working with you for the security and prosperity of both our countries.”
The United States had thrown its weight behind Orbán, sending Vice President Vance to campaign on his behalf earlier this week. Vance spoke highly of Hungary and Orbán throughout his speech. “I am here because President Trump and I wish for your success and we are fighting right here with you,” he told the crowd.
He called upon voters to stand up for sovereignty and democracy, Western civilization, truth, freedom, and for “the God of our fathers.” However, polls conducted after the visit showed the Hungarian leader’s performance drop—suggesting Vance’s intervention may have backfired by highlighting Orbán’s dependence on foreign support.
Trump previously endorsed Orbán in a post on Truth Social in February, calling him a “truly strong and powerful Leader, with a proven track record of delivering phenomenal results.” The endorsement now looks embarrassing as Trump’s chosen candidate went down to crushing defeat despite American support.
Magyar and his grassroots party Tisza have vowed “a change of regime,” a reset of relations with the European Union, and an end to close relations with Russia. He attracted far greater numbers to his final rally in the second city Debrecen than Orbán drew in Budapest—a visible demonstration of shifting popular sentiment.
As Magyar prepares to form a government and Orbán contemplates life in opposition after 16 years of near-absolute power, the Hungarian election stands as powerful reminder that even entrenched authoritarian-leaning leaders can be removed when opposition movements mobilize effectively, media control proves insufficient to suppress dissent, and voters conclude that change is necessary regardless of obstacles placed in their path.
(Foxnews) — President Donald Trump announced a sweeping “all or nothing” naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, warning that any attack on U.S. forces or commercial vessels would trigger overwhelming retaliation, including threats that perpetrators would be “blown to hell.”
The move follows the collapse of high-level talks between the United States and Iran in Pakistan, where negotiators failed to reach agreement on key issues, including nuclear restrictions and maritime access.
In an interview with Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo, Trump outlined a strict enforcement approach that would deny selective access to the strategic waterway, a critical route for global energy shipments.
“We’re not going to allow Iran to decide who gets through and who doesn’t,” Trump said, describing the policy as a complete cutoff unless equal access is restored.
He added that the United States is preparing to enforce the blockade with naval power and coordination from partner nations, though details of that cooperation remain unclear.
In a separate social media statement, Trump said the U.S. Navy had been ordered to intercept vessels operating under what he described as unauthorized arrangements with Iran and to begin clearing naval mines believed to be deployed in the channel. He also warned that any hostile action against U.S. ships or civilian traffic would be met with decisive force.
The blockade marks a significant escalation in the standoff, with the administration framing the move as a response to what it described as attempts by Iran to restrict access and impose costs on shipping through the waterway.
Shipping activity in the region has already been disrupted, with only limited vessel movement recorded since the ceasefire took effect, raising concerns about supply shortages and rising energy prices.
Data from maritime monitoring firms indicates that tankers are being rerouted toward alternative supply points, including the United States, as global markets react to the uncertainty.
The blockade signals a major shift from targeted military operations to broader economic pressure, with the Strait of Hormuz serving as a central leverage point. Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply typically passes through the narrow channel, making any disruption immediately felt in global markets.
Trump’s “all or nothing” approach removes flexibility from prior arrangements and increases the likelihood of confrontation. By eliminating partial access, the policy forces a binary outcome that could either compel compliance or trigger escalation.
The warning of severe retaliation also reflects an effort to deter attacks, but it carries the risk of rapid military escalation in a region already on edge. Iran has previously demonstrated its ability to use smaller naval assets and asymmetric tactics, complicating enforcement of a large-scale blockade.
For global markets, the implications are immediate. Energy prices have already surged, and prolonged disruption could strain supply chains, increase inflation pressures, and affect economies far beyond the Middle East.
Diplomatically, the move may strain relations with allies reluctant to participate in a full blockade, while also testing the limits of international maritime law.
As tensions continue to build, the situation presents a high-stakes confrontation where economic pressure, military deterrence and diplomatic strategy are tightly intertwined, with little margin for miscalculation.
