Missing girl is found in the bush, her grandfather was who…

The stench gave her away before anyone found her name. A neighbor’s call, a vacant lot, a child’s b.o đy abandoned beside a metro station.

Sirens, tape, and a family’s world torn open.

Four suspects, no clear answers, and a nation asking how a simple errand turned into unthinkable horro…

Perla’s final walk to buy candy has become a symbol of everything breaking in Mexico’s social fabric.

Her discovery in an abandoned lot near the Constitución de 1917 station exposed not just a crime,

but the daily terror families live with in neglected neighborhoods where security is a distant promise.

The arrests of four suspects have not calmed the outrage; if anything, they have sharpened it,

as citizens demand transparency, accountability, and an end to impunity.

Outside her home and the metro station, flickering candles and handwritten posters speak the

words her devastated family can barely say. They ask for privacy, yet insist that her name not fade into another statistic.

Perla’s story is now a collective vow: to strengthen child protection, to take every disappearance seriously,

and to force real change so that no child’s ordinary errand ends in silence and fear again.

Trump Arrives at NBA Finals With Huge Entourage

All eyes are on New York for tonight’s Game 3 of the NBA Finals, where the Knicks lead the San Antonio Spurs 2-0.

The Knicks are two wins away from the championship.

Officials have increased security at Madison Square Garden, where President Donald Trump and New York socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani attended the game.

The first NBA Finals game at Madison Square Garden since 1999 is being played a day after six people were injured in a stabbing at Penn Station, directly below the arena.

President Donald Trump showed up to a packed house in a suite with a handful of loyal allies and members of his administration.

The president paid for the suite and brought many along with him to enjoy Game 3 of the Finals:

Spotted so far in President Trump’s suite at MSG:

Sec. Sean Duffy
Sec. Doug Burgum
Administrator Lee Zeldin
Deputy COS Dan Scavino
Jared Kushner
Envoy Steve Witkoff
Walt Nauta
Boris Epshteyn
Natalie Harp

 

Trump’s appearance at the NBA Finals on Monday night comes as he’s been publicly slamming the ongoing elections in California.

A growing dispute between California election officials and the federal government is drawing renewed attention to voter roll maintenance, election oversight, and the state’s voting requirements as ballot counting continues following this week’s primary elections.

The controversy intensified after U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli revealed that the Department of Justice has been attempting for more than a year to conduct a federal review of California’s voter registration records but has been unable to obtain the access it says federal law permits.

According to Essayli, the Justice Department is investigating multiple election-related issues in California while also examining concerns about the state’s voter registration system.

“For over a year, the Department of Justice has been trying to audit California’s voter rolls,” Essayli said.

“Federal law gives the Attorney General the authority to review state voter files and confirm that only eligible U.S. citizens are voting in federal elections,” he added.

The dispute comes at a time when California remains in the middle of counting hundreds of thousands of outstanding ballots from its June primary election.

California’s ballot-counting process has long been a source of frustration for voters across the political spectrum.

Unlike many states that report near-final results within hours of polls closing, California routinely spends days or even weeks processing mail ballots, provisional ballots, and late-arriving vote-by-mail ballots that were postmarked by Election Day.

As election officials continue counting votes, they have once again moved concerns about election administration to the forefront.

One issue drawing particular attention involves California’s voter identification requirements for certain first-time voters.

Essayli highlighted several forms of identification that can be used during the voter registration process, noting that many Americans would likely be surprised by what qualifies.

Among the accepted forms of identification are gym membership cards, employer identification cards, credit or debit cards, prescription drug labels, and insurance cards.

The inclusion of insurance cards has generated additional scrutiny because California provides state-funded health coverage programs that are available to certain illegal immigrants.

Republicans have increasingly focused on citizenship verification measures, including the SAVE America Act, which would require documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration nationwide.

Supporters argue that such measures are necessary to ensure that only eligible citizens participate in federal elections.

California officials have consistently defended the state’s election system, arguing that extensive safeguards already exist and that there is no evidence of widespread non-citizen voting affecting election outcomes.

At the same time, the Justice Department’s growing interest in California’s election administration suggests federal scrutiny is unlikely to fade anytime soon.

This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.

Supreme Court Poised to Rule on ‘Election Day’ Mail-In Ballot Case

A closely watched case now before the U.S. Supreme Court could have major implications for election administration across the country, including in California and more than a dozen other states that continue counting certain mail ballots after Election Day.

The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, centers on whether federal law permits states to count ballots that arrive after Election Day if they were mailed on or before Election Day.

The justices heard oral arguments in March and are expected to issue a decision before the end of the Court’s current term this month.

At issue is a Mississippi law that allows absentee ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within five business days afterward.

Republican challengers argue that the law conflicts with federal statutes establishing a uniform national Election Day for presidential, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House elections.

Their position is straightforward: federal law sets a single Election Day, meaning ballots must be received by then to be counted.

Mississippi officials argue that states retain broad authority over election administration and that ballots cast by Election Day should still be valid if they arrive shortly afterward.

The dispute began after Mississippi enacted House Bill 1521 in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The law created a five-day grace period for absentee ballots arriving after Election Day.

In 2024, the Republican National Committee and other plaintiffs challenged the law in federal court.

While a federal district court initially upheld Mississippi’s policy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit later ruled that federal election law preempts the state’s post-Election Day ballot receipt window.

Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case last year.

The stakes extend far beyond Mississippi.

According to election law data, roughly 15 states and the District of Columbia currently allow at least some ballots to arrive after Election Day and still be counted, provided they meet postmark requirements.

That includes California, where mail ballots can be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within the state’s statutory deadline of seven days afterward.

A ruling for the challengers could force states to require receipt of ballots by Election Day for all federal elections.

Supporters of that approach argue it would create a clearer and more uniform national standard while reducing prolonged ballot-counting periods that can leave election outcomes unresolved for days or even weeks.

Critics argue that such a ruling could disenfranchise voters who mail ballots on time but experience postal delays outside their control.

During oral arguments, several justices appeared focused on the meaning of federal statutes establishing a single national Election Day. Court observers noted significant questioning about whether votes received after Election Day are consistent with Congress’s decision to establish one uniform federal election date.

No decision has been issued yet, and it remains unclear how the Court will ultimately rule.

However, the outcome could become one of the most consequential election-law decisions in years.

A ruling for the challengers would likely require states to revise ballot-receipt deadlines for federal elections and could substantially reduce post-Election Day vote counting nationwide.

A ruling for Mississippi would preserve existing state flexibility and allow current ballot-receipt grace periods to remain in place.

With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, election officials, political parties, and voting-rights organizations across the country are closely watching the case.

The Court’s decision is expected before the end of June and could establish a nationwide standard governing when ballots must be received in federal elections for years to come.

While the legal dispute began in Mississippi, the Supreme Court’s ruling could have implications far beyond one state’s election laws.

Currently, a significant number of states permit some form of post-Election Day ballot receipt period. Under these systems, ballots are counted as long as they were mailed by Election Day and arrive within a specified number of days afterward.

This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.

Senate Passes $70 Billion DHS, ICE, and Border Security Funding Package

President Donald Trump scored a significant legislative victory after the U.S. Senate approved a massive $70 billion border security and immigration enforcement funding package following a lengthy overnight debate.

The legislation passed by a 52-47 vote, with nearly every Republican senator supporting the measure. The only Republican to vote against the bill was Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who joined Democrats in opposition.

The vote marked one of the biggest congressional victories yet for Trump’s second-term immigration agenda and sets up a critical showdown in the House of Representatives, where lawmakers will now decide whether to send the legislation to the president’s desk.

If approved by the House, the package would provide a historic increase in resources for immigration enforcement agencies that have been at the center of the administration’s efforts to secure the border, expand deportation operations, and crack down on illegal immigration.

The bill includes approximately $38.6 billion for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, making it one of the largest funding increases in the agency’s history.

An additional $22.6 billion would go toward U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which oversees Border Patrol operations and manages security along America’s borders.

The package also allocates roughly $5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security to support broader agency operations and implementation of administration priorities.

Republicans argued throughout the debate that the funding is necessary to maintain border security gains achieved under Trump’s policies and to provide federal agencies with the resources needed to carry out their missions.

Supporters say the funding would help expand detention capacity, hire additional personnel, strengthen enforcement operations, improve infrastructure, and continue large-scale deportation efforts already underway.

The legislation advanced after an intense overnight session in which Senate Democrats attempted to reshape the bill through a series of amendments.

Many of those proposals focused on domestic spending priorities such as housing affordability, healthcare costs, childcare assistance, and energy prices.

Republicans largely rejected those efforts, arguing that the legislation was specifically designed to address immigration enforcement and border security rather than serve as a broader domestic policy package.

Following the vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer launched a sharp attack on Republicans and the Trump administration.

Schumer accused Republicans of prioritizing immigration enforcement while ignoring economic concerns facing American families.

The New York Democrat argued that Senate Republicans had chosen to spend billions on federal enforcement agencies while rejecting Democratic proposals aimed at reducing costs for housing, healthcare, fuel, and childcare.

He also renewed criticism of the Trump administration’s controversial Anti-Weaponization Fund, which has become a frequent target of Democratic attacks in recent weeks.

The fund was established through a Department of Justice settlement agreement and is designed to provide a process through which individuals can seek compensation if they believe they were subjected to politically motivated government targeting, lawfare, or weaponization of federal agencies.

Democrats have repeatedly described the program as a political slush fund and attempted to eliminate it through legislative action.

However, those efforts failed during consideration of the border security package.

Earlier this week, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified before Congress that the fund has not yet been implemented.

According to Blanche, no commissioners have been appointed, no claims have been processed, and no operational structure has been established.

Despite Democratic objections, Republicans declined to permanently prohibit the program as part of the funding legislation.

The Senate vote highlights how immigration remains one of the defining issues heading into the 2026 midterm elections.

Republicans have consistently emphasized border security, deportations, and immigration enforcement as core priorities throughout Trump’s second term.

Administration officials argue that stronger enforcement policies have helped dramatically reduce illegal border crossings compared to previous years.

They also point to expanded deportation operations and increased cooperation among federal agencies as evidence that the administration’s approach is producing results.

Supporters of the legislation say those efforts cannot continue without substantial funding increases.

They argue that ICE and Border Patrol have been asked to carry out ambitious enforcement goals while operating under resource constraints that limit their effectiveness.

The new funding package is intended to address those concerns by providing agencies with the personnel, facilities, equipment, and operational resources needed to expand enforcement efforts nationwide.

This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.

Photo Of Trump Family On Election Night Turns Heads After People Spot Small Detail!

The photo looked perfect. The timing was electric. The stakes could not be higher. On election night, as the Trump dynasty gathered at

Mar-a-Lago to celebrate a political resurrection, one face was missing — and that absence set off a firestorm.

Melania Trump, once the poised shadow at Donald’s side, was simply… gone. Speculation exploded, loyalties were questio…

Melania Trump’s absence from the viral Mar-a-Lago family photo crystallized what has been building quietly

While Donald Trump leans into his second act campaign

for years: a woman stepping away from a role she never truly wanted. While Donald Trump leans into his second-act campaign,

Melania appears to be writing a different script, one centered on privacy, motherhood, and distance from the relentless spectacle that defines his world.

Her silence has become its own kind of power. By refusing to play the traditional political spouse,

Whether she ultimately returns to Washington or remains in

she challenges expectations of what a First Lady should be: ever-present, ever-smiling, ever-available. Whether she ultimately returns to Washington or remains in

Palm Beach, her choice will echo far beyond one marriage. It will test how much autonomy a presidential spouse is allowed —

and how much mystery the public is willing to accept from the woman who, by saying almost nothing, may be saying the most.

Epstein files with claims against Trump released by US Justice Department

The United States Justice Department has published additional FBI documents, describing interviews with a woman who said President Donald Trump sexually assaulted her when she was a teenager after she was introduced to him by late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The documents had not been made public under previous congressionally mandated file releases related to Epstein, the disgraced financier, because they were mistakenly marked “duplicative”, the department said on Thursday.

Democrats are investigating the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files.

The documents released on Thursday include descriptions of multiple 2019 interviews the FBI held with the woman, who alleged she was assaulted by Epstein and Trump while she was aged between 13 and 15 years old.

In one interview, the woman said Epstein took her to “either New York or New Jersey” and introduced her to Trump. She told investigators that she bit Trump as he attempted to force her to perform oral sex on him.

The woman said she and people close to her received threatening calls over the years demanding she keep quiet, which she believed were related to Epstein.

Interviews stopped

FBI records reportedly suggest agents stopped speaking with her in 2019. In the report of the woman’s final interview, conducted in October 2019, during Trump’s first presidency, agents asked whether she would be willing to provide more information about Trump.

In response, the agent wrote, she “asked what the point would be of providing the information at this point in her life when there was a strong possibility nothing could be done about it”.

Politico, the US publication which first reported the disclosures, said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the woman’s claims “completely baseless accusations, backed by zero credible evidence”.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing related to the Epstein allegations, and the Justice Department previously said some of the documents it has released “contain untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump”.

Before the US and Israel launched their war on Iran five days ago, the fallout from files released by the US Department of Justice on the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was reverberating around the world.

But all those revelations have sharply shifted once the bombs started raining down on Iran.

On Sunday, Republican US Congressman Thomas Massie, who helped push the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act through Congress last year, said, “bombing a country on the other side of the globe won’t make the Epstein files go away”. He has also been critical of the war.

Shaiel Ben-Ephraim, an analyst with Atlas Global Strategies and a former Israeli diplomat, has told Al Jazeera that Trump “really needs a distraction from [his domestic issues] in the form of a war”.

“And if you look at searches on Google for the Epstein files, they’ve plummeted since this started. So, at least temporarily, it’s succeeding. It’s taking up Congress’s time and it’s taking up the media’s time,” he added.

🗞️ABC Anchor Admits Truth As Trump’s DC Crackdown Yields Big Results

ABC Anchor Admits Truth As Trump’s DC Crackdown Yields Big Results Donald Trump’s decision to federalize Washington, D.C.,

turned a long-simmering anxiety into open confrontation.

On paper, the results look impressive: robberies and car break-ins down by more than 40 percent,

overall violent crime dropping double digits in a single week….CONTINUE READING IN BELOW

For some residents, that means finally walking home at night without scanning every shadow,

after years of headlines and personal horror stories that never matched the “crime is down” talking points.

But the cost of those gains is already tearing the city apart. Federal agents are now

embedded with local police, rolling through neighborhoods in unmarked cars,

turning routine stops into immigration dragnets.

ICE arrests have spiked to more than ten times their usual rate,

transforming a crime crackdown into a sweeping test of power and identity.

In living rooms, newsrooms, and city blocks,

Washington is being forced to decide what “safety” really means—and who has to pay for it.