Fuck you orange turd....

John Roberts told Donald Trump exactly what he thinks

By Joan Biskupic

When Chief Justice John Roberts and the eight associate justices took the Supreme Court bench on Wednesday for a fundamental debate over American identity, they did not acknowledge the presence of Donald Trump in the courtroom.

That was not unexpected: Wednesday marked the first time in modern history that the president of the United States attended an oral argument. But Trump was there as a litigant and spectator, not in any formal role.

Then, in a move that was surprising, Roberts showed his hand.

The chief justice can be cagey during arguments. In high-profile cases, he often sends mixed signals and keeps his options open.

But during the momentous session, Roberts made plain his skepticism for the Trump position that would upend more than a century of constitutional history and tradition. The chief justice cast doubt on the Trump administration’s alternative view of the reach of the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship guarantee.

Roberts particularly dismissed US Solicitor General John Sauer’s contention that contemporary immigration problems require a revision of the understanding that virtually all children born on US soil become American citizens, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status.

Echoing Trump assertions, Sauer argued that “a sprawling industry of birth tourism” has led to “uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations” arriving in the US to have their children here.

“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer told Roberts, “where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a US citizen.”

“Well, it’s a new world,” Roberts rejoined. “It’s the same Constitution.”

The tone was especially biting for a chief justice known for his measured public comments. He was aware that the case was drawing inordinate interest. Television and radio networks aired the arguments live. All the courtroom seats, and extra chairs in the alcoves, were filled. Among the people in a special section reserved for spouses and guests of the nine justices was actor Robert De Niro, a Trump critic.

All told, over more than two hours of arguments, there appeared to be no majority among the justices to reinterpret the established view of the 14th Amendment, which dictates, “all persons born or naturalized in the United Sates, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Historically, only a few, specific categories of children were exempt, such as those born to foreign ambassadors or invading armies.

Appealing the widespread sentiment of lower court judges against the administration, Sauer latched onto the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” and contended that anyone on US soil unlawfully or temporarily, such as on a student visa, is not sufficiently subject to US jurisdiction.

Roberts and other key conservative justices challenged that constitutional rationale as well as the practicalities of a position that would require delving into children’s parentage.

“What would you do with what the common law called ‘foundlings,’” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “The thing about this is then you have to adjudicate, if you’re looking at parents and if you’re looking at parents’ domicile, then you have to adjudicate both residence and intent to stay. What if you don’t know who the parents are?” (A concern for children who might be abandoned at birth arose in some of the religiously tinged briefs submitted in the case.)

“I think there are marginal cases,” Sauer said, as Barrett posed a series of difficult hypothetical scenarios.

Shifting around and leaving early

Trump’s presence on Wednesday lent him little special deference, from his seat in the courtroom to the apparent consensus on the bench.

When Trump arrived, about 10 minutes before the session was to begin, he was quietly escorted to the public section of the courtroom, behind the area reserved for members of the Supreme Court bar. Trump and his entourage, which included Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, were seated in the first row of the general public section. The courtroom is typically hushed, but spectators began buzzing and craned their necks as Trump, in a dark suit and signature red tie, took his place.

He wasn’t quite settled. He switched seats, from one end of the row, to the other, perhaps for a better view of the bench. As he waited for the session to begin, Trump looked around, seemingly taking in the elaborate setting, with its ornate rosette-patterned ceiling and intricate marble friezes of Moses, Solomon and other depicted “great lawgivers of history.”

Trump’s policies and personal conduct have been subject to major lawsuits since his first term in office, beginning with Trump v. Hawaii, early in his first term, involving his travel ban on certain majority-Muslim countries; Trump v. United States, testing his personal claim of immunity from criminal prosecution; then Trump v. Casa, regarding when lower court judges can issue wide-reaching injunctions against his challenged policies. (Trump won those cases.)

He did not witness any of those oral arguments, and while Trump had declared last November that he would attend the dispute over his sweeping tariffs on foreign goods, he decided against it at the last minute. (Trump lost that case.)

It was after February’s tariff decision that Trump fired off another set of public denunciations against the justices. “I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for the country.”

Regarding Barrett and Justice Neil Gorsuch, two of his appointees who voted with the majority against him, Trump said they were an “embarrassment to their families.”

The birthright citizenship case may mean even more to Trump. He signed the order limiting the right on his first day back in office, in January 2025, and his presence at the court demonstrated his commitment to it.

The order represents the boldest move of his anti-immigrant agenda, striking at the core of American identity and recalling the era of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the infamous 1857 ruling that said Black people could not be citizens.

Trump remained in his seat for all of Sauer’s presentation, which lasted just over an hour. He then stayed for an early portion of the arguments by lawyer Cecillia Wang, of the American Civil Liberties Union, representing the challengers.

About seven minutes in, Trump abruptly stood up and began heading out of the courtroom. The justices continued addressing Wang and did not appear distracted.

Debate over ‘domiciled’

Before he left, Trump would have heard Roberts’ opening question to Wang, which involved the landmark Supreme Court precedent from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the court found that a man born of Chinese nationals who were living in the US was an American citizen. That decision has long stood as an affirmation of the breadth of the 14th Amendment citizenship guarantee.

Sauer, however, had argued that an important element of the holding was that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were essentially permanent residents of the United States, that is, “domiciled,” or subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Sauer differentiated the situation to that of today’s temporary residents or people living in the US unlawfully.

Roberts followed up on that line of argument with Wang.

“We’ve heard a lot of talk about Wong Kim Ark, and you dismiss the use of the word ‘domicile’ in it,” Roberts began. “It appears in the opinion 20 different times and including in the question presented and in the actual legal holding. … Isn’t it at least something to be concerned about to say that since it’s discussed 20 different times and has that significant role in the opinion that you can just dismiss it as irrelevant?”

Wang urged Roberts and the other justices to consider the majority opinion in its entirety, including to understand the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” phrasing.

She said the Wong Kim Ark decision “starts with a premise that in construing the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause, we look to the English common law. … Under English common law, if you are born in the dominions of the sovereign, you owe natural allegiance, and those who are present in the dominions of the sovereign owe temporary allegiance for as long as they’re present.”

She acknowledged the few historic exceptions, such as for children of foreign ambassadors, and stressed, “The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to embrace that universal rule of birthright citizenship.”

Roberts did not go further with Wang, and his apparent satisfaction stood in contrast to his response to Sauer as the solicitor general contended the Trump administration could expand on the specific categories of foreigners exempted from birthright citizenship.

“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ but the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” Roberts told Sauer. “You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships. And then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens are here in the country.”

“I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples,” Roberts added.

While in the courtroom, Trump was unable to say anything, as spectators are prohibited from bringing in phones or other electronic devices. But about an hour after leaving, he seemed to want the final word.

He repeated a prior false claim and said in a Truth Social post, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”

About 30 other countries, in fact, also allow birthright citizenship. Most are in the Western Hemisphere, in North, South, and Central America.

FIRED! BITCH.....

Pam Bondi ousted as attorney general, source says

By Kristen Holmes, Kaitlan Collins, Hannah Rabinowitz

President Donald Trump has ousted Pam Bondi as attorney general, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

She will be replaced for now by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who will serve as acting attorney general, Trump said.

The president wrote on Truth Social that Bondi would be “transitioning to a much needed and important new job in the private sector,” praising her for her work in his administration and offering no specific reason for why she would be leaving.

“Pam Bondi is a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my Attorney General over the past year. Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown in Crime across our Country, with Murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900,” Trump wrote.

Trump had been frustrated with Bondi on multiple fronts, sources said, including her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files and that she had not investigated or prosecuted enough of his political opponents. She is the second Cabinet secretary to be ousted in recent weeks; last month, Trump removed Kristi Noem as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Trump had in recent days talked to allies about the possibility of firing Bondi, and he talked with her personally on Wednesday about the possibility it would happen, sources said. In the conversation, which one source described as “tough,” Trump indicated Bondi was not long for her role and he would be replacing her in the near future, sources said.

Sources said Bondi was told she would be given a different job later, with two people indicating that Trump floated the possibility of appointing her as a judge after her departure from the Justice Department. That appeared to be short circuited, though, with Trump’s assertion that she would be leaving government entirely.

CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

Though Bondi had run into significant obstacles in carrying out Trump’s desired retribution campaign, that was not always for lack of trying. The Justice Department had secured indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, but both were thrown out after a judge ruled the prosecutor was illegally serving.

One matter drawing Trump’s attention recently was an investigation into whether former CIA Director John Brennan made false statements to Congress about a years‑old intelligence assessment of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Career prosecutors in Miami told Justice Department officials they don’t view the case as strong, but they are still working toward possible charges in DC federal court, CNN has previously reported.

Bondi summoned the head prosecutor in Miami, who is overseeing the probe, to Washington on Wednesday to discuss the progress and her belief the investigation was being slow walked, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The meeting struck some inside the Justice Department as an effort to show that she was still pursuing investigations that are a priority to the president, sources said.

While Blanche takes over leadership of the department for now, sources have told CNN that Trump is considering replacing Bondi with Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin, and others are also under consideration.

The possibility of replacing Bondi with Zeldin first arose in January, then subsided as Epstein coverage faded from the news, sources said. But word that Trump wanted to replace Bondi with Zeldin began to circulate again in the West Wing on Monday. And in recent days, Bondi had privately asked associates whether they thought it was true her job was in danger, sources told CNN, indicating that she wasn’t sure where she stood with the president.

Some in Trump’s inner circle had long been upset over Bondi’s handling of the Epstein files, believing her pronouncements on the matter helped drive the impression the administration was inappropriately holding back materials from public view.

Many were frustrated in particular that she said in a February 2025 interview on Fox News that an Epstein client list was “sitting on my desk right now to review,” only for the department to later assert no such list existed. (Bondi has since said she was referring to all the paperwork related to the Epstein investigation, such as flight logs, and not to a specific client list.)

Bondi is facing a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee to testify about the Epstein matter later this month. When she appeared before the panel voluntarily in mid-March, Democratic lawmakers walked out within a half hour. But Republicans stayed and asked questions, and GOP Chairman James Comer said afterward he no longer saw a need for her to return and testify under oath.

“I personally don’t see any reason for her to do a deposition,” the Kentucky Republican said at the time.

Bondi in recent weeks had spent more time around Trump, including by joining him at the Supreme Court for oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case on Wednesday. It’s the opposite tack taken by other top officials in the first Trump administration, who reduced their time around the president when they determined he was growing dissatisfied with their work.

What an absolute shit show....

 TACO

Lost the right to citizenship

Italy ruling tells millions with Italian roots they have lost the right to citizenship

By Julia Buckley

Since Italy became a country in 1861, there has been a surefire way to know who is and isn’t an Italian citizen: look at their parents.

The first page of the civil code, published in 1865 as the rulebook to Europe’s newest country, declared that a child born to an Italian citizen was an Italian citizen.

This founding tenet of the Bel Paese now looks set to change — ending diaspora dreams of returning to the mother country, and meaning that Italians who move abroad risk denying citizenship to their descendants.

On Thursday the Constitutional Court said it would rule in favor of the government and its controversial 2025 law that restricted citizenship for those born abroad. The law — issued last March via emergency decree — had been challenged by four judges, who questioned its constitutionality.

Now, after the first of four hearings was held on Wednesday, a statement issued by the court indicates it will support the government’s position.

“The Constitutional Court has declared the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised by the Turin court partially unfounded and partially inadmissible,” the court announced. It is expected to release a detailed verdict within the coming weeks.

The announcement will be a devastating blow for those who believed the court would uphold Italy’s 160-year history of citizenship by descent, or ius sanguinis.

“It was an extremely clear, harsh intervention, so I had a hope that it would be judged in breach of some constitutional points, but that wasn’t recognized by the court,” professor Corrado Caruso, one of the lawyers who made a case against the new law, told CNN.

Italy’s citizenship rules have been bound up with its diaspora since the country was formed.

Previously, Italians who moved abroad could pass citizenship to their children as long as they didn’t renounce or lose it, often by acquiring another nationality. What many now see as the country of the “dolce vita” was once an impoverished nation that, between 1861 and 1918, saw 16 million citizens emigrate for a better life.

Many who left out of necessity rather than volition considered themselves Italian for life, and chose to retain their citizenship while living and working abroad — meaning that citizenship, along with cultural traditions, was passed down the generations.

Established in 1865, the principle of ius sanguinis was confirmed in Italy’s first targeted citizenship law in 1912, which added a clause stipulating that Italians born and residing abroad would retain their citizenship, and then again in a law in 1992.

However, a law introduced on March 28 last year by emergency decree states that only those with a parent or grandparent born in Italy will be recognized as citizens. It also effectively outlaws dual citizenship for the diaspora, as that parent or grandparent must have held solely Italian citizenship at the time of their descendant’s birth, or at their own death if it came earlier.

‘It was politically huge’

There have long been complaints on both sides about foreign-born descendants acquiring citizenship.

For those born abroad, obtaining recognition is a long and costly process. They must source birth, marriage and death certificates from their ancestors’ hometowns (which can take years, at a cost of up to 300 euros per document), prove that nobody in their ancestral line lost their citizenship, then win an appointment at their local consulate, where waiting lists can stretch to 10 years — if they are able to get a spot on it.

Hiring a lawyer to sue the government can speed up the process, but costs can run to the tens of thousands of euros for a family.

What’s more, women were not able to transmit citizenship until 1948, meaning descendants of Italian women who gave birth before then are blocked from recognition. Since 2009 many have successfully sued the state for gender discrimination — if they can afford it. They too have now seen the door slammed shut.

Meanwhile, Italy’s regional courts are clogged with thousands of citizenship cases, while consulates are inundated by applications.

Between 2014 and 2024, the number of Italian citizens residing abroad increased from 4.6 million to 6.4 million, Italy’s foreign ministry said at the time of passing the decree. Argentina’s Italian consulates processed 30,000 applications in 2024, up by 10,000 from the previous year.

“The granting of citizenship was perceived as problematic for various reasons,” said Caruso, who is a professor of law at Bologna University. “There were lots of requests, the consulates couldn’t keep up. There was an idea that descendants had tenuous links to Italy over time. They were considered to not take part in civil duties — they weren’t in the country, they didn’t pay tax. What’s more, there was a geopolitical question. These citizens could move around the world on their Italian passports, so maybe there was some pressure from Italy’s historical allies.

“I wasn’t optimistic about our chances, because I could tell that the government and their lawyers felt extremely strongly about this reform.

It was politically huge. So there were interests at stake.”

Citizenship by descent has not always been so unpopular. At the Tokyo Olympics, 12% of the Italian national team were born abroad, including 10 in the US. And three months before introducing the new decree, Argentina’s right-wing president Javier Milei, an ally of prime minister Giorgia Meloni, was granted citizenship by descent on a state visit to Italy.

A shrinking population

While Italy slams the door on its diaspora, the country continues to deal with a shrinking and ageing population.

In 2024, a record 155,732 Italians emigrated, and over half a million residents left the country between 2020 and 2024. Most emigrants left from Sicily, where enterprising local authorities have tried to redress the balance by tempting back Italian descendants from abroad. In Mussomeli, a town known for its one-euro homes project, Argentinian doctors were recruited to staff the ailing local hospital. Such projects will no longer be possible under the new citizenship restrictions.

“This has cut loose a vast number of descendants who had requested recognition but hadn’t been given an appointment,” said Caruso. “There is now disparity within nuclear families. One sibling might have citizenship, but another couldn’t get the same treatment.”

The state’s legal counsel successfully argued that descendants who had, until now, been considered to have been born citizens, were in fact born with the expectation of citizenship — and if they hadn’t officially claimed it by 2025, they had a “fictitious link” with the country and had lost their right to it.

Verdicts of the constitutional court cannot be appealed and Caruso was downbeat. “I don’t want to lose hope,” he said. “Maybe it’s not the end of the war but it will be a difficult war.” Although the constitutional court still has the two other referrals to consider, he believes that descendants’ last hope will be at EU courts. “Anyone who’s already filed their case should ask the judge to refer it to Luxembourg,” he said, adding that he did not advise anyone who had yet to file to go ahead.

‘A long battle’

Not everyone is so downbeat, however. Another citizenship lawyer, Marco Mellone, told CNN that things could still change.

“This doesn’t mean the new law is 100% valid and forever,” he said. “There is still space for argument for cases brought by Italian judges to the constitutional court. In July 2025, the constitutional court issued a judgment saying that descendants had a right to Italian citizenship at birth, from birth. They changed their opinion I suppose. It is very weird.”

Mellone plans to take aim at the new law in his separate April 14 hearing at the Court of Cassation, Italy’s highest legal authority, whose opinion trumps that of the constitutional court.

“This is a very sad day for millions of people, but I didn’t study law for 25 years to see this kind of thing happen,” he said. “Descendants were born Italian citizens. If you are a citizen at birth, you have a right that nobody can touch. You can’t say, what I said when you were born was not true, you’re not an Italian citizen anymore. You can’t say, I was joking. This is the first step in a long battle.”

He advised that descendants with a case already going through the courts should request a postponement until the fall. For those who haven’t yet filed, he suggested waiting.

“With this judgment … it’ll be much more work for lawyers now than before, but I’m still confident,” he said. “A little less confident than last week. But while the battle is lost, the war is not.”

Birthright case

Parents fear their children born in the US could become ‘stateless’ if Trump wins birthright case

By John Fritze

In the 26 years since she fled Colombia for the United States, “Pilar” has received her working papers, graduated high school, established a career as a paralegal and purchased a home in Florida.

But under the legal theory President Donald Trump is defending at the Supreme Court to end automatic birthright citizenship, the 35-year-old mother who asked to be identified as Pilar, is “temporarily present.” And if the 6-3 conservative court allows Trump’s executive order to take hold, her future children would effectively become stateless.

When the Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday over Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, the administration’s top appellate attorney is expected to focus on illegal immigration and “birth tourism.” What has received far less attention are the millions of people, like Pilar, who have lived in the country legally for years or even decades, but who would nevertheless be swept up by the policy.

Some are permitted to live and work in the United States through humanitarian programs, such as the Obama-era DACA policy. Others have been waiting for years for the government to review asylum claims. By one estimate, if Trump’s order took effect, the children of as many as 6.5 million people who are living in the US legally could be denied citizenship.

“I don’t have a paper that says I’m an American,” Pilar, whose child is part of the class action before the court, told CNN in an interview, “but this is all I know.”

Pilar and others interviewed for this story sought anonymity because they fear repercussions from speaking out during a time when the Trump administration has cracked down on both illegal and legal immigration.

The plaintiffs challenging the administration are also anonymous in court records. The name “Barbara” in Trump v. Barbara – the appeal now pending before the Supreme Court – is a pseudonym for a Honduran national seeking asylum.

The meaning of ‘domicile’

The birthright citizenship case, among the most significant the Supreme Court will consider this year, deals with a central promise Trump made on the campaign trail. The Justice Department is asking the high court to sign off on an executive order the president signed on the first day of his second term that reimagines the way the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has been understood for more than a century.

Every other court to consider that request has denied it.

The case turns on the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Trump’s attorneys have trained their focus on the second part of that clause: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That line, they say, excludes immigrants in the country illegally.

“Children of temporarily present aliens are not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction and so do not become citizens by birth,” US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court in written arguments earlier this year. “In the debates leading to the amendment’s ratification, members of Congress recognized that children of aliens ‘temporarily in this country’ are not citizens.”

Trump and his allies say the language was never intended to automatically entitle foreign nationals to citizenship for their children. When the framers included the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” they say, that meant that birthright citizenship would be extended to people who have a “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States. One clear way to establish that allegiance, the government says, is to be “domiciled” in the country and not just allegedly passing through.

But the groups fighting Trump’s order say none of those words — allegiance or domicile — are anywhere in the text of the 14th Amendment. And, they say, it’s hard to argue that people like Pilar are not domiciled in the United States.

“Domicile means living somewhere with the intent to remain there indefinitely or permanently,” said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who will square off with the government during the oral arguments Wednesday.

“If people’s citizenship depends on whether their parents intended at the time of their birth to reside in the US permanently, how would you even implement that?” Wang added. “It depends on subjective intent.”

A DACA recipient, Pilar was brought to the United States by her mother when she was 9 years old, fleeing instability and violence that rocked Colombia at the time. She was pregnant when Trump was inaugurated and described being “a little freaked out” when he made good on his promise to sign the executive order. When her daughter was born late last year, Pilar rushed to get a passport for her.

Now, she wonders if she’ll be able to do so if she decides to have another child.

“I come from a big family,” she said. “Our dream was always to have three or four kids, but now I think about it.”

Immigrant advocates say there is a disconnect between the administration’s stated goal and how the order would work in practice.

“The government wants to focus on birthright tourism as though that’s the majority of people,” said Conchita Cruz, co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. “The majority of people are people like Pilar who live here legally and who have a life in the United States.”

Returning is a ‘death sentence’

For many immigrants living in the US legally, returning to their homeland isn’t an option.

“Lily” came to the United States from Ukraine four years ago after Russia attacked her city in the early days of the full-scale conflict between the two countries. She is in the United States legally under a humanitarian program the Biden administration created in 2022 called Uniting for Ukraine.

Last year, Trump discussed possibly ending that program for some 240,000 Ukrainians.

“We’re not looking to hurt anybody, we’re certainly not looking to hurt them, and I’m looking at that,” Trump told reporters at the White House last March. “There were some people that think that’s appropriate, and some people don’t, and I’ll be making the decision pretty soon.”

But an announcement never came and Lily and tens of thousands of others have continued to benefit from the program as the war continues. Returning to Ukraine, she told CNN, would be “like a death penalty.”

Since arriving in the United States, Lily has earned a college degree, found work and settled in Pennsylvania. She and her husband had a son late last year, about a month after the Supreme Court handed down a decision in another more technical case involving Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

“We found shelter in the United States, and my baby was born here,” Lily told CNN. “It’s not just a legal issue for me. It’s about a right to belong and to feel safe and to have a stable future.”

Lie and lie and LIES...............

Here's what was said during today's Pentagon briefing on the Iran war

By Catherine Nicholls

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine just held a press briefing at the Pentagon for the first time in 12 days.

Here’s what we learned about some of the main developments in the war on Iran

• Hegseth said he visited US Central Command over the weekend and met with troops, though he declined to share which bases he traveled to.
• “Regime change has occurred” in Iran, Hegseth said, adding that the country’s new regime “should be wiser than the last.”
• The US is aware that rival countries are providing intelligence on US assets to Iran, the defense secretary told reporters.
• The “primary” focus from the United States is pursuing a deal that will end its war with Iran, he said.
• The US military aims “to be unpredictable” when it comes to having American boots on the ground in Iran, Hegseth also told reporters.
• Asked to respond to criticism from Americans who support President Donald Trump but don’t want to see US ground forces on the ground, Hegseth said he doesn’t understand why the president’s political base “wouldn’t have faith in his ability to execute.”

A 100-solar-mass black hole

A 100-solar-mass black hole merger ripples spacetime, and may flash in gamma rays

by Shu-Rui Zhang; Yu Wang, University of Science and Technology of China

An international team from China and Italy has reported a possible cosmic encore to the landmark 2017 multi-messenger discovery. In November 2024, the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observatories detected gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger, designated S241125n. Remarkably, just seconds later, satellites recorded a short gamma-ray burst (GRB) from the same region of the sky.

Typically, binary black hole mergers are not expected to produce electromagnetic counterparts. S241125n could be a very rare gravitational-wave event that has been linked to a GRB across multiple wavelengths, extending multi-messenger astronomy into a new regime. Although the association is not yet definitive and will require further follow-up, the probability of a chance coincidence appears low, making the result statistically intriguing while warranting caution.

A rare gravitational wave event with an unusual EM spectrum in the making

Gravitational waves are ripples in spacetime from violent cosmic events. Black hole collisions were thought to be "dark" to conventional telescopes, emitting no light. The 2024 event S241125n, however, appears to defy that notion. About 11 seconds after the gravitational-wave signal, NASA's Swift observatory detected a short GRB in the same patch of sky, and shortly thereafter, China's new Einstein Probe satellite found an X-ray afterglow in that vicinity.

Scientists note that the correlation between the gravitational-wave signal and the gamma-ray burst is unlikely to be just a coincidence. The team's joint analysis, now published in The Astrophysical Journal, estimates a combined false-alarm rate of roughly one event in 30 years of observation. "This estimate is deliberately conservative, and the true probability of a chance alignment may be even lower. However, in the interest of scientific rigor, we cannot yet draw a definitive conclusion. Regardless, this is clearly a very intriguing event," the researchers explain.

Interestingly, the total energy, luminosity, and duration of this source are like those of a typical short GRB. However, the photon indices are different from those of a typical one. The photon index of prompt emission is softer than the typical one, while the afterglow is harder than the typical one. This implies that this source may have a special radiation mechanism or a different propagation effect.

Extreme distance and heavyweight black holes

One striking aspect of S241125n is its extreme distance. The gravitational waves traveled for roughly 4.2 billion light-years to reach Earth (redshift z ≈ 0.73), meaning this collision occurred when the universe was significantly younger. The black holes involved were unusually massive.

Analysis suggests the merging pair had a combined mass well over 100 times the solar mass, making them among the heftiest stellar-mass black hole mergers recorded. For comparison, most black hole mergers observed by LIGO involve totals of a few tens of solar masses. Such a massive merger is rare and intriguing, as it hints that each black hole might itself have grown from earlier mergers or exotic formation processes.

The detection of a high-mass merger at z ~0.73 also suggests these events can be observed across vast distances. "Hearing" black hole mergers billions of light-years away and possibly seeing a flash from them is a remarkable achievement of modern astrophysics. It challenges researchers to explain how black hole pairs this large can produce electromagnetic fireworks, a phenomenon not expected in the vacuum of space.

A merger in a galaxy's active heart

The research team, led by scientists from China (University of Science and Technology of China, Shanghai Astronomical Observatory and Ningbo University) and Italy (International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics Network, Italian National Institute for Astrophysics and University of Ferrara) proposes a bold explanation for how a black hole collision could spawn a short gamma-ray burst. They suggest that the two black holes merged inside the dense disk of gas and dust surrounding a galaxy's central supermassive black hole, an environment known as an active galactic nucleus (AGN) disk.

In these bustling galactic cores, enormous amounts of material orbit a central black hole, creating a natural "fuel-rich" setting. If a binary black hole happens to coalesce within such a disk, the merger doesn't occur in isolation, it happens amid a thick soup of matter.

According to the team's model, when the black holes merged, the newly formed black hole received a powerful kick (recoil velocity) from the asymmetric gravitational wave emission. This kicked black hole, now moving through the surrounding gas, would rapidly gobble up the material in its path. The accretion rate could be hyper-Eddington, far exceeding the normal limit at which a black hole can steadily consume matter.

Essentially, the merger turned the black hole into a voracious engine. Such intense accretion in a magnetized environment is thought to trigger relativistic jets, that the spinning black hole's rotational energy powers twin jets of radiation and particles launched outward at almost the speed of light.

As the jet plowed through the heavy AGN disk, it generated shockwaves in the dense gas. Initially, the jet's energy was locked inside the disk, thermalizing the gas (imagine a pressure cooker of photons). But when the jet finally punched through to the disk's surface, those photons could escape. The result: a burst of high-energy radiation surging out of the galaxy's nucleus.

In essence, the team argues, this process would produce a short gamma-ray burst, not from a neutron star merger as usual, but from a black hole merger in an unusual habitat. Such a "Shock breakout" from the disk would produce a Comptonized (thermalized) gamma-ray spectrum, which intriguingly matches what Swift observed: the GRB's prompt emission was unusually soft (low in photon energy) compared to typical short GRBs.

A new window of multi-messenger astronomy

If this gravitational wave and gamma-ray burst association is confirmed, it heralds a new era of exploring black hole mergers with both "ears" and "eyes." Until now, binary black hole mergers have only been "heard" via gravitational waves; S241125n suggests that under special conditions, they can also be seen (in high-energy light). This would provide rich opportunities to study the environmental conditions around merging black holes and the physics of how jets form in dense media. Such a two-pronged measurement can even refine our estimates of cosmic expansion by using the event as a "standard siren" (gravitational wave distance indicator) with an identified host galaxy redshift.

This event also highlights the importance of multi-messenger teamwork: gravitational-wave detectors caught the merger's "sound," gamma-ray and X-ray telescopes caught its "flash," and together they tell a far more complete story than either alone.

As the astronomy community scrutinizes this event, more data may further solidify the case. The authors suggest looking for telltale imprints in the gravitational-wave signal, such as a residual orbital eccentricity from the dynamic AGN disk environment. They also advocate for deep observations of the region to find the host galaxy (likely a distant galaxy harboring a bright AGN).

In summary, the potential detection of a gamma-ray burst from a black hole merger is an exciting and unexpected development. It suggests that under the right circumstances, even the darkest cosmic collisions can light up the universe. Seven years after the first gravitational wave of light was seen, this event, sitting halfway across the observable universe, involving black holes over 100 solar masses, might be our next promising candidate in multi-messenger astronomy, heralding newfound ways to study the cosmos.

Crab Nebula

Hubble revisits Crab Nebula to track 25 years of expansion

by European Space Agency

Nearly a millennium ago, astronomers witnessed a brilliant new star blazing in the sky—a supernova so bright it was visible in daylight for weeks. Today, its expanding remnant, the Crab Nebula, continues to evolve 6,500 light-years away. First linked to historical records by Edwin Hubble, the nebula has since been studied in exquisite detail by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, which has now revisited this ancient explosion to trace its ongoing expansion and transformation.

A quarter-century after its first observations of the full Crab Nebula, the Hubble Space Telescope has taken a fresh look at the supernova remnant. The Crab Nebula is the aftermath of SN 1054, located 6,500 light-years from Earth in the constellation Taurus.

The result is an unparalleled, detailed look at the aftermath of a supernova and how it has evolved over Hubble's long lifetime. A paper detailing the new Hubble observation is published in The Astrophysical Journal.

The supernova remnant was discovered in the mid-18th century, and in the 1950s Edwin Hubble was among several astronomers who noted the close correlation between Chinese astronomical records of a supernova and the position of the Crab Nebula. The discovery that the heart of the Crab contained a pulsar—a rapidly rotating neutron star—that was powering the nebula's expansion finally aligned modern observations and ancient records.

In its new image of the nebula, Hubble has captured extraordinary details of its filamentary structure, as well as the considerable outward movement of those filaments over 25 years, at a pace of 5.5 million kilometers per hour. Hubble is the only telescope with the combination of longevity and resolution capable of capturing these detailed changes.

For better comparison with the new image, Hubble's 1999 image of the Crab was reprocessed. The variation of colors in both of the Hubble images shows a combination of changes in local temperature and density of the gas as well as its chemical composition.

The science team has noted that the filaments around the periphery of the nebula appear to have moved more compared to those in the center and that rather than stretching out over time, they appear to have simply moved outward. This is due to the nature of the Crab as a pulsar wind nebula powered by synchrotron radiation, which is created by the interaction between the pulsar's magnetic field and the nebula's material. In other well-known supernova remnants, the expansion is instead driven by shockwaves from the initial explosion, eroding surrounding shells of gas that the dying star previously cast off.

The new, higher-resolution Hubble observations are also providing additional insights into the 3D structure of the Crab Nebula, which can be difficult to determine from a 2D image. Shadows of some of the filaments can be seen cast onto the haze of synchrotron radiation in the nebula's interior. Counterintuitively, some of the brighter filaments in the latest Hubble images show no shadows, indicating they must be located on the far side of the nebula.

According to the science team, the real value of Hubble's Crab Nebula observations is still to come. The Hubble data can be paired with recent data from other telescopes that are observing the Crab in different wavelengths of light. The NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope released its infrared-light observations of the Crab Nebula in 2024. Comparison of the Hubble image with other contemporary multiwavelength observations will help scientists put together a more complete picture of the supernova's continuing aftermath, centuries after astronomers first wondered at a new little star twinkling in the sky.

I don't think they understand............

"Regime change has occurred" in Iran, Hegseth says

By Michael Williams

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said “regime change has occurred” in Iran.

“This new regime, because regime change has occurred, should be wiser than the last,” Hegseth said. “President Trump will make a deal. He is willing, and the terms of the deal are known to them.”

But if Iran is not willing to abide by those terms, Hegseth added, the US military “will continue with even more intensity.”

Hegseth’s comments during a Pentagon press briefing echo a statement made by President Donald Trump on Sunday. Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, was elevated to the position his father held for nearly four decades after the elder Khamenei’s death in US-Israeli air strikes.

But Khamenei has not yet been seen publicly since the start of the war. While the US government says it is conducting talks with leaders in Iran, there has been uncertainty as to whom speaks for the Iranian government.

Italy blocks US aircraft

Italy blocks US aircraft from using military base in Sicily

By Antonia Mortensen and Sana Noor Haq

Authorities in Italy prohibited a US aircraft bound for the Middle East from landing at a military base in Sicily, according to Italian media.

Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto denied a US request for aircraft to use the Sigonella base that was received when they planes were already in the air, state broadcaster RAI reported today.

“No one had requested authorization or consulted the Italian military leadership,” RAI said. “The plan had been communicated while the aircraft were already in flight, and checks revealed that these were not normal or logistical flights and therefore not covered by the treaty with Italy,” the broadcaster added.

An Italian defense ministry spokesperson confirmed the reports to CNN, but declined to comment further.

Later, the office of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said Italy was “acting in full compliance with existing international agreements.”

US forces have permission to use military bases in Italy for standard logistics flights, according to Italy’s ANSA news agency.

When the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran last month, Italy said that any US use of its bases in Italy outside standard operations would require parliamentary authorization.

Yesterday, Spain’s defense minister, Margarita Robles, announced the country would not authorize the use of its military bases or airspace for any activity relating to the US and the Israeli joint offensive in Iran, calling it “profoundly illegal.”