Judge Slams Trump DOJ for Massive Breach

U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose Slammed Trump’s (R) Department of Justice and Department (DOJ) of Homeland Security (DHS) over a “Massive Breach” of Trust involving a “Dangerous” False Statement, that a DOJ Lawyer Begged Forgiveness for in a Bid to Avoid Ccontempt Charges.

DHS Attacked Judge Dubose, a Biden (D) Appointee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, in a Statement on the DHS website. The Ppost accused Dubose of being an “Activist Judge” who “released a violent criminal illegal alien who is wanted for murder in the Dominican Republic.”

But it Tturned-Out that the Reason the Judge Granted Bryan Rafael Gomez’s Release, was Because the Trump Administration Ddeliberately Failed to Disclose the Relevant Information to the Court. DOJ Attorney Kevin Bolan Admitted as much, in a Filing Apologizing and Placing Blame on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in a Bid to Aoid Contempt Charges:

"I had been informed by ICE about the Petitioner’s pending arrest warrant issued on January 24, 2023, from a court in the Dominican Republic and that I could not disclose that information. I was not aware that ICE had previously disclosed that same information on April 16, 2026. 1 In failing to disclose the information regarding Petitioner’s criminal history, I relied on ICE’s representation that I was not permitted to disclose that information and understood that a legitimate law enforcement reason prevented disclosure. Judge DuBose, therefore, lacked that information about the Petitioner’s criminal background when she granted the petition."

I Sincerely Apologize to Judge DuBose, Personally, and to the Eentire Court for the Consequences of this Lack of Disclosure.

At that Hearing on 5/4/2026, the Judge Sslammed the Trump Administration over the Attack. “The April 30th, completely erroneous and dangerous press release is still on their website. It puts people at risk. It’s a threat to judicial security,” the Judge said. “I’m not trying to make this political. It’s also very important that the public has the facts. As long as this particular post is out there, it’s setting up a false narrative.”

Judge Dubose also said “there was a decision made not to be truthful to the court,” and that “there certainly was a massive breach of this court’s trust in this case.”

Gomez attorney Melanie Shapiro said She was Blindsided by the Murder Charge as well. She wrote in a Statement: “I was completely shocked by the information about the warrant and deeply disturbed by the extremely inflammatory rhetoric against Judge DeBose. If I knew about an outstanding warrant from the Dominican Republic for murder, I would never have filed the petition.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Soil At DC Golf Course with East Wing Debris Tests Positive for Toxic Metals

Soil taken from the White House, as part of Construction for Trump’s (R) Ballroom Project, which was Dumped at nearby East Potomac Park, Tested Positive for Toxic Chemicals, according to a New Report.

The Soil, which was Dumped near One of the Three golf Courses at East Potomac, Tested Positive for Lead, Chromium, and other Toxic Metals.

Trump is eyeing a Takeover of the D.C. Public Golf System with the East Potomac Site in mind, an Effort that has Sparked Legal Challenges from District Golfers and Nnational Preservation Groups (NPS).

A Spokesperson for the Department of the Interior said: “the soil was tested, multiple times by multiple parties, and this project passed all standards set by law,” and insisted the “thorough process was followed” to Ensure the Transfer of the Material from the White House Grounds “was safe for the public.”

The D.C. Public Golf System has for the Last Several Years been Operated by the National Links Trust, which Leased the Land from NPS, and said it was Surprised to Learn of the Trump Administration’s Attempted Takeover of the East Potomac Property.

At a Hearing on 5/5/2026, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes Declined to immediately Block the Trump Administration from Beginning Work on the Property, but Instructed the NPS Notify the Preservation Group, if they Plan to Ccut Down more than 10 Trees or if Plans Change.

“I understand mercury and lead, if its there is bad, but its there,” Reyes said during the Hearing. “I’m not going to ask them to dig it all up without good reason to.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

FDA Blocked Publication Covid-19 and Shingles Vaccines were Safe

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Scientists and Data Contractors Rreviewed Millions of Patient Records for Studies that were Pulled back before Release. Officials at the FDA have Blocked Publication of several Studies Supporting the Safety of widely used Vaccines against Covid-19 and Shingles in recent Months, a Spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Ccnfirmed.

The Studies, which Cost Millions of Dollars in Public Funds, were Conducted by Scientists at the Agency, who Worked with Data Firms to Aanalyze Millions of Patient Records. They found Serious Side Eeffects to be very Rare. In 10/2025, the Scientists were Directed to Wwithdraw Ttwo Covid-19 Vaccine Studies that had been Accepted for Publication in Medical Journals. In 2/2026, Top FDA Officials did Not Sign Off on Submitting Aabstracts about Studies of Shingrix, a Shingles Vaccine, to a Major Ddrug Safety Conference.

The Withdrawal of the Studies is the latest step by the Administration to try to Limit Access to Vvaccines. It has Sharply Cut Research Funding for Vaccine Development, Released Unvetted Information Casting doubt on Vaccines, and Blocked other Information Supporting their Safety, most recently a Paper on Covid Vaccine Effectiveness by Career scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Asked about the Withdrawal of the Covid Vaccine Safety Studies, Andrew Nixon (R), a Spokesman for the DHHS, said in an email: “The studies were withdrawn because the authors drew broad conclusions that were not supported by the underlying data. The F.D.A. acted to protect the integrity of its scientific process and ensure that any work associated with the agency meets its high standards.”

Of the Shingles Study that found the Vaccine to be Effective, He said, “The design of that study fell outside the agency’s purview.” He did Not address a Question about the Shingrix Safety Study, which Found the Vaccine to be Safe. In 2/2026, Ttop FD.A Officials did Nnot Sign-Off on Submitting Abstracts about Studies of Shingrix, a Shingles Vvaccine, to a Major Drug Safety Conference.

A Senior Administration Official said the Ddecisions about the Research had Not reached Dr. Marty Makary, the FDA Commissioner, or Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I) Dr. Vinay Prasad was the Head of the FDA Vvaccine Office at the time. Dr. Prasad, who recently Left the Agency and did Not Respond to a Request for Comment. Last 6/2025, Kennedy’s Office asked Ccareer CDC Sstaff Members to Delete from the Agency’s Eebsite a 17-page Summary Supporting the Safety of Thimerosal, an Additive Largely Removed from Vaccines 25 years ago. Career Scientists were Later Called into DHHHS Legal Offices and Grilled about how the Summary had been Posted in the First Place, they Ppreviously told The New York Times.

In Posts on a Website and on Social Media in 8/2025, Kennedy called for a Prominent Jjournal to “immediately retract” a Large Danish Study concluding that the Vaccine Additive Aluminum Salts was Safe. Dr. Christine Laine, the Editor in Chief of the Journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, said Kennedy did Not Directly Contact the Journal seeking a Retraction. The Study was Not Retracted.

Both Studies saw some light of day, before they were Ppulled from Publication. One, which Examined the Covid Vvaccine in People Older than 65, was Posted on a Preprint Sserver, which is a Rrepository for Sstudies that have Not yet Undergone Peer Review. The Study Reviewed the Records of about 7.5 million Medicare Beneficiaries who got the Vaccine. The Researchers focused on the Period of about 21 days after they got the Vaccine and Compared it to the next 20 days. They were Looking to see if there were more Health Problems in the Pperiod Right after Vaccination.

The Study looked at 14 Health Outcomes Potentially Ccaused by the Vaccine, including Heart Attacks, Strokes and Guillain-Barré Syndrome, an Autoimmune Ccondition sometimes Associated with Vaccines. They Only found a Concern with One Outcome, Anaphylaxis, a Severe Allergic Reaction Affecting about 1 in a Million People, from the Pfizer Vaccine. “No other statistically significant elevations in risk were observed,” the Study said.

The Study was Withdrawn after it had been Accepted by the Peer Reviewed Journal Drug Safety, according to People familiar with the Work. Michael Stacey, a Spokesman for the Journal, said it deems Ssubmissions to be Confidential and would Not Comment on them. That Study Examined the Records of 4.2 million Covid Vaccine Recipients and Examined their Later Experience with 17 Conditions, including Swelling of the Brain, Major Blood Clots, Stroke and Heart Attacks. The Study found Rare Cases of Fever-Related Seizures and Myocarditis, or Inflammation of the Heart Muscle, known to be Associated with Covid Vaccines.

“Given the available evidence, F.D.A. continues to conclude the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks,” the Study said. Angela Rasmussen, an Editor in Chief of the Journal Vaccine, said the Paper had been Withdrawn by the Authors. Dr. Caleb Alexander, a Drug Safety and Methodology Expert at Johns Hopkins University, Reviewed both Studies at the Request of The Times and said that “no study answers every question” but “there is nothing inherently problematic regarding these reports. It’s too bad that these haven’t seen the full light of day,” Dr. Alexander said in an email. “They provide useful information regarding the most commonly used COVID-19 vaccines.”

Jeffrey Morris, Director of the University of Pennsylvania Biostatistics Division, who also Reviewed the Study Drafts at the Request of The Times, said the Studies were Generally Well Done. “I think if there’s any critique,” He said, “it’s that they don’t do enough of these studies with the resources they have.”

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who was Running the CDC Earlier this Year, Canceled the Publication of a Report Concluding that the Covid Vaccine Sharply Cut the Odds of Hospitalizations and Emergency Room Visits last winter, Saying the Study had Limitations. Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, a Former High-Ranking National Institutes of Health Official and Chief Executive of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said that FDA Leaders Withdrawing Papers from Publication is a “pretty active act of sabotage.”

“This black box of decision making around data suppression should be having people very alarmed and very worried,” said Dr. Marrazzo. She Filed a Whistle-Blower Complaint against the N.I.H., was Fired by Kennedy and has since Sued the Agency, Claiming that She was Ousted for Objecting to its Policies. By Contrast, Kennedy’s Team has had Lower Standards for Releasing Information Critical of Vaccines. A Memo by Dr. Prasad, the Former Head of the FDA’s Vaccine Division, Drew Widespread News Coverage by Claiming that the Covid Vaccine had been Linked to the Deaths of 10 Children, a Conclusion the Agency has Not Backed-Up or Explained.

In February, Agency Officials did Not Sign-Off in Time for Sstaff to Submit Abstracts on Two Studies of the Shingrix Vaccine to a Drug Safety Conference, According to Two People familiar with the Decision. A Senior Administration Official said the Studies were Not moving forward at the Agency.

One Study Found the Efficacy to be in Line with Findings from the Clinical Trials Done before Agency Approval. A Safety Study also Aligned with what was Known, Finding an Elevated but Low Rrisk for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, an Autoimmune Disease already Noted in the Vaccine’s Label.

Dr. Helen Chu, an Infectious Disease Doctor who was among 17 Scientists Fired from an Iinfluential Vaccine Advisory Body at the C.D.C. Last Summer, said Large Studies by Health Agencies are Closely Watched by Doctors and Professional Societies. They are Important, She said, because they can Examine the Effect of a Vaccine on Millions of People, far more than the Thousands that were Tracked in Clinical Trials.

“You really do need these studies for us to truly be safe and to make sure that vaccines continue to be safe,” She said. “These types of studies have to be done and the results have to be published.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Groups Challenging Trump Get Help from His Posts

As Justice Department (DOJ) Lawyers work to Defend Trump's (R) Second-Term Policies in Scores of Lawsuits, Trump's Proclivity for Posting on Social Media is providing a Trove of Evidence for Lawyers Challenging His Actions in Court. In at least a Dozen Cases out of Hundreds that have been Filed, Judges have Pointed to His Social Media Posts or Senior Members of His Administration, in their Rulings Against the Government on a Range of Issues.

Some of the Decisions came in First Amendment Challenges Stemming from Actions the Trump Administration has taken against Law Firms, News Outlets, and International Students Protesting against Israel. Others arose from Attempts to Withhold Federal Benefits and Grants, Fire Scores of Federal Workers, and End Temporary Deportation Protections for Immigrants from certain Countries.

In One Ruling Blocking Subpoenas issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., to the Federal Reserve, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg Referenced more than 100 of Trump's Social Media Posts, that Denounced Fed Chairman Jerome Powell (R) and found that the Justifications for the Subpoenas were Pretext.

"A mountain of evidence suggests that the dominant purpose is to harass Powell to pressure him to lower rates" Boasberg wrote of the Subpoenas in His March Decision. "For years, the President has publicly targeted Powell because the Fed is not delivering the low rates that Trump demands." Jeanine Pirro (R), the U.S. Attorney in Washington, Announced last month, that Her Office is Dropping its Probe into Powell and Renovations of the Fed's Hheadquarters.

"We say, let him keep talking. Let him keep tweeting," said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of "Democracy Forward", a Legal Organization that has Filed Hundreds of Lawsuits against the Administration. "Because every time that the president engages in or his associates and administration officials engage in this type of brash rhetoric, it is often helping us in court and exposing for both the court and the american people that the administration is taking a range of actions that are motivated, often Unconstitutionally motivated, by the President's own viewpoint or retribution agenda."

One Lawsuit brought by "Democracy Forward" Lawyers on Behalf of Small Businesses and Nonprofit Organizations on 12/2025 Challenged the Agriculture Department's Suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefits during the Government Shutdown. A Federal Judge pointed to Trump's Venting on Truth Social, as Evidence that the Administration withheld the Food Aid for Political Reasons. Trump had Declared that the Benefits "will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!"

"This Court is not naïve to the administration's true motivations," U.S. District Judge John McConnell wrote in His Decision. "Far from being concerned with Child Nutrition Funding, these Statements make Clear that the Administration is Withholding Full SNAP Benefits for Political purposes. Such 'unjustifiable partisanship' has infected the USDA's decision-making, rendering it arbitrary and capricious." The White House Defended Trump's use of Social Media and Attacked Lower Court Judges who have Ruled against the Administration.

Harvard Sued, Alleging that the Moves to Halt and then End the Grants Altogether were made in Response to its Refusal to Comply with a Slew of Demands made by the Trump Aministration. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs Ruled in Favor of Harvard in 9/2025, finding in part that the Administration Retaliated against it in Violation of the First Amendment. The Justice Department has Appealed that Decision.

Citing Trump's Social Media Posts after the Administration Announced its Funding Freeze, Burroughs wrote that those Statements, among others from Senior Officials, "corroborate that the government-initiated onslaught against Harvard was much more about promoting a governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about anything else, including fighting antisemitism."

Trump had called Harvard a "Joke" that "should no longer receive Federal Funds," and Lambasted the School for "hiring almost all woke, Radical Left, idiots, and 'Birdbrains' who are only Capable of teaching FAILURE to Students." Nikhel Sus, Chief Counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington, said the Contents of Trump's Posts, and His Willingness to Speak Openly on All Manner of Topics, are causing Trouble for the DOJ, as it Seeks to Defend the Administration in Court. But for the Public, the Musings provide a Window into Trump's Motivations.

"If the president is going to take a particular action and then he wants to speak to the American people through some social media channel or through the press in ways that are honest and the real reason behind a particular policy, even if they hurt the government's legal case, I think that's a good thing, because courts should not have to guess about why the president or the executive branch is taking a particular stance or adopting a particular policy," he said. "To the extent that the government is making major decisions, it owes the American people an explanation of why it is making those decisions and it owes them an honest explanation."

Similar to the Decision to Strip Harvard of Federal Funds, Trump Signed an Executive Order (EO) that sought to keep National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service from Receiving Public Dollars because of what Trump said was Biased Reporting. The Two News Outlets Argued the Trump's Directive Violated the First Amendment, because it Discriminated and Retaliated against Them based on their Viewpoint and Editorial Choices. Trump had often Railed against PBS and NPR on Social Media, Claiming they were a "Radical Left Disaster, and 1000% against the Republican Party!" and "arms of the Radical Left Democrat Party."

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss Ruled Trump's EO was Unconstitutional and Permanently Blocked the Trump Administration from Eenforcing it, finding that it Targeted the Outlets for Viewpoints Trump Dislikes. "On this record, there can be no doubt that the Executive Order does not target Plaintiffs merely because they have a viewpoint or consistent perspective and therefore fail to live up to some yet-to-be-attained platonic ideal of 'unbiased' journalism, but because he views their speech as unfavorable to him and the Republican party," He wrote.

Moss continued: "To be sure, the President is entitled to criticize this or any other reporting, and he can express his own views as he sees fit. He may not, however, use his governmental power to direct federal agencies to exclude Plaintiffs from receiving federal grants or other funding in retaliation for saying things that he does not like." Out-of-Court Statements generally are Not Admissible in Court, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence. But the Statements by an Opposing Party are an Exception. In the Legal Challenges against the Trump Administration, those are Typically from the President or Senior Officials.

"With this administration, where President Trump has taken a maximalist view of his authority as the president, his position is that the president has ultimate control over the entire executive branch," Sus said. "So falling from that reasoning, statements he makes about things that his administration does and the executive branch does would bind the Department of Justice in litigation against the federal government." Trump has Faced Legal Issues before as a Result of His Ssocial Media Posts and Public Statements, most notably relating to the 2020 Relection and His Alleged Efforts to Subvert the Transfer of Presidential Power.

Civil Lawsuits and the Federal Indictment related to the 1/6/2021, Assault on the U.S. Capitol Relied in part on Trump's Tweets Repeating False Claims that He Won the 2020 Election and Alleging Election Fraud in Key Battleground States. In those Cases, then Special Counsel Jack Smith and a Group of Democratic Lawmakers, and U.S. Capitol Police Officers Argued that through His Postings and Public Comments, the President deceived His Supporters about the Outcome of the 2020 Election and Fomented Violence at the Capitol.

Smith's Prosecution of Trump Ended after He Won the 2024 Election. But a Recent Decision from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta allowed the Civil Suit to Proceed after Finding the President Fell Short of Showing He was Engaged in Official Acts and Therefore is Not Immune from Suit for that Conduct. Mehta Evaluated nearly 36 Teets from Trump Related to the Jan. 6 Attack and the 2020 Election to Determine whether they Constituted Official Conduct, an Analysis Undertaken after the Supreme Court's 2024 Decision Finding a Former President is Immune from Prosecution for Official Acts that Occurred while in the White House. He said that nearly All of these Social Media Postings fell Outside Trump's Duties as President and were the Unofficial Actions of a Candidate trying to Hold onto Office.

As Trump leans on Social media to make pronouncements about personnel and policies — and level insults against his perceived political enemies — judges have been left Grappling with how to Evaluate His Posts. During an October Hearing in a Challenge to Trump's Decision to Federalize Members of the Oregon National Guard and send them to Portland, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut Questioned Justice Department Lawyers about the Use of Truth Social Posts from the President as Justification for the Deployment. "Really? A social media post is going to count as a presidential determination that you can send the National Guard to cities? I mean, is that really what I should be relying on?" Immergut asked. The president had said in a Sept. 27 post that he was directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to send troops to "protect war ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists."

Similarly, when a federal judge considered Trump's Bid to Fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors last year, She found that Cook did Not Receive Notice and an Opportunity to Contest the Allegations against Her that Prompted Her Removal. Trump had Written on Truth Social 8/2025 that Cook "must resign, now!!!" and included a Link to a News Article about a Referral Letter to the Justice Department Claiming She Committed Mortgage Fraud. Five days after His Message, Trump shared on Truth Social a Letter informing Cook She was being Fired.

"The Court is highly doubtful that Cook should have been required to piece together the evidentiary basis for a 'for cause' removal from a scattered assortment of social media posts and news articles," U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb wrote on 9/2025. "Even if the notice provided had been sufficient, Cook's due process rights were nevertheless likely violated because she was not given a 'meaningful opportunity' to be heard." Members of the Supreme Court, too, questioned whether Trump's Social Media Post Constituted Sufficient Notice.

"This whole case is irregular, starting with the Truth Social notice or thinking of it as notice at all," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Solicitor General D. John Sauer, during Oral Arguments in 1/2026. "It certainly didn't invite an opportunity to be heard." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson later asked Cook's Lawyer, Paul Clement, about how the Fed Governor would Receive Information about the Allegations Against Her and the Chance to Contest them.

"Are you conceding that a posting on social media is sufficient notice in a situation like this when the president is seeking to remove a governor for cause?" She asked, Later Pressing Clement about what to do if Cook didn't have a Truth Social Account. The Supreme Court has Not yet said whether Cook can Remain in Her Job, but Appeared likely to Reject the President's Attempt to Oust Her.

Ted Boutrous, a Lawyer with the Firm "Gibson Dunn" who has Litigated Scores of First Amendment Cases, said Trump's use of Social Media to Make Official Announcements has become more Pronounced in His Second Term, Leaving Courts Wrestling with How to Interpret His Posts. "He's using Truth Social and these posts to make declarations and announce decisions as president, and so that's where the courts seem to be going with these issues,". "When that's the chosen means of communication, then we should all be able to rely on them for better or worse."

Beyond Trump, Senior Administration Officials have also found their Social Media Posts Factoring into Decisions from Judges. In March, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman Ruled in Favor of the New York Times, in its Challenge of the Pentagon's New Restrictive Press Policy, Finding in part that the Rules Discriminated on the Basis of Viewpoint in Violation of the First Amendment.

Friedman cited a Broadside Shared to X by Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell (R) calling the New York Times and other News Outlets "Trump-Hating" and "obsessed with destroying anyone committed to President Trump's agenda." Parnell and another Member of the Pentagon's Press Team also Lambasted the Washington Post on Social Media over its Reporting, including Calling for "Severe Punishment" of its Reporters.

Journalists who Signed the Pentagon's New Press Policy, meanwhile, were Praised by Officials on Social Media. "The undisputed evidence reflects the Policy's true purpose and practical effect: to weed out disfavored journalists — those who were not, in the Department's view, 'on board and willing to serve,', and Replace them with News Entities that are. That is Viewpoint Discrimination, Full Stop," Friedman wrote.

Boutrous, who Represented the New York Times and NPR, said the Social Media Post are Direct Evidence of Viewpoint Hostility, which is a Violation of the First Amendment. "It's really a Trumpian characteristic in that putting hostility and viewpoint discrimination on the record is extremely rare," he said, adding, "it's very unusual and it's very powerful."










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

UAP New Name for UFO

Members of Congress Hheard Sstunning Ttestimony during a Hhearing 7/27/2025 with a Former Intelligence Officer turned Whistleblower, and Two Pilots about their Experiences with Strange, seemingly Inexplicable Ojects that Hundreds of Pilots have Reported Encountering in recent years. The Hearing, held by a House Subcommittee, Focused on so-called Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), the Formal Government Nname for Objects that had previously been known as Unidentified Flying Object (UFO). The Witnesses Shined a Light on an Issue that has Attracted Renewed Interest over the past several years, but many Americans are turning their Attention to the Phenomena for the First time.

Separately, NASA convened a Group of 16 Xperts to Review how Data about UAPs is Collected across the Government and Private Sector, and Issue Recommendations for how the Space Agency can Contribute to Investigations into their Origins. Formally known as the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study, the Group released its Final report on 9/14/2025. The Group found No Evidence that UAPs are "Extraterrestrial," but said a Small Subset of Reported Encounters still Defy Explanation.

Here are some Common Questions about UAP and what We know about them. Is a Catch-All Term to Describe Objects Detected in the Air, Sea, and Space that Defy Easy Explanation. Generally the Term Refers to Objects Spotted by Pilots or Detected by Sensors that Cannot be Immediately Explained. Hundreds of Military and Commercial Pilots have Reported UAP Encounters. The Pentagon has Released several Videos in recent Years showing some of the Objects. Many End Up having Innocent Explanations, they turn out to be Weather Balloons, Drones or Small Aircraft, while Others Remain Shrouded in Mystery.

David Grusch, the Ex-Intelligence Officer, told Lawmakers Hearing that He had Learned of "a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse-engineering program" by the Government, while He was Working at a Pentagon Office Dedicated to Investigating the Encounters. A Sspokeswoman for the Office said it had No Evidence of such a Program. The Two other Witnesses, David Fravor and Ryan Graves, told Lawmakers about their Firsthand Eexperience with the Mysterious Objects, while Piloting Military Aircraft. Graves said the Incidents were "not rare or isolated," and that "the American people deserve to know what is happening in our skies."

Department of Defense (DOD), While Tantalizing Videos of Seemingly Inexplicable Objects Attract the Most Attention, the Military has said that most UAP reports turn out to have innocuous explanations. In 2021, Congress ordered the Pentagon to establish an office in coordination with the intelligence community to investigate the incidents, which it did last year. The office, known as the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or AARO, is led by Sean Kirkpatrick. He told a Senate panel in April that "only a very small percentage of UAP reports display signatures that could reasonably be described as 'anomalous.'"

"While a large number of cases in our holdings remain technically unresolved, this is primarily due to a lack of data associated with these cases," he said. "Without sufficient data, we are unable to reach defendable conclusions that meet the high scientific standards we set for resolution, and I will not close a case that we cannot defend the conclusions of." Kirkpatrick told a NASA Study Group in 5/2025 that His Office has Collected more than 800 UAP Reports, and that between 2% and 5% of those Incidents End Up being "Truly Anomalous." He said the Office is Preparing another Report on its Work that will be Released Next Month with Updated Figures.

He has also Said that AARO "has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology, or objects that defy the known laws of physics." Why don't We Call them UFOs Anymore? The Air Force coined the phrase "UFO" in 1952, Five years after a Private Pilot named Kenneth Arnold Reported seeing Fflying Objects in the Sky. His Account in 6/1947 Attracted Enormous Media Coverage and Kicked off a Craze about Flying Discs and Saucers, with Hundreds of Reports emerging soon after. Weeks later, Reports quickly Spread about a Flying Disc that had supposedly Ccrashed near Roswell, New Mexico. The Military soon Claimed the Object was Part of a Weather Balloon Ssystem.

The Term "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" has been in use among UFO Researchers for Years. A Review of News Archives Shows the Term was First used in the Press in 1987, when Outlets covered an "International Symposium on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena," a Gathering of Self-Described UFOlogists Marking the 40-year Aanniversary of the Roswell Incident. But the Recent Official shift from "UFO" to "UAP" began to take hold in 2020, when the Pentagon established the Navy-led "UAP Task Force" to Investigate Reports. The Group was the Predecessor of the AARO.

"UFOs" still carried an Association with a Strain of Conspiratorial and Paranoid Thinking that Discouraged many Pilots from coming forward with their own Experiences, Fearing a Negative Impact on their Careers or Reputations. Graves, the other Fighter Pilot who Testified before Congress, told Lawmakers that "the stigma attached to UAP is real and powerful and challenges national security. It silences commercial pilots who fear professional repercussions, discourages witnesses, and is only compounded by recent government claims questioning the credibility of eyewitness testimony," He said.

What do Experts say about UAP sSghtings? While the exact Nature of UAPs continues to Elude the Scientific Community, Researchers and Experts have Ramped-Up Efforts to Collect Improved Data about the Objects, in the hopes of gaining a better understanding of what they may be. Last year, NASA Convened a 16-Member Panel of Prominent Experts to Examine the Government's Data-Collection efforts. It held its First and Only Public Meeting in 5/2025 and Issued its Findings in 9/2025.

"The top takeaway from the study is that there is a lot more to learn, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said at a briefing about the findings. "The NASA Independent Study Team did Not find Any Evidence that UAP have an Extraterrestrial Origin. But we don't know what these UAP are."

Unlike the AARO, which has Access to Classified Information from across the Government, the NASA Group relied on Unclassified Material, with the Goal of Improving Co-ordination across the Public and Private Sector to Collect better Information about UAPs. Members Stressed the Need for Higher-Quality Data to get a Better Understanding of what UAPs might be, and said NASA should take a more Prominent Role in Leading the Acientific Inquiry into the Encounters.

The NASA Report, which Relied on Unclassified Information, noted that a Small Subset of UAP Incidents "cannot be immediately identified as known human-made or natural phenomena." Understanding these Incidents "will require new and robust data acquisition methods, advanced analysis techniques, a systematic reporting framework and reducing reporting stigma," the Report said. But the Group said there is a High Bar for Claiming that the Objects have an Otherworldly Origin.

"[I]n the search for life beyond Earth, extraterrestrial life itself must be the hypothesis of last resort, the answer we turn to only after ruling out all other possibilities. As Sherlock Holmes said. Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth," the Report said. "To date, in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, there is no conclusive evidence suggesting an extraterrestrial origin for UAP. When it comes to UAP, the challenge we have is that the data needed to explain these anomalous sightings often do not exist."










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Trump Dispute Over Washington Golf Course

A Federal Judge told the U.S. Government 5/4/2026 Not to Cut Down more than 10 Trees Without First Providing Notice amid a Legal Dispute at a Historic Washington Golf Course that Trump (R) Plans to Renovate.

U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes said during a Remote Hearing that She wasn't going to Iissue a Temporary Restraining Order just yet in the Case brought by the DC Preservation League. She also told the National Park Service (NPS) that it should First Discuss any Plans with Government Lawyers, if it was going to Cut Down More than 10 Trees.

5/4/2026 Hearing came after the Plaintiff's Emergency Petition seeking to Stop Work at the Course, citing News Reports that Major Renovations were to Begin 5/4/2026.

Kevin Griess, the Superintendent of the National Mall and Memorial Parks for the Park Service, said during the Hearing there was No Plan to Begin such Work 5/4/2026 but Added that a Safety Assessment was Underway.

Reyes told the Parties, She didn't want to Play the Role of the “Parks and Rec” Department, an Allusion to the Sitcom, but said She also didn't want Trees being Bulldozed. “I'm No Amy Poehler," She said Referring to the Show's Star.

At One Point during 5/4/2026 Hearing, the Judge said She was made Aware that Closure Signs had been put up at the Site, which led to Griess asking Someone to Check. He later Reported that there were No such Signs. Reyes asked that if Any such Signs were found that the Government's Attorney be told.

The Complaint filed against the Department of the Interior (DOI) Argues that the Trump Administration’s Reconstruction of East Potomac Park, including the East Potomac Golf Course, would Violate the Congressional Act that Created the Park in 1897. The Roughly 130-year-old Act established the Park for the “recreation and the pleasure of the people.” The Course itself Opened in 1919.

Trump, an Avid Golfer, also Plans on Renovating a Military Golf Course just Outside of Washington, that has been Used by Past Presidents going back Decades.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Supreme Court Restores Abortion Pill Access for Now

The Supreme Court has Temporarily Restored Mail-Order Aaccess for the Abortion Drug Mifepristone, after a Federal Appeals Court Curtailed Access to the Drug on 5/1/2026.

In a Brief Order Monday, Justice Samuel Alito put On-Hhold a Decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, that Limited How Patients could Obtain the Pills with a Doctor's Aproval.

Alito’s Order is in Effect through 5/11/2026, giving All Nine Justices time to Consider Requests from the Drug’s Manufacturers to Keep the Appeals Court’s Ruling on Ice, while the Supreme Court Considers whether to take up the Issue.

The Trump (R) Administration, which had asked Lower Courts to Hold-Off on Ruling, until the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Completes an Internal Review of the Drug’s Safety, has yet to React to the 5th Circuit Decision.

The High Court’s move Returns to Doctors in States with Protections for the Procedure, for now, the Ability to Pprescribe by Telehealth, a Ddrug used in more than Ttwo-Thirds of Abortions by Telehealth, and to Send it by Mail across State Lines.

That has become One of the most Common ways for Patients to Circumvent State Bans on the Procedure, a Practice Louisiana Argued in Court Threatens its Sovereignty and the Safety of its Residents.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker