EPA chief Zeldin launches talks with Mexico to end sewage hitting San Diego, Navy SEALs: ‘out of patience’
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin visited San Diego Tuesday to address the Mexican sewage flowing into U.S. waters from Tijuana that has contaminated the California coast, including where Navy SEALs train. “The Americans on our side of the border who have been dealing with this … for decades, are out of patience,” Zeldin said at a Tuesday press conference in San Diego. “There’s no way that we are going to stand before the people of California and ask them to have more patience and just bear with all of us as we go through the next 10 or 20 or 30 years of being stuck in 12 feet of raw sewage and not getting anywhere.” “So we are all out of patience,” he continued. “There’s a very limited opportunity. We’re in good faith, both on the American side and also on the Mexican side, what’s being communicated by the new Mexican president is an intense desire to fully resolve this situation.” Zeldin said that he met with Mexican officials for about 90 minutes Monday night to discuss the sewage spewing into U.S. waters — and relayed that the Mexican environmental secretary wants to have a “strong collaborative relationship” with the U.S. to end the pollution. “I will be speaking with the chief of staff to the Mexican environmental secretary to ensure that over the course of the coming days, over the course of the next couple weeks, that we are able to put together a specific statement from both countries on a mutual understanding of what Mexico is going to do to help resolve this issue,” he said. EPA CHIEF TAKES ON MEXICAN ‘SEWAGE CRISIS’ FLOWING INTO US WATERS WHERE NAVY SEALS TRAIN Zeldin said that he is focused on the “specifics” of ending the issue, including drafting a “comprehensive list of everything that we believe with full confidence is going to end the crisis” for projects on both the U.S. side of the border and Mexico. “We did it yesterday during the meeting, where one particular project as it relates to diverting 10 million gallons per day of water from the Tijuana River Valley, sewage from the Tijuana River valley to the dam, will help relieve stress,” he said. “And they were saying it was going to take until the middle or end of 2027, and we started talking through it. It was a very good collaborative discussion where at the end of the back and forth, the Mexican officials were saying that they believe that we would be able to take off a year of that timeline.” MEXICO IS POISONING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IN A BORDER CRISIS ALMOST NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT The issue of sewage water flowing into U.S. waters is largely attributed to outdated wastewater infrastructure across the southern border. Zeldin said his Mexican counterparts cited three infrastructure projects that were completed to help address the crisis — including the recently updated San Antonio de los Buenos Wastewater Treatment Plant — but that a handful of other projects are still in the works, such as installing new “international collector floodgates on the Tijuana River” and rehabilitating pumping plants. “Now, if you don’t do all of the other projects and all you do is clean up the current contamination, that feel-good moment will last about a day,” he said. “We have to stop the flow in. Mexico needs to fulfill its part in cleaning up the contamination that they caused.” “We need Mexico to not just commit to all the projects that will stop the flow, but in order to actually finish this project, they’re going to need to commit to that final cleanup,” he said. MEXICAN SEWAGE GUSHING INTO NAVY SEAL TRAINING WATERS IS US’ ‘NEXT CAMP LEJEUNE,’ VETS WARN Zeldin was joined by local leaders during the press conference, including California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa and California Democratic Rep. Mike Levin, who recounted to the media that his fight to end the crisis was personal. “My wife’s nephew trained in Coronado as a Navy SEAL. And in his 20s, he wound up getting cancer,” Levin said. “We don’t definitively know whether that cancer was caused by his service. We know that he’s gotten a lot better. … But like so many Marines and others — our Border Patrol and members of the community — they’re impacted by toxic sewage in the water. We’re impacted in the air.” Zeldin said he was headed to meet with Navy SEALs after wrapping up the press conference. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt commended Zeldin for the trip during the White house press conference on Tuesday, adding that President Donald Trump is committed to having the “cleanest air and the cleanest water.” “I would also add from the president himself, he has always maintained he wants America to have the cleanest air and the cleanest water. And we want to do what’s right for our environment and for our earth,” she said. United States Naval Special Warfare Command headquartered in San Diego and is also where Navy SEAL candidates complete their arduous six-month Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) training at the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado. In February, the Department of Defense’s inspector general released a report finding that the Naval Special Warfare Center reported 1,168 cases of acute gastrointestinal illnesses among SEAL candidates between January 2019 and May 2023 alone. “Navy SEAL candidate exposure to contaminated water occurred because (Naval Special Warfare Command) did not follow San Diego County’s Beach and Bay Water Quality Program’s beach closure postings,” the inspector general report found. “As a result of Navy SEAL candidate exposure to contaminated water during training, candidates are presented with increased health risks and NAVSPECWARCOM’s training mission could be impacted.” Veterans who spoke to Fox News Digital earlier in April described the contaminated water a national security crisis. “This is a huge national crisis,” Navy SEAL vet Jeff Gum, who was sickened by the water when he was working through SEAL training in 2008, told Fox Digital in
‘Let us be the parents’: Supreme Court should let parents opt kids out of LGBTQ school lessons, lawyer argues
Counsel representing a coalition of parents fighting for the choice to opt their children out of LGBTQ-related curriculum says the case is about letting parents “be the parents.” “We’re just saying if the school board is going to make that decision, let us have the chance to leave the classroom,” Colten Stanberry, counsel at Becket and attorney for the parents bringing the suit, told Fox News Digital. “And so I think for my parent clients, they’re saying let us be the parents. Keep us involved in the school decision-making process. Don’t try to cut us out.” The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in parents’ fight to opt their children out of LGBTQ-related curriculum. The issue at hand in the case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is whether parents have a right to be informed about and to then opt their children out of reading books in elementary schools that conflict with their faith. MARYLAND MOM TAKING FIGHT TO OPT CHILD OUT OF LGBTQ STORY BOOKS BEFORE SUPREME COURT “Our case is not a book ban case,” Stanberry emphasized. “We’re not saying that these books can’t be on the shelves. We’re saying we want to be out of the class,” Stanberry continued. “And we’re also not saying that teachers can’t teach this material.” A coalition of Jewish, Christian and Muslim parents with elementary school children in Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland brought suit against the school board after it introduced new LGBTQ books into the curriculum as part of the district’s “inclusivity” initiative. The curriculum change came after the state of Maryland enacted regulations seeking to promote “educational equity,” according to the petitioner’s brief filed with the high court. The school board introduced books that featured transgender and non-binary characters and storylines, according to the brief. The parents’ coalition stated in its brief that the Board “initially honored parental opt-outs in accordance with its own Guidelines and Maryland law” after parents raised concerns over the new curriculum. After the board issued a public statement in line with this stance, the petitioners stated that the board “reversed course” without prior notice. “Without explanation, it announced that beginning with the 2023-2024 school year, ‘[s]tudents and families may not choose to opt out’ and will not be informed when ‘books are read,’” the brief reads. SCOTUS RULINGS THIS TERM COULD STRENGTHEN RELIGIOUS RIGHTS PROTECTIONS, EXPERT SAYS The parents sued the school board, arguing that the denial of notice and opt-outs “violated the Free Exercise Clause by overriding their freedom to direct the religious upbringing of their children and by burdening their religious exercise via policies that are not neutral or generally applicable,” petitioners wrote. The parents cited Wisconsin v. Yoder, a 1972 Supreme Court case, to support their argument. In Yoder, the Court held that a state law requiring children to attend school past eighth grade violated the parents’ constitutional rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to direct their children’s religious upbringings. Stanberry says that while this case is much narrower than Yoder, the issue at hand is “a right parents have had from the Supreme Court for over 50 years.” The school board argued in its brief, “The record contains no evidence that teachers have been or will be ‘directed’ or ‘instructed’ to inject any views about gender or sexuality into classroom discussions about the storybooks.” The school board writes that the storybooks were “offered as an option for literature circles, book clubs, or reading groups; or used for read-alouds.” “Teachers are not required to use any of the storybooks in any given lesson, and were not provided any associated mandatory discussion points, classroom activities, or assignments,” the brief continued. The lower court denied the parents’ motion, finding that they could not show “‘that the no-opt-out policy burdens their religious exercise.’” On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s decision, with the majority holding that the parents had not shown how the policy violated the First Amendment. SUPREME COURT APPEARS LIKELY TO SIDE WITH CATHOLIC CHURCH AND TRUMP IN KEY RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION CASE Despite the lower court proceedings, Stanberry shared they are “hopeful and excited” as the high court considers the case. “We think this court will really consider the case,” Stanberry said ahead of Tuesday’s arguments. “Obviously, I don’t have a crystal ball. I can’t predict how it’s going to come out, but we’re feeling good going into it.” In a statement to Fox News Digital, the school board said its policy “is grounded in our commitment to provide an appropriate classroom environment for all of our students,” saying the board believes “a curriculum that fosters respect for people of different backgrounds does not burden the free exercise of religion.” “Based on established law, as discussed in our brief and by our counsel at today’s argument, we believe the Supreme Court can and should affirm the lower courts’ rulings,” Liliana López, Public Information Officer for the public schools, said. “Regardless of the outcome, we are grateful for the opportunity to have our case heard by the highest court in the land. We await the Court’s decision.” The case comes at a time when President Donald Trump and his administration have prioritized educational and DEI-related reform upon starting his second term. The Supreme Court has notably also heard oral arguments this past term in other religious liberty and gender-related suits. “I think that this case could be seen as people of faith coming forward and saying, ‘Hey, we want to be accommodated in this pluralistic society. So, I think it’s coming at an opportune moment,” Stanberry said. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in mid-January during its 2024-2025 term. Fox News’ Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, and Kristine Parks contributed to this report.
Trump’s campaign to turn dissent into a deportable offence harms democracy
On April 11, an immigration judge in Louisiana ruled that Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student and lawful United States permanent resident, can be deported. Not for committing a crime. Not for violating immigration rules. But for his political speech – specifically for helping organise a peaceful Gaza solidarity encampment at his university. The government’s case against Khalil is hinged on Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a Cold War-era provision that permits the deportation of any noncitizen whose presence is deemed a potential threat to US foreign policy. The evidence the government submitted against him was a two-page memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, asserting – without proof – that Khalil’s “beliefs and associations” could “adversely affect U.S. foreign policy interests”. Ironically, the document itself admitted that Khalil’s actions were “otherwise lawful”. And yet, it was enough. The mere invocation of “foreign policy” or “national security” now operates like a legal incantation, overriding First Amendment protections, due process and even common sense. Advertisement Khalil’s case is not an outlier. It is the leading edge of a broader strategy to silence dissent in the US – particularly dissent critical of Israeli policies or sympathetic to Palestinian rights – using various legal tools. This use and abuse of the US legal system sets a dangerous precedent that in the long run will harm American democracy. Dozens of international students and scholars – many from Muslim-majority countries or racialised communities – have also been subjected to surveillance, detention and deportation, often without any allegations of criminal wrongdoing. Among them is Badar Khan Suri, a visiting academic at Georgetown University and Indian citizen who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at his home in Virginia and later transferred to Texas. He remains in detention, facing removal based on his family ties. The father of his American wife used to work as an adviser to the Gaza government. Another example is Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish Fulbright scholar and doctoral student at Tufts University who was detained after co-authoring a newspaper opinion piece related to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. A US immigration judge has since denied her release, labelling her a “flight risk and a danger to the community”. Another recent case is that of Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian green card holder and Columbia student protest leader who was arrested by ICE agents when he went for his US citizenship interview. He now faces deportation to the occupied West Bank, which he said would be “a death sentence”, given that he has lost family and friends to Israeli military violence. Advertisement Then there’s Momodou Taal, a British-Gambian PhD candidate at Cornell University who filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s administration, arguing that executive orders targeting pro-Palestinian activists violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights. Despite suing preemptively and being legally represented, Taal’s efforts were ultimately undermined by jurisdictional manoeuvring and executive pressure. His emergency injunction was denied by a federal judge on March 27, and days later, he self-deported, saying he no longer trusted the courts to protect him even with a favourable ruling. There is also Yunseo Chung, a South Korean-born Columbia student and US permanent resident who narrowly avoided deportation thanks to a preemptive federal court injunction. Alireza Doroudi, an Iranian engineering PhD student at the University of Alabama, was quietly detained with no explanation. Ranjani Srinivasan, an Indian student at Columbia, fled to Canada after ICE agents visited her apartment. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) later released footage of her departure, labelling her a “terrorist sympathiser”. In this campaign of political persecution, the Trump administration has largely relied on immigration courts, which are not part of the independent federal judiciary under Article III of the US Constitution. They are administrative tribunals housed within the executive branch, specifically, the Department of Justice. Their judges are appointed by the attorney general, lack tenure and are subject to political oversight. The procedural protections available in Article III courts – such as full evidentiary hearings, impartial review and constitutional due process – are substantially weakened in immigration courts. Advertisement While federal courts may scrutinise whether an arrest or deportation violates constitutional protections – like the First Amendment or equal protection – immigration judges are often empowered to rule based on vague assertions of “foreign policy concerns” or “national security interests” with little to no requirement for concrete evidence. This dual-track legal system allows the government to bypass the constitution while maintaining the appearance of legality. There have been numerous calls to reform this system from legal scholars, human rights organisations and even former immigration judges. Proposals have included moving immigration courts out of the Department of Justice and into an independent Article I court structure to ensure judicial impartiality. However, these reforms have consistently failed, largely due to congressional inaction as well as political resistance from successive administrations that have benefitted from the system’s malleability. The executive branch has long viewed immigration courts as a tool of policy enforcement rather than neutral adjudication. While this crackdown has so far focused on noncitizens with legal status, it could soon extend to naturalised Americans. US law allows the revocation of citizenship in cases of fraud, membership in terrorist organisations and other crimes. In his first term, Trump created a dedicated “Denaturalization Section” within the Department of Justice to pursue citizenship revocations. About 700,000 immigrant files were investigated with the aim of bringing 1,600 cases to court. Advertisement Trump has now signalled that he intends to pick up his denaturalisation drive where he left off. If he deploys this legal tool against critical voices, this would mean that even citizenship may no longer offer protection if one’s political views fall out of favour with the government. As the Department of Justice, DHS and ICE have worked together on the campaign against dissent, they have received public support from nonprofit organisations. Groups like Betar and Canary Mission have taken public credit for identifying international students involved in pro-Palestinian
What’s next for the Catholic Church after Pope Francis?
The first Latin American pope has died. We look at his legacy, reforms and what his death means for the Catholic Church. Pope Francis, the first Latin American and Jesuit pontiff, has died at age 88. His papacy broke barriers and redefined the Catholic Church’s global image — but also left tough questions unanswered. We look back on his legacy, the controversies that followed him, and what comes next for the church. Adblock test (Why?)
Economic nostalgia is turning into punishment | #AJOPINION
NewsFeed “The idea that America was ‘better before’ is one of our oldest myths.” Rotimi Adeoye says the Trump administration’s nostalgic push to return the US to a past economic era is a recurring theme in American history, one that often comes at the expense of the marginalised. Published On 22 Apr 202522 Apr 2025 Adblock test (Why?)
House Republican asks Trump DOJ to criminally prosecute ex-New York Gov Andrew Cuomo
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., referred former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to President Donald Trump’s Justice Department for criminal prosecution. Cuomo – the Democratic scion now considered the current frontrunner in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary in June – was first referred to the Biden Justice Department for criminal prosecution in October 2024. Former Rep. Brad Wenstrup, then-chairman of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, said Cuomo made “multiple criminally false statements” to Congress about his handling of the 2020 COVID-19 nursing home death scandal. In a new letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday, Comer said “to our knowledge, the Biden Administration ignored this referral despite clear facts and evidence.” He requested that Bondi review the referral and “take appropriate action.” ANDREW CUOMO DENIED ALMOST $3 MILLION IN PUBLICLY MATCHING FUNDS FOR MAYORAL BID, CITES ‘SOFTWARE ERROR’ “Andrew Cuomo is a man with a history of corruption and deceit, now caught red-handed lying to Congress during the Select Subcommittee’s investigation into the COVID-19 nursing home tragedy in New York,” Comer said in a statement Monday. “This wasn’t a slip-up – it was a calculated cover-up by a man seeking to shield himself from responsibility for the devastating loss of life in New York’s nursing homes. Let’s be clear: lying to Congress is a federal crime. Mr. Cuomo must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The House Oversight Committee is prepared to fully cooperate with the Justice Department’s investigation into Andrew Cuomo’s actions and ensure he’s held to account.” Reached for comment by Fox News Digital, Cuomo’s spokesman, Richard Azzopardi, dismissed Comer’s letter as “nothing more than a meritless press release that was nonsense last year and is even more so now.” “As the DOJ constantly reminds people, this kind of transparent attempt at election interference and law-fare violates their own policies,” Azzopardi said. “Referrals like these – which have been also made against Planned Parenthood, Hillary Clinton and Anthony Fauci – don’t have to be resubmitted with a new administration, so the only point to doing this is politics.” NEW YORK REPUBLICAN CONGRESSWOMAN MAKES 7-FIGURE CAMPAIGN HAUL, AIMS TO FLIP DISTRICTS TO RED IN 2026 The Cuomo administration issued a directive on March 25, 2020, mandating that nursing homes admit or re-admit potentially COVID-19 positive patients “while simultaneously prohibiting nursing homes from testing these patients before admission or re-admission,” Wenstrup wrote to former Attorney General Merrick Garland in October. The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) issued a subsequent report on July 6, 2020, titled “Factors Associated with Nursing Home Infections and Fatalities in New York State During the COVID-19 Global Health Crisis.” The report alleged nursing home staff – not the March 25 directive – caused excess COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes. Comer said witness testimony and new documents revealed in the select subcommittee’s referral showed Cuomo “personally drafted and edited portions of this purportedly independent and peer-reviewed report.” New York state Attorney General Letitia James said in a January 2021 investigative report of her own that the Cuomo administration may have undercounted the total number of nursing home deaths by as much as 50% The select subcommittee launched its investigation in May 2023. It issued a subpoena for Cuomo’s testimony in March 2024 after months of delays. Cuomo sat for a transcribed interview on June 11, 2024. He later testified in front of the select subcommittee on Sept. 10, 2024. Wenstrup noted that Cuomo claimed he was neither involved in the drafting nor the review of the July 6 report. Cuomo also testified that he did not have any discussions about the July 6 Report being peer-reviewed and that he did not know whether the July 6 report was reviewed by persons outside the NYSDOH. On all three accounts, Wenstrup said documents obtained by the select subcommittee demonstrate Cuomo’s statements to be false. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP It’s unclear if the Justice Department, now under Trump’s control, will pursue action against Cuomo. Fox News Digital reached out to the DOJ on Tuesday for comment. The DOJ motioned to dismiss an indictment brought under Biden against current New York City Mayor Eric Adams. A judge agreed to throw out the case with prejudice earlier this month. Adams is running as an independent in the mayoral primary.
Gaza’s Christians mourn death of Pope Francis
Gaza’s small Christian community is mourning the death of Pope Francis, who had maintained close and consistent video contact with the Palestinian devotees throughout the war that continues to devastate the enclave. Since the outbreak of fighting between Israel and Hamas in October 2023, Francis had regularly called Gaza’s Christians, often several times a week, offering prayers, encouragement and solidarity. “I always waited to hear the words of the Holy Father. I would watch him on television, and through the screens. He gave us hope with his messages and prayers,” said Elias al-Sayegh, 49, from Zeitoun. “We felt we were alive because of his prayers and blessings. Every day, he renewed our hope for an end to the war and the bloodshed. His prayers will remain with us for peace in the land of peace, Palestine.” “I wish I could take part in the prayers at the Church of the Nativity and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre,” he added, referring to ancient churches in Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem. Advertisement “With the pope’s passing, we in Gaza feel as though a light of love and peace has been extinguished,” said 67-year-old George Ayad from al-Sahaba. “Though the Vatican is far away, his voice always reached our hearts – he never ceased calling for peace and justice. “Amid the pain and suffocating blockade we endured, we clung to his words as a beacon of hope. The pope never forgot Gaza in his prayers – and today, we offer ours for his soul.” Adblock test (Why?)
Vatican video shows Pope in open casket
[unable to retrieve full-text content] The Vatican has released the first images of Pope Francis in an open coffin in the chapel of Casa Santa Marta.
New Zealand’s minor gov’t party pushes to define women by biological sex
Populist New Zealand First party says bill will ensure country moves away from ‘woke ideology’ harming women. A minor party in New Zealand’s coalition government has announced proposals to legally define women by biological sex, casting the move as a return to common sense and a rejection of “woke ideology”. The bill announced by the populist New Zealand First (NZF) party on Tuesday would define a woman and a man in law as a “human biological female” and “an adult human biological male”, respectively. NZF leader Winston Peters, whose party governs in a coalition with the centre-right National Party and pro-business ACT New Zealand, said the proposed law would “reflect biological reality” and “provide legal certainty”. “This Bill would ensure our country moves away from the woke ideology that has crept in over the last few years, undermining the protection, progression, and safety of women,” Peters, who serves as the deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, said in a post on X. “These definitions in law fight back against the cancerous social engineering we’ve seen being pushed in society by a woke minority,” Peters added. Advertisement “The need for legislation like this shows how far the deluded left has taken us as a society. But we are fighting back. This bill is a win for common sense.” It is not clear whether the bill, which was introduced by an individual MP instead of the government, has a realistic prospect of becoming law. NZF is the smallest of the three coalition partners in government, with 11 seats in the 123-member parliament, and most bills introduced by individual MPs ultimately do not end up on the statute books. Chris Hipkins, the leader of the main opposition New Zealand Labour Party, accused the NZF of being interested in “one headline after the next”. “They don’t really have a coherent programme and they’re certainly not focused on the things that are required to lead New Zealand forward,” Hipkins told Radio New Zealand. The proposals come less than a week after the United Kingdom’s highest court ruled that women are defined by biological sex under the country’s equality laws. The landmark decision was welcomed by conservative politicians and some feminist advocacy groups, but greeted with dismay by transgender campaigners and progressive activists, who warned it would further the marginalisation of the LGBTQ community. Adblock test (Why?)
Track the spread of measles in Texas
Texas is experiencing its largest measles outbreak in 30 years. The virus has infected more than 600 people and killed two school-aged children.