(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Tech mogul Elon Musk and influencer Ashley St. Clair now have an open invitation from the nationally syndicated tabloid show Maury to finally settle the question of whether Musk is the father of St. Clair’s child.
The invitation—issued Wednesday through an account seemingly affiliated with host Maury Povich—appeared to be a mocking response to the ongoing Musk-St. Clair drama that has social media on edge.
The duo allegedly welcomed a child in 2024, after briefly meeting in 2023. St. Clair claims Musk has been ignoring her calls and cut the child’s financial support by 60%, forcing her to sell her $100,000 Tesla vehicle.
On Sunday, Musk responded to a video showing St. Clair selling the vehicle outside her Manhattan apartment, stating that he has willingly given millions to St. Clair despite not having confirmed the child’s paternity.
“I don’t know if the child is mine or not, but am not against finding out,” Musk wrote via X. “No court order is needed.” He noted that he has given St. Clair $2.5 million in addition to vowing to send $500,000 per year.
In response to Musk’s complaints, an X account called “The Maury Show” joined the drama with a simple challenge: “Wanna find out?” The post quickly went viral, garnering more than 800,000 views.
While Musk has not responded to the challenge, such a show is unlikely to happen given that Maury was canceled in 2022, with only reruns airing on several networks.
St. Clair has remained relatively silent this week, only firing back at Musk in a scathing X post: “Elon, we asked you to confirm paternity through a test before our child (who you named) was even born. You refused. … America needs you to grow up, you petulant man-child.”
Elon, we asked you to confirm paternity through a test before our child (who you named) was even born. You refused.
And you weren’t sending *me* money, you were sending support for your child that you thought was necessary… until you withdrew most of it to maintain control and…
Earlier in the weekend, she had spoken to reporters in Manhattan while handing over the keys to her Tesla to a Carvana salesperson.
“I’m selling it because I need to make up for the 60% cut that Elon made to our son’s child support,” she said.
Asked if Musk was being “vindictive” after she announced the child’s birth in February despite his wishes, she added: “Yeah, that’s his modus operandi, when women speak out.”
When questioned about Musk’s potential reaction, she quipped, “You can check the stocks. I’m not the only one who is cleaning up after his messes.”
Gold digger and professional gaslighter @stclairashley was caught on camera outside of her ritzy Manhattan condo (paid for by her sugar daddy Elon Musk) selling her $100,000 @Tesla she said was gifted to her by @elonmusk during their romantic relationship.
(Mike Maharrey, Money Metals News Service) Indian investors are turning to gold as the domestic stock market tanks.
This isn’t a surprise, but there is a twist. Indians are increasingly turning to ETFs to gain exposure to the yellow metal.
Indians have a long love affair with gold. The country ranks as the second-largest gold market. The yellow metal is highly valued as a store of wealth, especially in poorer rural regions. Around two-thirds of India’s gold demand comes from beyond the urban centers, where large numbers of people operate outside the tax system. Many Indians use gold jewelry not only as adornment but as their savings.
According to the Financial Times, “Indians now own about 25,000 tonnes of gold and have been cashing in on the rally by taking out loans from banks, using their holdings as collateral while prices remain elevated.”
Given the cultural context, the quick pivot to gold during a bear stock market is not surprising.
The Indian Nifty 50 index is down 0.5 percent year to date, with the broader Indian stock market down over 5 percent. Meanwhile, gold has ranked as the best-performing asset class, with year-to-date returns well over 10 percent.
The Rise of the Indian Gold ETF
Interestingly, Indian investors are turning to ETFs to gain exposure to gold.
A gold ETF is backed by a trust company that holds metal owned and stored by the trust. In most cases, investing in an ETF does not entitle you to any amount of physical gold. You own a share of the ETF, not gold itself. ETFs are a convenient way for investors to play the gold market, but owning ETF shares is not the same as holding physical gold.
About 2.2 tonnes of gold flowed into India-based ETFs last month, pushing collective holdings to 64.6 tonnes. Cumulative Indian ETF assets under management (AUM) have nearly doubled year on year.
In rupee terms, ETF holding surged by ₹19 billion ($227 million). This was off the record pace in January but still far above average.
This occurred despite significant ETF redemptions, reflecting some profit-taking as gold prices surged.
A World Gold Council spokesperson said there is a shift from gold jewelry to “pure investments,” redirecting “free cash flows” toward ETFs in the midst of “ongoing global and domestic economic and policy uncertainty.”
According to Metals Focus, “The weakness in Indian equities is the big reason for investors rotating into ETFs.”
That’s not to say investors are spurning physical gold. According to the World Gold Council, bar and coin demand has also remained strong, even as jewelry sales have dropped due to high prices and significant premiums.
Analysts told the Financial Times that the quick rotation out of stocks could account for the rapid increase in gold ETF holdings. Their electronic nature makes it possible to quickly shift money in and out of gold without having to physically move metal. Analysts also said, “The lack of new sovereign gold bond issuance by the Indian government and increased demand for multi-asset funds that include gold ETFs.”
However, depending on ETFs as a gold investment introduces significant counterparty risk. While the investment class takes advantage of the convenience of ETF investing, the vast majority of Indians will likely stick to physical metal to preserve their wealth.
Mike Maharrey is a journalist and market analyst for Money Metals with over a decade of experience in precious metals. He holds a BS in accounting from the University of Kentucky and a BA in journalism from the University of South Florida.
(Mike Maharrey, Money Metals News Service) The U.S. dollar’s status as the global reserve currency continues to erode, with gold and “non-traditional” reserve currencies gaining ground.
According to recently released IMF data, the dollar’s share of global reserve currencies slid further last year. Total holdings of dollar-denominated securities by central banks (excluding the Federal Reserve) fell by $59 billion in 2024.
As of the end of last year, dollars made up 57.8 percent of global reserves. That is the lowest level since 1994, representing a 7.3 percent decline in the last decade. In 2002, dollars accounted for about 72 percent of total reserves.
This isn’t the first surge of de-dollarization. The greenback’s share of reserves plunged during the inflationary years of the 1970s but recovered during the 1990s as price inflation cooled and U.S. budget deficits narrowed thanks to the post-Cold War “peace dividend.”
De-dollarization has accelerated since the U.S. and other Western nations imposed heavy sanctions on Russia in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine.
According to a report by the Atlantic Council, “In recent years, and especially since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Group of Seven (G7)’s subsequent escalation in the use of financial sanctions, some countries have been signaling their intention to diversify away from dollars.”
What Is Replacing the Dollar?
If central banks are spurning dollars, what are they holding?
Increasingly, they are bolstering their reserve with gold.
Central bank gold demand topped 1,000 tonnes for the third straight year in 2024. To put that into perspective, central bank gold reserves increased by an average of just 473 tonnes annually between 2010 and 2021.
In dollar terms, official central bank gold holdings amount to $3.65 billion.
Since 2005, Russia and China alone have added a combined 3,626 tonnes of gold to their official holdings. (Again, China has far more gold than this that is not included in the official disclosures.)
Other currencies are also gaining share as reserve instruments to the dollar’s detriment.
Euros account for about 20 percent of global reserves. Its share has remained steady over the years, ranging from a low of 19.1 percent in 2016 to a high of 21.3 percent in 2020.
The Chinese yuan has also lost ground as a reserve currency since 2022. According to WolfStreet, “Central banks have not been enamored with RMB-denominated assets due to China’s capital controls, the RMB’s convertibility issues, and other complexities.”
However, the following currencies are gaining status in the world of foreign reserves. (Courtesy of WolfStreet.)
Japanese yen, 5.8% (YEN, purple).
British pound, 4.7% (GBP, light blue).
“All other currencies,” 4.6% (red).
Canadian dollar, 2.8% (dotted green).
Chinese renminbi, 2.2% (yellow).
Australian dollar, 2.1% (black dotted).
Swiss franc, 0.2% (black).
Why Does It Matter?
In a nutshell, the U.S. needs the world to need dollars.
The U.S. depends on this global demand for dollars supported by its reserve status to underpin its massive government. The only reason Uncle Sam can borrow, spend, and run massive budget deficits to the extent that it does is the dollar’s role as the world reserve currency. It creates a built-in global demand for dollars and dollar-denominated assets. This absorbs the Federal Reserve’s money creation and helps maintain dollar strength despite the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies.
WolfStreet summed up the risk the U.S. faces as the dollar’s status continues to erode.
“The status of the U.S. dollar as the dominant global reserve currency has helped the US fund its twin deficits and thereby has enabled them: the huge fiscal deficit every year and the massive trade deficit every year. The reserve currency status comes from other central banks (not the Fed) having purchased trillions of USD-denominated assets such as Treasury securities, other government securities, corporate bonds, and even stocks. The dollar status as the dominant reserve currency has been crucial for the U.S., and as that dominance declines ever so slowly, risks pile up ever so slowly.”
While the threat isn’t immediate, a slowly growing pile eventually turns into a giant pile.
The world doesn’t have to completely abandon the dollar to create negative impacts. Even a modest drop in the demand for dollars will ripple through the U.S. economy.
Even a modest de-dollarization of the world economy would cause a dollar glut. The value of the U.S. currency would further depreciate. That translates to more price inflation at home. In the worst-case scenario, the dollar could collapse completely, leading to hyperinflation.
Mike Maharrey is a journalist and market analyst for Money Metals with over a decade of experience in precious metals. He holds a BS in accounting from the University of Kentucky and a BA in journalism from the University of South Florida.
(Money Metals News Service) In the latest Money Metals Midweek Memo, host Mike Maharrey tackles the most frequently asked questions from investors, precious metals enthusiasts, and citizens concerned about the state of the economy.
This episode functions as a deep-dive AMA (Ask Me Anything), unpacking the implications of gold’s historic surge, silver’s sluggish response, storage strategies, de-dollarization, digital currencies, and the often-missed mechanics behind inflation and monetary policy.
Gold Blasts Through $3,100 — Fastest Run in Modern History
Gold has reached a new all-time high, trading above $3,100 per ounce just two weeks after first crossing the $3,000 threshold on March 14, 2025. Maharrey noted that this surge is historically fast.
Gold jumped from $2,500 to $3,000 in just 210 days, a stark contrast to the historical average of 1,700 days to gain $500 in price. He attributes this meteoric rise to a “perfect storm” of macroeconomic pressures, including de-dollarization, persistent inflation, recession worries, and uncertainty around trade and tariffs.
While the speed of the rally surprised him, he emphasized that the underlying fundamentals remain strong. However, he cautioned that corrections are inevitable in any bull market.
Why Is Silver Lagging Behind?
Despite gold’s breakout, silver has failed to keep pace. While it has seen moderate gains, it remains significantly undervalued when compared to gold. The gold-to-silver ratio has widened again, reaching around 91 or 92 to 1. This is a strong historical indicator that silver is underpriced.
Maharrey believes part of the reason is the smaller size of the silver market, which makes it easier for large financial institutions to suppress prices through futures and short positions.
Still, he points out that silver traditionally lags in early-stage gold bull markets before catching up dramatically. With tight supply and increasing industrial demand, he views this as a strategic buying opportunity for long-term investors.
Physical vs. Vaulted vs. ETF: Where Should You Store Gold?
On the topic of gold storage, Maharrey outlines three primary options: keeping gold at home, using a bullion depository, or investing through exchange-traded funds (ETFs). He acknowledges the appeal of holding physical gold due to its lack of counterparty risk. However, he warns that home storage comes with its own risks, including theft.
Depository storage introduces some level of counterparty risk, but reputable facilities like the Money Metals Depository in Idaho offer layered security and regular audits to mitigate those concerns.
ETFs, on the other hand, offer exposure to gold’s price movement without physical ownership. While convenient and liquid, ETFs carry significant counterparty risk and should be considered a supplemental investment—not a replacement for owning physical metal.
Fort Knox: Is the Gold Really There?
Addressing the popular question about Fort Knox, Maharrey said he believes the gold is probably physically present but expressed doubts about how much of it is encumbered through leases or other paper claims. He criticized the lack of a full, transparent audit process.
While government officials often say audits occur, they typically only inspect seals placed on vault doors years ago, rather than verifying the actual gold holdings. Maharrey stressed the need for ongoing internal and external audits, noting that this is standard practice at private vaults like Money Metals Depository.
Will the Dollar Collapse?
When asked whether the dollar will collapse, Maharrey clarified that he doesn’t anticipate a sudden cataclysmic event.
Rather, he expects a continued erosion of the dollar’s global influence. The ongoing shift toward de-dollarization, especially among BRICS nations, is already reducing global demand for the dollar. This demand has historically enabled U.S. government borrowing and money creation without immediate inflationary consequences.
Central banks are accelerating this shift by purchasing over 1,000 tons of gold annually for the last three years—more than double the previous average. Maharrey foresees a multipolar reserve system featuring euros, yuan, gold, and potentially even crypto.
The slow death of dollar dominance, while less dramatic than a collapse, could still trigger major inflation and economic instability in the U.S.
Wholesale CBDCs—used for international trade and cross-border settlements—are already taking shape and are expected to be implemented more quickly. These will allow countries like Russia and China to bypass the U.S. dollar in trade, a significant step in de-dollarization.
Retail CBDCs, intended for everyday consumer use, are likely to take longer due to widespread political and social resistance in the U.S. Many states are already drafting legislation to block them.
Maharrey warned that a future crisis could be used as a pretext for a rapid rollout of a digital dollar, pointing to past examples like the Patriot Act following 9/11.
Gold vs. Silver: Why Not Both?
When asked whether investors should focus on gold or silver, Maharrey’s answer was straightforward: both. He advocates for diversification, explaining that gold is a long-term store of wealth, while silver serves as a more practical tool for everyday transactions—especially in crisis scenarios.
Silver’s lower price point makes it more accessible to new investors, particularly with the current gold-to-silver ratio signaling that silver is undervalued.
He also highlighted Money Metals’ monthly purchase plan, which allows individuals to build a gold and silver portfolio over time with as little as $100 per month.
Economic Blind Spots: What the Mainstream Misses
One of Maharrey’s key frustrations with mainstream economic discourse is the failure to account for unseen consequences of government policy. He referenced the French economist Frédéric Bastiat, who stressed the importance of evaluating both seen and unseen effects.
Policies like minimum wage laws and tariffs may appear beneficial on the surface, but they often carry significant hidden costs, such as job losses or higher prices. Maharrey also emphasized the central role of the Federal Reserve and monetary policy in driving inflation, noting that fiscal policies from the White House are secondary to the Fed’s control over money supply and interest rates. He urged listeners to deepen their understanding of the business cycle and central banking to grasp the full picture.
Final Thoughts
Maharrey closed the episode by encouraging listeners to speak with a Money Metals specialist for guidance on investing in precious metals, storage options, and the monthly savings program.
1-800-800-1865
He emphasized that owning physical gold and silver is a vital foundation for wealth preservation.
Listeners can explore more at MoneyMetals.com/news or subscribe to the Midweek Memo and Market Wrap podcasts for ongoing insights. As always, he reminded his audience that sharing the podcast and leaving reviews helps expand the reach of sound money education.
(Jan Nieuwenhuijs, Money Metals News Service) The People’s Bank of China (PBoC) continues to buy unprecedented amounts of gold as the global financial is deleveraging (i.e. investors exchange credit assets for gold).
In 2024, the Chinese central bank covertly bought 570 tonnes, encouraging gold’s ascent in global international reserves by 4%, the largest gain in four decades.
Gargantuan Gold Purchases by the Chinese Central Bank
This article is an analysis of formal and informal sources that indicate the PBoC is currently sitting on more than 5,000 tonnes of monetary gold located in Beijing – more than TWICE what has been publicly admitted.
Legacy media outlets routinely withhold crucial information from investors by principally reporting on official data on gold purchases by monetary authorities. In reality, the Chinese central bank is buying many multiples of what it’s officially disclosing, and investors should take note.
Combine large purchases by the PBoC and other regional central banks with initiatives in the East to settle trade through non-dollar ventures like mBridge and possibly gold stablecoins, and we should expect the international monetary system to continue shifting towards gold in the years ahead. Especially given today’s excessive debt levels, geopolitical tensions, and trade wars.
China Is Secretively Buying 5x More Gold Than Is Reported
Since the Ukraine war began, data show, China’s central bank has been buying roughly five times more gold than what it discloses to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
But it’s more difficult to get an accurate estimate of how much it owned at the start of the war so we can determine how much it owns now, in total. More on that later.
Let us start off with data from the World Gold Council’s (WGC) quarterly Gold Demand Trends reports on precious metal buying by central banks in aggregate. From the WGC:
Central bank demand is calculated using information from three different sources. Monthly International Financial Statistics produced by the IMF serve as an initial check for central bank transactions… A second vital source is confidential information regarding unrecorded sales and purchases.The final element in calculated net central bank purchases is analysis of trade flow data.
These confidential sources regarding unrecorded purchases and trade flow data are important themes in our present analysis, as there is no other way to ascertain what the PBoC does behind closed doors.
By comparing the WGC’s quarterly estimates with official data from the IMF, a glaring disparity is revealed since 2022 when the war in Ukraine broke out.
Chart 1. The difference between WGC and IMF data reflects unreported central bank gold buying.
According to two sources familiar with the matter, but who prefer to stay anonymous, the difference is mainly caused by “unreported purchases” by the Chinese central bank.
My approach has always been to take eighty percent of the difference between WGC and IMF figures and label that as secretive Chinese buying.
For instance, using this approach, I calculated that the People’s Bank of China acquired 280 tonnes during the third quarter of 2022.
In December 2022, the Financial Times published a similar estimate that confirms the accuracy of my sources and methodology:
Mark Bristow, chief executive of Barrick Gold, the world’s second-largest gold miner, said China had bought tonnes of gold around the high-200s mark [in Q3 2022], based on his discussions with numerous sources.
Gold industry insiders—whether working at bullion banks, mining companies, refineries, consultancy firms, or secure logistics companies—sometimes exchange information. It’s through these interactions that estimates are conceived about the volume of secret gold buying by the Chinese central bank.
Thus, if one has access to one or multiple nodes in this network, it can piggybank on their intelligence. More on this below.
Other evidence of the PBoC’s covert gold acquisitions is the surplus in the Chinese gold market since 2022.
In the past three years, China’s import plus domestic mine supply exceeded withdrawals from the vaults of the Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE). As the SGE is the center gold bourse in China—through laws and tax incentives most supply and demand flows through this exchange—an observed surplus must reflect acquisitions by the local monetary authority.
Chart 2. I’ve checked with sources close to the SGE that tell me the giant surplus is not being accumulated in SGE vaults, so it must end up in the PBoC’s vaults.
Another piece of evidence is the gold exported directly from the London Bullion Market to China. Because in London gold trade is conducted in large 400-ounce bars, but on the SGE, the private sector only trades in 1-kilogram bars, any gold moving directly from the U.K. to China is destined for the Chinese central bank.
The smoking gun as to Chinese government stockpiling is when we see a continuation of large exports from Britain to China whilst gold in Shanghai is trading at a discount versus London.
Obviously, no bullion bank would buy gold in London to sell at a loss in China. What actually happens is that the PBoC buys gold in London and lets bullion banks transport the metal to Beijing. In these circumstances, bullion banks (not the PBoC) must deal with customs departments and so the flow of gold is recorded.
Chart 3. Gold exports of 400-ounce bars from the U.K. to China go straight to the PBoC. China’s central bank has surreptitiously bought 1,800 tonnes from Q3 2022 through the end of 2024, which is five times more than what’s officially reported.
The PBoC Secretly Holds 5,000+ Tonnes of Gold
For dessert, let’s estimate how much gold the Chinese central bank owns in total.
We know how much gold it bought every quarter going back to 2010 when the WGC’s Gold Demand Trends data began. To get a ballpark estimate of how much it owns now, all we need is an estimate of how much it owned at any point in time since 2010.
I have been fortunate that on two occasions well connected industry insiders shared with me how much they thought the Chinese central bank owns. On the first occasion, in late 2015, an insider told me that from within his network, he tallied 3,300 tonnes. The second source was more conservative and conveyed in June of 2024 his estimate was approximately 4,000 tonnes at that time.
When I reverse engineer the second estimate to 2015, then take the average of the two estimates, and calculate what has been added per quarter ever since, it produces an outcome of 5,065 tonnes for the end of 2024.
So, to the best of my knowledge, 5,065 tonnes is the weight of fine gold that the Chinese central bank currently stores in the capital Beijing.
As virtually all new monetary gold buyers are located in the East, non-Western gold holdings are rising rapidly and have reached 45% of world gold reserves. The following chart is a perfect visual representation of the shift in global power towards the East.
Chart 4. Non-Western central banks nearly hold as much gold as their Western counterparts.
My personal estimates of world official gold reserves, combined with Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER) data by the IMF, unveil gold’s percentage of global international reserves jumped up 4%, to 21%, in 2024. That’s the biggest surge in more than four decades.
Chart 5. Next to gold, small currencies (“other”) are also on the rise in international reserves.
Next time you read claims that there is no de-dollarization actually occurring, please urge the naive writer to include gold in his statistics as to foreign reserves!
(Dave DeCamp, Antiwar.com) The US and Israel are currently planning to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, an attack that could happen in a “few weeks’ time,” Daily Mail columnist Dan Hodges reported on Wednesday.
Hodges wrote the report while in Tel Aviv and cited Israeli political, diplomatic, and military sources. He said the purpose of the strike would be to “eradicate the threat” posed by Iran’s “nuclear weapons program,” although there’s no evidence Tehran has a nuclear weapons program, a fact recently confirmed by US intelligence agencies.
A senior Israeli diplomatic source told Hodges that Trump’s presidency offers the best time to hit Iran. “From Israel’s perspective, with Trump in the White House, this represents the optimum moment to deal with Iran. There won’t be a better chance,” the official said.
Trump recently threatened to bomb Iran if a nuclear deal isn’t reached, and he has reportedly given Tehran a two-month deadline, which would end at the end of May. Iran responded to Trump by rejecting direct talks in the face of increasing US pressure, but Tehran has offered to hold indirect negotiations.
Axiosreported on Wednesday that the White House is seriously considering Iran’s offer for indirect talks but is building up US forces in the Middle East to prepare for an attack on the Islamic Republic.
US officials told Axios that there is an internal debate in the White House between those who want to engage with the Iranians and those who would rather bomb Iran right away. The report reads: “If Trump decides the time is up, he will have a loaded gun at the ready.”
Recent US deployments to the Middle East have included an additional aircraft carrier, additional air assets, and sending more B-2 bombers to the US base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. According to Haaretz, the buildup is the largest offensive US deployment in the region since October 7, 2023.
The US buildup also comes amid a heavy US bombing campaign in Yemen, which Trump launched on March 15. The president has tied the airstrikes to Iran, saying each Houthi attack will be blamed on the Islamic Republic, even though US officials have acknowledged the Houthis act independently and have their own domestically-produced weapons supply.
A full-blown US-Israeli attack on Iran would likely provoke major Iranian missile attacks on US bases in the region, and things could escalate rapidly from there. In the face of US threats, a senior IRGC commander warned that the US has “10 bases in the region, particularly around Iran, and 50,000 troops based in there” and said the US is “sitting in a glass house.”
(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) A copycat of alleged insurance executive assassin Luigi Mangione apparently harbored so much hatred toward large pharmacies that he targeted a Walgreens in California and fatally shot a vulnerable employee, police said.
The accused perpetrator, Narciso Gallardo Fernandez, shot and killed Erick Valasquez inside a Walgreens in Madera, California during Velasquez’s shift in what investigators describe as a random attack, Madera Police Chief Gino Chiaramonte said.
A chilling video widely shared on social media captured Gallardo Fernandez entering the Walgreens, waving his hands before firing at the camera. He then targeted Valasquez, a husband and father of two young children.
“He has generalized anger towards pharmacies through previous issues,” Chiaramonte said, according to local news outlet KSEE.
In an apparent "Luigi style" shooting at a Walgreens in Madera, CA, 30-year-old Narciso Gallardo Fernandez murdered a father of two in cold blood due to a grudge against large pharmacies.
This is a deranged coward who deserves society's deepest contempt and punishment. pic.twitter.com/VCvKvS90Ni
The unhinged man, who reportedly drove 80 miles to reach the Walgreens, also shot other store workers and customers as they fled. He was reloading his weapon when law enforcement approached him in the parking lot.
“He not only point blank murdered the store employee Erick Velasquez, but the store manager and a female victim after the shooting fled out the front door and he turned and started shooting towards them,” Chiaramonte said.
The police chief said the alleged gunman told officers that he knew it was over by the large presence of police, lights and sirens coming.
Local resident Alexis Miller-Jones expressed shock at the harrowing incident, noting that she often visits the store with her 11-year-old child.
“I’ve not seen anything to this magnitude in our town,” Miller-Jones told KSEE. “One time somebody busted in the doors and stole a bunch of cigarettes, but that was the biggest, this is a lot more scary.”
Walgreens reacted to the killing in a press statement, stating: “We are deeply saddened by last night’s tragic event, which resulted in the death of one of our team members. Our thoughts and prayers are with their loved ones during this difficult time.”
The killing comes less than four months after UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was fatally shot by activist Luigi Nicholas Mangione in a New York City street.
CCTV footage captured Mangione approaching Thompson and firing a 3D-printed pistol fitted with a 3D-printed suppressor in an assassination-style attack.
Mangione now faces several state and federal charges for the murder, with the Trump-led DOJ seeking the death penalty.
(José Niño, Headline USA) On Monday, an Arizona congressman introduced legislation aimed at removing the federal judge responsible for blocking President Donald Trump’s attempts to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.
This legislation put forwards an unconventional route that bypasses the impeachment process, eliminating the requirement for a two-thirds majority vote in the U.S. Senate.
An Arizona congressman introduced legislation Monday to remove the federal judge who has blocked President Donald Trump’s efforts to execute the deportation of Venezuelan gang members, offering a novel path that avoids the impeachment process and the need for two-thirds support in the U.S. Senate.
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., submitted a resolution seeking the removal of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, accusing him of “failing to maintain the standard of good behavior required of judges” as set forth by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.
“Most Americans believe that there is lifetime tenure for a federal judge. That unless impeached, a federal judge can serve until death,” Biggs said to Just the News. “But lifetime tenure is not guaranteed, nor mentioned, in the Constitution. Article III, Section 1 permits a federal judge to serve only ‘during good behavior.’”
Biggs contended that the constitutional provision grants Congress the power to remove judges who fail to maintain proper standards, even without resorting to impeachment.
Judge Boasberg, who sits on the federal bench in Washington D.C., previously halted the Trump administration’s efforts to deport alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a transnational gang based out of Venezuela, by blocking the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
Additionally, Boasberg ordered U.S. government aircraft already bound for El Salvador with the suspects onboard to return to the United States.
Boasberg is among several federal judges who have repeatedly thrown wrenches in administration policies, including personnel dismissals, closures of government agencies, and attempts to end birthright citizenship.
According to Biggs, these judges have frequently overstepped their jurisdictional limits. He argues Congress must step in by exercising its constitutional authority to remove judges whose politically driven rulings fall short of impeachment-worthy misconduct.
“[W]hat about a judge who has a conflict of interest and refuses to recuse himself from the case with which he has a conflict? Or, what if he has repeatedly supported publicly a political figure and vigorously denounced, not just on policy grounds, but on more virulent grounds, his political opponent?” Biggs inquired.
“Then a case involving the political adversary comes before him, and he insists on hearing the matter instead of recusing?” Biggs asked. “You see, impeachment doesn’t work in these and other similar instances. The jurisdiction limitation against nationwide injunctions also doesn’t prevent an unjust, biased determination,” he continued.
“Maybe, however, firing such a judge could be the answer. It would certainly be specific deterrence that would prevent that type of misconduct from such a judge. And it would provide general deterrence in that all other federal judges would think more about applying the law to the case rather than attempting to twist the law so that the judge can attack a political adversary,” the Arizona representative highlighted.
Biggs’ resolution against Boasberg asserts that the judge’s injunction preventing the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members violated the president’s “constitutional prerogatives” and therefore constitutes an abuse of power.
“The Constitution grants the President broad and expansive powers over the conduct of foreign policy and to ensure national security against foreign threats,” the resolution stated. “As such, outside questions of the constitutionality of a provision or action, the Constitution places foreign policy decisions by the President and Congress beyond the scope of review by the courts along with actions taken pursuant to those decisions.”
The resolution contended that Boasberg overstepped his power when he “knowingly interfered with the President’s execution of foreign policy by ordering the return of members of a designated foreign terrorist organization to the United States.”
Biggs argues that by issuing this order, “Boasberg knowingly extended beyond the bounds of power of his office and unjustly interfered in the execution of foreign policy and national security for partisan purposes of halting the implementation of the President’s foreign policy and for political gain.”
Biggs’ move to invoke this constitutional provision follows in the footsteps of other Republican initiatives aimed at judicial reform and calls to take advantage of impeachment powers.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, previously told Just the News about his plans to approach judicial reform in three key ways: introducing laws to restrict federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions; utilizing Congress’s budgetary power to counter judicial activism; and conducting hearings to examine judicial conduct.
On Monday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley also proposed legislation to restrict federal judges’ injunctions exclusively to the involved parties and their specific geographic jurisdictions, preventing individual judges from issuing rulings that affect the entire country.
Meanwhile, other House Republicans have introduced impeachment resolutions targeting at least three judges who blocked Trump administration policies, including Judge Boasberg.
However, Biggs suggests his approach could allow Republicans to circumvent the usual requirement of 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation, as well as sidestep the two-thirds majority necessary for impeachment.
“The Senate also confirms judicial nominations by a simple majority vote of 51. The finding that a judge has violated terms of ‘good behavior’ should also be affirmed by a simple majority of votes in the Senate and House,” Biggs said to Just the News.
The new proposal would challenge the traditional interpretation of the “good behavior” clause. The long-held traditional view among legal scholars is that impeachment remains the sole method of removing a federal judge.
However, that view has been challenged as recently as 2006 by some scholars who suggest the wording of the Constitution leaves the door open for removal without impeachment.
This new proposal challenges the conventional understanding of the Constitution’s “good behavior” clause. Traditionally, legal scholars have maintained that impeachment is the only valid method for removing a federal judge.
Yet, this interpretation has been questioned more recently, including by some scholars in 2006, who argue that the Constitution’s wording might allow the removal of judges via alternative methods besides impeachment.
Biggs stated that if his colleagues agree with his reasoning that recent judicial actions breach the Constitution’s “good behavior” clause, “Article III, Section 1 will allow us to collectively say, ‘You’re fired’ to those judges who have forfeited their tenure on the bench by abusing their power.”
José Niño is the deputy editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/JoseAlNino
(José Niño, Headline USA) On Monday, Democratic Party leadership filed a lawsuit to halt Donald Trump’s executive order, which bars non-citizens from voting.
INBOX: The DNC, Chuck Schumer, and Hakeem Jeffries have filed a lawsuit against President Trump to stop his executive order, which prohibits non-citizens from voting. pic.twitter.com/EdF5zSM7FP
The lawsuit in question was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by a coalition of Democratic leaders and organizations made up of Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-NY, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Governors Association (DGA), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).
Additional lawsuits were filed by non-profit organizations such as the Campaign Legal Center, the State Democracy Defenders Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Secure Families Initiative, and the Arizona Students’ Association.
The lawsuits address President Trump’s March 2025 executive order, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” which rolled out several major changes to federal election procedures.
The order mandates states to secure proof of citizenship from individuals registering to vote in federal elections.
It also directs states to get rid of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day from the overall count, even if they were postmarked on time.
On top of that, the order would allow the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, to access national voter registration data.
The main legal argument in these lawsuits centers on the Constitution’s Elections Clause.
The plaintiffs contend that this clause grants states—not the President—the power to determine the “times, places, and manner” of elections, allowing them to establish regulations and manage voting procedures.
The lawsuits emphasize that only states and Congress have constitutional authority over elections.
The 70-page legal filing submitted by the Democratic organizations states: “While the order heavily reflects the president’s personal grievances, conspiratorial views, and denial of election results, it fails to identify any legal power he has to enforce such broad alterations to the voting process in America”.
The White House has defended the executive order, maintaining that it will uphold “free” and “fair” elections through stricter standards designed to maintain election integrity.
White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields stated, “The Democrats continue to demonstrate their contempt for the Constitution, which is evident in their outrageous objections to the President’s sensible executive actions aimed at requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to safeguard the integrity of American elections.”
Fields added, “The Trump administration is advocating for free, fair, and honest elections, and posing this fundamental question is vital to our Constitutional Republic.”
This lawsuit is the latest development in an ongoing dispute over presidential authority and electoral regulations, with significant legal and constitutional questions at stake.
Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging President Trump’s recent executive order on election administration, which includes proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration and changes to mail-in ballot procedures.
José Niño is the deputy editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/JoseAlNino
(Maire Clayton, Headline USA) The daughter of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Hope, took to social media to announce she will no longer be attending graduate school in the fall over the lack of the university’s support for protesters.
“I applied for one school. I kind of had my heart set on it,” Hope began in her TikTok video. “I am not going to name the institution, but given recent events I am not going to give my money, go into debt for, or support institutions that do not support students and the right to protest and speak out for their communities.”
Hope’s roughly one and a half minute TikTok video comes after universities are trying to clamp down on anti-Israel protests on campuses.
“Students deserve to be protected. I am not worried about if I were to be protected or not at said institution,” Hope continued. “I am, you know, a privileged white woman.
But I am not going to put myself in the position where I am giving money or supporting institutions that don’t support their students.”
President Donald Trump already pulled $400 million in federal grants for Columbia University over how it handled protests on campus. The Trump administration plans on reviewing funding for Harvard University as well for similar incidents, according to Fox News.
Walz’s daughter frequently takes to social media to express her opinions. She went on a transgender rant in February on TikTok after Trump issued an executive order that would protect female athletes.
“It is dangerous for the trans community, women, minorities, anyone who is not a straight white man,” Hope said at the time. “We are talking about human beings, and the president of the United States is targeting them because he thinks it will gain him political points or whatever.”
The Rise of the Indian Gold ETF
