Kansas Republicans overrode Democrat Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto of a bill protecting pro-life pregnancy centers on Friday.
The GOP-dominated Kansas House and Senate overturned Kelly’s veto within hours of her decision, the Kansas Reflector reported. Kelly claimed in her veto announcement that Kansans do not want the government involved in private medical decisions.
“That means we shouldn’t be spending tax dollars trying to interfere with that very personal, very private, medical decision,” she said. “That’s why I’m vetoing this bill.”
The Kansas House voted 87-35 and the state Senate voted 30-9 to override Kelly’s rejection, per the report.
The legislation, House Bill 2635, exempts pregnancy centers from regulations that mandate what information, services, and resources they provide on pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting, according to the report.
“This bill simply protects pregnancy resource centers’ ability to educate mothers and provide life-affirming care,” Republican Senate President Ty Masterson said in a statement.
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that when most readers see a RedState headline referencing D.C. District Court Judge James Boasberg, they assume they're about to learn of yet another ruling against the Trump administration. Why wouldn't they? That seems to be the order of the day with many — if not most — of the District Court judges presiding over cases involving the administration. And Boasberg's enmity for the president (and his policies) hasn't been hard to suss out from his prior rulings.
But I'm here to offer a bit of a surprise: Judge Boasberg actually ruled in favor of the administration last week. Yep. You read that correctly.
Now...reading between the lines of his ruling, he did so grudgingly, but he did actually grant the administration's motion to dismiss in a case involving the removal of illegal aliens to El Salvador. (And no, to clarify, this is not in the infamous J.G.G. v. Trump case with the planes ordered to turn around — that one lives on. This case is styled Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. Department of State.)
Here's the back story, as set forth in Boasberg's ruling:
In March 2025, the United States began transferring individuals from its custody to detention facilities in El Salvador. Those transfers followed a diplomatic understanding between the two governments and were accompanied by funding to support the individuals’ confinement abroad. Organizations that provide legal and related services to those affected — and to others who may face the same fate — have challenged that Agreement, contending that it violates a host of statutory and constitutional constraints. They now move for summary judgment to set aside the Agreement and clear the cloud of uncertainty looming over their work and clients. The Government responds by moving to dismiss and, in the alternative, for summary judgment. It maintains that Plaintiffs lack standing, that the Agreement is not subject to judicial review, and that it represents a lawful exercise of the Executive’s foreign-affairs authority.
The judge isn't coy regarding his view of the arrangement:
The Agreement changed the external environment in which these organizations operated. It set the stage for the transfer of individuals from the United States to detention in Salvadoran prisons, where inmates are not only placed in “poor living conditions” and “disciplined through beatings and humiliation,” J.G.G., 772 F. Supp. 3d at 42, but also have little to no access to counsel. See Pls. MSJ at 25
He determines that the plaintiff organizations are injured by this in that it interferes with attorney-client relationships and disrupts the services the organizations are set up to provide.
But the judge determines that even given that, the question of "whether vacating the Agreement would deprive Defendants of the legal authority to keep rendering individuals to El Salvador or change the practical odds of Defendants doing so" is one that must be answered in the negative. Basically, he reasons, the Agreement is "a nonbinding diplomatic exchange of notes that, by definition, creates no legal obligations and confers no new authority," thus, "It follows that vacating the Agreement, which carries no legal force of its own, would not alter the legal landscape in a way that meaningfully bears on the injury-producing conduct."
Ultimately, Boasberg reasons, vacating the Agreement would not accomplish what the plaintiffs seek to accomplish:
The practical consequences of vacatur confirm that it would accomplish little. Whether the Agreement consists of the diplomatic notes or the broader discussions Rubio described, the result of vacatur would be the same. The two governments have already reached a meeting of the minds to transfer individuals from the United States to Salvadoran prisons in exchange for funds. See Mar. 14 Diplomatic Note at 1. That shared understanding does not dissolve were a court to set aside the Agreement. And with the understanding in place, the Government need only reach for the tools it already has — DHS’s statutory removal authority and State’s foreign assistance funding — to execute the same transfers again. Vacatur of the Agreement, in short, would leave the two governments exactly where they are: in possession of shared interests, the legal means to act on them, and a process of rendition and payment that they have already put in practice.
And thus, reluctantly, Judge Boasberg observes, "Because the relief Plaintiffs seek would not likely redress their injuries, the Court must dismiss their claims for lack of standing."
...But not without providing the plaintiffs a potential roadmap for mounting a new challenge.
Rather than challenging the diplomatic understanding between the U.S. and El Salvador, the judge suggests the government's "implementing actions" — i.e., the DHS removal decisions and the State Department's funding actions — "are the proper focus of APA review." In fact, notes Judge Boasberg, "A plaintiff who could show that one of those actions was arbitrary, contrary to statute, or beyond statutory authority would have a cognizable APA claim."
You can almost hear the sigh that surely accompanied Boasberg's conclusion here:
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. A separate Order so stating will issue this day
But, as I've grown fond of saying in covering the multitude of lawsuits involving the Trump administration: A win's a win.
The grandson of the infamous Cuban dictator Fidel Castro revealed in a recent CNN interview that not only does he support capitalism, but would welcome a deal with President Trump, as the United States has maintained a near-total oil blockade on the country since January.
After the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro earlier this year, the president has continued pursuing what many have dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine,” aiming to bring countries in the Western Hemisphere back into alignment with the United States. So far, that effort has included increased pressure on communist regimes like Cuba to abandon reliance on Russia, China, and Iran and instead pursue economic ties and trade with the U.S.
"We would actually welcome, he says, speaking for himself, a deal with Donald Trump," CNN's Patrick Oppmann revealed. "I don't like his threats is what he told me, but if he opens up the island, if he improves the economy here, then it could all work out for the best. And so let's just listen to this conversation, which was more than a little surprising."
"What would your grandfather, Fidel Castro, say that you're more capitalist than communist?" he asked.
"My grandfather was a person who had his principles like everyone else, but he also respected others' opinions," Castro's grandson said. "That's my way of thinking. There are many people in Cuba that think in a capitalistic way. There are many people here who want to have capitalism with sovereignty."
This comes as the country has experienced a series of widespread civil unrest, fuel shortages, and blackouts amid pressure from the United States.
Just yesterday, despite the blockade, the Trump administration allowed a single Russian oil tanker through as an act of humanitarian relief.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed President Trump and the Republicans are going to go into the voting machines and change the vote count to steal the 2026 midterm elections.
Pelosi, who previously announced she will be retiring after decades in Congress, sat down with MS NOWS’s Ali Vitali to discuss the 2026 midterm elections, Joe Biden, the partial government shutdown, female candidates for president and other topics.
“I always thought the American people were much more ready for ‘Madam President’ than Congress was for ‘Madam Speaker,’ because it is a marble ceiling,” she said. “It’s not a glass ceiling; it’s a marble ceiling,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi took a swipe at Kamala Harris and said Hillary Clinton was the most qualified person of our generation to run for president.
“She turned out so many more people than who would have voted,” Pelosi said.
At one point the conversation turned to election integrity and the 2026 midterm elections.
Nancy Pelosi said Trump and the Republicans may try to hack the voting machines and steal the midterms by altering the vote count.
“We always have concerns but with this president and the Republicans who have no commitment to the rule of law and doing things the appropriate way- we’re ready,” Pelosi said.
She continued, “We have to make sure the elections are safe…. We have to be on guard as to what [the Republicans] may try to do to the technology. They may try to creep into the technology and create a false count,” Pelosi said.
MS NOW’s Ali Vitali entertained Pelosi’s claims.
“How do you guard against that?” she asked Pelosi.
ExxonMobil and QatarEnergy’s jointly owned Golden Pass plant in Texas is liquefying natural gas as of March 30 and expected to begin exporting within weeks.
The Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas plant owned by Cheniere Energy in Cameron Parish, La., on Feb. 10, 2025.
Golden Pass LNG is operational and expected to start exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) within weeks to energy-starved East Asian markets devastated by Iran’s destruction of a significant portion of Qatar’s export capacity.
Before the attack, Qatar exported enough LNG to meet 20 percent of global gas demand.
The joint venture between ExxonMobil and QatarEnergy announced on March 30 that it has begun liquefying natural gas at its plant and terminal on the Texas side of Sabine Pass, and will gradually increase production to provide a new source of desperately needed LNG.
“Today, we began producing LNG at our terminal in Sabine Pass, marking the completion of a significant effort to construct, commission, and start up the first LNG train and the beginning of operating a world-class facility with an exceptional team,” Golden Pass President and CEO Alex Savva said in a March 30 statement.
The United States is the world’s largest LNG exporter, having passed Qatar and Australia in 2022, with domestic producers now supplying 25 percent of global consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Nearly 70 percent is shipped to buyers in Europe, with Japanese and South Korean consumers increasing imports over the past few years.
Qatar was the world’s second-largest LNG exporter, supplying nearly 20 percent of global demand. About 90 percent of Qatari LNG was purchased by buyers in Asia, including China, South Korea, Japan, India, and Pakistan.
A March 18 Iranian missile strike caused massive damage to state-owned QatarEnergy’s Ras Laffan Industrial City Pearl gas-to-liquids plant and destroyed at least two of 14 “trains,” sequential components that purify and cool natural gas to turn it into liquid for transport. QatarEnergy estimates that it will take at least three years, and perhaps five years, to restore that production capacity.
There are eight U.S. LNG export terminals, all on the Gulf of America and East Coast: four in Louisiana, two in Texas, and one each in Georgia and Maryland. All are operating at capacity, meaning that there is little ability to boost production to replace Qatar’s LNG production.
However, Golden Pass could significantly cut into that deficit. The development includes three liquefaction trains that, at full capacity, will produce up to 18.1 million tons of LNG per year extracted from five massive natural gas storage tanks and pumped to pierside berths that can accommodate two LNG carriers at a time.
One large LNG tanker can typically carry enough natural gas to power up to 700,000 homes for an entire year, according to the Center for LNG.
“I’m proud of our team and their tireless work to ensure we safely reached this milestone,” Golden Pass Vice President of Operations Jeremy Horn said. “We’re excited to go to work delivering Texas LNG to power the world.”
A plenum session at the assembly hall of the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament in Jerusalem, on October 22, 2025. (Photo by Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)
The measure cleared its final readings in the Knesset plenum by a vote of 62-48, with one lawmaker abstaining.
Israel’s parliament approved legislation Monday evening establishing the death penalty for terrorists, with backers saying the move is aimed at deterring attacks and delivering justice for victims, The Jerusalem Post reported.
The measure cleared its final readings in the Knesset plenum by a vote of 62-48, with one lawmaker abstaining, reflecting a firm majority in support alongside significant opposition.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu entered the chamber to cast his vote in favor, publicly aligning himself with the proposal during its final passage.
The initiative was introduced by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit Party, which has advocated for stricter punitive measures in response to terrorism.
Supporters of the bill say the policy establishes capital punishment for those convicted of terrorist acts and is intended to strengthen Israel’s response framework.
They maintain that the threat of such a penalty could discourage future attacks while providing what they describe as a measure of justice for victims of terrorism.
The vote concluded the legislative process after the bill advanced through earlier stages, culminating in its approval by the full plenum on Monday night.
The outcome highlighted divisions within the legislature, with dozens of lawmakers opposing the measure even as it secured passage with a clear majority.
Netanyahu’s decision to attend the vote and support the legislation emphasized its political weight, as the prime minister joined proponents at a pivotal moment in the process.
The law marks a central policy push by Ben-Gvir’s party, which has prioritized tougher legal consequences for terrorism as part of its broader agenda.
Senate Republicans are no longer playing games. After unnecessarily conceding to Democratic demands, Chuck Schumer and the Democrats decided to do a 180-degree turn on funding. It was also something the Democrats wanted: a split DHS funding bill that funds most of the agency, except ICE and Border Patrol. It wasn’t enough suddenly, leading Trump to issue an order to pay TSA agents through last year’s tax cut bill, and Democrats to pass the funding bill via voice vote before leaving the Capitol. Of course, they knew the House GOP didn’t approve of this move, leading to intra-party complaints on top of the institutional rivalry.
There was a pro forma session today, where Senate Republicans could have tried to pass the House’s 60-day continuing resolution, but Democrats were prepared. Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) waited in his darkened lair, ready to object to unanimous consent.
Yes, the GOP didn’t give in on de-masking for ICE or judicial warrants, but the Democrats managed to delay things for another two weeks. With the Democrats pushing back against GOP efforts, the buzz is that when the Senate reconvenes after the Easter break, they will fund all of DHS, including ICE and Border Patrol, for three years, without any concessions via reconciliation.
First, I’ll believe it when I see it. Senate Republicans aren’t known for these ‘go for the jugular’ moves, and John Thune usually doesn’t fit that mold. If this does come to fruition, I will do somersaults, though I’d rather see us nuke the legislative filibuster to pass this billandthe SAVE Act. Second, do they have the votes? Because Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski, Mitch McConnell, and John Curtis could be a problem.
