Violence Erupts in Mexico as U.S. Helps in Killing of Cartel Leader

Violence broke out in parts of Mexico on Sunday after government security forces killed Nemesio Rubén Oseguera Cervantes, or “El Mencho,” the country’s most wanted drug kingpin—with “intelligence support” from the United States.  

El Mencho was killed in a shootout with security forces in Jalisco. As founder of Cartel Nueva Generacion Jalisco, or CJNG, he was most active in fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine trafficking and put out hits on multiple members of government. 

“The United States provided intelligence support to the Mexican government in order to assist with an operation in Talpalpa, Jalisco, Mexico, in which Nemesio ‘El Mencho’ Oseguera Cervantes, an infamous drug lord and leader within the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, was eliminated,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X. “President Trump has been very clear—the United States will ensure narcoterrorists sending deadly drugs to our homeland are forced to face the wrath of justice they have long deserved.” 

The violence was immediate and retaliatory, according to Mexican authorities. There were multiple explosions and reports of gunfire, as billows of smoke appeared in at least 13 different states. Armed cartel members blew up gas stations and set up various blockades with burning cars, and the U.S. Embassy in Mexico issued a security alert as many American tourists remain trapped. 

“The fear that remains in society is overwhelming,” a Zitacuaro, Michoacan, resident told Al Jazeera. “That’s when you realise the immense power these organisations have, because they can collapse a city in a matter of minutes.… They have co-opted the leaders who manage transport, and at any moment they can block the entrances and exits of a city.… They can completely paralyze a city’s movement.… All basic services are disrupted: going to hospitals, grocery shopping, ordering food. It becomes total chaos.”

President Claudia Sheinbaum urged her citizens to remain calm in the face of these attacks. 

“The Secretariat of National Defense reported on the operation carried out this morning by federal forces, which resulted in various blockades and other reactions. There is absolute coordination with the governments of all states; we must remain informed and calm,” she wrote. “The social media accounts of the Security Cabinet provide permanent updates. In the vast majority of the national territory, activities are proceeding with complete normality.”

While Deputy Secretary of State Chris Landau called El Mencho’s death a “great development for Mexico,” others acknowledged the death of El Mencho—the last of an era of Mexican kingpins that included El Chapo and El Mayo—as a major shift in a conflict that is far from over. 

The Federal Communications Commission is imploring America’s broadcasters to air propaganda ahead of the country’s 250th birthday.

In a Friday memo establishing the “Pledge America Campaign,” FCC Chair Brendan Carr said that U.S. media companies should run public service announcements, short segments, or specials to advance “civic education, inspiring local stories, and American history.”

The document also suggested that news media could include pro-America segments during “regular news programming,” or start each broadcast with a rendition of the “Star Spangled Banner” or the Pledge of Allegiance.

“I believe in the greatness of our country,” Carr said in a statement. “And I look forward to broadcasters showcasing its inspiring history by taking the Pledge and fulfilling their public interest mandate to serve the needs and interests of their local communities as America’s 250th birthday celebration marches on.”

The initiative is a component of a broader Trump administration effort to celebrate the country’s sestercentennial known as “Task Force 250.”

Participation, according to Carr’s note, is voluntary.

The proposal could be a benign request under any other president, but over the course of the last year, Donald Trump and his allies have made clear their efforts to erase and revise history according to their preference. The White House has already ordered the Smithsonian and the National Parks to remove “woke” exhibits, which apparently include mentions of Trump’s impeachments and signage relating to climate change or slavery, respectively.

And a Trump-sponsored version of the Bible, mandated for use in Oklahoma’s public school system, was published with a wildly outdated version of the U.S. Constitution that omitted more than a dozen amendments, including the Thirteenth Amendment, which officially abolished slavery. But the 160-year-old version featured the three-fifths compromise, a vestige of slavery that handed more political power to slave-owning states.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is using the cleanup from the implosion of Donald Trump’s illegal tariffs to set the stage for all that tariff revenue to disappear.

Speaking at the Economic Club of Dallas on Friday, Bessent claimed that in spite of the Supreme Court’s decision to block Trump’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a new series of tariffs imposed under other statutes would ensure the revenue was “virtually unchanged.”

But Bessent warned that at least $175 billion of tariff revenue that the U.S. government had already collected would likely evaporate. “I got a feeling the American people won’t see it,” Bessent said, his fingertips pressed together like a cartoon supervillain.

But if Americans don’t see those funds, there would only be one person to blame: Trump. Promises to fund sweeping tax cuts, bridge payments to farmers, deficit reduction, and phony $2,000 rebate checks all went up in smoke—because they weren’t his promises to make.

Clearly, Bessent deserves some blame too, because he didn’t bother to see if the president’s fees were actually legal before he went to collect them.

The Supreme Court’s majority ruling did not say the federal government could keep the money from the improperly collected tariffs, but conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned in his dissenting opinion that doling out refunds could get messy.

The Supreme Court decision striking down Donald Trump’s many tariffs may prove to be a windfall for the family of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, a key architect of Trump’s signature economic policy.

In July, Wired reported that Cantor Fitzgerald, which Lutnick chaired until he was appointed to Trump’s Cabinet, was allowing its traders to purchase the rights to hundreds of millions of dollars of refunds in the event the tariffs were struck down in court. The firm now happens to be headed by Lutnick’s sons Kyle and Brandon.

The magazine cited a letter from the firm explaining how Cantor Fitzgerald was willing to exchange refund rights for 20 to 30 percent of what the companies paid.

“So for a company that paid $10 million, they could expect to receive $2-$3 million in a trade,” a Cantor Fitzgerald representative wrote. “We have the capacity to trade up to several hundred million of these presently and can likely upsize that in the future to meet potential demand.”

The letter indicated that the firm already had one company agree to a deal worth about $10 million. It’s been seven months since then, and Cantor Fitzgerald has had plenty of time to make other such lucrative deals.

“The fact that it’s Cantor Fitzgerald, that raises some questions,” Tim Meyer, a professor of international business law at Duke University School of Law, told Wired. “It’s quite interesting that the commerce secretary’s firm is the one that is betting the tariffs will be struck down. That strikes me as very interesting—and quite telling about what those with connections to the administration think about the merits of the tariffs.”

Lutnick has been a steadfast proponent of Trump’s tariffs, frustrating many Republicans and staffers within the White House. He fought the efforts of others within the administration, such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and National Economic Council chair Kevin Hassett, to put limits on Trump’s tariffs.

Lutnick has yet to comment on Friday’s court ruling. Does his firm’s bet mean he never really believed in the tariffs to begin with and was lying to the public about them? Did his kids know something the rest of us didn’t?

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev was in Washington, D.C., Thursday for Donald Trump’s inaugural Board of Peace meeting. When protesters showed up outside of his hotel, his bodyguards attacked them. 

The protesters at the Waldorf Astoria on Pennsylvania Avenue were calling for the release of political prisoners in Azerbaijan, which has been under Aliyev’s dictatorial rule for more than 20 years. In a statement, the Embassy of Azerbaijan alleged the protesters “violently attempted to enter the protected area and took offensive actions against the Presidential vehicle” when Aliyev’s motorcade was arriving at the hotel. It added, “The Presidential Security Service had no choice but to immediately intervene.”

According to the protesters, that’s not what happened. One of them, Rahim Yagublu, 27, said that the guards kicked him in his stomach and hit his jaw. His father is political activist Tofig Yagublu, in prison in Azerbaijan on forgery and fraud charges.  Another protester, Adil Amrakhly, 35, said that while running away from the guards, he hurt his leg. 

“We intended to hold a peaceful protest to demand freedom for political prisoners in Azerbaijan,” Amrakhly told The Washington Post, adding that at least four other protesters were injured. 

“They started beating us,” Yagblu said. He added that nearby police didn’t do anything and that protesters called an ambulance. After looking at everyone’s injuries, first responders didn’t take anyone to the hospital. 

“This just shows us he’s a dictator, and there is no free speech in my country,” Yagublu said, regarding Aliyev.

Video was posted to X Thursday night showing some of the fighting. 

The incident was reminiscent of a similar event in Trump’s first term in May 2017, when Turkish security personnel attacked protesters outside the Turkish ambassador’s residence while Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was in Washington to meet with Trump. At the time, Congress unanimously called for criminal charges against the 24 people filmed attacking protesters. One month later, two people were arrested and arrest warrants were issued for the other security officers, but charges would be dropped the following March. 

Will Thursday’s incident be handled similarly? Aliyev and Azerbaijan are in Trump’s good graces for joining the Board of Peace, so the president and his Republican allies in Congress may not push for justice this time. That would be a shame, considering peaceful protest is a constitutional right and a major freedom for people in the U.S.

Some congressional Republicans quietly celebrated President Trump’s massive Supreme Court tariff loss on Friday.

The court ruled 6–3 to undo the president’s sweeping, illegal “Liberation Day” tariffs—a massive plank of his economic and foreign policy platform. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Trump’s invocation of an emergency in order to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was a clear overreach of Congress’s authority and eschewed decades of precedent.

While Trump fumed, Republicans across the conservative spectrum reacted with delight.

“We all know members that we’ve talked to on the GOP side of the aisle who are silently, quietly breathing a sigh of relief,” Fox News’s Shannon Beam said on Friday after the ruling. “There have been Republicans on Capitol Hill who have voted against some of the president’s tariffs—they think it’s actually hurt the economy, and hurts their ability to go out and make the argument that this president is working to make things more affordable. So, some of them [are] quietly happy.”

John Yoo, the deputy attorney general under former President George W. Bush who was investigated for his role in the “torture memos,” echoed Beam’s sentiments.

“This might be a blessing in disguise, because we just had GDP report numbers from last year that showed the economy significantly slowed,” he said. “If all the tariffs the president announced are immediately eliminated and he has to take about a year—if he really chooses to do it again—has to take about a year to impose these tariffs again. That might actually have a positive boost on the economy, which could have a very positive effect on President Trump and Republicans by the midterm elections.”

Plenty of congressional Republicans made their feelings public. Representative Don Bacon called Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurring opinion “perfect words.”

“Today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed authority that has rested with Congress for centuries. The American people already know that tariffs make building and buying here at home more expensive,” said Senator Mitch McConnell. “And Kentuckians understand this painful reality better than most. But the use of IEEPA to circumvent Congress in the imposition of tariffs, already without precedent, isn’t just bad policy –—it’s also illegal.”

The widespread GOP approval of this judicial loss shows that Trump may have even less control over his own party than we thought ahead of a closely watched midterm election.

President Trump spent Friday afternoon berating the Supreme Court after it ruled 6–3 to strike down his “Liberation Day” tariffs—calling them “fools,” “lapdogs,” and “foreign interests.”

“The Supreme Court’s Ruling on TARIFFS is deeply disappointing! I am ashamed of certain Members of the Court for not having the Courage to do what is right for our Country,” Trump wrote on Truth Social after the ruling, seeming to single out the conservative justices who struck down his tariffs. “When you read the dissenting opinions, there is no way that anyone can argue against them. Foreign Countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic, and dancing in the streets—But they won’t be dancing for long!

“The Democrats on the Court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote ‘NO’ against ANYTHING that makes America Strong and Healthy Again. They, also, are a Disgrace to our Nation,” he continued. “Others think they’re being ‘politically correct,’ which has happened before, far too often, with certain Members of this Court when, in fact, they’re just FOOLS and ‘LAPDOGS’ for the RINOS and Radical Left Democrats and, not that this should have anything to do with it, very unpatriotic, and disloyal to the Constitution. It is my opinion that the Court has been swayed by Foreign Interests, and a Political Movement that is far smaller than people would think—But obnoxious, ignorant, and loud!”

Trump also attacked “certain members of the court” at a press conference where he announced new 10 percent global tariffs.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court,” he told a room full of reporters. “Absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.” Asked whether he regretted nominating Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Comey Barrett—two conservatives who, alongside Chief Justice John Roberts, voted with liberals to block his tariffs—Trump called them “an embarrassment to their families.”

President Donald Trump claimed Friday the Supreme Court had granted him the power to destroy other countries,  after the high court took away his weapon of choice: sweeping reciprocal tariffs. 

Speaking to reporters, Trump rambled about how “ridiculous” it was for the Supreme Court to block the illegal tariffs he’d imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, while also bragging that the court had only strengthened his grip on other strings he could pull.

“The court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our country—to destroy foreign countries,” Trump claimed. “But a much more powerful right than many people thought we even had, but not the right to charge a fee.

“I can destroy the trade, I can destroy the country, I’m even allowed to impose a foreign country-destroying embargo. I can do anything I want—but I can’t charge one dollar,” Trump fumed. “Because that’s not what it says, and it’s not the way it even reads.”

Trump imposed his so-called “reciprocal tariffs” in April 2025 using the IEEPA, a rule that allows the president to regulate commerce in case of a national emergency—but doesn’t actually include the word “tariff.” In the court’s ruling Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the actual language in IEEPA “cannot bear the weight” of Trump’s tariffs. 

Still, Trump couldn’t seem to wrap his head around it. 

“I can do anything I want to do to them but I can’t charge any money. So I’m allowed to destroy the country, but I can’t charge ’em a little fee. I could give ’em a little two-cent fee, but I cannot charge under any circumstances. I cannot charge them anything,” Trump rambled. “Think of that, how ridiculous is that?

“I’m allowed to embargo them, I’m allowed to tell ’em you can’t do business in the United States anymore, ‘We want you out of here!’ But if I want to charge them $10 I can’t do that,” he continued. 

Despite the crushing blow to his sweeping reciprocal tariffs that have caused mayhem abroad and at home, Trump insisted the ruling was somehow a good thing because it validated other statutes that were “even stronger than the IEEPA tariffs.”

Trump even patted himself on the back for holding back with his initial tariffs. “I didn’t want to do anything that would affect the decision of the court. Because I understand the court, I understand how they’re very easily swayed,” Trump said. 

“I wanted to be a good boy,” Trump added. Good boy no more, it seems. 

Trump ended the press conference by announcing his plan to impose new 10 percent tariffs under Section 232, a rule that allowed tariffs to be levied on certain products that threaten national security. Good luck with that, Donald. 

The president’s hotly anticipated backup plan to replace his unacceptable global tariffs is, basically, to just keep doing the tariffs regardless.

The Supreme Court deemed Donald Trump’s “liberation day” tariffs illegal Friday morning, throwing not only the White House’s economic plan into wack, but also the primary driver behind the administration’s foreign policy agenda.

But the judicial conclusion was of no matter to Trump. In a White House press conference that afternoon, Trump revealed that he would impose an additional 10 percent global levy while keeping the remaining ones in place, blatantly flouting the judicial order.

“Going forward, we’re going to take in more money,” Trump said.

The new tariffs will begin in three days, according to the president.

Trump was clearly irate over the decision, huffing between his sentences as he slumped over the lectern, slandering many of his Republican allies in a loose, slapdash speech to the nation.

“I don’t think the court meant it, because the court doesn’t show great spirit toward our country, in my opinion,” Trump continued, suggesting that members of the nation’s highest judiciary had been compromised by foreign interests. “Lots of very bad decisions.”

In the court’s 6–3 majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as the foundation for his tariff plan was an erroneous overreach of his office’s power.

“Slimeballs,” Trump said, referring to the justices who voted against his tariffs—two of whom, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, he appointed, in 2017 and 2020 respectively.

Responding to a reporter’s question, Trump rejected previous comments that he had made claiming the country would be “financially defenseless” without his tariffs.

“They write this terrible, defective decision,” Trump said. “It’s almost like it’s written by not smart people.”

When asked whether his administration would abide by the order and issue refunds to countries that had been affected by his tariffs, Trump barked that attempting to do so would result in the topic being relitigated in courts for the “next five years.”

Roberts noted in his opinion that the country’s founders “gave ‘Congress alone’ the power to impose tariffs during peacetime,” broadly upending any possibility for the White House to create a tariff proposal all on its own. But the president appeared nonetheless unwilling to work with his legislative peers as of Friday.

“Why didn’t you work with Congress to enact a tariff plan?” pressed a reporter.

“I didn’t have to,” Trump insisted.

This story has been updated.

Senator Mitch McConnell appears to be stalling the voting bill backed by President Trump, and fellow Republicans are not happy. 

McConnell, who leads the Senate Rules Committee, is refusing to schedule a vote on the legislation, thus preventing it from moving forward. The bill would create barriers for voting, requiring specific forms of ID in order for Americans to exercise their constitutional right.

In blocking it, the retiring senator and former majority leader has drawn the ire of his colleagues. Representative Tim Burchett posted a video on X Friday saying McConnell’s actions are partially coming from a place of “meanness” because he doesn’t like Trump, and called his mental acuity into question. 

“He’s blocking the SAVE Act, or is he? Is it him or a staff member, because as you know, he’s a lot like Joe Biden was in his last few days in office, or last years in office,” Burchett said. “His cognizant level is diminishing daily.” 

Burchett went on a tangent about how much of Congress is run by staffers because certain aging members of Congress have diminishing mental capacity, citing the case of Representative Kay Granger, the former House Appropriations Committee chair who disappeared for months in 2024 and was later found to be living in an independent living facility. 

Representative Anna Paulina Luna also attacked McConnell, claiming on X without evidence that “over 84% of Americans and 95% of Republicans want voter ID. Why do you completely disregard the will of the people who voted for you?”

McConnell’s stance has similarly drawn the attention of right-wing personalities on social media who have been calling out his mental acuity for days over the bill, which doesn’t have the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Senate filibuster. Representative Andy Barr, who is running to fill McConnell’s seat in November, wrote a letter to the senator last week asking for his help to pass the bill, to which McConnell hasn’t responded.

Last year, McConnell wrote in The Wall Street Journal that such a bill would give a future Democratic president and Congress the ability to “use more sweeping mandates to carry out a complete federal takeover of American elections.” 

“The current administration has better ways to spend its time than laying the groundwork for a leftwing election takeover,” McConnell wrote. 

Burchett’s attempt to call out McConnell’s age and fitness is not without merit, as the senior Kentucky senator has had health issues and noticeable mental lapses. But not only is Burchett ignoring the long-term implications of the bill, he is also selectively ignoring the very clear cognitive decline experienced by the president of the United States.