Florida in Secret Talks With Trump on Closing “Alligator Alcatraz”

Florida is moving to close the infamous “Alligator Alcatraz” immigration detention center in the Everglades because it has grown too expensive to operate, according to The New York Times.

The embattled facility—which has cost the state of Florida $1 million a day to run—has been beset with allegations of unsafe living conditions, abusive treatment, and protests from Native American groups over its environmental harms. Now the facility that was framed as a huge success by President Trump and Governor DeSantis may collapse in failure.

Homeland Security officials have also deemed the facility too costly to keep running, according to a federal official who spoke with the Times, although no official decisions to close it have been made.

Part of this failure can be attributed to Trump leaving DeSantis without any federal funding for the facility’s construction. While the federal government promised to reimburse Florida for hosting the detention center, no payments have yet been made. The swampy location, cruelly touted by Trump as a buffer for detained immigrants, also made it harder for workers to get supplies, sewage—and themselves— to and from the center. And while there has been no official announcement, the closure of Alligator Alcatraz would be an embarrassing development symbolic of the changing public opinion of Trump’s widely unpopular immigration crackdown.  

The Department of Homeland Security and DeSantis’s office have yet to comment on the report. 

It seems that no one is coming to rescue the SAVE Act.

Weeks after Donald Trump stressed to his party that passing that voter restriction bill was the “most important thing” they could do, Senate Republicans have shelved the legislation entirely, unable to bypass the Democratic filibuster that stands in the way of its potential passage, Punchbowl News reported Thursday.

Republicans have tried and failed to pass the SAVE Act multiple times. The latest iteration suggested numerous amendments to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, including line items that would have abolished mail-in voting, required voters to bring proof of citizenship and proof of residency to register to vote, required voter ID, and mandated voter roll purges every 30 days—an enormous bureaucratic task that would have placed undue burdens on local election officials.

Nonetheless, Trump demanded that his caucus figure it out. In March, Trump insisted that the bill would “guarantee the midterms,” and that there would be “big trouble” if Republicans failed to force it through Congress. The president also said that the SAVE Act was such a tremendous priority that it “supersedes everything else,” threatening to veto all other bills until the SAVE Act made it to his desk.

But a lot can change in two months. Now, even the bill’s most ardent proponents are viewing the SAVE Act as a lost cause, pointing to vote-a-rama held in the Senate last month that failed to get even 50 votes in support of the bill, with four Republicans joining Democrats in their opposition.

Tabling the SAVE Act is expected to anger the party’s base, and could spark renewed calls to scrap the filibuster—something that the bulk of the GOP, and especially its leadership, does not want to do. The issue has raised tensions between Trump and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who has thus far resisted Trump’s pleas to axe the long-standing, minority-power rule.

“I completely understand my colleagues who want to maintain the filibuster. We all want to maintain the filibuster, honestly,” Republican Senator Ron Johnson told Punchbowl. “But I know the Democrats won’t. That’s the only division here.”

The wide parameters of the SAVE Act emerged out of unfounded right-wing conspiracies that undocumented immigrants were overwhelmingly participating in U.S. elections, despite the fact that undocumented immigrants (along with legal, non-citizen residents) cannot vote.

Trump already tried and failed to implement voter ID in June. At the time, a federal judge excoriated the president’s efforts, arguing that adding layers of difficulty to the voting process would only serve to harm eligible voters by adding significant barriers before they can cast their ballots.

Saudi Arabia reportedly derailed Donald Trump’s short-lived escort mission in the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump unveiled Project Freedom on Sunday, revealing the U.S. would help ships travel through the Strait of Hormuz. On Tuesday, he suddenly announced the plan had been immediately put on hold in the hopes of finally cutting a peace deal with Iran.

But Trump only called it quits after Saudi Arabia barred the U.S. military from using its air bases or flying through its airspace, two U.S. officials told NBC News Wednesday.

Officials in Saudi Arabia were surprised by Trump’s announcement of Project Freedom, and not in a good way, the officials told NBC News. Leadership responded by telling the U.S. military it could no longer fly aircraft from the Prince Sultan Airbase, or fly through Saudi airspace to support the effort.

Trump spoke with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, but to no avail, the U.S. officials said. As a result, Project Freedom has been put on hold while the president scrambles to restore access to critical airspace.

When asked whether Project Freedom had come as a surprise, a Saudi source told NBC News: “The problem with that premise is that things are happening quickly in real time.”

Meanwhile, a White House official said in a statement that “regional allies were notified in advance.”

U.S. allies weren’t the only ones caught unaware by Trump’s changing plans. His own Cabinet members were singing the praises of Project Freedom just hours before the president chucked it in the waste bin.

Democrats in Congress are investigating whether President Trump’s pardons came with a payout for him.

CBS News reports that Democratic Representatives Dave Min and Raul Ruiz, as well as Senator Peter Welch, have sent letters to over a dozen of the people Trump has pardoned or given some form of clemency, investigating whether they received the clemency “through intermediaries, financial contributions, or other forms of influence.”

The letters note that many of Trump’s pardons have gone to his allies, and the lawmakers asked pardon recipients for contracts showing how much money they paid to lobbyists, social media influencers, lawyers, and others to persuade Trump.

The lawmakers said in the letters that Trump’s pardons and clemency are “depriving victims of compensation and justice,” pointing out an analysis from California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office that found the president’s actions nullified almost $2 billion in recovered money from Medicare and tax fraud, as well as victim repayment.

If the recipients of the letters don’t “respond, they run the risk of highlighting themselves—of being the subjects of future congressional investigations and creating more of a target on their backs for potential further criminal prosecutions,” Min told CBS. He added that Trump’s pardons send the message that people can “get around the justice system,” which “gets to the heart of what is wrong with America right now under this administration.”

Democrats are investigating pardoned financial criminals like Changpeng Zhao, who made billions from cryptocurrency before pleading guilty to money laundering, and Trevor Milton, who was sentenced to four years in prison for securities and wire fraud charges in 2023 for defrauding investors with his electric truck company, Nikola.

Milton owed millions of dollars to his victims, and he’s one of many pardoned by Trump who are now off the hook for the restitution they owe. But since Democrats don’t control Congress right now, they don’t have subpoena power, so these letters carry little—if any—legal weight. In the meantime, Trump can collect rewards from all of the people he has pardoned.

The Justice Department is investigating potential insider trading related to the skyrocketing oil prices caused by the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran and Lebanon. The department is specifically looking into at least four instances where traders made over $2.6 billion betting that the price of oil would fall moments before it did, according to sources who spoke with ABC News.

According to the London Stock Exchange, traders bet over $500 million that oil prices would drop on March 23, just 15 minutes before Trump announced he’d be pausing his planned attacks on Iran’s power centers. On April 7, traders bet $960 million on oil prices falling. A few hours later, Trump announced a temporary ceasefire. Ten days later, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi went on social media to state that the Strait of Hormuz was open—and traders bet $760 million on falling oil prices just 20 minutes before he did. On April 21, traders once again somehow had the awareness to bet $760 million that oil prices would fall just 15 minutes before Trump announced a ceasefire extension.

All signs point to someone with insider knowledge using this erratic war to enrich themselves—something the Trump administration has been accused of multiple times.

In January, an unknown Polymarket user bet on the U.S. invading Venezuela and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro being forced out of leadership by January 31, betting more than $33,000 while the odds were only at 6 percent. That trader made $400,000 in less than 24 hours. It was later revealed that the user was a U.S. soldier who was part of the raid on Maduro, and he was charged with “unlawful use of confidential government information for personal gain.”

And last year, Trump proclaimed on Truth Social that “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT,” a mere four hours before announcing a 90-day pause on most retaliatory tariffs except for those on China, causing stocks to shoot up.

Observant Americans shouldn’t get their hopes up regarding any actual consequences coming from the probe, as it’s being led by a compromised, biased Justice Department.

Political insiders have found a new way to make cash off of election season.

Betting on the success or failure of political candidates has effectively become commonplace in the industry, NPR reported Thursday, with campaign staffers making thousands of dollars from their respective candidates.

One staffer working on a statewide campaign in the South told NPR how an external poll, shared prior to its release with their team, launched a wave of internal bets in support of their candidate. Internal campaign data showed their candidate faring worse than the external poll, but that didn’t matter.

“Myself and others started placing bets before that poll came out,” the staffer told NPR on the condition of anonymity. “And then, sure enough as soon as that poll came out, the stock went up and everybody made money.”

There’s apparently no shame in the game, despite recent attempts by online prediction markets to curb the behavior. In late April, the prediction market Kalshi—better known for sports betting—banned and fined several political candidates after a company probe found they had bet on themselves.

“Because you have all this information and knowledge that isn’t publicly available yet, it’s almost foolish not to bet on it before it’s made public,” the staffer said.

The practice has raised questions about the ethics and legality of campaign betting, and what has become known as “political insider trading.”

The process is as easy as can be imagined: An insider will become privy to nonpublic polls related to the campaign, and use the unreleased odds from the polls to inform their bets on sites like PredictIt or Polymarket. If the new poll indicates better odds of success than the odds on the website, they’ll buy low with what’s known as an event contract—knowing that the poll, once released, will raise their candidate’s favorability.

“The most I’ve ever made is thousands,” the staffer told NPR.

FBI Director Kash Patel reportedly had a major meltdown when he lost one of his personalized bottles of bourbon.

The Atlantic reported Wednesday that Patel typically travels with a supply of personalized bottles of Woodford Reserve bourbon, branded with the words “Kash Patel FBI Director,” and a rendering of the FBI shield, surrounded by a band that features his favored spelling of his first name: “Ka$h.” Some of the bottles also include his signature and the number nine, a likely reference to Patel’s place in the lineage of FBI directors.

Patel and his team reportedly traveled with at least one case of bourbon to the FBI’s training facility in Quantico, Virginia, in March for a “training seminar” taught by Ultimate Fighting Championship athletes. At least one of the bottles of bourbon went missing, causing Patel to “lose his mind,” according to clients of Kurt Siuzdak, a retired agent who has assisted FBI agents with legal issues, who spoke with The Atlantic.

Multiple agents contacted Siuzdak for legal guidance after Patel threatened to polygraph and prosecute staff over the missing bottle. “It turned into a shitshow,” Siuzdak said. Other attorneys told the magazine they’d received similar calls from FBI employees concerned about Patel’s bourbon bottles.

Siuzdak told the magazine that FBI agents “have a duty to disclose wrongdoing,” but it had become clear that if one made allegations against Patel, “you’re screwed.”

“I tell people to run from him,” Siuzdak, who had a more than 20-year career at the FBI, said of the advice he gives current FBI employees.

The Atlantic published this story the same day it was reported that the FBI was investigating the article’s author, Sarah Fitzpatrick, for a report she wrote last month that Patel was known to drink in excess, routinely delayed time-sensitive operations, and was often unreachable.

After The Atlantic published that first story, Patel filed a $250 million defamation suit against the publication, claiming the article was “replete with false and obviously fabricated allegations designed to destroy Director Patel’s reputation and drive him from office.” Fitzpatrick said even more sources reached out to her to discuss Patel’s leadership afterward—and clearly they have a lot to say.

Tornado sirens and flooding in Alabama’s state Capitol building couldn’t stop Republican lawmakers from forcing through two redistricting bills in their state legislature Wednesday.

The debate ran for five hours over House Bill 1, which allows for a new special election if federal courts lift an injunction and allow the state to redraw its congressional districts before 2030. A similarly long debate appeared certain for the other bill, Senate Bill 1, which would redraw two state Senate districts. But then, a storm with a tornado watch led to sirens and flooding in the building.

Water flooded into the first floor of the building at about 5 p.m. Central Time. The parking deck behind the statehouse, where staffers and lawmakers leave their cars, was also flooded. The storm initially didn’t stop proceedings, but when the fire alarm in the building went off, debate was quickly stopped and the lawmakers called for a vote.

Both bills faced heavy opposition from Democrats, who warned the legislation would stifle the political power of Alabama’s Black population.

“This body continues to find more ways to make voting more difficult, more ways to suppress the vote and more ways to dilute the power of the Black vote,” said Democratic state Representative Adline Clarke. “Make no mistake, that’s what H.B. 1 would do, and it’s a tragic step backwards for Black Alabama voters. But we’ve been here before, and we will not give up this fight.”

H.B. 1 would only take effect if federal courts reverse 2023 and 2025 rulings that Alabama’s legislature violated the Voting Rights Act. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the landmark civil rights legislation, opening the door for the courts to review those rulings. The Supreme Court decision has led to states across the Republican-led South to rush through redistricting that disenfranchises their Black populations.

Protesters gathered outside of the state Senate to object to S.B. 1, chanting, “We know you want us to leave, but we shall not be moved. Just like a tree, planted by the waters, we shall not be moved. This is the people’s house. We built this house. This is our house.”

The Trump administration is in panic mode as jet fuel prices continue to soar due to the U.S.-Israeli joint war on Iran and Lebanon, with the president’s advisers pushing him to end the war before summer, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

Jet fuel has become twice as expensive since the beginning of the war, and prices show no signs of falling. That’s causing airlines to add billions more in expenses and ticket prices to try to counteract the effects of the war—meaning the consumer will suffer. Skyrocketing fuel prices even caused Spirit Airlines to declare bankruptcy and shut down last week, even though Republicans blame the Biden administration. 

The vast majority of Americans are suffering at the pump, the airport, or both—and they’re correctly blaming it on Trump. Trump and his Cabinet have continuously downplayed the negative impacts the war is having on fuel prices, with the president stating that these high prices are “a very small price to pay for getting rid of a nuclear weapon from people that are really mentally deranged.” Americans don’t see it that way, especially if it means their plans get canceled. If the senseless death, destruction, and displacement in Iran and Lebanon weren’t enough to catalyze people against Trump’s war, paying hundreds of dollars for a vacation ticket might.  

The future is looking bright for America’s youth—bright orange, that is.

Against the advice of dermatologists everywhere, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has cleared a path for children to keep getting their fix at tanning beds across the United States, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.

The wellness conspiracist withdrew a proposed Food and Drug Administration rule earlier this year that would have curbed access to the carcinogenic, cancer-causing machines for anyone under the age of 18. The rule would have also required participating adults to sign a waiver acknowledging the health risks of using a man-made tanning device prior to use.

Medical researchers first linked ultraviolet exposure to skin damage in the 1930s, but public health agencies wouldn’t start actively advocating against aggressive U.V. exposure until much later. By the mid-1980s, the FDA was issuing warnings on “tanning pills,” setting formal limits on sunbed exposure, and spreading national public health messages about the “darker side of tanning,” educating the public about the heightened cancer risks related to artificial tanning.

Kennedy has not explicitly made bedside tanning a component of his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, but the practice is clearly integral to his lifestyle. The 72-year-old has been spotted frequenting tanning salons around Washington and has been outspoken about their benefits. In the weeks leading up to the 2024 election, Kennedy railed against the FDA’s “war” on “sunshine” (among other wellness industry fixations, such as raw milk, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as miracle Covid cures, and psychedelics).

His fringe ideological acolytes have adopted tanning into their wellness routines, encouraging their own followers to abandon sunscreen and build up their “solar callus”—a newfangled reference to sun tolerance, reported the Los Angeles Times.