Month: May 2025

Former President Joe Biden’s personal office announced in a statement that he has been diagnosed with “aggressive” prostate cancer, after seeing a doctor last week. Wall Street Journal reporter Ken Thomas was the first to report the news.

The statement read: “Last week, President Joe Biden was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms, On Friday, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone,” the statement continued. “While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management. The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians.”.

According to the National Cancer Institute: “a Gleason score of 9 indicates a high-grade, aggressive form of prostate cancer. It further indicates that the cancer cells look very different from normal prostate cells and are likely to grow and spread rapidly.  This would place the cancer in the Grade Group 5, the highest-risk category, which is associated with a greater likelihood of metastasis and a more challenging prognosis. Yet despite the cancer’s apparent aggressiveness, its hormone-sensitive nature offers a viable treatment pathway.”

Biden, 82, is currently at his home in Wilmington, Delaware, per NBC NEWS, but it is unclear where the former president will receive treatment. A spokesperson for Biden had last shared an update on his health update in a statement to ABC News on Tuesday, May 13, saying at the time that “in a routine physical exam a small nodule was found in the prostate which necessitated further evaluation.”

President Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday afternoon after the news of Biden’s diagnosis broke: “Melania and I are saddened to hear about Joe Biden’s recent medical diagnosis. We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery.”

Former Vice President Kamala Harris also posted on X: “Doug and I are saddened to learn of President Biden’s prostate cancer diagnosis. We are keeping him, Dr. Biden, and their entire family in our hearts and prayers during this time. Joe is a fighter — and I know he will face this challenge with the same strength, resilience, and optimism that have always defined his life and leadership. We are hopeful for a full and speedy recovery.” Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, additionally posted his support for the former President in a separate post on X writing: “Sending love and strength to my friend  @JoeBiden.”

Former State Secretary Hillary Clinton wrote on social media: “I’m thinking of the Bidens as they take on cancer, a disease they’ve done so much to try to spare other families from. Wishing you a speedy, full recovery.”

Editorial credit: OogImages / Shutterstock.com

An explosion outside a fertility clinic in Palm Springs, California on Saturday resulted in one fatality and four injuries, in what authorities are describing as an “intentional act of terrorism.” Palm Springs is located about 110 miles east of Los Angeles.

In a Facebook post, Palm Springs city officials said that the blast occurred just before 11 a.m. local time at North Indian Canyon Drive, near East Tachevah Drive, a stretch that has several healthcare facilities, including American Reproductive Centers, a local IVF clinic. Four other people were injured in the explosion, none of which are believed to be staff members of the clinic. .

In a statement, Palm Springs Police Chief Andy Mills disclosed that one person was killed in a vehicle explosion that appeared to be “an intentional act of violence.”  Mills stated that the explosion caused significant damage to multiple buildings, some of which were severely affected, noting that the blast zone spans several blocks. Davis added that the debris was scattered across an area of at least 250 yards in every direction.

Akil Davis, assistant director of the FBI’s Los Angeles bureau said on X that investigators, bomb technicians and an evidence response team responded at the scene, and is working closely with the Palm Springs Police Department. Davis stated at a press conference “make no mistake: this is an intentional act of terrorism,” and confirmed that four individuals were hurt, although no information was given about the severity or nature of their injuries. The identity of the deceased person has not yet been confirmed, nor has their role in the incident been determined. Davis stated that the victim was in close proximity to the car when it detonated.  In addition, investigators have identified a person of interest, though Davis clarified that they are not currently pursuing an active suspect.

Sources familiar with the investigation told NBC News that heavily armed officers from multiple agencies were seen outside a residence in Twentynine Palms, roughly an hour from where the explosion occurred, and this development is connected to the Palm Springs incident.

American Reproductive Centers (ARC), which appears to be the clinic in question, posted on Facebook that the vehicle exploded in the parking lot close to its facility, and no staff members were harmed in the incident. ARC assured that its laboratory, which stores vital reproductive materials such as embryos and eggs, was unaffected by the blast: “We are heavily conducting a complete safety inspection and have confirmed that our operations and sensitive medical areas were not impacted by the blast,” adding that they plan to resume normal operations by Monday morning.

U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi has also been briefed on the incident, she said on X: “we are working to learn more, but let me be clear: the Trump administration understands that women and mothers are the heartbeat of America. Violence against a fertility clinic is unforgivable.

Editorial credit: JHVEPhoto / Shutterstock.com

Officials provided an update after a Mexican Navy sailboat with 277 people on board crashed into the Brooklyn Bridge Saturday evening, killing two people and injuring more than a dozen others along the New York City waterfron.

The Cuauhtémoc vessel — a training ship used for the Mexican Navy — crashed into the Brooklyn Bridge just before 9 p.m. local time on May 17, prompting a search-and-rescue operation. The Mexican navy confirmed the incident in a statement on X, writing: “During the sailing maneuver of the Cuauhtémoc sailboat in New York, a mishap occurred with the Brooklyn Bridge, causing damage to the training ship, preventing the continuation of the training cruise for the time being. The status of personnel and equipment is being reviewed by naval and local authorities, who are providing support. The Navy reaffirms its commitment to personnel safety, transparency in its operations, and excellent training for future officers of the Mexican Navy.”

New York City Mayor Eric Adams said during a press conference after the incident that the Cuauhtémoc crashed into the landmark due to a mechanical mishap, shortly after taking off from the nearby Pier 17. Adams confirmed that 277 people total were onboard at the time of the crash and that no one fell into the water. Adams shared in an update on X: “Earlier tonight, the Mexican Navy tall ship Cuauhtémoc lost power and crashed into the Brooklyn Bridge. At this time, of the 277 on board, 19 sustained injuries, 2 of which remain in critical condition, and 2 more have sadly passed away from their injuries.”

Chief Wilson Aramboles of the New York Police Department (NYPD)’s Special Operations Division stated that the ship was en route to Iceland, adding that “the pilot lost power of the ship.” New York City Department of Transportation (DOT) Commissioner Ydanis Rodriguez also said during the press conference that the head of the bridge division was in Brooklyn, and a preliminary assessment found no signs of major damage.

Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican ambassador to the U.S., told reporters the ship has been sailing for about 20 years; Per the South Street Seaport’s museum’s website, the vessel was built in 1981 at the Celaya Shipyards in Bilbao, Spain. The Cuauhtémoc was taking part in a training cruise to mark the so-called “Bicentennial of the Consolidation of the Independence of the Seas” (or the 200th anniversary of the Mexican Navy expelling the last of the Spanish strongholds from Mexico), and had departed from the Mexican island of Cozumel off the Yucatan Peninsula on May 4 on its 170-day planned voyage set to take in 22 ports in 15 countries. The ship arrived in New York City on May 13.

According to a statement from Veracruz’s governor, one of the two fatalities was identified on Sunday as a 20-year-old Mexican Navy cadet from Veracruz, Mexico. Gov. Rocío Nahle García wrote on X: “I deeply regret the passing of Veracruz cadet América Yamilet Sánchez. My love, support and solidarity go out to her family. My gratitude to the Secretariat of the Navy and my wishes for a speedy recovery for those injured. Veracruz is with you.” 

The other victim was reported by the Mexican outlet El Universal as Adal Jair Marcos of Salina Cruz in Oaxaca​, who had been aboard the ship for the past nine months.

Editorial credit: DANIEL SUPRIYONO / Shutterstock.com

A Wisconsin judge has entered a plea of not guilty to federal charges alleging she interfered with the arrest of a migrant outside her courtroom.

On Thursday, Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan entered a plea of not guilty to federal charges accusing her of interfering with an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation. Dugan is accused of obstructing justice and hiding an individual sought by federal authorities.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Dries accepted Dugan’s not guilty plea to two felony counts: obstructing an official proceeding and concealing an individual to prevent federal agents from locating and arresting him. Judge Dries scheduled the next court appearance for July 9 and set July 21 as the start date for Dugan’s trial. Neither Judge Dugan nor her attorney Steven Biskupic commented on whether they expect the case to proceed to trial.

The charges stem from an incident on April 18, when Dugan was presiding over a domestic violence case involving Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who was accused of attacking his roommate and two other individuals during a dispute over loud music, according to local police records. Prosecutors allege that Dugan intentionally misled federal agents who were attempting to detain Flores-Ruiz due to his immigration status. According to the indictment, she confronted ICE officers in the courthouse hallway and then personally led Flores-Ruiz out of her courtroom, allowing him to evade immediate arrest. Although Flores-Ruiz temporarily escaped, ICE agents eventually apprehended him after a brief foot pursuit.

Dugan was taken into custody on April 25, with FBI Director Kash Patel stating that investigators believe she deliberately diverted federal agents to help Flores-Ruiz avoid arrest. Following her arrest, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a temporary suspension, removing Dugan from her duties on the bench pending the outcome of the case.

A day before her court appearance, Dugan’s legal team filed a motion requesting the dismissal of the charges. The motion argued that Dugan’s actions are protected by judicial immunity and claimed that federal authorities had overstepped their constitutional boundaries, citing the 10th Amendment – and contending that federal immigration officers lack the authority to arrest a sitting state judge within her own courthouse. Her attorneys argued in the filing that “even if the evidence were to suggest Judge Dugan did what the indictment alleges, those actions would be part of her official judicial duties, which grant her complete immunity from criminal prosecution. Judges are specifically empowered to manage the proceedings within their courtrooms and, more broadly, oversee activities in the courthouse. Prosecuting a state court judge for performing her official functions would violate the constitutional principles that underlie the 10th Amendment.”

Judge Dugan, who was first elected to the bench in 2016, has a long history of advocating for low-income clients, particularly in cases involving civil rights violations and domestic violence.

Editorial credit: Christopher Penler / Shutterstock.com

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled hesitation over letting President Donald Trump’s controversial attempt to redefine birthright citizenship proceed while lawsuits challenging the policy are still ongoing.

The high court expressed skepticism as it grilled the federal government’s lawyer on Thursday over Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship through executive order, and questioned how the controversial plan could be put into effect.  The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of three lower court rulings that halted the policy nationwide.

The case centers on Trump’s proposal to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a citizen or legal resident. This would mark a sharp departure from the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to nearly all born on U.S. soil.

In an uncommon move, the justices heard arguments concerning several emergency appeals by the Trump administration. These appeals aim to limit the reach of nationwide injunctions that halted Trump’s birthright citizenship order almost immediately after it was issued in January. The justices intensely debated the broader question of when nationwide injunctions are appropriate over more than two hours of arguments; however, when it came specifically to birthright citizenship, a majority appeared to believe in this instance that blocking the policy nationwide may have been warranted—especially in lawsuits brought by states.

New Jersey’s Solicitor General warned that limiting injunctions would cause chaos, as people move between states and inconsistent citizenship rulings would be unworkable.  Conservative justices including Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, acknowledged these concerns and questioned the feasibility of enforcing Trump’s plan unevenly across the country.

Firmly opposed to allowing Trump’s policy to proceed were liberal justices, who emphasized its conflict with constitutional precedents. Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the administration’s legal arguments, while Justice Elena Kagan expressed doubt that the government could implement the plan effectively within the proposed timeframe.

Lower courts have unanimously blocked Trump’s policy, prompting the administration to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Depending on the ruling, the policy could be enforced in some states but not others, raising concerns about legal uniformity.

Despite not directly addressing the constitutional validity of Trump’s proposal, the Court’s decision on the scope of injunctions could affect how similar executive actions are challenged in the future.  In addition, the outcome of this case could reshape how courts block federal policies, with major implications beyond just immigration.

Editorial credit: Fedor Selivanov / Shutterstock.com