Federal Appeals Court Blocks President Trump’s Policy Barring Illegals From Seeking Asylum

Federal Appeals Court Blocks President Trump’s Policy Barring Illegals From Seeking Asylum

Federal Appeals Court Blocks President Trump’s Policy Barring Illegals From Seeking Asylum
April 24, 2026

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday blocked President Trump’s policy barring illegal aliens from seeking asylum.

In February 2025, the anti-American ACLU and Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center sued the Trump Administration over its asylum policy.

A federal judge last July blocked President Trump’s policy banning illegals who cross the border from seeking asylum.

US District Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee, said President Trump does not have the authority to bypass immigration law that Congress has enacted.

President Trump appealed Judge Moss’s decision.

On Friday, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the lower court and blocked Trump’s asylum policy.

The three-judge panel voted 2-1 to block Trump’s asylum policy.

Judge J. Michelle Childs (Biden) and Judge Cornelia Pillard (Obama) voted against Trump. Judge Justin Walker (Trump) dissented in part.

“We conclude that the [Immigration and Nationality Act’s] text, structure, and history make clear that in supplying power to suspend entry by Presidential proclamation, Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” Judge Childs wrote for the majority, according to CBS News.

“The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections,” Childs added.

CBS News reported:

A federal appeals court on Friday blocked President Trump’s directive suspending access to asylum and other legal protections for migrants unlawfully crossing the southern border.

A divided panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that federal immigration law does not allow the president to deport migrants under new summary removal proceedings implemented by the Trump administration or to suspend their right to apply for asylum.

Judge J. Michelle Childs authored the decision for the two-judge majority. She was joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard. Judge Justin Walker concurred in part but dissented from the court’s conclusion on the legality of Mr. Trump’s directive to effectively close the asylum system at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The post Federal Appeals Court Blocks President Trump’s Policy Barring Illegals From Seeking Asylum appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Go to Source
Author: Cristina Laila

A WIN AGAINST MASS MIGRATION: Italian Plans to Send Failed ‘Asylum Seekers’ to Albanian Camps Get Green Light by EU Court Adviser

A WIN AGAINST MASS MIGRATION: Italian Plans to Send Failed ‘Asylum Seekers’ to Albanian Camps Get Green Light by EU Court Adviser

A WIN AGAINST MASS MIGRATION: Italian Plans to Send Failed ‘Asylum Seekers’ to Albanian Camps Get Green Light by EU Court Adviser
April 24, 2026

Italy’s Meloni with her Number One Fan, Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama

Meloni may score an important win in the fight against unchecked mass migration.

In the interest of finding ways to get rid of the million-strong scourge of military-age illegal migrants that pretend to be seeking asylum, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni came up with a novel concept, since copied by almost everyone, including the US and the UK.

Meloni entered into an agreement with Albania and built migrant camps to send failed asylum seekers who cannot be sent back to their countries because they’re deemed ‘unsafe’.

This was possible because Tirana has a debt of friendship to Italy, which welcomed lots of Albanians during the post-Cold War migration wave.

And, of course, the Albanian PM Edi Rama is apparently in love with Meloni, always kneeling in a silent prayer whenever he meets her.

Watch the **fourth** time Rama kneels and joins hands in prayer stance for Meloni:

Needless to say, up until now, the plan has been blocked by leftist-Globalist judges.

But after the sweeping changes in European migration policies, things may improve, as it arises today that Rome has moved closer to being allowed to send migrants to Albania, ‘after an EU court adviser said the scheme was legal’.

EU Court of Justice Advocate General Nicholas Emilou discusses the compatibility of the Italy-Albania protocol with EU asylum and return regulations, emphasizing migrant rights protection.

The Telegraph reported:

“The coalition led by Giorgia Meloni has spent an estimated €670m (£581m) on building two migrant processing centers in the north of the Balkan country, hoping to use them as hubs for sending failed asylum seekers back to their home countries.

[…] The Meloni government scored a victory on Thursday when an adviser to the EU’s court of justice said that the scheme met EU rules on return and asylum procedures, as long as the rights of migrants were ensured.

[…] His opinion is not binding on the court of justice, but EU court judges usually follow such opinions when they hand down their rulings. The court is due to make a ruling on the Albania scheme but has not indicated when that will happen.”

Giorgia Meloni and Edi Rama shaking hands in a formal setting, highlighting discussions on immigration policy and judicial interpretations affecting Italy.

Read more from July 2025:

WATCH: Albania’s Edi Rama Goes Down on One Knee to Hand a Gift and Serenade Italian Prime Minister Meloni, as She Turns 48 Celebrated by Heads of State and Power Players

The post A WIN AGAINST MASS MIGRATION: Italian Plans to Send Failed ‘Asylum Seekers’ to Albanian Camps Get Green Light by EU Court Adviser appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Go to Source
Author: Paul Serran

UK Police Arrest a Pastor for Preaching the Gospel: A Disturbing Sign for Christian Free Speech

UK Police Arrest a Pastor for Preaching the Gospel: A Disturbing Sign for Christian Free Speech

UK Police Arrest a Pastor for Preaching the Gospel: A Disturbing Sign for Christian Free Speech
April 24, 2026

Police officers apprehending a man in a black shirt during a public incident on a city street.

On April 18, 2026, in the town of Watford just outside London, British police handcuffed a Christian pastor for preaching the Gospel in public. Pastor Steve Maile, a 66-year-old minister with decades of experience, was standing in the town centre doing what has long been a normal part of British life—open-air preaching—when officers moved in, restrained him, and led him away in front of his wife and children. As he was being handcuffed, Maile continued to address the crowd, insisting, “You cannot arrest me. I am a preacher of the Gospel… There is no offense being committed here.” It was a striking moment, not only for those present but for the thousands who later watched the footage online.

What makes the incident particularly troubling is what followed. No charges were ultimately brought against Maile. The allegations, whatever they were, did not stand. Yet he was still detained for hours and placed on bail. In other words, a man engaged in peaceful religious expression was treated as a criminal, only for the legal basis of that treatment to evaporate shortly afterward. For many observers, that raises a fundamental question: if no crime was committed, why was such force deemed necessary in the first place?

Pastor Maile is not an unknown figure or a fringe agitator. He has spent more than 35 years in ministry, preaching in over 50 countries and working to establish churches and support Christian communities. Alongside his wife Karina, he founded Oasis City Church in Watford in 1999, raising a family and building a reputation rooted in outreach and evangelism. This background matters because it underscores the nature of the incident—this was not disorderly conduct or confrontation, but a continuation of a long-standing and peaceful religious practice.

Nor is this an isolated case. In November 2025, Pastor Dia Moodley was arrested in Bristol after engaging members of the public in a discussion about theology. He was detained for eight hours and subsequently banned from the city centre during the Christmas season. As with Maile, the circumstances involved speech rather than violence, yet the response from authorities was significant. Taken together, these incidents point to a broader pattern rather than a one-off misjudgment.

Across the United Kingdom, Christian street preachers—once a familiar and largely accepted presence—are increasingly being treated as potential public order concerns. Complaints from passers-by, even when based on disagreement rather than genuine harm, can trigger police intervention. Meanwhile, other forms of public expression, including those that are equally or more provocative, often appear to receive a more permissive response. Whether intentional or not, the perception of unequal treatment is growing, and perceptions like that can be as consequential as policy itself.

At the heart of the issue is the legal framework governing speech in the UK. Unlike the United States, Britain does not have a single, entrenched constitutional protection equivalent to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, it relies on a range of statutes, including the Public Order Act 1986, which grant authorities discretion to act when speech is considered offensive or disruptive. While such laws are intended to maintain public order, their broad wording leaves significant room for interpretation—and, critics argue, for inconsistent enforcement.

That discretion becomes particularly contentious when applied to religious speech. Traditional Christian views on issues such as sin, salvation, and morality can be perceived as offensive in an increasingly secular and pluralistic society. When offense becomes a trigger for enforcement, the line between maintaining order and restricting expression can quickly blur. Over time, this creates a chilling effect, where individuals begin to self-censor not because the law explicitly forbids their speech, but because the consequences of speaking are unpredictable.

For American readers, the situation in Britain offers a sobering point of comparison. The United States still benefits from robust constitutional protections for free speech and religious expression, but cultural and institutional pressures are evolving in ways that echo some of the same dynamics. Speech codes, corporate moderation policies, and shifting social norms are already shaping what is considered acceptable to say in public. While the legal frameworks differ, the underlying tension between freedom and regulation is increasingly familiar on both sides of the Atlantic.

What the UK demonstrates is how quickly the balance can shift. A society that once prided itself on liberty and open debate can, within a relatively short period, begin to place limits on peaceful expression—particularly when that expression challenges prevailing cultural attitudes. These changes rarely occur through dramatic legal overhauls. Instead, they emerge gradually, through case-by-case decisions that, taken together, redefine the boundaries of acceptable speech.

Maile’s response to his arrest reflects a refusal to accept that shift. Following his release, he made clear that he intends to continue preaching, stating, “You will never, ever stop me preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” His stance resonates with a long tradition of religious conviction in the face of opposition, but it also highlights the growing tension between individual freedom and institutional authority in modern Britain.

Ultimately, this is about more than one pastor or one incident in Watford. It is about whether the principles of free expression and religious liberty are being upheld consistently, or whether they are becoming contingent on the content of the speech itself. When a peaceful preacher in a public square ends up in handcuffs, it raises questions that extend far beyond the immediate circumstances.

Freedom rarely disappears in a single moment. It is narrowed incrementally, shaped by enforcement decisions and cultural pressures until its limits become difficult to recognize. What is happening in the United Kingdom may still be debated, but it is no longer easily dismissed. For Americans watching from across the Atlantic, it serves less as a distant curiosity and more as a cautionary example of how fragile fundamental freedoms can become when their application is no longer even-handed.

The post UK Police Arrest a Pastor for Preaching the Gospel: A Disturbing Sign for Christian Free Speech appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Go to Source
Author: Peter McIlvenna

GOP-led Farm Bill Amendments Target Animal Tests in US, China, and Russia

GOP-led Farm Bill Amendments Target Animal Tests in US, China, and Russia

GOP-led Farm Bill Amendments Target Animal Tests in US, China, and Russia
April 24, 2026

Cute kitten with large eyes sitting against a textured background featuring the flags of Russia and China, symbolizing international relations.

New bipartisan amendments led by Republican lawmakers for the 2026 Farm Bill target USDA funding for animal tests in the U.S. and in adversarial nations, first uncovered by watchdog White Coat Waste.

The House Rules Committee is reviewing amendments now, and the full Farm Bill is expected to be voted on by the House during the week of April 27.

Two proposals submitted by Rep. Paul Gosar and cosponsored by Reps. Nancy Mace, Scott Perry, and Dina Titus would cut USDA funding for painful testing on dogs and cats, and prohibit the USDA from funding any animal tests “being conducted in, or performed in collaboration with” China, Russia, or other “countries of concern.”

The amendments result from White Coat Waste investigations in recent years that uncovered USDA funding for these kinds of animal tests and drew criticism and action from lawmakers and Trump Administration officials.

In 2024, White Coat Waste exposed USDA and National Institutes of Health funding for experiments at Cornell University that infected kittens with COVID and then killed them.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, Senator Rand Paul featured the project in his Festivus waste report in 2024, citing White Coat’s work.

The USDA funding for Cornell’s COVID cat lab is set to run until May 31, 2026.

The group also uncovered USDA funding for deadly kitten testing at Auburn University.

The proposed Farm Bill amendment to defund foreign adversaries’ animal labs also follows a White Coat Waste investigation exposing how the Biden USDA funded a $1 million bird flu gain-of-function collaboration with Chinese researchers affiliated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and its CCP-controlled parent organization.

The grant drew scrutiny from Senator Joni Ernst and Rep. Ben Cline, and, as Gateway Pundit previously reported, last year, Trump’s Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins cut funding for this dangerous animal research project and ended it early.

In 2023, White Coat Waste found a disturbing USDA grant funding an experimental fur farm controlled by the Russian government that breeds foxes to be “tame” or “aggressive,” videotapes them, and then kills and dissects their brains.

Another amendment submitted by Reps. Mace and Titus would add legislation, called Violet’s Law, to the Farm Bill, requiring all federal research facilities to have policies allowing lab animals to be retired and rehomed.

In 2019, during the first Trump Administration, the USDA shut down the now-infamous “kitten cannibalism” lab exposed by White Coat Waste that bought cat and dog meat from wet markets in China and force-fed it to kittens at a USDA lab in Maryland. The lab also adopted out the 28 cats left there.

The post GOP-led Farm Bill Amendments Target Animal Tests in US, China, and Russia appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Go to Source
Author: Cassandra MacDonald

PAYBACK TIME: US Department of War Planning Retribution for Failing Allies, Including Suspending Spain From the Alliance and ‘Reviewing’ UK’s Claims to the Falkland Islands

PAYBACK TIME: US Department of War Planning Retribution for Failing Allies, Including Suspending Spain From the Alliance and ‘Reviewing’ UK’s Claims to the Falkland Islands

PAYBACK TIME: US Department of War Planning Retribution for Failing Allies, Including Suspending Spain From the Alliance and ‘Reviewing’ UK’s Claims to the Falkland Islands
April 24, 2026

Failing allies, leftist-Globalists Sanchez (Spain) and Starmer (UK) are about to taste retribution from Trump – Wiki Commons

Failing allies under pressure.

As we have been reporting here on TGP, US President Donald J. Trump is hardly the man to forgive and forget a slight or a betrayal.

And it’s been reported that Trump and his team have compiled a ‘naughty list’ of failing allies, and that some for of payback was expected against these countries.

And today, it arises that the Pentagon is exploring ways to punish NATO countries that failed to support the US during the Iran conflict – including drastic measures like suspending Spain from the alliance.

This was first reported by Reuters, but was picked up by a multitude of outlets, primarily in the UK, where there is widespread concern over the planned US ‘review’ of the British claim to the Falkland Islands.

Daily Mail reported:

“The policy options are detailed in an email expressing frustration at some allies’ perceived reluctance or refusal to grant Washington access, basing and overflight (ABO) rights for the Iran war. The email stated that ABO is ‘just the absolute baseline for NATO,’ according to the official, who added that the options were circulating at high levels in the Pentagon.

The memo also includes an option to consider reassessing US diplomatic support for longstanding European ‘imperial possessions,’ such as the Falkland Islands near Argentina.”

Needless to say, the response by the Euro-Globalists was immediate.

On the one hand, NATO states there is no provision to oust Spain, while the UK reaffirms its sovereignty over the South American Islands.

Read more:

NATO and the Bar Fight: A Bar Tab Europe Expects America To Pay Forever

The post PAYBACK TIME: US Department of War Planning Retribution for Failing Allies, Including Suspending Spain From the Alliance and ‘Reviewing’ UK’s Claims to the Falkland Islands appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Go to Source
Author: Paul Serran