INTERNACIONAL
Supreme Court grants Trump request to lift stay halting Venezuelan deportations

The Supreme Court on Monday granted President Donald Trump’s request to vacate a lower court’s ruling barring the administration from using a 1798 wartime immigration law to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals – including alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang – from the U.S., marking a significant victory for the administration as it advances key immigration priorities.
Justices on the high court ruled 5-4 to grant the administration’s request to lift the stay, in a temporary victory for Trump and his allies.
At issue was the Alien Enemies Act, or the immigration law passed by Congress in 1789 to immediately remove certain migrants from U.S. soil.
Prior to Trump’s second White House term, it had been invoked just three times in U.S. history: During the War of 1812, during World War I, and most recently, World War II.
JUDGE BOASBERG POISED TO HOLD TRUMP ADMIN IN CONTEMPT, TAKES DOWN NAMES OF DHS OFFICIALS: ‘PRETTY SKETCHY’
Lawyers for the Trump administration had urged the court to vacate the lower court ruling, arguing in a Supreme Court filing that the lower court orders «rebuffed» their immigration agenda, including their ability «to protect the Nation against foreign terrorist organizations and risk debilitating effects for delicate foreign negotiations.»
Supreme Court Justices posing for an official photo at the Supreme Court. (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)
«Today’s a bad day to be a terrorist in the United States of America,» Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a video posted to X, adding that Trump «was correct in using his authority on using the Alien Enemies Act to deport terrorists out of this country.»
Meanwhile, Attorney General Pam Bondi called the «landmark» decision a «victory for the rule of law,» adding that an «activist judge» in Washington, D.C., «does not have the jurisdiction to seize control of President Trump’s authority to conduct foreign policy and keep the American people safe.»
«The Department of Justice will continue fighting in court to make America safe again,» Bondi concluded in her statement responding to the ruling.
APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN’S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT
«This is a major loss for the lunatics and a major win for the American people,» Vice President J.D. Vance responded following the High Court’s ruling. «Onward!»

Attorney General Pam Bondi (LEFT), Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem (MIDDLE) and Vice President J.D. Vance (RIGHT) respond to the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on the Trump administration’s move to deport swaths of Venezuelan gang members. (GETTY IMAGES)
The Supreme Court’s ruling follows a temporary order from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg last month blocking the administration’s use of the 1798 law for 14 days while he considered the case on its merits – a pause upheld by a federal appeals court in a 2–1 decision.
«Nazis got better treatment» than some of the migrants deported under the law, Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, remarked during the appellate hearing.
Both Boasberg and the appellate panel sharply questioned the administration over Trump’s proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals – and over the three planes that removed hundreds of migrants to El Salvador the very next day.
At least 261 migrants were deported that day, including more than 100 Venezuelans removed «solely on the basis» of the 1798 statute.
The deportation flights reportedly landed around the same time Boasberg issued his temporary halt, raising questions about whether administration officials knowingly defied the order. Boasberg had issued a bench ruling requiring any flights that had already taken off to return «immediately.»
That did not happen.
JUDGE BOASBERG SHOULD ‘RECUSE’ HIMSELF FROM TRUMP DEPORTATION CASE, GOP LAWMAKER ARGUES

Trump and Judge Boasberg are seen in this side-by-side split image. (Getty Images)
Boasberg said on April 3 that he was weighing whether to hold certain Trump administration officials in contempt of court for refusing to provide information, even after the court issued repeated requests regarding the deportation flights and the number of individuals sent to El Salvador.
Government lawyers cited national security concerns as the reason for refusing to comply with the court’s request for information.
But during the April 3 hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign told Boasberg the flight information likely wasn’t classified — prompting the judge to question why the administration had declined to provide it on more than four occasions, including under a court-imposed deadline.
«Pretty sketchy,» Boasberg mused in court.
WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP’S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

In this handout photo provided by the Salvadoran government, guards escort the inmates allegedly linked to criminal organizations at CECOT on Mar.16, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. (Salvadoran Government via Getty Images)
Boasberg also pressed the government to disclose the names, locations, and agencies of individuals involved in the removals, as well as any internal conversations with officials who may have been monitoring the court proceedings.
The hearing marked the latest in a flurry of legal battles over the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. It followed Boasberg’s order requiring officials to explain why they failed to comply with his directive to return the deportation flights – and whether they knowingly defied the court.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The Supreme Court ruling may not mark the end of Trump’s push to invoke the Alien Enemies Act.
Boasberg is still weighing potential contempt charges against administration officials. As of this writing, a preliminary injunction hearing is set for April 8.
President Trump took to Truth Social to react to the decision in a post: «The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself. A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!»
Fox News’ Alec Schemmel contributed to this report.
Supreme Court,Donald Trump,Immigration,Trump’s First 100 Days,Federal Courts
INTERNACIONAL
Pentagon unveils $961B budget request: Fund for Golden Dome, missiles and drones, fewer F-35 jets

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Pentagon unveiled details of its $961 billion budget request on Thursday, a budget roadmap that may deprioritize new F-35 fighter jets in favor of next-generation aircraft and drones.
The budget would reach that figure through $848.3 billion in its discretionary defense budget and an additional $113 billion through reconciliation, the «One Big Beautiful Bill» the Trump administration is trying to muscle through Congress right now.
The parallel budget requests include $25 billion for Golden Dome, President Donald Trump’s homeland missile defense initiative.
And as the Trump administration moves forward with the Air Force’s 6th-gen fighter jet, dubbed the F-47, the budget calls for a reduction in the next purchase of F-35s from 74 to 47. It requests $3.4 billion for the F-47 program.
TRUMP UNVEILS ‘GOLDEN DOME’ MISSILE SHIELD, BLINDSIDES KEY SENATORS
Defense budget prioritizes drones and missiles while cutting F-35 orders from 74 to 47. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Alora R. Blosch)
Officials are still unsure whether the Navy’s next-gen fighter jet, F/A-XX, will move forward.
«Waiting for a decision from the secretary of the Navy, secretary of defense, and the president,» a defense official told reporters. «That’s an active conversation, whether to continue with the program or not.»
The program will proceed right now with «minimal funding» for design, the official said.
Asked whether other service branches may get a different variant of the F-47 instead of entirely separate programs, the official said the idea is under consideration.
«I would say pretty much everything is under consideration to get the [tactical] air capability that our war fighters need as quickly as possible, and that’s really what we’re looking at the most, is the schedule of all these programs.»
The budget requests funding for three new Navy ships through the discretionary request and another 16 through the reconciliation request.
REPUBLICANS SQUABBLE OVER TRUMP SPENDING PLAN AS FISCAL YEAR 2026 LOOMS: ‘STAY UNTIL WE PASS IT’

The budget boosts spending on low-cost small drones, which have proven effective in the war between Russia and Ukraine. (Reuters/Jonathan Ernst)
The proposed budget seeks $197.4 billion for the Army, $292.2 billion for the Navy, $301.1 billion for the Air Force and $170.9 billion defense-wide. In the Air Force budget request is $40 billion for Space Force, a 30% increase from fiscal year 2025.
The unusual budget structure, which officials classify as «one budget, two bills,» is part of a broader $1 trillion defense strategy when combined with national security spending at the Department of Energy. Administration officials have been working overtime to convince lawmakers to pass the One Big Beautiful bill by July 4.
The budget asks for a 3.8% pay raise for troops, and it reveals plans to cut its civilian employee workforce by 7,286 people.
The Pentagon plans to continue to invest in munitions and weapons systems: the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile – Extended Range and Long Range Anti-Ship missile, which have longer ranges and may be more effective in the Pacific – but it seeks far fewer Precision Strike Missiles.
The budget boosts spending on low-cost small drones which have proven effective in the war between Russia and Ukraine.

In an ideal world, Congress would pass 12 separate appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year on October 1. But in recent years, it has often punted the headache down the road. (Reuters/Al Drago)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The E-7 radar plane will be cut, the senior defense official confirmed, «due to significant delays with cost increases from $588 million to $724 million per aircraft and survivability concerns in this contested environment.»
In an ideal world, Congress would pass 12 separate appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year on October 1. But in recent years, it has often punted the headache down the road with continuing resolutions, or bills that temporarily fund the government at the previous year’s levels, and omnibuses, sprawling bills that contain funding for all 12 agencies in one up-or-down vote.
INTERNACIONAL
Todo sobre el casamiento de Jeff Bezos: una desmesura VIP con doble de cuerpo incluido y un muñeco flotando en el Gran Canal

“No love” para Bezos en Venecia
Una boda muy custodiada
La pareja se casó hace un mes
La llegada de Jeff y Lauren
Ivanka y los custodios
Una tormenta inesperada
¿Bezos suelto por las calles de Venecia?
“Jeff en Venecia”
Misterio y sin redes sociales
INTERNACIONAL
Landsgemeinde, la democracia a mano alzada que resiste en los Alpes

En el cantón suizo de Glarus, el sistema Landsgemeinde representa una de las formas de democracia directa más antiguas del mundo que aún siguen en práctica. Según National Geographic, esta tradición se remonta a la época medieval y superó los 700 años de vigencia, manteniéndose como una de las señas de identidad de la vida política y social local.
La Landsgemeinde, cuyo nombre significa “asamblea comunitaria cantonal” en alemán, se desarrolla anualmente en la plaza principal de la localidad de Glarus, situada al pie de los Alpes. En esta jornada, que normalmente ocurre el primer domingo de mayo, los ciudadanos se congregan para decidir de manera pública sobre cuestiones legales y administrativas clave. Este método ancestral de votación, que ha sobrevivido a los cambios tecnológicos y a la modernización de los procesos electorales, sustituye las urnas y boletas por una votación a mano alzada frente a todos los presentes.
De acuerdo con National Geographic, solo dos cantones suizos conservan el Landsgemeinde: Glarus y Appenzell Innerrhoden. En Glarus, con una población cercana a los 41.000 habitantes, la costumbre de la asamblea se considera una herramienta central para buscar acuerdos en comunidad. El objetivo es hallar soluciones que, según la fórmula local, sean “un poco satisfactorias para todos y un poco insatisfactorias para todos”, favoreciendo el consenso y la tolerancia.
El desarrollo de la sesión está a cargo del funcionario principal, conocido como Landammann, quien dirige los debates y verifica visualmente, desde un estrado de madera, la cantidad de votos que apoyan o rechazan cada propuesta en discusión.

En el cantón de Glarus, el Landsgemeinde no solo permite la votación pública a mano alzada, sino que habilita a cualquier ciudadano con derecho a voto a proponer iniciativas —siempre que estas no contravengan la ley—. El proceso requiere que al menos 10 de los 60 parlamentarios cantonales respalden la iniciativa para que la propuesta avance al debate general en la asamblea.
Lo que hace especial este sistema, según palabras de sus protagonistas y autoridades como el Landammann Kaspar Becker, es la centralidad del compromiso y la búsqueda del consenso. La transparencia es absoluta: cada postura queda expuesta ante la comunidad, fomentando el respeto mutuo. Liderazgos políticos y ciudadanos sostienen que esta apertura alimenta un entorno social donde cada opinión puede ser defendida en público, y las diferencias de criterio no desembocan en enfrentamientos, sino en la aceptación plural.
Eva-Marie Kreis, concejala de Gemeinde Glarus y vicepresidenta del Partido Verde, comentó a National Geographic: “No importa que la gente sepa cómo voto, porque quiero que me respeten tal como soy. Y ese es el ADN de nuestro sistema político y democrático: que cada persona sea respetada tal como es”.
La experiencia ha demostrado que la democracia directa en Glarus −alejada de sistemas de votación secreta y burocratización− refuerza la participación voluntaria y la responsabilidad individual frente al colectivo. Aunque menos del 20% del censo asiste habitualmente, la decisión compartida y visible cultiva una noción de lo público difícil de replicar en otras escalas.
La naturaleza del modelo disuade, en la práctica, la imposición de grandes mayorías sobre minorías, favoreciendo acuerdos que, como señala la cultura local, son “un poco satisfactorios para todos y un poco insatisfactorios para todos”. No obstante, según Kreis, el sistema electoral de Glarus es clave para que la ciudad se haya convertido en un centro de política progresista. “Cuando la gente sabe lo que haces, votan más por lo que funciona para todos”, afirmó.

El sistema Landsgemeinde de Glarus ha sido escenario de decisiones innovadoras y reformas políticas que reflejan tanto el espíritu de adaptación como la voluntad mayoritaria de la comunidad. A lo largo de su historia reciente, destacan algunos hitos que posicionan a Glarus como referente en materia de progresismo dentro del contexto suizo.
En 2007, los ciudadanos de Glarus votaron para reducir la edad mínima para votar de 18 a 16 años, convirtiéndose en el único cantón en Suiza que permite ejercer el sufragio antes de la mayoría de edad. Esta decisión no solo subraya el compromiso con la inclusión de juventud en los procesos cívicos, sino que marca una diferencia respecto a la política nacional.
En el plano ambiental, el Landsgemeinde también ha dado pasos pioneros. En 2021, el parlamento cantonal endureció la Ley de Energía local, prohibiendo la instalación de sistemas de calefacción con combustibles fósiles en edificaciones nuevas. Este ajuste normativo convirtió a la ley energética de Glarus en una de las más avanzadas y restrictivas de toda Suiza.

Uno de los principales desafíos radica en la estimación visual de los votos: el Landammann debe decidir cuál opción es apoyada por más manos alzadas, un método sujeto a errores, sobre todo en votaciones ajustadas.
Además, la participación efectiva de la población es relativamente baja; menos del 20% de los ciudadanos habilitados acude a votar en la plaza, y la presencia física es esencial para incidir. Esto genera cuestionamientos sobre el alcance real de la representatividad de las decisiones adoptadas.
El derecho de palabra en la asamblea también tiene restricciones, ya que el tiempo otorgado para intervenir es limitado, lo que puede dejar propuestas sin exposición completa ante la asamblea. Un ejemplo reciente fue el de Nils Landolt, quien no logró terminar su defensa de una iniciativa educativa antes de ser interrumpido, lo que le dejó una sensación de frustración pese al orgullo de participar.
Finalmente, el carácter público de la votación, si bien valora la transparencia, puede influir sobre la libertad individual: todos pueden ver cómo vota cada quien, lo que en contextos más polarizados podría implicar presiones sociales. Lo que le dejó una sensación de frustración pese al orgullo de participar.
-
INTERNACIONAL3 días ago
La guerra en Oriente Medio: el Pentágono contradice a Donald Trump y asegura que el bombardeo a Irán solo retrasó su plan nuclear un par de meses
-
POLITICA3 días ago
Con un desempate de Magario, el Senado bonaerense aprobó la reelección indefinida de los legisladores provinciales
-
POLITICA3 días ago
Renunció la jueza Julieta Makintach en la antesala de un juicio político en su contra