MMN Editor

Michigan Democrat Senate candidate Abdulrahman El-Sayed has criticized anti-fentanyl laws designed to punish drug dealers and deter drug use as draconian while advocating for supervised consumption sites where individuals can use illegal drugs under observation.
The post EXCLUSIVE: Abdul El-Sayed Called Laws Against Fentanyl Dealers ‘Draconian,’ Backed Supervised Drug Use Sites appeared first on Breitbart.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin said a new migrant caravan headed to the U.S. from Honduras has “zero chance” of making it to the United States’ southern border.
The post DHS: ‘Zero Chance’ of New Migrant Caravan Reaching U.S. Border appeared first on Breitbart.

Manufacturers hired more workers in August and job openings remained near the highest level in over two years. The quits rate for manufacturing workers, a signal of confidence, rose to the highest in nearly two years.
The post Manufacturing Hiring Picks Up, Openings Remain Strong, Quits Rise appeared first on Breitbart.

President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson are set to sit down Tuesday with a group of tech executives for a lunch on the risks posed by AI.
The post President Trump to Host Tech Titans for Lunch on AI Risks appeared first on Breitbart.

Secretary of State Rubio said alleged averted attack against the U.S. Air Force Base in England, was “clearly” involving “a foreign actor”.
The post Marco Rubio Confirms ‘Foreign Actor Clearly Involved’ in Confused British Airbase ‘Terror’ Case appeared first on Breitbart.

Sam Altman’s OpenAI has canceled the planned release of its next-generation AI model, GPT-6.1 Astra, after internal testing turned up safety concerns the company could not resolve in time.
The post OpenAI Scraps ‘Astra’ AI Launch Claiming Safety Concerns appeared first on Breitbart.

Supreme Court Lets Trump’s Third-Country Deportations Resume, Takes Case

Update (1516ET): The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume third-country deportations and agreed to hear the underlying dispute this winter.

In a brief emergency-docket order in DHS v. D.V.D., the justices stayed U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s Feb. 25 judgment, which had blocked the Department of Homeland Security from sending people with final removal orders to countries not named in those orders unless they first received notice and a chance to raise persecution or torture claims.

The stay puts the First Circuit’s Sept. 18 ruling on hold and lets DHS restart removals under its March 2025 guidance while the case proceeds.

The Court also treated the government’s application as a petition for review and granted certiorari. Argument is set for the December 2026 sitting. The stay lasts until the Court issues its final judgment.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the stay.

The order is the Court’s third intervention in the same litigation. It previously paused Murphy’s preliminary injunction on June 23, 2025, and clarified on July 3, 2025, that the pause applied in full – including a flight the administration sought to send to South Sudan after it was diverted to a U.S. base in Djibouti.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Court last week that the First Circuit’s late-night dissolution of its own stay had thrown removal operations into chaos, including cancellation of a flight carrying about 70 deportees – some with criminal convictions – to three countries.

DHS counsel James Percival has said more than 25,000 people have already been removed under the program. Rights groups put the figure at more than 25,000 people sent to about 29 countries, many of them to Mexico.

The justices directed briefing on whether the district court had jurisdiction, whether classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur are allowed under 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1), and whether the third-country guidance is unlawful under the removal statute, the Due Process Clause, or CAT/FARRA.

Tuesday’s order does not decide those questions. It restores the policy for now and tees them up for a full hearing.

* * *

The Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 24 to revive its third-country deportation program that sends deportees to countries that were not named in their removal orders.

The Trump administration has said it removes individuals to third countries when it cannot quickly return them to their home countries.

However, critics say the policy is used to bypass legal restrictions and deter illegal immigration.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, adopted in March 2025, allows immigration officials to deport foreign nationals in as little as six hours.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the program twice on its emergency docket.

As Matthew Vadum further reports via The Epoch Times, following Supreme Court rules, the application is addressed to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson because she oversees emergency appeals from decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

However, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer took the unusual step of asking Jackson to refer the stay request to the full court instead of ruling on it herself if she will not freeze the lower court’s order.

Jackson voted against the government both times when the litigation previously came before the high court.

Sauer said lower court decisions were throwing into chaos the delicate arrangements the government has negotiated with other nations to take in deportees who are not their citizens.

“Third-country removals require careful negotiation with foreign governments, which are rarely enthusiastic about accepting foreign citizens (especially criminals), and often requires obtaining travel documents and devoting significant manpower to the staging of flights to protect government officers and flight crews,” he said.

Disrupting those plans “imposes massive costs on the government,” and forces it to engage in new instances of diplomatic engagement with countries “who may be all the more skeptical of our removal efforts given the disruption.”

The filing concerns a First Circuit ruling from Sept. 18 that struck down DHS guidance allowing removal based on diplomatic assurances that receiving countries will not persecute or torture people sent to them.

The three-judge panel raised concerns about “blanket assurances” from third countries that promise U.S. deportees won’t be tortured or persecuted, saying this promise is not sufficient and does not properly allow foreign nationals to raise persecution or torture concerns.

The panel affirmed the final judgment U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued Feb. 25 vacating the DHS guidance. In its Sept. 18 decision, it affirmed the striking down of the policy.

Murphy previously certified the respondents, who are people with final removal orders, as a nationwide class.

The respondents argue that the government may deport a removable noncitizen to a willing third country, but not without inquiring about whether the person would be persecuted or tortured in that country.

The case is known as DHS v. D.V.D.

On Sept. 24, Jackson did not respond to Sauer’s request. Instead, she directed the other side to file a response to the application by 4 p.m. on Sept. 28.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/29/2026 – 15:16

Why Businesses Haven’t Left California – Yet

Authored by Tom Wilson via the Mises Institute,

California has a strange relationship with business. Its lawmakers seem determined to make doing business more expensive, yet companies continue to operate there. Taxes rise, regulations accumulate, and new compliance requirements are added, but California remains home to some of the most successful companies in the world. That raises a question more interesting than whether California is “business friendly.” Why do businesses continue to stay – and how far can the state push them before they finally decide the benefits of California are no longer worth the cost?

Adam Smith understood part of the answer long before California became an economic powerhouse. In The Wealth of Nations, he explained that the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. California offers businesses an enormous and highly-developed market. Its ports connect them to the world, its universities and industries provide specialized labor, and decades of accumulated capital and expertise create opportunities that aren’t easily duplicated elsewhere. Silicon Valley wasn’t built overnight, and neither were California’s entertainment, agriculture, and international trade networks. Those advantages help explain why businesses tolerate costs in California that they might never accept in a smaller or less developed market. But California shouldn’t mistake an advantage for immunity.

Some businesses have already decided those advantages are no longer enough. Tesla moved its headquarters to Texas. Chevron – a company with roots in California stretching back more than a century – moved its headquarters to Houston. Oracle moved its headquarters from California to Austin. These aren’t struggling companies desperately searching for somewhere cheaper to survive. They are enormously successful businesses with the resources to operate almost anywhere. Their departures don’t prove that California’s economy is collapsing. They demonstrate something more important: even California’s considerable economic advantages have a price.

A business doesn’t have to leave California for California to lose. A company headquartered in Los Angeles can keep its offices there while building its next warehouse, factory, or distribution center in Arizona, Nevada, or Texas. No headline announces another company fleeing the state. The investment simply lands somewhere else. Multiply that decision across thousands of companies making thousands of quiet calls each year, and it may matter more than any single high-profile departure.

One bill now sitting on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk offers a good example of the direction California continues to take. AB 2599 would require certain large companies with sufficiently old corporate roots to search historical records for connections to slavery and report what they find to the state. Whatever one thinks of the goal, those records won’t search themselves. Someone has to locate them, attorneys have to determine what must be disclosed, and employees have to ensure the company complies. For a corporation with billions in revenue, that expense alone is unlikely to send it running for the Texas border. But that is precisely the point. If Newsom signs the bill, it becomes another requirement, another expense, and another reason for a business to consider making its next investment somewhere else.

California’s strength can mask this. Silicon Valley doesn’t vanish because of one more regulation, the ports don’t relocate to Nevada, and Hollywood isn’t rebuilt in Austin overnight. That durability can convince lawmakers businesses will tolerate almost anything. But Texas, Nevada, Arizona, and Tennessee don’t need to match everything California offers – they only need to close the gap enough that lower costs start to win. Workforces can be trained, capital can move, and networks can form elsewhere. California didn’t earn a permanent lease on its advantages; it just got there first.

This helps explain why businesses haven’t abandoned California. Its markets, access to trade, skilled labor, capital, and generations of accumulated economic activity still provide enormous advantages. But those advantages shouldn’t be confused with permanence. Every new tax, mandate, and compliance requirement asks businesses to calculate once again whether California is worth the price. Some have already answered no. Others continue to stay. The question California’s lawmakers should be asking isn’t how much more businesses can afford to pay. It’s how many times they can raise the price of staying before more businesses decide to build their future somewhere else.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/29/2026 – 15:05